Feet of rentable office. The retail, restaurant component is 331,000 scare feet. And then of the 2. 3 acres on the seawall lot, there are 610,000 square feet of residential. If you skip below the square foot met risk ricks metrics, you see other ways. The deep water berth. 643 market rate units on the seawall lot. 57 inclusionary affordable units mixed in with the development. And then a separate building that is 100 affordable bringing the total to 850 units. I told you that we met with the Northern Advisory Committee and the maritime Advisory Committee last week. It was a real hustle to get the recommendations on september 8, turned around and wrapped up for presentation on the 16 and 17. Another bit of good work to get this to you, but we think its really important to keep the conversation warm and highlight the points at these meetings, because we know you have a very important decision to make today. We summarized the comments from the committees. Ill read them quickly. In general, there was an appreciation from both groups that the Community Values were reflected in the response. There was an appreciation of the strategy of making both the piers and seawall lot a Community Asset and revenue generator, especially given the condition of the properties the way they are today. There was a strong concern and desire for a strong plan to manage parking and traffic at both sites. Not just the residential part, but also considering the development on the piers. And a very, very strong interest in an ongoing dialogue with the community that rebecca mentioned. This is the very beginning of the process, but i wanted to make sure that we hear loud and clear this is a conversation that has a lot of stakeholders who have a lot to say and hopefully find this opportunity to work with the proposer. On the piers, there was a real appreciation for the overall engineering approach. This is not a rehabilitation of a compromised structure. This is a demolition and rebuild of the structure and rebuild of a smaller footprint. That helped bring the cost down. They appreciate there is a deep water berth and berth access accommodated. That came up during the advisory meeting last week. There was some acknowledgment of the design strength on the piers. The similarity to the historic piers is appreciated. The low profile of the buildings on the pier impressed people. Its less cover of the water by opening up more for the water. Appreciation fort Public Access areas. There was a better understanding of the proposal of what the water meant with the help of strada walking the community through the process. Im sure the strada would appreciate the opportunity to talk to the community about that if this negotiation continues after today. But there was also concern about the market demand for office in this postcovid world. Office is part of all three proposals. Its just a healthy thing to put on the chart, but are we in such a different world that the office would be used the way it was used prior to covid. But the timeline would be well past the full recovery of the experience with covid. But the seawall 330, there was a appreciation for the sculpted design, but there was concern about the height and massing of the residential being. And there was generally seen as better longterm use on the site than the Navigation Center or parking lot. And there was an appreciation of the proposed Community Stage in lot 330. So here we are then. At this point where today you may take the action that would direct staff to negotiation with exclusive negotiating agreement with strada ttc. The e. N. A. Would be a contract between the parties until a lease disposition and Development Agreement is signed, but the terms will require collaboration with regulation regulatory agencies. So bcdc, state lands commission, the army corpse of engineers are all important stakeholders in moving forward with the development on the bay. We recognize that and are making sure thats reflected in the next diagram as well. Well include the parties responsibilities in the ena, that includes a partner engagement. It will conduct site due diligence, including a Community Benefit package. Completing the financing plan and the land use plans and completing the california equality act provisions to secure the entitlements. Thats what the ena would fundamentally include. We have the resources on hand. Clark miller and in case you have questions, but where we are today, the fact that seeking the commissions approval to begin ena with strada ttc and then once that is signalled, we start the collaboration in a much more intensive way with the community and bcdc, the state Land Commission and the army corpse and engineers and then we would come back to you seek approval after we have these Community Conversations and dialogue. With that, then, i would like to leave it to you for questions. I appreciate you sitting with me through this presentation. Thank you, peter. Can i have a motion . So moved. Second. President brandon thank you. Lets open it up for Public Comment. We will open the phone lines to take Public Comment on 11b so members of the public who are joining us on the phone, will provide instructions now for anyone on the phone who wishes to provide Public Comment. Thank you. Well open the queue for anybody on the phone who would like to make Public Comment on item 11b. Please dial star 3 if you wish to make Public Comment. The system will let you know when the line is open. The others will wait on mute until the line is opened. Comments will be limited to three minutes per person. The queue is now open. Please dial star 3 if you wish to make Public Comment. Thank you. Do we have anyone on the line . Yes, president brandon, it looks like we have about seven callers on the line. Thank you. Please open the lines for the first caller. Hello . There is a caller on the line . Okay, im going to move to the next caller in the queue. It looks like this