March 11, 2024 Joint Design Review Board and Port of San Francisco Waterfront Design Meeting

1. Call to Order and Meeting Procedure Review
2. Remembrance and tribute to Marsha Maytum, Waterfront Design Advisory Committee member from 2005 through 2023
3. Port Announcements, adoption of WDAC Minutes, and adoption of WDAC Operating Procedures
4. BCDC Announcements and approval of Draft Summary for the January 8, 2024 Meeting
5. Public Comment for items not on the agenda
6. Ferry Building and Ferry Plaza Alterations in the City of San Francisco, San Francisco County (Second Pre-Application Review)
   The Design Review Board and Port Waterfront Advisory Committee will hold their second pre-application review of the proposal by Hudson Pacific Properties to make exterior alterations to the San Francisco Ferry Building and Ferry Plaza at various locations along the ground floor and the building site.
   (Katharine Pan) [415/352-3650 katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov]
   Exhibit
7. Briefing on the San Francisco Waterfront Coastal Flood Study Draft Plan
   The Design Review Board and Port Waterfront Advisory Committee will receive a briefing from the Port of San Francisco on the Draft Plan for the San Francisco Waterfront Flood Study, which was released for public comment at the end of January. The draft plan addresses coastal flood risk and effects of sea level rise for the 7.5 miles of waterfront within the Port of San Francisco’s jurisdiction from Aquatic Park to Heron’s Head Park.
   Presentation
8. Adjournment in honor of Marsha Maytum.

March 11, 2024 video meeting

Transcript

The P. One.

Hello!

rwassum: I’m located here at the pier. One port offices in San Francisco, and our meeting will include participants who are here in the room and those who are participating online. And I want to thank the port for hosting the meeting here tonight.

rwassum: Our first order of business is to call the role and board members. Can you please unmute yourselves to respond and then mute yourselves again after responding, staff, Ashley, can you call the role

rwassum: chair. Mccann, present vice chair, Strang, present board, Member Battalio present

rwassum: board member Flores, present board, Member Hall and Pellegrini will be here shortly.

rwassum: Thank you, Ashley Danode, at the support of San Francisco. I see all 5 of our committee members are here. So consider that

oops.

rwassum: Okay, thank you, Dan, and thank you, Ashley. We have a quorum present. So we duly constituted to conduct business.

rwassum: I want to share some some instructions to begin with, on how we can best participate in this meeting, so that it runs as smoothly as possible

rwassum: for everyone online and in the meeting room. Please make sure that you have your microphones or phones muted to avoid background noise for board members. If you have a webcam, please make sure that it’s on so that everybody can see you, and for members of the public. If you’d like to speak during a public con comment period. That is part of an agenda item, you will need to do so in one of 3 ways.

rwassum: First, if you are here with us in person, we will ask you to form a line near the podium. If you wish to make a public comment. speaker, cards are available at the door, and you will be asked to come up to the podium one at a time, and to state your name and affiliation prior to providing your comments during the meeting.

rwassum: After all individuals who are present make their comments, we should call on those participants who are attending remotely to participate in the meeting.

rwassum: The second way, if you’re attending on the Zoom Platform, please raise your virtual hand in zoom. If you’re new to zoom and you join our meeting using the zoom application, click the hand at the bottom of your screen, the hand should turn blue when it’s raised.

rwassum: Finally, if you’re joining our meeting via phone, you must press Star 9 on your keypad to raise or lower your hand to make a comment and star 6 to mute or unmute your phone. We will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order that they are raised.

rwassum: After you are called on, you will be unmuted, so that you can share your comments.

rwassum: Please state your name and affiliation with the beginning of your remarks. Remember, you have a limit of 3 min to speak on an item, and we will tell you when you have 1 min remaining.

rwassum: Please keep your comments respectful and focus. We are here to listen to everyone who wishes to address us, but everyone has the responsibility to act in a civil manner. We will not tolerate hate, speech, threats made directly or indirectly, and or abusive language.

rwassum: We will mute anyone who fails to follow these guidelines, or who exceeds the established time limits without permission

rwassum: for public comments. If you are attending online, please note that we will only hear your voices. Your video will not be enabled. If you are attending the meeting on the Zoom Platform, we recommend using the gallery view option in view settings in order to see all the panelists audio, for in person panelists is recorded through the rooms audio system and is not synced to the individual panelist videos.

rwassum: If you would like to add your contact information to the interested parties list to be notified of future meetings concerning these projects. Please call or email our board secretary, Ashley, Tomaland.

rwassum: and her contact. Information is on the screen in front of us, and can also be found on the BC. DC’s website. And finally, every now and get. And again you will hear me refer to the meeting host to his Yuri tonight. Our BC DC. Staff are acting here as hosts for the meeting behind the scenes to ensure that technology moves the meeting forward smoothly and consistently. Please be patient with us if it’s needed.

rwassum: And now the Board Secretary will provide a stop update with Dan to use. Sorry today. Board members and or San Francisco or Front design advisory committee members.

rwassum: First time on the agenda is a remembrance past waterfront design advisory committee. Member

rwassum: Marshall was an incredible person and wonderful to have on the committee.

rwassum: She held valuable insight into how architecture interacts with people in the public realm, and she was a master communicator. When it was Marcia’s turn to speak. Here the room would go silent.

rwassum: People waited and listened to her every word. She possessed extensive knowledge, architecture, historic rehabilitation, and urban design. She could explain complex issues in a manner that everyone understood.

rwassum: and she left, all agreeing that with her guidance project

rwassum: she was gracious to all.

rwassum: never providing a reason to be criticized.

rwassum: So much of what she did to humanize architecture and public space. In conversation you could tell. She appreciated first viewpoints, which was evident in how she spoke and treated others.

rwassum: Marsha, I on the port. Thank you for making waterfront more attractive, more efficient, and overall better place, and we shall miss you.

rwassum: No letting Marsha’s husband is here. Just want to acknowledge him. Thank you for coming

rwassum: for all he is done for.

rwassum: Appreciate the week. control you for your lives.

rwassum: This is a time. If other Border Committee members want to mention Marsha or saying thing. I welcome that

rwassum: as well. Thank you.

rwassum: And it’s I think others in the room appreciate Russia’s contribution throughout

rwassum: of what she did, and she served on the committee from 2,005 till

rwassum: 2,022. Right? So very long, product.

rwassum: Thank you very much.

rwassum: Your. Yes, your staff report.

rwassum: Okay. The first item we have is 4 min of the April tenth, 2023. Our front side advisory committee and for which we distributed to the committee members. Are there any changes alteration suggested for those months?

rwassum: If not, they stand up as drafted

rwassum: we also circulated operating procedures for the Waterfront Design Advisory Committee, and we’re using a chair to do it this evening. Are there any?

rwassum: Do any of the committee members have comments on the operating procedures for that committee.

rwassum: Those are amendable at any time. So we’ll stand with those as drafted at this point in time.

rwassum: Okay, thank you, Dad.

rwassum: and on behalf of the BC. DC. Design Review Board. Bill, I just want to add our condolences to. As Dan mentioned, the longevity of marshes association with the waterfront has left a a visible legacy for everyone. So we’re very grateful to her work over many years.

rwassum: Okay? So we’ll move to the approval of the draft summary for January eighth, 2024. Meeting we were finished with those the draft summary that was the meeting that we reviewed to pay park, and 1301 sure way, sure way live development

rwassum: any corrections or comments from anyone.

rwassum: Yeah, I have some corrections. And I’m going to send them by email because they’re a little long winded. But I’ll just go over very quickly. So everybody knows the basic content. So I’ll read the what was described to me, and then what it should be corrected to.

rwassum: It is refreshing to see a softening approach as opposed to developing undesirable areas. It would probably be clearer to say it is encouraging to see an example of managed retreat that creates newly accessible outdoor space as opposed to using engineering solutions to hold back the advance of the ocean.

rwassum: Then, next is, there’s

rwassum: there’s beauty to a landscape being legible, non-digactic learning. At Marina Green you can see a lot of rubble, and there’s not a need for overwhelming signage. It’s about self discovery.

rwassum: Possibly better. There is value to learning through self discovery and minimizing use signage. For example, if the Marina green at low tide, one can notice on one’s own. The classical stone building parts were used for rip wrap at the water’s edge after the earthquake of 1906,

rwassum: and finally, observe that allowing dogs does seem like a cross mission to the intention of the park

rwassum: change. To allowing dogs seems contrary to the intention for the park, which is to establish a natural ecology. Thank you.

rwassum: Okay, thank you. So we’ll take those on board when we

rwassum: prove the the notes. I also have 2 minor ones. Page 8

rwassum: point 4

rwassum: in the top section. It was a comment I made third line down. Just change the word instill to create

rwassum: create regulations, to address potential conflict. And then the final sentence like that, the design is assisting with the parts objectives. We could just strike that. I don’t think that’s necessary.

