Presume you all have your home to choose the right firms in each of your areas of specialty. Thank you. Commissioner gillman. No questions. Im supportive and im glad to see there are new firms that got chosen, instead of the same ones, new people that got an opportunity and we want to provide more opportunity to support other people just in the same old group of people. So thank you. I think were all very supportive of this. So all in favour . Aye. Resolution 1930 has been approved. Item 14a, a presentation is addressed and waterfront review process and solicitation of Public Comments. Good afternoon, president brandon. Im the Deputy Director for planning and environment. Happy to be here today to provide a report on where we are with the draft waterfront plan which was published in june. The work that weve withi been g over the summer. I wanted to give you a report on the feedback and the outreach efforts and to provide this public hearing opportunity, as well, for further Public Comments to come forth. We have really sought to solicit comments by the end of settlement so that we can take stock of whether the draft plan is hitting the points that people expected after the long process lead by the Waterfront Plan Working Group and to make any further refinements and, of course, corrections, if necessary, before we start the Environmental Review process. So to that end, the staff report lists more details, but this is the summary of the meetings that have occurred over the last couple of months, continuing through the end of the month, as far as scheduled. Were still open and available, certainly, to other organizations, if they have any interests or questions or meeting requests. So we want to make that clear. But its been a great opportunity to get out to the community and hear so many different perspectives of we vetched out oand wehave reachede port social media, through digital magazine, which has been helpful and we were really the funnest one was the public vote tour back in july. We had over 200 people join that tour. They got a sense to understand what this waterfront actuallien tailactuallyentail entails and it was so fun to see the people in diversity in age and backgrounds and neighborhoods they were coming from. We also have the draft plan online and we have Public Comments and surveys online to make it easier for people to review it and solicit if theyre not able to come to the meetings. And the survey is still open, so this is just a snapshot of the results that we were tallying on the Online Survey as of last week, which was organized by the nine goals that the plan is presented in, along with policies presented in the plan andouille oand all of the subple are promoting for the waterfront subareas. I have snapshots of the highlights because the survey allows for people to give detailed comments, as well and not to repeat them all, but i thought it would be good to highlight for you that on the maritime front, there continues to be very strong support of the ports diverse maritime portfolio and a respect for the birthing, the diversity of birthing requirements that the port needs to maintain to support those industries, particularly for the deep water burbs. Theres a new form of Public Access to the San Francisco waterfront, in addition to Public Access from land. A reiteration of making sure theres as many different public oriented policies and to include opportunities for low and nocost activities, as well, in the interest of really making the waterfront as accessible to everybody, regardless of economic background. I think the two projects that youve had before you today are good examples of what were trying to achieve here. We did get some finergrained comments, as well, on some of the technical issues of some of the policies. One of them being as relates to the embarcadaro Historic District objectives. I would note that all of the Public Outreach done on the waterfront plan, to answer questions or to solicit comments has been done in a quate coordid with on the ports Resilience Programme and rfp preparations for the embarcadaro pier projects and the seawall, as well. Where weve been able to have interactive discussions to show how the policies relate to actual project initiatives that were trying to advance, its helped, i think, the public to understand why the waterfront plan is there and what the policies actually mean and to that end, rattler the Historic District, we did get a comment about, perhaps, clarifying the policy language to make it clear that the highrevenue generating uses that are allowed for in the embarcadro policies is for the purposes of generating the Financial Capacity to be able to seismically upgrade and deliver the trust access and oriented uses and not to be just an an Office Development opportunity. That its an integrated package. I think there are improvements that we can make on the language there to make that more clear. We did get some comments just yesterday from John Collinger from the working group with concerns around the General Office policy provision and we will follow up with him to answer his questions and certainly happy to answer questions you have today. Similarly, as relates to our seawall lots, the giants mixer mission rock project, to enable the kinds of Neighborhood Development that youve just heard about today, there are provisions in the waterfront plan policies for state legislation of some of the north of market seawall lots. And we had comments there asking for more refinements in the policies there to make it clear that if the port were to pursue state legislation to lus lift te public restrictses on the