person has left. Thank you. Hello. I have a question about the time line, what is the typical time line for a project like this . President brandon is that your comment . That was a question that i had. President brandon okay. Can you state your name, please . My name is president brandon thank you for your call. Well answer the question, okay . Thank you. Opening the next line now. Good afternoon, commissioners. This is alice rogers again. I am here as once again a member of your waterfront land use update working group. And also a neighbor. And i would encourage you to please go ahead and authorize this exclusive negotiation. I think the process that you set up was very regulatory. The responses were robust. The reviewing panel, i know, having served on another panel, was exceedingly well managed and was supported by very good professional support staff. So i think its very, very important to get these properties into more productive views during our discussions over the years with the Navigation Center, our community is often divided, but during that discussion, i think to a person, every person said, port, please put these properties into productive use. This is the first step. Please do it. Thank you very much. President brandon thank you, alice. Thank you. Unmuting the next line. Hello, can you hear me . My name is john grath. Im a resident of south beach. First of all, i would like to thank the staff for their thorough work on this project, but as a resident, id like this point out a few like to point out a few things that concern me personally. One is the traffic. Even before the buildout of the mission bay and several new condominiums, the traffic in our area has been horrible leading up to the bay bridge. And then on top of it, theyve now eliminated a number of lanes for bikes, which by the way, i support, but its not going to add to the problem. You fly in the throw in the chase center, the ballpark. I wanted to make sure that the team does a thorough study, because it feels like we have a disaster happening for traffic in the neighborhood. It wont get any better. So thats point number one. Point number two, just a question of do we actually need more highend apartments, condos in this neighborhood . It seems like were a bit saturated right now. We have projects that arent selling very well in the neighborhood. We have a whole bunch of residences coming on in mission bay. At the same time, i think there are the of 0 questions about the there are a lot of questions about the future of the Property Value in that area. Its something i think is very serious. At the same time, were seeing the Office Market really soften. We saw pinterest pull out of one of their projects. When we think of this space, is it better used for something that is more open to the public . Something more in the lines of what york has done, building open fields and ball parks, et cetera, as opposed to adding Additional Office space to this area that frankly, i dont think any of us can say whether or not we know will be needed or not. I think that this coronavirus has been eye opening to us. And also i think there is one last topic ill bring up. You know, the neighborhood spent a lot of time and the port discussing the Navigation Center. And the serious need for housing for the homeless, and now were throwing up highend luxury apartments. It seems like the commission is actually speaking out of both sides of its mouth. I see that there is a lowincome housing component, but when you look at it in totality, it feels as if its [bell ringing] its really not meeting the goals. President brandon thank you, john. We appreciate your comments. Hi, good afternoon, commissioners. My name is barbara. Im a port side resident across the street on bryant street since 1994. So i commend the port and the staff in getting to this point in the Development Plan that theyve been trying to do for 30 years. And i do echo the previous comments, i echo everything he said and i agree totally with him. I want to say other things. The massing of the seawall, those two towers, the report that mr. Albert presented talks about massing on brannan street. Its the corner of bryant. Portside is a 38 bryant. We have a small seawall right in front of us, the green grass area, so we dont abut embarcadero. But these two towers that are 160 feet on the corner of embarcadero and bryant, they abut the sidewalk, its totally massive. Its almost twice the height were nine stories this is 160 stories and this one is also obstructing the views, our value, creating shadow. The development looks really pretty. It might seem to meet all of the criteria, the waterfront plan, the port goals, the r. F. P. , the port Community Values, but this inherently all these things, really big problems, the tower height, the massing. I dont think the waterfront port, in echoing the previous speaker, there is too much commercial space. Who is going to use a big public pool . I belong to the bay club. Its not conducive to the ada, the kids, the family. How do you get into the pool . Berthing four yachts and what not. There is no social equity there. Its only for the wealthy. It doesnt meet everyones needs. Its only for people who can afford to bring the the condition is incredible. This is covid time. I was actually coming hope from an appointment and i had to during midday by 1 00 in the afternoon, coming on the embarcadero to turn left on bryant, actually the two were going through the other two through lanes. I ended up driving on embarcadero on the pier side so i wouldnt have to wait and block the traffic. Its already congested. The other thing, San Francisco is doing a congestion study and they havent included embarcadero as part of it. [bell ringing] thank you. Thank you. Moving on to the next caller. Hi, i guess im live. My name is mark dragon. Im a 15year resident of south beach. I live in a condominium complex where im the president of the board and 336 