tv Government Access Programming SFGTV May 16, 2019 4:00pm-5:01pm PDT
removal from the meeting room for any person responsible for the use of cell phone or electronic device. be advised a member of the public has three minutes to make public comments on each agenda item unless there is a shorter period on any item. 7 public comment on items not listed on the agenda. >> any public comment? seeing none it is closed. >> 8a. executive director's report. >> good afternoon. i am the executive director. the first announcement is salmon season opened may first. there will be a temporary closure july 1 through 10. season is open through october 15th. captains from the fisherman's
wharf anticipate a good year. the season opened strong between april 13 and 30. a good fishing see on for -- season for us brings in the fishing boats. we wish a safe and successful salmon season. right now at pier 30-32 is the coast guard training vessel. she departs tomorrow. san francisco is her first port of call from japan. she is traveling to new york for 101 days of 206 miles of a long journey with 43 cadets. it is a training mission. we are happy to have her here. she was commissioned in 1993. i would like to update the port commission on the status of the city attro zinzanni.
in november of 2018 this commission granted two, six month extensions between the port and development team. since that meeting the historic preservation commission found the project design consistent with article 10 developments for the planning commission and they provided conditional use authorization unanimously. the final required land use approval on may 2nd. congratulations. under my authority i agreed to the final six month extension request made by the developer earlier this month. port staff and developer are working diligently on the ldba and lease. we will bring that to you in the next few months. that concludes my report. thank you. >> any public comment on the executivexecutive director's re? there is. i have cards.
jay wallace and diana taylor. >> good afternoon president brandon and commission managers. i am a field representative with carpenters 22. i am here to speak in favor of development. the development team reached out to the carpenters and has agreed to use the signatory union gc to provide opportunities for apprentices and women and minorities. it is a great project. like the commissioner said we are losing like the deli. we are getting something back with this project. it is a good project. i hope you will move forward with this. thank you very much and good afternoon. >> good afternoon.
i am diana taylor president of bar bury coast neighborhood association. our members live and work across the street from this development. we have been working with the developer for some time and the architects to make it a good project, and we are in support. we hope this can be moved ahead as fast as possible. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am jay wallace partner at pk broadway to say we are looking forward to coming back in two weeks and two weeks later. in two weeks we will have a informational presentation. when we were last here we thought we might need a couple extra months. we came this close in the first six month extension.
we asked for another extension. we can see the light at the end of the tunnel. i want to thank the port director and the staff that she presented to the project. we are working twice each week finalizing the details. iit is a a great project with a great staff. we are pleased to be here and get going. thank yothank you very much. one of my partners. is here and we are excited to be here for the next couple months. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> any other public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am the research analyst at local two. we represent 13,000 hotel workers. we have been working closely with the developers of this
project going on five plus years. they have had a very strong relationship with us and the project has our support partly because it comes with guarantees the workers will have a fair process with which to organize the union once the hotel is in place. we are looking forward to seeing the hotel open and hope it gets all of its approval. >> any other public comment. >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i open the consent calendar. 9a to request approval to amend the port's harbor traffic code allowing certain parking and curb restrictions on port streets within mission bay east of third street to accommodate events at the chase center. 9b. request approval of consent to
sublease between blue and goldplete. lp and open top sightseeing san francisco. >> i move. >> second. >> any public comment on the consent item. public comment is closed. all in favor. resolution 1917 and 1918 are approved. >> 10a. informational update on the san francisco fire boat project. and a new 50 year memorandum of understanding between the port of san francisco and the san francisco fire department. >> our new fire chief is in the house. welcome, chief nicholson. >> who you will get to hear from in just a moment. >> good afternoon, president brandon and members of the commission. we are working with the port's real estate division fro in brig this forward.
i would like to introduce the team and the chief. we will provide detail on the proposed ma'a memorandum of understanding between the port and fire department. our new fire chief nicholson would like to say a few words. >> thank you very much, young ladd, i appreciate that. good afternoon, president brandon, commissioners, director forbes. this is the maiden voyage for me at this commission. thank you for having us. much appreciated. this project has been a team effort going on long before i took over last week, as you can imagine, but i have been involved in this project for a while, and we have done our due diligence with all parties involved, public works, the port, architects on not just the
design but also the port m.o.u. which we are thrilled that we are moving towards that. it has been a long time coming. i want to thank everyone for their work on that. in terms of the fire department, our operational responsibilities on the water has grown significantly over the past many years, and this is a much needed facility for us and we are really looking forward to moving this project forward. this is also going to be on our agenda at our fire commission meeting next week. i want to let you know that we believe this is a great project, and we are excited about it moving forward. thank you very much. >> thank you and congratulations.