seawall lots, that would happen after the Port Commission had identified a Development Opportunity for that given site and talked about what it is that you would like to achieve before there was a state legislative proposal and i think that that is an easy clarification for us to make in the plan. As it retes to parks and open space, i think the park activation is something that we continue to hears a an interest from many members of the public and a lot of comments really in strong support of recognising the importance of the natural waterfront and how the natural shoreline is also a big part of the ports open space plan as well. Finally, on transportation, we have a lot of comments on transportation. Theres a lot of support for thd transportation goals and policies which are new additions to the draft plan. But i think the comments we got on the transportation policies are a reflection of how much the transportation challenges are that we are constantly facing here, whether it is on a bicycle and Pedestrian Safety perspective, whether it is on reduction of vehicles to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions or to maintain industrial goods movement, to support our maritime industries. Weve got comments that have been logged on to all of those fronts. And finally, on the environmental sustain ac sustaid resilience and all work done on the seawall and Resilience Team on the sealevel rise planning has paid off because people are understanding the importance of really effective environmental Sustainability Practices and strategies and the regulatory programmes that we deploy to put us in better position for planning for the resilience. So a lot of comments and positive feedback on that front, as well. Alongside the draft plan, we also have other work involved with bcdc and Sanfrancisco Planning Department so that were working in sync with their planning documen documents to ae port, city and bcdc planning and land use policies for the San Francisco waterfront. For the Planning Department did i skip over b. C. For the Planning Department, we are taking a look at the citys general plan and well be working with the staff to develop conforming amendments as necessary so there are conflicts between the waterfront plan and the citys general plan. For the planning code, those are regulatory procedures that are contained that affect or designed review process for Port Development projects on port property. We would like to amend that planning code so that we have a Design Review process that extends through the entire seven and a half mul half mile waterfd all of that work is being down iin sync preparing to issue the sequa Environmental Review process which we hope to be able to do after weve completed this Comment Period on the draft plans. And then with b. C. Dc, for president brandon who was here when we did the last waterfront plan and did a major amendment to bcdcs plan so both agencys plans were consistent with each other, we have to go back and do that again. And in this case, we have, we a new transportation resilience and Environment Sustainability policies, and new upgraded rules for how to try to manage historicpeer projects to deliver, we have a number of planned amendments to b. C. D. C. s waterfront area plan, and it will be formally initiating with the Commission Next week on september 19th. This slide here is to give just a quick highlight of some of the key items that are described in further detail in the staff report. But this 50 rule policy, just as a reminder for the newer commission members, that is an old policy that b. C. Dc had on the books that basically frustrated the efforts to try and allow for seismic retrofit or substantial repairs to pile supported facilities that redated b. C. D. C. All of our historic piers predated that and under the 50 rule, that rule would have appeared to have shrunken to half of the footprints of the repair and the remaining half would either been removed to create bay fill and expand the size of the bay or to be converted to Public Access or a combination of bill fill or Public Access and for the historic piers, that was at 20 years ago, deemed to be not possible and from pier 25, down to china basin, we were able to strike a deal with b. C. D. C. Where we could create the brandon street wharf and the cruise terminal plaza and remove some piers but allow the rest of the historic piers in the Historic District to be held in place and for us to be able to do the kinds of projects like this project or pier one, where we can do seismic retrofits and rehabilitate them. Ands that really what were trying to do on the rfp projects comincomecoming forward. please stand by . Some of the improvement may be most needed vase on an two area outside of a given geographic vicinity. As we go through our Resilience Program planning, seawall planning, we are starting to see that we need to be very holistic in the way we are looking at improving the waterfront, and making sure that the equity opportunities, Environmental Justice issues that we need to respond to are also considered in taking that holistic look. Those are kind of the key issu issues, and their other details in there, to that we will be working with bcdc on to work on draft amendment to the plan. We will bring back report on our progress on that front for the Port Commission and the public to weigh in on it as well. For next steps, we want to hear out to what other comments that we get to the end of the month, port staff will be taking review of all of that to figure out what refinements, if necessary, are going to be needed for the plan. Where we make any proposed