units. And im a member of the Northern Advisory Committee, so i have seen this proposal. First, a shoutout to peter albert. He has done a phenomenally good job of responding to emails at midnight, working around the clock. Terrific job. Im opposed to this proposal for two principle reasons. The first is it obliterates the waterfront plan. Its not at all consistent. Its seeking for a twox height variance. That is massive. There is a reason we have the plan and this proposal ignores it. Its frustrating when the other two proposals actually complied with it. They were being good neighbors. So this proposal is just inappropriatelysized for this location. Additionally, the washington project, if it told us nothing else, its that the citizens of San Francisco do not want walls on the waterfront which is what the two towers here would create. If we move forward with this, were signing up for years of contentious public hearings over the massing of these two towers. And i dont think anybody wants to go through those public hearings again, especially after having gone through the Navigation Center process. So first point was, its inappropriately sized. It doesnt comply with the waterfront plan. Number two, its an economically bad deal fort port. Under this proposal, the port sees 1. 5 million land lease for one year and then doesnt see a dime until the developer reaches an 18 rate of return. In a world where there is zero federal funds rate, 18 is incredibly high. It means the port is likely not to see anything. Even if they do, it wont be more than 13. 5 million for a 75year ground lease. Alternative proposal im just reading from the kma study, pays not only the land lease of 1. 5 million but 135 million in participatory rent. 10x what this proposal does. This proposal is capturing all of the economic gain for the developer and none for the port. As Port Commissioners, you have to be fiscally prudent when you enter into a 75year land lease and this does not generate enough revenue from the port relative to the other proposals. Its inappropriately sized. It doesnt comply with the waterfront plan. And its not a very good financial deal fort port. Thank you. Thats all. President brandon thank you, mark. Youre welcome. Next caller, please. Opening the next line now. Hello commissioners thank you so much for taking the time to hear from us. My name is carole hart. Im actually a resident of the watermark. Ive owned a place at the watermark since the time it was built. Im very concerned about the proposal. I think just terms of overview, the way i see it, there is this beautiful dramatic proposal for the piers and its just so appealing and to me its beautiful. Its better than looking at a flat concrete parking lot that we have right now, but i think and this is normal with the seawall lots, the proposal for the seawall lots is sort of devastating in every way to the neighborhood. I would incorporate the comments from the three people who spoke previously. Traffic. Traffic alone it was discussed when the warriors proposal came forward, that area is already just walltowall. Right now its somewhat down because of covid, but basically many times of the day you cant move through that area. Now the idea is to put a huge increase in number of residents in the area which means much more need for emergency services, ambulance, potentially fire. How are they going to get there if the traffic increases the way it would inevitably with this proposal . Also, i would agree completely that when voters voted for proposition b, what they were saying is, we do not want the port approving walls on the water. That are not consistent with Community Character or the view of San Francisco as a stepdown city with the highest buildings on the hills and then coming down, so there is this clear open view and experience of the waterfront. And thats what i think your job is as commissioners. I have to say, you know, just as a resident of the watermark, it may not be that we have the absolute right, but we definitely depend on what were told at the time we spend millions of dollars when we buy these apartments and condominiums, which is 105 feet. Now the proposal is to obliterate that view. So along with everything else, its hard to say how that is fair to the landowners, although i understand an argument could be made. So i think that, again, incorporating everything that has been said, i think this project, its made to look appealing. It has appeal, but i think it is completely violating the Community Experience of that neighborhood. Thank you. President brandon thank you. Next caller. Unmuting the next line now. My name is david, im a resident of brandon street. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Quickly, id like to commend the developer on thinking about recreation and open space on the piers, although i have to agree with previous callers that some of that recreation space is limited and kind of high end. We need ball fields and playgrounds in this area. But the seawall plan really, i feel very strongly is too dense and too tall for the reason that previous callers mentioned. Reasons exist for the height limits along the embarcadero and this plan far exceeds the limits. So the detriment of the neighborhood, residents who have vested in views, as well as Area Visitors who use the area to get to oracle park, chase center and the other waterfront amenities we have. Theyll have to deal with new crowds and new traffic. That were not expected and that the area has not been built for on an infrastructure basis. My recommendation is respectfully, that the Port Commission terminate the r. F. P. Process and pursue other actions. Thank you very much for your time. President brandon thank you. We have six additional callers remaining on the line. Hi, i live along the San Francisco water park. Actually im caroles neighbor. My comments are similar. I have something i want to read. In 2014, the citizens of this great ci