>> in addition to the new fire chief, i want to point out team members. charles from public works the bond program manager, allen from shaw kawasaki architects and the builders are important and involved people as well as the fire chief who was involved in the details in the development of what we have to present to you today for your consideration in an upcoming meeting. we know the fire department fights fires. the fire boat crews duties include search and rescue, spill containment, assisting with homeland security and much more around the bay. location is important. fire station 35 at pier 22 1/2 at the foot of harrison street is located within the port
property. it is centrally along the city's waterfront and within the central bay area gone. a lot of centrals there. it relates to the role. it is much more than port property. it serves the larger city and the one fire station on the bay that responds to many different types of emergencies with the expanded role which has in part to do with why they are building a new fire station for us here. fire station 35 is currently inadequate for the function due to the age, condition and size. the new station is larger to meet current code for living conditions to consolidate gear such as oil containment booms and jet skis that have to be delivered to the site in case of an emergency at this point and to birth multiple vessels. it would demolish pier 22 1/2
behind the fire station. it would demolish what is left of pier 24, what was known as the south finger pier. there is not a lot to take down there any more. also parts of the marginal wharf. a new two level at this image shows in orange the areas to be demolished in the shaded grey would be the location of a new floating fire station with a 14,500 square foot float. the apron around the floating fire station would provide mooring for three fire boats. you can see the building and the size of the boat. mooring for three fire boats, one rescue watercraft and a
rescue ramp that would connect to the existing float to the existing war of and provide pedesstricken access on that. it would be off site and towed by a tugboat to the site. there is a small amount of construction that occurs on site. there is some shoreline work. the existing fire station 35 would remain in place and no renovation work is proposed for that structure nor the -- it would remain that. a floating pier or barge concept was chosen to address the expected flooding and sea level rise in the project area during the 50 year design life. the floating pier has advantages of not needing access ramps to
the fire boats from the float it eliminates maintenance problems with flexible floating ramps that would be necessary and the construction and maintenance costs associated with that. it is a new type of design as we respond to sea level rise. we are excited for this project to address this and move forward with this type of concept. the first floor will be for emergency operations, equipment storage, supply and repair, equipment lockers and small craft storage. second floor is living space for 35. it includes dormitory, laundry and kitchen dining opening to a patio on the east end. height 36 feet.
perceived height from the shoreline will vary with the tides. it will be used for fire equipment and storage. there will be a 950 square foot public access deck for viewing the fire station and public art currently being developed in conjunction with the arts commission. it is to provide fill mitigation. pier 70, wharf 8. it is a very apt project to have removed. the project a couple of views of the new fire station. this from just to the north. the materials were selected using the same siding on the cruise terminal.
it picks up a form similar to the pier sheds emphasizing the horizontal nature, and it is intended to it is quietly behind the existing fire station. this is a view from a little further out. you can see it in relationship to pier 26 beyond. it is designed to it is quietly along the waterfront but still have a presence with the fire boats. they will be the biggest visual as they are now. the project was approved by the bay conservation and development commission. funding from the 2014 emergency response bond, $35 million the total cost. if approved by this commission at the next meeting, construction would start in july and be complete by the end of 2020. our deputy director of real estate michael martin will talk to you about the memorandum of understanding that is being put together.
>> good afternoon, commissioners. mike martin, real estate development. i want to briefly run through the terms of the memorandum of understanding. starting with the plan view of the leased premises under the m.o.u. starting with historic firehouse the blue vehicle tangle on the bottom of the slide. the rent payable is $1.60 per square foot which is the rate for shed space in this area. moving outward from that to the red dotted around it is the marge namarginalwhat of. rent -- wharf. it will be the large green going up to the top of the slide from that is the water area within which would be the gangway,
steel float and new firehouse construction as well as the birthing areas to the left and right of the new steel float. that will be payable 9 cents per square foot. we have negotiated that with reference to the maritime benefits of the operation in terms of life and safety and other benefits to the operations and mission of the port. moving to additional terms. 50 year term with rent escalation during that term. project construction will take approximately two years. during that time the premises would still operate and operations would continue after construction is complete. payment of rent the sum of rents payable as i described would be approximately $14,000 each month payable commencing after project completion. the m.o.u. calls for rent credit.