Okay, any other changes.

rwassum: Okay? So

rwassum: I think

rwassum: 4 of us were at that meeting. Let me just double check.

rwassum: You weren’t. No, you weren’t so, Gary.

rwassum: It’s you and me. Would you like to

rwassum: move to approve? I will make a motion to approve the minutes, and I will second it. Yes, all those in favor.

rwassum: And look thank you to staff for preparing these, and particularly for the pave part, because that was a single review, and it’s been passed off. And it’s very large project. So I’m grateful that you have recorded detailed notes of that

to guide staff as the project moves forward.

rwassum: Right, we will move to

the next item on the agenda, which is the staff Update Ashley. I’ll hand it back to you for that I’d like to acknowledge that Board Member Hall has arrived, and she’s now in meeting

rwassum: I mean. I tried to keep this brief tonight

rwassum: form 700 tis the time of the year when I must remind the Board to complete their online form. 700 filing for a statement of economic interests.

rwassum: You should have received an email with instructions on how to file electronically, please your junk mail filter. If you have not seen the email. I can also forward you the email that violin is due. Tuesday, April second.

rwassum: We will not be having a Drb meeting in April.

rwassum: And that concludes my staff update. Okay, thank you.

rwassum: I will move to the next item, which is public comments for items which are not on tonight’s agenda. If there’s any anyone who wants to speak to

rwassum: items like that. And we’ll start with those members of the public who are in our headquarters building here today. If anyone would like to speak to an item that’s not on the agenda. Form a line near the podium to make a public comment.

rwassum: seeing none. We’ll move to online. Is there anyone online who would like to make a public comment for items that are not on tonight’s agenda. We have no one online. I will not read the detailed instruction.

Okay.

rwassum: thank you. So we’ll move to now to the second review of proposed alterations at the Ferry Building and Ferry Plaza in San Francisco. And this is item 6. It’s a second review. And I will just remind you everyone of the order for this. So we will start with BC. DC. Import staff introductions to the project. Then we will have the project proponent presentation

rwassum: we’ll have board and committee clarifying questions. We’ll have public comment then, followed by board and committee discussion and summary, and then we’ll conclude with a project proponent response, a brief response to what’s being heard in the discussion. Summary

so with that I’ll hand to BC. DC. Permanent at permanent analyst. Catherine Pam, who’s going to introduce project?

rwassum: We have somebody raising our hand on online participant raising their hand. Are you speaking or public comment for an item that’s not on tonight’s agenda

rwassum: left. Yeah.

Robert Harrer: no, this is for items. An answer. Project.

rwassum: Okay, there will be an opportunity to comment after the staff interest.

rwassum: Okay, okay, thanks, Catherine.

Alright. It’s being recorded.

Thank you. Chair Mccann, and good evening Board members and committee members. Katherine, Pan, BCDC. Shoreline development program manager. And I’ll be introducing tonight’s project in terms of our regulatory context before I do. I’d like to remind the project team and staff to please turn on your video when you’re speaking or answering questions. When you’re not actively engaged with the board. Please turn off your video and mute your microphones that we may minimize distractions on screen.

And this is the second review of the Ferry Building and Ferry Plaza. Alterations project in the city and county of San Francisco. The previous review was April tenth, 2023.

rwassum: So the post project is located at the Ferry Building, a landmark on the San Francisco waterfront, where Market Street meets the embarcadero. Just south of Pier one. The ferry building is an active ferry terminal and provides ferry access to and from Angel Island and north and East Bay destinations.

rwassum: This site is covered by Vcdc. San Francisco waterfront special area plan.

and it’s part of the plant’s northeastern waterfront geographic area.

rwassum: The ferry building located the edge of the city’s financial district and downtown area is home to a variety of commercial uses and office uses, and is surrounded by many similar uses.

is also part of the waterfront, extensive public recreation and net access network. So here you can see the ferry building and plaza in relation to Peer one which is actually where we are meeting today, and the Weeda Plaza in adjacent public access space.

rwassum: The area round the ferry Building and Ferry Plaza is covered by a number of existing VCDC. Permits, each with its own public access conditions resulting in a layering of different access requirements from different eras of the site’s development.

rwassum: I’ll summarize these briefly to provide some context for some of the changes being proposed, as well as for some of the surrounding access connections. Since our last presentation of this information last April’s review, we’ve taken another close. Look at these permits and refined our understanding of these access requirements.

rwassum: So as a reminder, when we talk about the ferry plaza, we’re referring to this open area on the bay side of the ferry building enclosed by the Golden Gate Ferry terminal. And this restaurant structure.

rwassum: all of this is located.

rwassum: Yeah, is located on the ferry platform, which is also known as the Bart platform, which is all fill, authorized by Permit 1967011.

rwassum: The 1967 permit required public access on the perimeter of the platform not required for ferry operations. The area wasn’t specified in a permit exhibit, but was described in the text of the permit special conditions as the perimeter of portions of the platforms that are not required for ferry port operating purposes, and that do not interfere with birthing ceremonial ships, that in no case shall be less than 35 feet in width from the edge of the platform. So this depiction is based on that description.

rwassum: Permit 1973010 authorized both the restaurant and the Golden Gate Ferry terminal. The permit required the entire plaza east of the easterly wall of the ferry building, as extended south across the but platform. Except for those areas occupied by the ferry terminal, or required for access to the restaurant to be used exclusively for public access.

rwassum: It also required the second floor public lookout at the ferry terminals, public access.

rwassum: the requirement for the ferry plaza was later transferred to the 2,001 Ferry building. Rehabilitation. Permit? So you’ll see that cut out here. Is cheap.

rwassum: So permit 1990 0 8 was for a number of roadway improvements along the embarcadero and for the Muni Metro. It required the dedication of public access area for the Ambcero promenade between Broadway and Harrison Street

rwassum: Amendment 6 approved in 2,007, authorized the use of a portion of the dedicated public access area to be used for outdoor dining. These include the 30 foot wide areas shown on either side of the building’s entry portico, which have come to be called the cafe market zones

rwassum: permit 90, 97, 0 0 7 authorize additional fill for North and South Ferry portal. A publicly accessible sheet pile, breakwater, and the promenades around the ferry building, as well as the demolition of Pier one half to the north.

rwassum: The dedicated public access areas required by the permit include the new North, east, and South promenads

and Pier 14, which is the breakwater.

rwassum: Note that the South promenade here was dedicated, based on an older configuration of the ferry building in wharf that changed with the remodelling of the building and the construction of the new Weeda terminals and plaza.

The 1997 permit also required the reservation of the new concourse of the ferry building, and a 12 to 15 foot wide corridor between the embarcadero and the South, prominent for public access purposes.

rwassum: These areas were not required to be dedicated at the time to allow for the flexibility to consider potential revisions to the public’s use of the area. If and when the building was renovated.

rwassum: permit 2,000 0 one authorize the Ferry building, rehabilitation project and the use of the ferry plaza for the farmers market. As the rehabilitation expanded the second floor of the building over the existing east promenade, the promenade was expanded 12 feet bayward to provide continued uncovered access.

rwassum: The required dedicated public access includes the East promenade space to 10 foot wide, pass throughs through the ferry building and cafe market zones to mean, maintain free of obstructions and the ground floor public restrooms, as well as the ferry plaza, which was transferred from that 1973 permit

rwassum: and permit 2016 0 0 one authorized new gates for the Wida San Francisco Bay Ferry, south of the Ferry Plaza, and included public access conditions for the Weeda plaza, also called the Embarcadero Plaza, and a bayside promenade connecting the new ferry gates.

rwassum: These areas are outside of the scope of the current project. But we’re including this information, so that you’re aware of these closely connected uses immediately adjoining the project site.

rwassum: And then here are just some contextual photos to orient us and help you visualize the current conditions of the site. Here’s the North Cafe Zone in Arcade. Here, you can see. Got outdoor seating area. The north North Pass through entrance and at the time they were in the process of setting up additional outdoor seating, and these were taken last April. On a Monday morning the North Arcade here is also, used by a variety of commercial kiosks.

rwassum: Here’s also the North Arcade last April, on a Saturday evening.

rwassum: And then here’s the south Caffeine market zone with the outdoor dining area and South Pass through and the South arcade, which is mainly for storage and farmers market operations, and these were from last April. This one in the bottom left was from this past December.

rwassum: And here’s some views of the ferry plaza. This one on the top right is a view from the Gandhi statue, facing towards the south side of the building. And then, just under that is a view of the space on the north side of the plaza next to the Golden Gate Ferry Terminal facing east toward the restaurant structure, and all of these are taken on a Monday morning last April.

rwassum: And then here just 2 quick views of a crowd arriving at the plaza from the Golden Gate Ferry. So these are pedestrians and cyclists, all making their way to the south side of the building across the plaza.

Also 9 Am. Last April.

rwassum: Here’s the area on the south side of the ferry building. We’ve been calling the South promenade. So this provides access for both pedestrians and vehicles to the ferry plaza. So here you can see the area that’s reserved for public access alongside the drive aisle that’s also used by delivering service vehicles these cones and barriers here used to control vehicle access and this is from a morning last April between ferry landing. So it’s pretty empty.