edits to the goals of the policy language. So that the commission members, as well as the public will be able to review that. At the same time, we have got some comments about the length of the plan and how its very long, and if there are ways in which we can edit it down, and reduce some of the background information, we are working on that front, too. We will be doing redline changes on background information, so much, but any policy related comment that would do that. And then we will report back on our progress with the Planning Department, and bcdc on the special planning amendments, and wrap those into what will ultimately be covered by the Environmental Review process area without, i am happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Public comment . Randall scott. Good afternoon. My name is randall scott, im with the secretary of treasurer for the wharf. I would like to applaud diane and her team for the herculean effort for the dog and they produce and its amazing. The primary reason why am here today, is to really lobby on behalf of the fisherman wharfs area, for the 50 elimination at 50 that bcdc proposes area as you can imagine, reducing pier 45 by half for seismic upgrades it would just really be a detractor to the area. The holistic approach, you know, i plan on going to the bcdc hearing next week as well. The holistic approach that the Planning Department towards the entire waterfront is really the modern way of looking at development, as well as space activation which, as you know is one of the things were trying to do at the wharf in the publics face. Anyway, that is why am here today. Thank you, diane, and commissioners of the port. Thank you. Alice walters. Good afternoon. I am trying desperately. [inaudible] i am here wearing two hats. We had the pleasure of having diane, and half present the waterfront plan update last night, to our community. I have to say, being able to present, they really focus on the goals and the values of the plan doing that was a conjunction with the runup of the rfps, the first of which are going to be in our subarea. Really brought the plan home to the community, so that they can understand what all of those hundreds of recommendations actually meant on the ground to them. I think it was incredibly valuable for the community, and it also, the three years, i think, that you all invested in really paid off. The community was kind of talked about how these projects can go ahead because i have to balance so many different interests. I think for the first time, they really registered what you have to juggle, and what the staff has to juggle, and i think having the goals and the values as the drivers, rather than specific uses is really valuable moving us forward. As the chair of the land use subcommittee, i really appreciate the clarification that diane has adjusted. They are very important to me, in terms of maintaining the integrity of what we heard at the hearing. Often she is really neat to be clearly called out, really has an accessory use they are not a standalone use we had they can also add vitality. Just to clarify further on the seawall lot, with the public trust. There was a strong sentiment which actually surprised me that nobody wanted to do a blanket of the public trust. Not that there are that many seawall lots left. They really wanted it to be site pacific as diane said. To warrant the listing of the trust for some community benef benefit. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other Public Comment . Good afternoon president brandon, Vice President adams, members of the Port Commission, my name is zach and im here on behalf of of the fisherman wharfs restaurant association. They also support the removal of the 50 rule, and the the Fishermans Wharf area as it is not financially feasible. Due to the removed Public Access which has been created to the promenade reservation as well as the jefferson street project. In partnership with the Community Benefit district. We feel that there is ample justification for the listing of this rule. Again, i want to thank everyone for your time, i think you for your work. Any other Public Comment . Seeing none. Public comment is close. Thank you again, diane, and everybody that is on the waterfront planning. I think it has been very impressive and he continue to lead us through it very well. [inaudible] being very specific and technical with landuse area, i hope more of the community will understand that. I think it really ties together that we have a mission for the entire waterfront, and everything comes together. And all of these we have in the wharf, and how the waterfront hangs together physically which is what the waterfront plan is really addressing. It is nice to hear these are resonating very well. I want to commend everybody. On the various responses that youve got got. I know you talked a little bit about them, i want to ask, on a couple of them, responses i looked at in terms of the pie chart that you gave, finance, i wondered if you could add a little more color into what was the strong disagreement about . The verbal comments were all voluntary. The survey was set up so that you could just check strongly agree, or disagree, would not necessarily leaving an explanation behind. On the financial, i went through those comments, and its not like there was anything that was really damning. For some people it may be a little more they are not as interested into following the financial structure and responsibilities that the port has. I cant really provide a more clear answer to that, because of not like they left a messages behind. The opportunity, i think