1.6 understand of im movements remaining unam more ties amortized. the new public access area to the south of the historic firehouse to be constructed is part of this project would be assigned rent credits. the m.o.u. calls for additional rent credits should additional credits happen in the future subject to port approval. m.o.u. calls for maintenance and repairs th the sole responsibily of the fire department. needs assessment every five years identifying the repairs to be performed. they would find funding to make sure the site is operated in a safe manner. it provides conditions under
which the fire department may relinquish portions of the premises. so long as it can be operated for the fire department purposes that is one of the conditions. if the port is to take anything back, it needs to be used for benefit of the port through rentals or port benefits. to take it back we need access rights to take that property back. if the process was laid out but the parties will negotiate the right way to do that at the proper time. the fire department must comply with the california environmental quality act issued with this project. there is an operations plan agreed to as part of the m.o.u. to govern the operations at the site. all regulatory permits must be adhered to as well as city laws
and ordinances. that concluded our presentation. we are here to answer any questions. thanks. >> thank you. any public comment on this item? seeing none. commissioner mack. this is an informational presentation. >> when are you coming back in. >> at the next meeting we will come back for action. >> i support it completely. i accept staff's analysis with the economics of this. this is a city agency and crunching the numbers to arrive at a deal with a sister agency is fine with me. if the fire department is left for some reason the recommendation from staff in
re-purposing this for something else would yield much different numberings. i am prepared to support this next time it comes before us. >> commissioner woo ho: we have been on it once and i think it was with mayor lee. we went in the board in america's cup. it was fun. it shot the water up in the air for a salute i am familiar with the facility and i can see where the renovations are needed. the staff has done a thorough job. i don't have further questions at this time. >> again, congratulations and welcome to the port of san francisco. i, too, support this item. it is good that we are going to get rent for the first time. (laughter). >> my only question is the
existing structure. what is going to happen with it and what is the life expectancy of it? how long can it remain without any investment? >> mike, do you want to answer that question? >> well, i think as we described. it is currently able to be used for the purpose. the fire department wants to use it during construction. i think we all see that there may be expenditures needed. that is why we negotiated the capital needs assessment every five years to keep a good eye on what is required to avoid any sort of sudden outages of that facility. the benefits of the new construction would allow it to be operated should there be an outage where we need to do construction on the historic firehouse. there was an intention to keep it in place until we have the new structure in place.
i wouldn't be say it is an indefinite future. there is an interest to keep that historic fabric as part of the embarcadero. >> we look forward to that item coming back. >> 11:00 a.m. request authorization to award contracts to bae urban economics, economic and planning systems, three kaiser fashionerston associates and seifel consulting. for as needed real estate economics and related professional services each contract in an amount not to exceed $750,000. >> the item is an action item to recommend award of the as needed real estate economics request for qualifications to the four highest ranked firms.
bae urban economics. economic and planning systems and keyser marston associates and seifel consulting. each with $750,000 with a four year term and option to continue that term for one additional year. the port complies with a number of our port strategic goals including the strategy to the real estate por portfolio to maximize value and prioritizing projects to renew waterfront facilities for the ongoing enjoyment of residents to support the businesses and employees. the scope of work for this contract like all as needed or on call projects is not defined in advance. as needed contracts serve as master agreements under which
the port staff issue csos on project by project basis. these projects were managed by port planning and development after reorganization in 2017 now they are under the new real estate and development division. the current scope including lease negotiation and financial feasibility with decrease in architectural and planning services which resulted in the subcontracting goal based on the availability of firms and more planning firms than real estate firms. the terms are real estate lease negotiations, financial feasibility analysis, development cost forecasting, marketing leasing strategic
planning and the upcoming projects include support and assistance with evaluation for pier rehabilitation and economic consultant assistance at pier 70. the current four master agreements for as needed real estate economic services were awarded in 2016 valued at $500,000 each lasting to june to to 2020. those funds have been expended. we issue a request to solicit proposals for a new pool of consultants. on february 5, we held the meeting at pier 1. there were 26 individuals in attendance.