And then here, just a few views from when the space is a little bit busier. Wednesday afternoon last December, a Thursday morning in January, during a ferry disembarkation a Wednesday evening in February, and then Saturday afternoon after market in February.

rwassum: Little blurry I guess

rwassum: so lastly, here’s some photos of the Saturdays farmers market. So here’s the South. Prominent area again during the market last April.

rwassum: And then here are just some comparisons of the space on a Monday morning versus the Saturday market.

rwassum: So very, very different conditions, I would say, between the 2

rwassum: and then here is what our community vulnerability mapping tool showed us about the area. So downtown. San Francisco is a densely populated diverse community, and the degrees of social and contamination vulnerability indicated by the tool covers a broad range.

rwassum: Generally speaking, indicators associated with higher social vulnerability in the areas near the ferry building include renter, occupancy, no vehicle ownership as well, some combination of limited English proficiency, very low income, no high school degree disability, individuals over 65 living alone, non us citizens and people of color.

rwassum: And then regarding potential sea level rise, using current site elevations. This map shows what 24 inches of sea level rise would look like if the site remained unchanged.

rwassum: Using the Ocean Protection Council’s 2018 sea level rise guidance, 24 inches of sea level rise is equivalent to the mean higher high water level under the medium to high risk aversion, high emission scenario at mid century. So at this level, there’s potential for flooding during a hundred year storm event.

rwassum: And this shows what 66 inches of sea level rise would look like if the unchanged. This roughly corresponds to the mean higher high water level at 2090, and the medium to high risk aversion, high emission scenario, as well as the 100 year storm condition in mid century.

and in this scenario the project site and much of the waterfront would be inundated.

rwassum: So just reminder. Following this agenda item, the port will be providing a briefing on the San Francisco waterfront coastal flood study which should provide some more context on the ports area-wide adaptation efforts.

rwassum: Alright. And then here’s just a quick refresher. On some of the major topics of discussion from the previous review on April tenth of last year. Note that the project description has changed since then. Most notably in the removal of the bayfront kitchens. Alteration to the east side of the building and the ferry plaza kiosk from the proposal

rwassum: in their review the boards were concerned that public spaces and amenities would be removed, but that the demand for them might not be accommodated in the new design. And we’re interested in seeing metrics for amenities such as seating in order to compare existing and proposed conditions.

rwassum: It was noted that the ferry building and surrounded public access areas are an equalizing space for tourists and local residents alike, and they were concerned that the public nature of the site would be reduced.

rwassum: The boards discuss how the gravitas of civic architecture contributes to the public character with the building and plaza, and how more substantial materials could ground the public areas of the site, while more playful, lighter materials could help define the private commercial areas.

rwassum: The boards also discuss improving the continuity materials and design between the proposed project and neighboring civic sites, such as the Weed Weeda Plaza

rwassum: members noted the importance of the transportation program that the plaza supports and that the space plays a significant role in making connections to all modes of transit members express concerns that with the transition from public transportation hub to more private uses. They also suggested, considering the pathways that draw people to the plaza and different destinations of the site, and finding a balance in way, finding between using the building as landmark using design elements of draws

and appropriate signage.

rwassum: Alright! And then, before we pass this over to the port staff, I’d like to quickly summarize the questions in the staff. Report that we’d like the Board to consider in your review. So first, please consider how this project meets the public access objectives provided in Bcd’s public access design guidelines

rwassum: and then Staff has also identified some specific questions. We’d like to ask the Board about the design at this stage these are one to the proposed alterations reflect the civic nature of the ferry building, and potential demands for public uses of the site is this, if nature of the building and surrounding public spaces supported by the materiality and design of the proposed project.

rwassum: 2. Do the proposed alterations sufficient sufficiently maintain or enhance circulation and connectivity to and along the shoreline. 3. Do the proposed activation areas along the building frontages collectively and individually promote an inviting and usable public access environment at the ferry building and allow for adequate public circulation to site entrances and destinations.

rwassum: or, in particular, with the proposal to place a cafe, market zone and public seating area in the South Promenade, activate and improve the quality of the bal public access experience in balance with addressing the public access and circulation needs of the project area and then 5 to the proposed elements. Support a cohesive, legible and inviting public access program.

So first, I want to check to see if the board has any clarifying questions for me on anything presented in this introduction?

rwassum: Any questions from anyone. Those permits all stack on top of each other, none of them undid anything.

rwassum: Let’s see.

rwassum: I think, the one so some of them do

rwassum: like they reference one another. But that 1973 and the 2,000 permit or the one kind of that, specifically transferring the responsibility for the ferry closet over to kind of a new permit.

rwassum: But other than that. They kind of just all like, lie on top of each other like that. Yeah.

rwassum: okay, I’ll just jump in here. I just want to acknowledge that. Stephan Pellegrini board member Pellegrini has joined the meeting, so we have that on the record. Thank you. I don’t think there’s any other clarifying question. So we’ll move on. Thank you. Hey, Catherine?

rwassum: So then I’ll pass it over to Dan Hodap from the part of San Francisco to present the port staff report. Thank you, Katherine and I wanna remind Gordon committee members that will do. Speak, speak up loudly, but we tend to pick up very well for those that are watching online. But we don’t pick up so well for those that are sitting right here.

rwassum: So please remember that. Use your big voice. Okay, I wanna summarize a few points about Hudson’s proposal. Hudson Pacific Park properties and proposal for the ferry Building area on their purpose of the Ferry building project has stated. Staff report is to improve the public access, visitor, experience.

rwassum: clarify and enhance pedestrian circulation around the ferry building.

rwassum: extend visitor hours to also make the building an evening destination, you know, 10 to 7,

rwassum: and accomplish these goals while minimizing changes to the buildings. Historic significance, architecture. Excuse me

rwassum: at this second review Hudson’s design team will focus on free areas enhancements to activate the embark at arrow frontage which include weather protection in the arcades and other entry areas on that west front of the building

rwassum: and canopies to shelter outdoor dining in the 30 foot width area adjacent to the building.

rwassum: She is a public access area described specifically as an outdoor dining market. So that’s first. The second is along the south end of the building.

rwassum: They’re proposing furnishings, lighting and identity features to activate this side of the building and the strength of the pedestrian character of the area.

rwassum: This is an area there would be changes to the public access. Definition supplies.

rwassum: The third is in the closet behind the Ferry Building Ferry Plaza. They’ll describe minor improvements to extend us into the evening, and for special events

rwassum: regarding that answers to some questions that came up with previous meeting.

rwassum: Golden Gate Ferry does not have immediate plans to alter their facility other than to repair existing flows. They’ve mentioned longer term ideas unlikely be within the next 5 years.

rwassum: The port second of the port’s working with a broker on Ferry Plaza East, which is the restaurant at the far end of the Plaza.

rwassum: There is a potential tenant, for it’s early in the discussions and changes are not likely to occur for at least 2 years and we don’t and won’t anticipate that this would impact any of the proposals you see in front of you tonight

rwassum: the waterfront resilience plan, which would be the next item on the agenda, describes ideas for how to protect the ferry building during rising sea levels. The team is working with army corp engineers on the flood study

rwassum: implementation would not be for 5 or more years. And the last point is, Hudson is aware of all of these items I just mentioned, and is aware that some of their investments could be impacted by future projects. That’s part of the responsibility to take this.

rwassum: So we also have questions for the committee different than or 3. What focus on here

one will. The enhancements along the market arrow side of the building activate this frontage

rwassum: with inviting cafes and public spaces, and we’ll continue to allow appropriate views in the building and start building.

rwassum: Second along the south end of the building. Will the proposed cafe market zone, a public seating area and driveway.

rwassum: With the sign and signage features activate this area, that collection of improvements are planning. and will it add clarity to the circulation out of the building and from the market arrow promenades and back.

rwassum: and will improve its pedestrian character like you saw images of it in Katherine’s presentation a couple minutes ago.

rwassum: and the third is to the proposed elements together, support a cohesive civic design compatible with the historic district.

rwassum: With that I’d like to introduce Chris Pearson from who’s going to introduce the design team.

rwassum: you know.

rwassum: Thank you. Guys, thanks. Good evening. Sorry.

rwassum: So do I need to pull that one

rwassum: last

rwassum: should pull it up.

rwassum: Okay.

rwassum: awesome. Good evening. My name is Chris Pearson, Senior, Vice President of Development, planning for us in Pacific. I appreciate the opportunity I could talk about our announcement project and talk about our role as stewards from this building you. You will hear from our design team. You will hear from Jane who has led us in guide in the very building in the last 20 years. I did wanna provide some context before. We got through this project for us is so much about our stewardship

rwassum: and so much about our partnership with our tenants. It’s really to continue to engage with this building and bring it to life.

rwassum: At all times. Today the building is open from about 6 Am. To 10 pm. Every evening. We lose activity. At about 6 30 pm. As barrier riders go home for the evening. Kind of pre covid

rwassum: our tenants. We’re experiencing kind of an uptick in sales

rwassum: which has allowed us to really rejuvenate the very really marketplace by focusing on women and ipod businesses

rwassum: post covid. What we’ve seen is a 20% decline in sales.

rwassum: The sales are really attributed to work from home. We’ve seen our tourism levels back to Pre 19 levels. But our tenants are still recovering, and they’re also dealing with an increase in food costs. Labor costs everything else is trying to balance that with operating into this historic building.

rwassum: Our hope and our desire is to find ways to activate this building into the evening and to really attract individuals, to let them know that they’re building is alive and well in the evening, and really encourage our vendors to fail them. Past 6 pm.

rwassum: How do we do that?

rwassum: Well, this year we’re focusing down, lighting the building, which is something you’ll see in the come in the coming months. Hopefully, we’ll light up the exterior of the building to really announce to the city of San Francisco that the building is alive and well in the evenings to Jane and her team have focused on really trying to provide events for civic engagement.

rwassum: Last year they hosted 55 events on site, with the hope to increase that overtime really providing free opportunities to engage with the building and expose it to the broader city, as everybody knows it is, but really give our vendors opportunities to engage with the new customer base both in the daytime and throughout the evening on weekends.

Over the last several months we’ve been really focused

rwassum: on

rwassum: coming down the brass tax of this project and working with our partners to come up with an opportunity that we thought supported some of our most important tenants like food wise but also gave us an opportunity to bring the project to life. And so what you’ll see which you’ll hear from Carl and team today is really how we really want to activate in Barcodero

rwassum: how we wanna light up the very plaza in the evenings to really attract folks back there, and how we wanna activate the sound of prominent to show people this building is a lived and experienced organism, and not just the architectural generally come to love so much.

rwassum: I think some of the questions that we had in our previous presentation was about public public access and public seating this project will allow us to create 56 more public seats

rwassum: on the South problem, and I will be able to dedicate additional 236 square feet public access. All things we feel like meet the overarching goals of both these groups today.

rwassum: I’d now like to introduce them to skip for just a bit, but I now like to introduce Jane Connors to give you some con context for our stewardship on the very building.

Thank you, Chris.

rwassum: Good evening. I’m Jane Connors. I’m the general manager of the ferry building, and I’ve had the honor of running the ferry building for the last 20 years, and being a part of this team, it’s remarkable

rwassum: opportunity. And when people ask me, what is it like to run the ferry building, I always remind them we’re not just property managers, we truly are stewards. We are looking at ways to make the building better. We’re looking at ways to make the community engaged and better, and make our events better.

rwassum: And one of the things I’m really proud of in the last 4 years, and I think Dan and Mark Pyaz would agree, is we restored the building facade, culminating with the restoration of the 245 foot clock tower. So we take historic preservation very seriously, and we’re really proud of that accomplishment and bringing in local artisans to do this kind of detailed work on completing the project.

rwassum: and one of the best parts of our job is handing keys to these merchants. So when we hand keys to like Senior Csig or over Thomas, he just patties or brand crapery. It’s one of the best days ever these food artisans have been waiting to open at the very building. It’s a culmination of what they are working for.

rwassum: And then the last year we brought more vendors in you know. Reams has opened in Arabic comfort food. shop. Right in the Central Pass through. We open fatted calf, who started very positive farmers market over 20 years ago. A year ago they came back to the building and are really thrilled to be rooted in the community where they started

rwassum: and we announced New Cammonnian restaurant at the south end of the very building 2 weeks ago. And again, somebody who’s totally thrilled to be a part of the community of businesses at the very building.

rwassum: and I wanted to highlight at the top left photo. So Kiva grew up in San Francisco. He spent his childhood on the waterfront fishing with his dad. Little matter of fact, his mom is a long, short person that worked on the San Francisco waterfront.

rwassum: She celebrated her eightieth birthday yesterday at the Ferry building with a birthday party, but when we went to him with the opportunity to work at the ferry building to open a shop. It was again the culmination of what he’s worked for in the last 10 years

rwassum: to be able to hang his hat here and say, This is where I am. After all this hard work, it’s really remarkable. But the other thing about being a steward at the very building is also listening to tenants and about what they need to make their businesses succeed. And in the last 20 years we’ve expanded shops. We’ve made their shops better, and in the last 4 years the great assessment of Covid

rwassum: is listening to these tenants and what they need, and it’s outdoor dining. It’s better lighted. It’s extending the experience beyond lunch and the the 3 days a week of the farmers market.

rwassum: you know. And so I think what we’re proposing today are subtle, subtle changes, but great enhancements to prolong the experience of the.

rwassum: And one of our most important partnerships is with food wise. That’s the nonprofit that operates the very positive farmers market. I’ve had the honor again of working with Lulu and Christina here tonight, Andrea. Thanks for coming here. But we listen to them, too, and we’ve listened to them, you know, up in since last April, and making changes to this presentation into the proposed enhancements.

rwassum: But again. I’m really proud. In the last 4 years we never closed. One day during the pandemic they operated 3 days a week, and provided nourishment and connection a very, very important part of what we’ve got from the last few years.

rwassum: and starting 4 years ago, prior to the pandemic, we were producing about 4 to 6 seasonal events a year.

rwassum: and we started to realize, let’s bring in in house marketing and events teams to really help cultivate the community connection with our partners in different community neighborhood groups.

rwassum: And over the last Chris mentioned, we’ve produced 55 events last year. We’re planning on 150 events, and that includes cooking classes, Yoga classes, music, etc. And these are recent activations with community groups from the Chinatown dance troupe and the lion dancers during lunar New Year

rwassum: and then on the back plaza, we’re doing activations like the outdoor Yoga class. The Nighttime Activation skate night. We have a monthly plant market on Sundays, and of course our music during the Thursday and Friday lunches during the summer time.

rwassum: But again it all goes down to ways to make the very building better. And what we’re proposing today are these enhancements that we will that will bring the building into the evening and other days of the week.

rwassum: and I’m introduced. Carl Cain.

rwassum: Thank you. Jane Carl Cade, Vice President of Construction for how to pacific properties

rwassum: coming to Hudson. A big part of the excitement was be able to work on this project with Jane and her team in order to make what is already great success

rwassum: an even more special and active part of our city here in San Francisco. I and our design team, led by a lot of coach Robsky, from Paige and Turnbull and Sarah Keel from landscape architects are going to take you through. What we’re doing. I think what Jane really tells us about. That’s important is that the design is really driven by the people

rwassum: that make the ferry building experience so much of the building, it will and needs to stay the same by a virtue of its heritage status. But I think the people, and how they need to be able to use the space is what is driven driving, what you’re going to see today.

rwassum: So since we were last here, we’ve been working with a number of groups, and we’ve made some modifications. Some of you were here with us last year, and you’ll see that we’ve really paired back and focused on the most important areas to support our merchants and the other people that make the ferry building.

rwassum: Specifically, we’re gonna have 3 key areas across the front.

rwassum: The North Arcade, with the cafe zone in front of it, the South Arcade, with the cafe market zone in front of it, the gateway area, which is a huge opportunity that we sometimes call the wedge

rwassum: for obvious reason. If you look at the plan here and then finally, an actual reduced scope where we’re really just looking at lighting specifically on the that plaza that’s much needed to make that a space that can be well used into the evening

rwassum: about what you’re not going to see or what we’ve removed. First, we in working with food wise, our farmers market partner. We decided to remove the kiosk from the back plaza and and go further, and really limit any fixed obstructions on the back plaza that make it hard not only to operate the market, but also to load in and load out of the market and food wise is here today.

rwassum: Second, we remove the bay front kitchen component from the center back of the building. It’s really just not core to what’s most important right now. And so we’re focusing in on what’s going to most drive the merchant needs. And the merchant merchant vitality.

rwassum: Here you can see a quick preview of what we’re looking at in the front arcade. This is the North Arcade.

rwassum: We’ve got merchants, and to be clear. Many of our merchants are both restaurants and food purveyors for take away and prepared foods,

rwassum: occupying fully occupying

that was front arcades

rwassum: and and spilling out open onto the cafe zoom.

rwassum: It’s important to note here, and if you can see it in the rendering in 2,003, roll down grill gates were put in as a part of that project.

rwassum: So we went back to that same location and looked at the way in which those are installed behind and separate from the building arcade and are looking at how we can create a moveable glass panel system that will be open during the regular daytime, when the building is is generally functioning well, and have that open condition that we would like to have.

rwassum: and then have them when it’s cold or windy and into the nighttime be able to have something that would be closed today. Those rolled down our case that you saw earlier. They still don’t do much about wind or temperature into the evening. So that’s one of the important things to notice here.

rwassum: The cafe zone, as you see, is lively, is projecting live onto the embargo frontage, including dining zones, seating and public, seating along the front and actually over towards the sort the portico. There is also a public non dedicated seating added there, in addition to the canopy.

rwassum: we think the wedge and the, as we call it, around the office for the gateway, as we’re starting to call it more publicly as a huge opportunity.

rwassum: There we now have a great neighbor in the weed of Plaza. The building itself, with the restoration complete is looking beautiful. But in between, as you’re going to see, there’s a real question of what to add

rwassum: this will give us a chance to better frame the existing driveway, and both with the cornerstone that mimics the weed of plaza, and with the Marquis sign announcing both the ferry plaza, and you can’t quite see in this. But individual gates

rwassum: and directions for those gates down below. We think this can be a really special place. We also are, gonna introduce a new cafe zoom towards the rear left portion of this and a new public seating area that will benefit from the warmth of this being the southern side of the building.

rwassum: Finally, and this is really quite simple. We really need great lighting out on the plaza. What you see, here is the only change is having a series of lights that we’ll talk more about, that. Make this a place that everyone would like to spend time well into the evening.

rwassum: So with that, I’d like to call up lot of Coach Rossi from Page Interpol.

rwassum: Thank you very much, Carl, for great overview of the project. I’m a lot of control. Excuse me, and principal with Page in Truman.

rwassum: I was part of the design team preservation design team in 2,003, when the renovation of this building, brilliant to become the the new destination in the city, and I’m part of the same firm that wrote the design guidelines in 1978,

rwassum: that define the approach to rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the very building. And I can assure you that in the proposed design. There’s nothing that we see that contradicts these design guidelines.