we are satisfied with the turnout. we convened panel members that included the senior project manager, business development manager from the mayor's office and meghan wallace, the port finance director made up the panel. the list was provided to and approved by the contract division. the submit deadline march 1st we received seven proposals. the first step is to review each proposal with compliance with minimum qualifications. one firm concourse was nonresponsive for failure to meet the requirements. r.f.q. was two phases. written was 100 points, five of the remaining six firms scored
over 75 points and invited to oral interviews. they were worth 100 pounds. top 4-h th four with the final difficulties. >> we are recommending the four highest ranked four. three of those are incumbent firms. keyser marston is the exception. staff and i met with the losing firms to review score sheets and provide feedback on streps and -- on strengths. we did not receive any protests regarding the evaluation processor the selected teams. presenters from bae are here today. it is a minority owned firm with
offices nationwide including berkeley. it is a prime consultant on the contract. 14% l.b.e. goal they are projected to close at 20% due to contract services with the maritime division. bae provided financial visibility. they supported economic impact study, provided development support on the research park in mountain view. eps are here. they are in oakland. they are an incumbent firm with real estate experience that including the pier 70 master point and redevelopment of treasure island. their current lb participation is 14% they will close at 22%.
keyser marston is on pier 70 with the harbour project and alameda, california. they committed to subcontract 18% of the contract work to l.b.e. firms. receive el consulting is woman owned. it -- seifel are at 18%. they have supported us with alcatraz lease negotiations and financial visibility and cost estimating and real estate economic support on the revitalization project. if you award the projects today we will issue the notices to proceed by mid-june. contracts are scheduled for completion in 2023. in conclusion we respectfully
request you award the real estate economics to bae, economic and planning, keyser marston and seifel consulting. each is $750,000 with a four year term and option to extend for one year. i am joined today by rebecca from our real estate division and the contract monitoring division is here and representatives from the winning teams are available to answer your questions. thank you for your time. that concludes my presentation. >> can i have a motion? >> second. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> thank you for the presentation. it is good that we are obviously dealing with known firms with experience with us already. my question relates, i guess,
higher landscape level to understand. as we have been awarding these contracts out over the years. this is not the first time we are presented with this proposal. how much of the work do we think is volume related? we don't have enough staff to do the work? how much of the work is specific expertise we lack? the third part of the question is related to as we work with the buttants we get mar-- with the consultants we get smarter and our reliance factor changes over time as we absorb or hopefully that is the way to work with them so we do work and can absorb more and can be more self-reliant in the future. my questions are more at that level than to question if we need the contracts but to understand where we are headed with these over the longer term. >> i will start to answer that
question then give it to rebuckca. -- rebecca. one of the things part of it is the third-party validation requirement as well. even if we have staff that can beautifully run the models and we do and understand the financial analysis when we have such high value economic proposals we want the third-party validation. the staff can perform much of the work and performs a lot of the work we rely on the third party to double and triple check because there is such value in the deals. we want to make sure the public agency is not leaving money on the table. i will turn it over to rebecca. >> i completely agree. volume definitely as we contemplate the items before us
at mission rock and pier 70 going quickly. we have r.f.p.s that we are working on. we see tremendous volume of work and the way i feel comfortable telling my husband i will be home at night. we will rely on assistance to accomplish a lot more with the firms. third-party validation and valuable thing we get is negotiating tool that is helpful to have information that they can bring to bear to ordeals to use to the negotiation table that would take us a long time to come up with other examples we use in our negotiations. >> i should comment. i think our staff you are all competent and what you show us in open and closed session you do your homework, analysis is strong. i have confidence in that. i want to say that for the
record. yes, i understand the argument of third party validation. i hope that each time we learn something from the outside source we are getting smarter and smarter. we are learned a lot of lessons and we are smarter to do business. that should be the ongoing goal of continuous improvement and learning here. that is all i have to say. >> >> commissioner makras: i support the item. >> thank you for the presentation. have they given us l.b.e. goals for this? >> yes, the you contracting goal -- subcontracting goal is 13%. >> what is the goal of 21%. >> the previous contract. the current contract is 20% goal and i was giving you a look at
how well these incumbent firms did to meet the existing goal. the goal for this contract is 13%. >> the existing firms, none have reached that goal but yet we have one out of money? >> they will meet the goal at the end of the contract life. when we take a snapshot today. two firms are at 14%. those are payments and not work invoiced to date and work done to complete the existing service order. we can project that each of the existing firms will meet their l.b.e. obligations on the existing contract. >> on here you have it at 20%. it is actually 21%? >> the existing i think the existing subcontracting goal is 20. i can confirm that for you.