rwassum: So as as architects our goal is to meet the clients needs, and we’re faced with 1 million questions and 1 million problems as preservation architects was paramount to us is making sure that

rwassum: for the magnitude of significance that this building is within the context of San Francisco and nationwide. We are bringing design interventions that are compatible and sympathetic to the fabric of the existing building.

rwassum: So as Carl outline the the Arcade proposal and the cafe zone. Our focus is to bring warmth, light, and consistency of the design along the along the west side of the building by integrating new uses. The restaurant uses that will occupy the ark.

rwassum: But the the character of the building is not changing at all. We are integrating new ways in system that will remain open the majority of the day. They will only be close at night. When restaurants are closed, and when

rwassum: on a few days we have weather that is not really comfortable for the visitors. So so that’s the purpose of this intervention and the outdoor area with the canopies. What they’re doing is they’re framing the space for outdoor seating while remaining completely flexible.

rwassum: We have an exhibit here that actually helps you orient yourself a little bit. These images side by side, tells you what the character is of the of the arcade, and how it’s being used by visitors on the left and on the right, how we envision will be used with variety of

rwassum: visitors, and and public uses. The benches and the seating along the edges of the canopies are open for public, and will not prevent anyone to be using the the building just as people are engaging the traffic that that’s traffic that goes along the

rwassum: right here, we it. This may be a little bit faint, but it gives you a sense. This is a plan that shows how the the seating is being planned within the canopies that restaurants will be using. But on the market day, we envision it being

rwassum: we pulled back because it’s it’s completely flexible. The barriers easily move to the back to allow the use of the of the of the area by the farmers market, and these are the tents layout that we contemplated could easily go there. So so that is how we demonstrate flexibility that comes along with a proposed design. And speaking of design, guidelines

rwassum: the big, the big focus of preservation design guidelines is flexibility and reversibility, and what we’re proposing with the canopy structures is completely reversible. Their light, their airy they they serve to organize the space for outdoor seating and engaging visitors

here. We’re looking at the view of the our key from the May, and and it shows you that the focus of the design here is to maintain the the transparency of their key. There’s no, there’s no barriers that we’re that we’re planning. So anybody who sees the arcade in the in the images that

rwassum: that Chris shared before with the view of the of the length of their feed. This view will remain unobstructed with future interventions. This is how you this is a good example of how you read the keys now, and this is how you continue to read them once the once the project takes place.

rwassum: We wanted to show a different angle, and there were questions about previously how the and where the new glazing systems will be installed. So the the role of dates that you see right now that we show you in previous slides. This is exactly the location where we’re gonna be installing on the the new blazing systems. So essentially the interventions that took place

rwassum: in 2,003 that they were meant to be irreversible are being replaced with a new system. But the system that allows

rwassum: visitors to be comfortable inside the building, and this is the view at night, when on, on those, on those days when the weather is is not friendly. This is how we can see people and be enjoying being inside those spaces. But the the systems are transparent, and they will look inviting and warm from the outside and the inside

rwassum: side by side views on the left, daytime on the on the right, nighttime of the same of the same space, and just to touch quickly on the materiality the civic nature of the building calls for the respect to the original materials.

rwassum: What we’re introducing in terms of limited changes and very, very limited interventions. The storefronts, for example, we’re using the the same color scheme and the same talent that exists on the building. Now, the new canopy structures are gonna be again using the darker steel

rwassum: still frame. The frames are gonna be painted and slightly colors that are complementary to the existing materials. And here in the next slide you can see how the calendar structures are providing this engagement of the traffic that exists today by inviting people in and activating this front of the building that right now is under utilized. So we’re very excited about that.

But then I would like to ask Sarah here to speak about the exterior closet.

Thanks so much. It’s great to be back and to show you all some response to your design feedback from last time

rwassum: for the record. My name is Sarah Peel, and I have a firm called Peel Landscape Architecture.

rwassum: When we started working on this project one it’s obviously a place of a lot of seriousness. And we were trying to solve a problem of arrival and of knowing when you got here. But also when you got to the building, but also when you got to the plaza, and how you knew where to go, and

rwassum: over the history of the building. It’s changed. It used to be water where we, the plaza, is, and it was more directive when it was water.

rwassum: And so some of what we studied was how it changed as you moved through space. So it’s when you’re approaching the building, you site on the tower. But as you get closer to it, the tower actually disappears, and kind of lose your bearings. And so we were looking at what would it take to feel like? You knew where you were going, whichever direction you’re going, and what would make it feel welcoming and public to be going here.

rwassum: And we showed you this diagram. That has really been our North star for thinking about arriving at the building along this south edge. And so it’s a sort of secondary crossroads that works in relation to the crossroads inside of the building, but completes a kind of circulation experience that allows you to move inside and outside the building

rwassum: and activate all of the spaces around it, and it works as one system rather than an interior experience and an exterior experience.

rwassum: What we heard last time we were here were a number of things. But I’m gonna highlight a few. I think there was a concern about the materials. The amount of color. Was this really gonna work for food wise. And the farmers market? Did it really work for someone rushing to a very?

rwassum: Did it feel truly public when you were here? And I think those were a lot of terrific comments. And we really continued that conversation over the last 6 months to a year

rwassum: with people who use the space every day and have a lot more conversations which

rwassum: got very much into specific things around operations. How does this place really work? There’s a built arc architecture. But there is also a sort of programming and operations side which we attended to in our thinking.

rwassum: and when you arrive here today, particularly at the south end of the building. It’s a bit indeterminate. It’s unclear exactly where you’re supposed to walk. It’s unclear exactly how to enter. It’s not totally clear when you get to different plaza, and that those are some of the things we started to solve with our interventions.

rwassum: So our interventions are quite a bit scaled back to the last time we were here. And we’re really building on what’s come before us much more directly. So, for example, we’ve added a cornerstone seating element

rwassum: that is almost a piece of a glacier that cleaved off from the weed of Plaza. We’ve added the gateway sign and kept that to announce you entering Ferry Plaza, and we have activation and spill out from the building on the eastern half. Of the wedge. And all of those things together begin to suggest.

rwassum: This is really a pedestrian place, and give you some cues for how to move about, and we’ve enhanced that with some ground markings you the actual things that we’re using to do this. We really want to feel like they’re part of things that are already here, so that we deposit. Granted the proportion of the seating. The way that we’re building that cornerstone is going to relate very directly to the materials that were used at. We deposit

rwassum: the ferry plaza signage is taking a lot of queues from a traditional gate to a ferry, but one that you’ll be able to see clearly from embargo.

rwassum: And when you see those things laid out on the plan, they’re working together with elements that are already here. You can see the seating that’s filling out. And this choose identity elements that we have.

rwassum: You can also see a mosaic medallion and some ground markings that are further helping to define the space. But we’re being really careful. Not to add additional fixed elements that get in the way of things that food wise is doing out here and allow flexibility for setting up the farmers market.

rwassum: The idea for the medallions came really from 2 things. One is there’s a tradition inside the ferry building of these mosaics that relate to the market hall. There’s also one on the mezzanine. There’s also a sort of way finding medallion at gate to a ferry, and we wanted to use these medallions, and each of the entrances to the ferry building to queue that this was a place of public entry.

rwassum: So as you move between outdoor seating and other things, this tells you you’re really supposed to enter here, and it seems like an opportunity to tell a story about the waterfront, either animals that are part of our waterfront, or perhaps both, and we would work with an artist on the final design

rwassum: on the back side of this very plaza. I think you’ve heard everyone saying a lot of things are working here. And there’s a kind of you know, civic ecology, I would say that’s happening here because you have the farmers market. There’s also a really great lunchtime scene on a sunny day where people are using the tables and chairs that are being put up and down by Pacific.

rwassum: The picture on the bottom right really shows the problem we’re trying to solve, which is right now. You almost don’t perceive that there is this space back there at night, because the lighting so falls away in that area.

rwassum: Our design proposal is very small. We have a series of lights that march the edge kind of the way that lights can mark the edge of a roadway to sort of clarify circulation, and we have additional seating that’s being added just to expand the use in that area. During lunchtime.

rwassum: This is a view, then, of what that might look like at the sort of dusky commuter hours when someone’s moving to catch a ferry with some additional activation. Maybe someone would choose to linger. It’s those small decisions to do one more thing before you go home. That could really make a difference for a lot of the small proprietors here, and we see just clarifying the circulation.

rwassum: adding the lighting as being things that could really be game changers in this area. So I’m available to answer questions, and with that I will hand it back to Carl.

Thank you so much, Sarah. Thanks everyone on the team, and thanks to the community, for we look forward to your question.

rwassum: Thank you.

rwassum: Okay. So the next thing we’ll deal with is clarifying questions from the Pu from the proponent presentation. So I’ll just go down the row here. Any clarifying questions.

rwassum: Go ahead, Stefan. Any clarifying questions? I have one question. I think, came up before right. It was the relationship between the relationship between the proposed lights here. Oh, my goodness!

rwassum: The relationship between the proposed lights and the pads of Gold Street lights that are actually located in just outfront. And I was curious about the hype relationship between

rwassum: to to clarify Justin Herman, or there’s so many positives around the site, so directly in front of that very building.

rwassum: the path of gold lights and their height there, and the proposed lights that actually are carried around the sides of the building and introducing.

Yes, we looked at extending those lights as an option, and we ended up selecting something a little bit shorter and in part to keep with the proportion of the building. And when they hit the architecture.

rwassum: okay.

rwassum: I had a question about the

rwassum: Does the cafe permit? Maybe this is for BCC. Actually, staff. Does the cafe permit on the marketer side allow for permanent structures or just temporary structures.

rwassum: It doesn’t it doesn’t mention structures. It’s just that it’s allow.

rwassum: I mean, it’s an allowable use to have outdoor dining and

rwassum: the market space. That’s how it’s defined. Mentioned anything about any permanent instruction. Okay, although it allows for like plan review of like the proposed use. And so

rwassum: the dots in the kind of unused space on the other side the Southern Arcade or like the Southern

rwassum: cafe zone both of those have, like those permanent fixtures, but like the rest of it, doesn’t.

rwassum: question. Well, the seating on the way to be associated with any of the indoor uses, or is that kind of general seating. It’s it’s both. The seating immediately in front of the entrance on the wedge is for public access, so not associated with indoor use, but anybody who

bring out their goods and have a seat, or just walk up and have a have lunch

rwassum: the eastern portion of the wedge. The whole is to actually activate that the cities flee space right now potentially in the future as a potential cap they use will bring people back and show the activation kind of life that we’re trying to achieve.

rwassum: And then, just because I’m curious, is there a reason why you’re not including the South arcade and that cafe space in the project right now. Yeah, so currently that spaces least of food wise are are open. Our goal is to continue to work with them to activate that space as we work with them on the business bench in the future. What that space could be. That’s when that Arcade would really be considered for improvement. But it’s just

rwassum: right now that would be approved

rwassum: in the South. I would say. Consider it right now, because it’s being proposed as like kind of a bigger picture. Later date

rwassum: thing. I think because the details are most flushed out in the northern area like you can kind of focus your comments on that. But I think if it all kind of can move forward together, it likely won’t come back here. And they get around to it.

rwassum: and we acknowledge there’s a responsibility of symmetry in terms of the exterior. It’s just important that food wise is food wise, and it’s not a restaurant, right? So

rwassum: physically from the exterior there will be symmetry.

rwassum: Yes. Thank you for the presentation. I had a question regarding the wedge area and the painting that is meant to kind of guide

rwassum: people further towards the the paws in the back.

rwassum: Can you explain? Kind of reasons of where that

rwassum: that meeting starts, and I noticed it doesn’t extend to the curve line. Is there a particular one for that?

rwassum: So the new paving is really just a graphic that’s in the driveway, and it stops at the light ribbon partly out of deference to the light ribbon, but also just as clarity for other paper things are happening

while you’re there. The sign that says Ferry Plaza, who is that intended to inform

rwassum: that is intended to inform people arriving primarily from the embargo and looking for the ferry plaza or looking for ferries. And it’s something that

rwassum: actually we’ve battered around quite a bit, and it was something that was designed by many people. So it was an element that I’ll be honest. I was at first about, but it was something that was seen as operation really

rwassum: about mental geography. But many people are not aware that the plaza that they visit on Saturday is also their 6 other days of the week. And so I think there’s an important role of pulling people.

rwassum: even semi regular visitors back to that public location

rwassum: and and announcing that that is there as a public cloud. Okay, interesting. Thanks. One other question. Can you point out what is different in the North Arcade

rwassum: from what you presented last time, or is it primarily operational?

rwassum: I do the flexibility, but I mean the design is substantially the same. I think maybe it’s more clearly on the operation side of it. I think there’s been questions on, is it? Gonna close the space I roll that space open and enjoyable. We think even it’s use as a central cafe does provide for that activation. I mean, today, we have kiosk there. We have about a 9 foot walkway that really just serves as access to those kiosks.

rwassum: We think by being able to close it in the evenings that will make it more attractive to potential users, both

rwassum: customers and potential restaurant users. But in the end it’s the design is exactly the same. But it’s it’s operation be more clear on how we plan on utilizing great? So my my question is, when you move the railings to make room for the tents

rwassum: in the in the render. They kind of look like they’re part of the architecture, which is good. But at the same time you need something flexible. What is that really gonna be? And in terms of serving alcohol does that

rwassum: height of barrier work, or might something taller up here? So I think this is actually where there was a refinement, because we had, we got clarity that that needed to be removable, or it’s on piece.

rwassum: And so

rwassum: there we go. So here in that kind of middle of top, you can see the spec of what we’re looking at. So I think it needs to be formidable enough that it that it does its job, but moveable as well. And I think that’s what we’re proposing from that alcohol licensing standpoint about defining space. I mean we could define it a number of ways. So this is just the design, it solution. Thank you.

rwassum: Just a clarification on the city.

rwassum: so the the the area is open from 6 Am. To 10 pm, okay? And so the moveable exterior, CD, does that get packed up every night? Or, yeah, we have porters who essentially move that seating in and out

rwassum: right? And so the new additional exterior seating that’s moveable would be, ha! I would have that same. Okay, thank you.

Thank you. So

rwassum: could someone explain how the arcades were used in the original

rwassum: prairie building design? How people use them? And

rwassum: it seems like that’s not necessarily what they’re being used for. Now, I’m not sure. And can you also explain how the

rwassum: proposed uses is the same as it is now, or the way it was before.

rwassum: Absolutely so the building has evolved. And it’s in its history. Obviously so, they are case initially or partially use the storage space. We’re limited circulation of the circulation there. As as with the latest renovation, our aids have been maintained as a as a circulation space. They have not been used

rwassum: programmatically for anything other than circulation. So I think if you look at the life of the very building. So in the original conception, there were times where these were, there were in some of the caves.

rwassum: There were actually ticket booths. At other times it was actually where you loaded and unloaded

rwassum: free that had come over from the mainland.

rwassum: I think, as a part of the 2,003

rwassum: version we didn’t. They? They did were not used as ticket, boost and freight, and I don’t know the exact date when they were last for, but because the low, the first floor was all freight. Freight processing, much like an airport would be today.

rwassum: We have had rep. But food wise importantly in the South Arcade, with their storage and their kitchen, that they open up and actually do different

rwassum: programming in the South Arcade. And then in the North Arcade. You have had. This. These kiosks.

rwassum: The problem is, the kiosk have have been had a limited kitchen capacity.

rwassum: Do their construction. Inform but this actually is attempting to have better functionality. But with similar qualities of the space

rwassum: been there since 2,015. That’s correct. So they’ve been activating as sort of publicly accessible customer base for since.

rwassum: Yeah, thank you for that. II always thought they were a place you could run if it was right. But I think I have one more question So when ferry passengers are queuing up or staging to go into one of them

rwassum: games?

rwassum: Do they use the free billing at all, or like especially an increment, whether that fit into your plan or that change, you know. Well, it really isn’t changing with with this.

rwassum: What people have typically done is many fair customers we find well, on rainy days, basically time their trip very precisely from their office, and are coming through the building rather quickly, making it more important that we have this wide open lateral passageways through the building. But some people will come and be inside, and and so it’s when it’s raining.

rwassum: But I would, I would say overall, we’re not impeding on any business that’s called out for very passenger.

rwassum: Okay, thank you. Let’s go to the Wwdac for clarifying questions. Maybe just

rwassum: go down the road. Yeah.

rwassum: Do you ask any? Yes, go ahead. Do I need to turn any?

rwassum: Do you have a mic? I think you have a handheld mic right there.

I

rwassum: thank you for all

rwassum: we’re continuing.

rwassum: Okay.

rwassum: is this better?

rwassum: Thanks, everybody, for great reporting and sharing your meeting minutes and your staff report was with us.

rwassum: It was very informative, after more, almost a year, to really get into the deeper questions that you are all touching on in in your reporting.

rwassum: There was one particular aspect that struck me, and I’m not asking my questions necessarily in the Board of Importance.

rwassum: I see a comment in the staff report that the information about signage for future restaurants was not discussed

rwassum: and given that the new restaurants with the Arcade now being occupied by them are a very important part of the public image of the building. I am wondering.

rwassum: why you decided to keep information about the signage out of this discussion. I believe personally, it will have a great impact on how we perceive the building as in it’s public nature.

rwassum: private signage on restaurants over retail is always something that is informative, but does not necessarily contribute to the public nature the expression of the public nature of the building.

rwassum: Maybe we should just go take that maybe I could ask some proponents to talk about the the how the process of signage works. And yeah, II think on that a and it was, and staff can also answer. I think at this point we did not have a specific proposal in mind, not having

rwassum: merchants in hand. Precisely so. We were figuring that there would be scrutiny, and whether there are principles set forth by this group, or whether that staff implements or another process. We’re open to that. But I would also just highlight. I mean, in in our opinion,

rwassum: signage is important. A lot of a lot of times for restaurants. But in the re, the reality of business activation that we’re we’re aiming for on the market there. Hope does allow for people to know that there’s something there to experience. So we do think just having that activation can diminish the need for

rwassum: audition. Yes, shortly after the ferry building was renovated in 2,001, I think. Open a little bit. After that we had the ferry building team develop

rwassum: sign guidelines for the building that address the many tenants that are on the inside. And we’ve administered that throughout this 20 year period. And it’s been very successful in doing an appropriate level of signage. It did not reach to these outside arcade areas that was not anticipated at the time. I believe what would happen is

rwassum: should this proposal move forward and restaurants go in there. We’d ask the ferry building team to bring on a historic architect again. And further, these sign guidelines and document that so that when tenants come, tenants go so that each one just has to fit into that box of how the sign guidelines address. So it would be a consistent quality, and those don’t exist at this review yet.