>> they will all meet 20% by the end? >> yes representatives of the contracted monitoring division are also here. when l.b.e. goals are not met, the contract monitoring division has the ability to define or submit penalties to firms that don't meet the goals to balance that. >> then when they fine them, where does the money go? >> to the general fund. >> okay. so you will report back if they do or don't meet that goal? >> yes. >> why was it 20% now 13%? >> because of the new scope of work. when this contract moved from the former planning and development division to the real estate and development division
we lost a lot of the planning services and architectural service was the waterfront land use update and that had a higher l.b.e. available. the real estate economics and lease negotiation and site planning has fewer firms to provide that work and lower l.b.e. goal. >> i guess i understand that. but the amount is the same? the amount of the contract is the same? >> the previous contract ability was $500,000. these contracts are $700,000. >> increasing with a lower goal. interesting. what can we do as a commission, as the port commission? >> i think that a lot of the outreach work we have been doing is helpful to get firms that
aren't currently certified certified who do the work but not for the city is one. breaking up the work they have done as good as they can to reach a smaller pool of qualified l.b.e. firms. any other items? >> always trying to encourage new firms to be certified and at preproposal conferences we encourage the l.b.e.s that do attend if they are providing new services to become certified. when c and d settings the goal or requirement for the project we work with port staff to ensure we understand the changing nature of the demands of the upcoming as needed
projects, and with consultation with port staff the l.b.e. participation requirement was lowered. >> this is for planning, for real estate? >> for real estate. >> what we come back for planning the goal will go up? >> that's correct. >> okay. i will look for it. >> i have a question. rebecca you mentioned the volume of the work. sometimes we try to also get our developers and their proposal to help us with the funding. how much of these contracts are they subject to where we might have the developers help us with the funding so they are not purely port funds by themselves, is that correct? >> that is a very good point.
i don't have a number but i can come up with that. much of the work will be funded by mission rock and pier 70 development if we are successful for the seawall and we select the developer then we would have them reimburse us for outside costs such as the consulting contract. at print we have three developers that reimburse us. going forward once we have more developers we would put that in any negotiating agreement we sign. >> that is part of the increase? >> yes. >> when we put up the rfi or r.f.p. we get the feedback we are not addressing it as fast as possible because we have our own constraints and not just throwing resources to do more. it increases capacity of taft.
by using third parties consultants to stretch resources and be able to do more at a faster pace which is something we are interested in doing if we can. >> that's right. >> i'm not sure who might be able to answer it. i have a harder problem saying we can't go from 13% to 15% or 15 to 18 or 22%. if you just take one of the contracts at $750,000 anal locate the 13% it is $97,500. there are some firms willing to take this work and do it. are we being told if we give them $150,000 worth of work they don't have the capacity to do it? >> that is a question for c and
d. >> commissioner, when an l.b.e. firm is certified, the firm isn't certified on its capacity. they don't know the capacity of the firm, it is up to the firm to take on the work that they are offered, they ensure that they delivered the product in a timely and quality manner. i can actually speak for the l.b.e.s on what their capacity is. they may be working on a different city projects. the consultants who are sitting here today would better be able to answer that question. i can only read through it that the l.b.e. requirement was lower through consultation with port staff and with the understanding
of the limited number of l.b.e.s who are certified in the specific disciplines or anticipated disciplines for the projected work for this new contract. >> could we not answer the question. 13% is the minimum. if someone was able to do $150,000 of the contract and the consultant felt they would give them the work. there is no reason they wouldn't get the $150,000. that is the minimum bar. we have had contracts in the past which exceed the l.b.e. requirement. you know, we could do that and the president is encouraging us to exceed it. if you can exceed it there is no reason you can't exceed. it is the minimum the way i think about it. >> that is right it is the
minimum. >> it is on the port is strenuously working to try to increase the l.b.e. participation on the csos to be sure they max mine the work. >> we can see with the existing contracts no one is breaking their neck. we are trying to figure outweighs to help encourage more participation from the l.b.e.s. >> these programs have good results. as warranted as a few companies are for going over. our goals pushes participation and it is policies that we implement that are the results of the success of these programs. we have never -- i have never
seen the port staff come ring the bell and say the contract or is out of the ballpark in meeting the goals. for all intense and purposes we meet them. generally speaking they are a met goal. >> some go over and some come in and some we struggle to have them meet through contract compliance. it is across the board. our l.b.e. grades are high. last report we were at 40%. over 40% and sometimes over 50%. we strive to go over. where we have success is micro set aside contracts. when we set aside the work for
micro-lbes that is why we can achieve those. this is certified for the l.b.e. to do this type of work and the goal is reduced. >> i understand how you got there. i don't agree the depth is not in the marketplace. if the commission wanted a different pace number, i would be supportive of that. >> if we have to do a set aside to achieve that, maybe we can. there are firms out there. >> do you have the list of mikeo and l.b.e.s certified in this arena, how many we are talking about. >> i don't have it at hand but i will be happy to get it to you.