rwassum: Thank you, Dan. Okay, go ahead. Next question. My second question would perhaps be directed toward Miss Connor, I think, after 20 years of management, she gave a great description about the needs of tents, the very kind of emphasis on home clone small businesses expressing the local character. My question to the Hudson team would be, what possible tenants are you envisioning for your restaurants?

rwassum: The least steps of the restaurants is actually directed more towards small restaurants.

rwassum: Perhaps was looking at the God’s as an example which is more a not fast food. There will be a very unfair description, but quicker food type of restaurant. What are you envisioning to complement what this con has been working on for so many years.

rwassum: I think you know, you know, we, as I said, speaking about the stewardship, we’re always thinking about what’s additive to the building, and II would say we need a butcher, baker, candlestick maker at the very building, and we have that. But we also are looking at what’s you know what’s additive to the building, you know, as we need consistently each week, and are adding, you know, names to the list of people we wanted the building. And we’re always speaking with people

rwassum: blue. All it took 4 years of discussions with them to bring James into the building from starting at, you know, have been denally to the, to the very Plaza farmers market. So again, you know here, what we’ve done in the last 4 years is, I think, a great indicator of the calendar of people we’re looking for has always doubles into details, because, I believe, the changes of the glass line, including private entrances into these restaurants

rwassum: from the entrance of moving slightly further towards the facade building will make a difference, will make a big difference in how we perceive

rwassum: he’s not being privatizing to building. I think that is one of the biggest questions that is being asked by the public and by myself. How can we avoid that? Closing the arcade is not being perceived as privatizing the building. In in other cities, where we have arcades, there is a most connective element of a city looking at Bologna, for example, to other cities

rwassum: of how to stitch the city together. In this particular case the arcades, even if they’re only used in particular instances are an element of stitching the waterfront together when it rains, when it’s foggy. That is where you meet your friends.

rwassum: You’re not standing in the plaza, or in front of the building, or in the back of the building, just standing under the arcade.

rwassum: That’s that. II like to let that sit in the room. Perhaps people reflect on that as well. I have another quick. Can I just jump in there? I just wanna ask the proponent to make a comment if you would like, just in relation to that. So 2 things. First, II wanna be clear that we showcase our ones that

rwassum: came into the building since Hudson’s ownership in 20. So we only ask you to judge us by our record, and that we are have been working closely with merchants, typically people who have come up out of farm out of farmers, markets like like food wise and have over time been ready to take on the commitment of a brick and mortar space. So that is our intent. And if you look at each one of them, I think

I think it’s a great trajectory of what we plan in the future.

rwassum: I think the next piece of what we find, and my office is 2 blocks away. So I come here often in all weather. And I live here in the city, we find is on rainy days. People want to be in the name

rwassum: that we actually don’t get many people. If they’re coming as far as the face of the building. They want to come in and experience the life

rwassum: and the warmth of the knave shops. We are not getting a lot of people traveling laterally, even on rainy days. On warm days people want to be in front, and it’s looking at the building.

rwassum: And so they’re not as much in the in the arcade, and if they were, we would have more vitality in the kiosk that are located there than we have had for the last since 2,015.

rwassum: I mean, I think, like, let’s be clear. Our overarching goal is to try to bring people inside. We want them to experience the inside of the building our tenants to benefit.

rwassum: Please go ahead. I don’t wanna hog. The the question period here is, do you consider the increased demand for delivery and proposed additional restaurants on the front of the building

rwassum: to further put stress on the South. And we’re your primary access for delivering pickup is

rwassum: yeah, no, we have a very intricate delivery scenario and guidelines in our leases and our rules and Regs. And we work closely with all the tenants we actually work with the Vcdc. To prolong the delivery needs, because Hug Island is bringing us oysters at certain tides and Calgary. Murray was bringing us cheese during certain times of the day. It couldn’t just be regulated to a certain window.

rwassum: So in 2013 we worked very closely with the port in BC. DC. To tell the story of what our delivery needs are, and so we will continue to work closely with all of our vendors on the days of the times and the days they can can make deliveries.

rwassum: My. My last question that probably causes, as I continue listening to other people, is. I do not see any back of the house

rwassum: space indicated in your plans. You’re speaking about transparency and lightness and light touch, etcetera, when it comes to

rwassum: food storage

rwassum: back of the house activities that has to occur somewhere. Would you be needing? Take space from

building inside, facing stores in order to accommodate that.

rwassum: So so what you can see on the screen, which is really hard to read. Unfortunately, but hopefully, you can see that your package is a a potential layout of restaurant space which shows you their activate, their activate kitchen and everything else. So that that is similar to how dots operates they have.

rwassum: That’s the great example. If you guys get an opportunity to go over there. You walk in, you see

rwassum: an open concept kitchen where they do have all of their storage and their cooking, and we think the the space configuration is quite similar in just our Cape space as it is for us. So those kitchens would line up very similarly, as as you see today, and and I anticipate it. We’ve we’ve gotten this question before to be clear, I think any

rwassum: chef would love much, much more space and much more back of house and and space in the very building is tier. And so part of what it is is working with a restaurant tour who can fit in these concepts that were designed by studio Kda. And sometimes that means they have a more limited menu. So it’s really somebody who’s very specific. That said it also means you’re probably this is gonna work. Better for a newer entrepreneurial

rwassum: tenant to have that opportunity where they’re focused on their 4 great things, and not as much on a long menu.

rwassum: it. It partially answers my question, and not fully. But one last question, if if there’s for the architect could you perhaps show a drawing which in in large form shows the operation of the glass line pushing into the facade in into the arcade.

rwassum: and how the canopy interacts. You’re providing a 6 foot walkway between the glass line and the canopy, and then you have out out front of the canopy benches with which edge the public wide way. Would you describe that? To everybody in larger scale? It’s very difficult to read in your drawings. Ii would like to get some questions answered about

the possible usefulness of this inbound 6 foot 6 6 foot space

rwassum: right? And I it may be easier to look at the exhibit. But right here,

rwassum: so it’s it’s a little easier to see that in the print form. Apologize for the lightness of the line work there. But you can see that the the kitchen, the back of house and kitchen spaces, of course, against the back wall. And that’s where operational kitchen happens. The the circulation inside happens along the outer edge behind, right behind the glass. So there’s there’s

rwassum: there’s a path of circulation going along the lines. Have the cursor to show it, but it’s it happens happens in this zone right here and and it tracks along the entire length of the arcade.

rwassum: And furniture is Google obviously inside. So but there’s there’s enough space 6 feet or so.

rwassum: Allow for circulation behind the the last line and between the table line and the camera line. So that’s that’s the design intent here. Obviously it’s conceptual and will be fine.

rwassum: And then there is on the outside. There is a 6 6 foot pathway between the the canopy itself and the the face of them. It’s easier to see this in this image right here. Find that but this this image here

rwassum: shows the amount of space that is. plan for for circulation between their structures. The

rwassum: so for this group, our responsibilities for this group, our responsibilities. Talk about the quality of this particular space being public enough to be a full replacement of how we currently perceive the public realm in front of.

rwassum: And I question that this hidden space, particularly when it is on the front of the cannot be counted by the barriers. That that is enough to be perceived as part.

rwassum: Thank you, Catherine. Let’s keep moving. Alma, go ahead.

So, being brand new to this committee, and having had the benefit of seeing it in the previous presentation. I just have to say that I can appreciate all the details that went into the collaboration between all the designers and the manager of the space, etcetera. To make this happen, I

rwassum: think all the intentions to highlight the the life of the building in the afternoon are actually pretty valid. I had similar questions only on this front portion. I think all the ideas that are for the web and everything, and bring in light into their

rwassum: work. But this 6 feet seem a little bit of, you know.

rwassum: tight for that. And, more importantly, if we can pair that or it was more of a question

rwassum: is it possible to maintain, and the 6 foot clear on the inside at the same time? So then, you have the sense of coming in and out, and that was just the question when the when the glass is open, so you always feel like there’s some circulation, both inside the ark, like similar to the way it is right now.

rwassum: But also on the outside. And then just out of curiosity. And the second diagram of page 24,

rwassum: when the market is happening.

rwassum: Then the the sort of the barrier pushes out and that will space was shown in the background empty. So that means that those at the moment of the market that space remains not usable for the rest of that’s correct. So on Saturday markets that all pushes those tables are stored and push back, and and the market, as you guys have experience.

rwassum: And my only question was, is it necessary, then, to keep the seating going in that understanding is that some of those stands work both sides, so that configuration suggests that they can only function from their marketers. So it was more curiosity. If that’s the intent, or there’s a reason for them maintaining that space not necessarily connected to the so the layout of of society market has been coordinated with food wise. There are some occasions where you can have double depth

rwassum: for your for your 10 spaces. So those those vendors that need a little bit more space to operate will be able to have that space. But the first thing we did when we kinda

rwassum: last left you was was sit with the food wise team to come up with something that worked just for everybody else’s identification. We’ve looked at a variety of ways to try to provide heat and light to this space. Most of those ways. We’re more impactful to food wise. And what we’re presenting today, as it relates to the to the glass line and circulation.