>> if there is a number to amend it. i am happy to table top the number. my simple equation says if there is enough for $97,500 worth of work we can set a number of $120,000. it is arbitrary. someone can demonstrate the marketplace cannot do the work. that is the cap to go by. >> i don't think we can a the l.b.e. -- amend the goal. only cmd sets the goals, we don't do it. i am trying to think what we could do at this point. >> it's frustrating with professional services we have
issues with l.b.e. participation. it is frustrating that is goal has gone down but the amount of contract and work has gone up. that is frustrating. i'm not quite sure what our options are. i don't want to take away from the firms that bid on this. they are great. we have done wonderful work with them over the years. i think it is a policy level. when year after year when it comes to professional services, real estate or planning, construction management we hit it out of the park. professional services we have issues with availability -- well not just availability but getting firms to bid or getting our primary firms to bring in
l.b.e. firms. it is just, you know, how long is this for, four years? i'm sorry. public comment is closed. >> we can take separate informational discussion at some point to understand the status of professional services of san francisco. if you step back to think about it. we have had a very strong sort of real estate and construction market. that has not made perhaps working for the city as interesting as it might be going forward. we need to understand what staining stage we are. there may be firms out there but they find working in the private sector is easier and therefore they haven't been as interested in city contracts. we need to just -- we are just
making assumptions and guessing. we need facts to understand if this is an availability issue, interest issue, and outreach issue. we are jumping to conclusions without knowing. >> generally speaking we would do an open house and bring in people interested in the work who are not certified or look to the the listing to see who is fallen off and taking work and do the analysis for like engineering where we were struggling with the ads needed which has changed with the last go around. that was a lot of groundwork to see who is not coming in, who do we need to get certified working through cmd. we haven't laid that groundwork to say this is the number. we haven't done the outreach to see how we could grow it. maybe firms are engaged in private sector of business and
they have lost faith in the city process and they have given up and they could be brought back to the table. this is what we have done in other communities. we could pursue effort in this preceding four year period. we will encourage our primes to do better with their teams and we can get that message as well. do you have any other ideas for us, rebecca? >> we have one firm with an 18% goal. that is kma. i think that, you know, it is the change in scope, lease negotiations. there are fewer firms. this is a small community of firms that provide this.
it is really the same firms and the same l.b.e. subcontracting person. we always do our outreach events and we will continue to push and to widen the net on these firms. >> thank you. i really appreciate everyone's involvement and all of the effort going into increasing the pool. i am encouraged that we are going to continue to do better. with that all in favor. resolution 1919 has been approved. >> 12a informational presentation of draft amendments to update the waterfront plan for public review and comment and approval of resolution dedicating the pier 52 public
boat launch in memory of waterfront plan working group member corinne woods. >> good afternoon. i am diane with the planning and environment division representing the waterfront plan team. we are here to give you a preview of the water front plan. i am sorry i don't have it to give to you today. i wanted to give you this heads up. we have been before you several times to give you th the steps through which the whole waterfront plan working group worked to develop recommendations that you endorsed. we are at work to get that through the production process to produce the plan. i want to acknowledge a number of working group members here today. i thank them for coming.
janice lee sends regrets she can't join us but we will go ahead anyway. the waterfront plan as you may recall. there were 161 recommendations the working group brought to you that you endorsed. there are additional policies in the plan right now. the staff's work is about trying to take the existing policies, figuring which ones need updated, which are obsolete and bringing in the new content the working group brought plus working with the city departments. there are a number of city departments that have taken place over 20 years. we have put this together in the update of the plan. there are nine portwide goals in the plan as it is updated now, two more than what the 1997 version of the original plan set
forth. i am going to walk through those goals and give you a flavor for the content that is covered. number one, th the maritime goao maintain the businesses here in san francisco. prop h which required this plan really requires the port commission and port to give first priority to maritime uses and focus on the piers and shoreline areas, and the waterfront plan has always gone further to include all of the port's properties, always gave first priority to the maritime needs. this working maritime port has been a central point from whichault of the other topics -- which all of the other topics tried to balance around. some of the topics are not just the categories of the industries, but how do we
generate capital for maritime improvements? how do we balance birthing and public access on the piers? how do we provide for water recreation which has found popularity? how do we prepare for cleaner maritime industries so we can have clean fuel cargo ships? that gives you the plan. >> diversity of activities in people. the objective is a diverse range of activities. not just maritime or recreational and entertainment but also work. the port has been a place of work so the waterfront plan is trying to find ways to work with the city's policies, stay within the public trust