rwassum: You know, the way this is designed conceptually is to have those, those, those glass walls sort of fold behind the column so that they’re not perceived from the public. So you do get that that areainess. And I think we all want to protect and see. So that is the hope. And the intent of the design is this concept to evolve. But it’s, you know, gonna be a a rail at the top that allows it sort of accordion behind that column line.

rwassum: It won’t sit proud of that pole at all. It’ll be inset into the arcade, so it does provide that opportunity for light, airiness, and some look at circulation. To be honest with you, based on your question, is it really some of that circulation area in inside the space

rwassum: to give that appearance.

rwassum: A lot of the table layout will happen as we identify tenant, and how many seats they want, how it’s sort of gonna work for them. What we’re showing you today is a is a sample layout. I would imagine that just from a service standpoint, they’re gonna want a little bit more space to operate between those 2 points. So I do think you’re gonna get a lot of a bit of walkway on the interior space. You’re not proceeding today, and it’ll be subject to prior code

rwassum: as well. So I think, you know, we’re committing very clearly to the opening in between the 2 spaces that you can see right here.

rwassum: and so that will line up to exiting and all sorts of

rwassum: thank you.

rwassum: looking at the best way.

rwassum: And I think we wanna make sure. And we need. And so that’s

rwassum: but it’s a shade. It’s a shade. There always will be transparency. Okay, thank you. I was just curious about that.

rwassum: Laura. Cool.

rwassum: you know.

rwassum: Okay, I’ll try and keep this quick

rwassum: the cafe zone does go to the parameter. So it includes that this may be actually question, for

rwassum: so is

rwassum: wha is that 6 feet required?

rwassum: Or is it a kind of illustration of something that might happen since it’s inside the cafe zone, Asron.

rwassum: Oh.

rwassum: Dan Dan Hodap with the port! The way that per permit shows it is not a required circulation. There’s this 30 foot depth that can be used for cafe purposes.

rwassum: and in this case it includes that 6 feet. It includes the area of the canopy structure, and it also includes where the benches are. Outside of that, too.

rwassum: the only the only real sort of like restriction on the cafe zone, like kind of physically it, apart from like the 30 30 foot depth is in the 2,000 permit they’re required to have like a sick 10 foot clearance like coming out from the pass through so like there, that cannot be obstructed right? But within the zone itself it just says, after dining.

rwassum: okay, and maybe that ties to the places where we’re seeing seating added. same question is that illustrative? Is there

rwassum: because it doesn’t necessarily fall in any

rwassum: embarcadero sidewalk

rwassum: is all required public access.

rwassum: There’s an overlay of a cafe zone on top of it that is allowed to occupy that space.

rwassum: but it is still required public, and the additional seating. So there’s voluntarily provided seating on the south as well as in front of the in front of the canopy. That is, the public benefit to the enclosure of the outdoor dining, so it would be required

rwassum: that would be discussed and submitting.

Pass on.

rwassum: Thank you. A few quick ones with the restaurant spaces in the arcades be heated and cooled.

rwassum: Jane. Our current or you may want to speak to kind of

rwassum: we are planning for

rwassum: some conditioning, but it’s not much of the building is not formally that way today. So

rwassum: yeah, with the open atrium. Now, I mean almost all of our name shops, and, you know, like the the Red Bay coffee, the Delica, they are not conditioned. It was, it was really designed to use the

rwassum: cool Mediterranean climate here but the enclosed spaces, like, you know, at the corner stones

rwassum: can elect to Bill, you know. Bring in some Hpc. But I think in these spaces they have to have the title 24. So when they were open they could not. Yeah. And it would be something that would be triggered by that when they’re at, but working as an open

rwassum: market during the day, they’re gonna be open, and they’re not gonna

rwassum: sorry. Catherine is my colleague. Catherine says the devils and the details and inter conditioning that that was a pretty large burden on your glass system. And and also there is a diagram somewhere that shows a reflective ceiling with a lot of ducks simply for exhaust and

rwassum: make up error. And if you’re heating, cooling space conditioning that lovely rendering of the open gate is gonna be different.

rwassum: if this, if this

rwassum: comes to pass and the North Arcade is done, and eventually the South Arkansas, we’re with all of the food, wise mission, critical functions that exist there, that that’s part of our conversation. So our goal is, we work to send them, like the long term tenants that are building for my foreseeable future for my kids to enjoy. We would figure out the appropriate space, use that space that could include

rwassum: keeping the stores there in some capacity. It it’s all to be worked with. But the general answer is, that sounds okay. Doesn’t move forward without working with food, wise and great concert, to make sure that something that benefits both us and them. And it works for everybody. I mean, that’s that’s our commitment. I realize we’re talking about the North. Okay. But because somebody said that there’s likely a precedent being said, if that moves forward there may not be sufficient review on the south side.

rwassum: It’s worth asking how that gets account. Accommodated

rwassum: 2 more quick ones when and this is for staff. When were the restaurant spaces of the North South corners, in close one, where those are capable of part of the 2,000 and

rwassum: correct. Those were close part of that 2,003, 2,001, 2,003 renovation.

rwassum: They were part of the Tax Credit project.

rwassum: Yes, so they passed that.

rwassum: That’s correct. Last question. if this does move forward, it does reach our pools and the 6. These canopies turn out to be successful, as you hope. Would there be potential plans to extend them to service. The existing outdoor dining that exists at the North and south end.

rwassum: That’s not currently in our plans. I think what you see, today is where our plans are which we think we need to be successful. We think, obviously a great job operating as is, we have renewed interest in our market bar space that is there without necessarily the canopy space. We do see these 2 locations because they’re gonna play with the arcade space. Because how we wanna utilize them at night. It is something that’s grateful.

rwassum: you know.

Okay.

rwassum: thank you very much. I think that includes that concludes the clarifying questions. Part of the agenda we’ll move now to public comment.

rwassum: And we’ll open the meeting to public comment.

rwassum: Any member of the public attending the meeting in person. Please notify the Board secretary. If you would like to make a comment.

rwassum: I’m gonna this is actually from BCC. We did receive a number of public comment letters regarding the variable building item. So I’ll summarize those.

rwassum: We received these letters prior to 10 Am. This morning that they have been bored with sign review board. Okay, from the very building tenants, such as they wrote letters and support with group wise, stating that they are able to adjust their layouts to the changed configurations project.

rwassum: The Barbary Coast Association express support for the project and appreciation for the modifications to the project. Since the last review, the project will allow the variability to compete with other host. Nearby projects along the shoreline on port properties.

rwassum: The gateway Tenants Association express support for the project stating the neighborhood will benefit from the greater activity of market.

rwassum: The San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council express support for the project, stating that they’re grateful to Hudson pacific support of the merchant community and the work for local workers and contractors.

rwassum: and the Telegraph Hill dwellers expressed concern over the Pros project. Let her summarize the Restoration design guidelines and identify the impairments of

rwassum: the impairments of thousands of square feet of public access through privatization material impacts to the historic architecture and consistency with public access policies and the transformation of the very building from public marketplace into a restaurant entertainment destination as their price.

rwassum: Okay, so

rwassum: will now move to the public comment. And can people come up? Or will they be called second call? Yes, thank you.

rwassum: Okay. We have a few people here in the room. I’m gonna start with Joe Sanders. If you come up to Mike for public comment and following that.

rwassum: so have 3 min.

rwassum: It’s not smooth.

rwassum: Good evening, members of the Design Review Board. My name is Joe Sanders, and I represent Union Drywall Finishers, Painters, and the high road contractors of San Francisco.

rwassum: I’m a painter by trade, a graduate of District Council, 16 registered apprenticeship program.

you know. and a resident of the city.

rwassum: We take pride in restoring historical buildings, such as the very building

rwassum: I’m excited to be working with skilled trades workers to deliver this project with care and precision.

rwassum: I respectfully request your

rwassum: support on on this item and look forward to putting local tradespeople to work soon. Appreciate your time. Thank you.

rwassum: Okay. Next we have Rudy Gonzales, and then after that will be Christine

rwassum: Rudy, and for the row ahead of me in the exit row there. I’m sorry. That’s Isaac sitting behind me making little noises on my phone. I represent that 27 construction unions in San Francisco, and skill treats people and apprentices at build our skyline. It’s

rwassum: probably more rare than it should be that we have development partners who really see their role, not just as you know corporate landlords or people who are. Gonna you know. II can’t say how many projects that we we think through and negotiate over that are just total privatization of public spaces, and they have cute acronyms like co-host, and things like that that’s worthwhile. And sometimes it is but I have yet to see a partner like Hudson Pacific

rwassum: really see themselves as stewards, and they they use that term and I think they really need it the the thought and care that they’ve gone through. We take very seriously. We have a lot of history on this waterfront not the least of which includes the general strikes thirty’s and a lot of labor, unrest and frankly, city by painter strikes which got us the 8 h day in the city

rwassum: and trickled out through American labor history. This iconic feature is very much a part of that history, and as a

rwassum: native San Francisco I’m pleased to see a partner that really takes serious their commitment to honoring this historic landmark. It’s a tough time to be in commercial real estate. We certainly felt the brunts of the pandemic and we saw about 850 people in San Francisco out of work which is unique. And I think that reactivating this part of the waterfront is really important. I think it sends the right message and a strong message, and it’s my sincere hope that

rwassum: with approval and do consideration, that this extends into more revitalization, not just on the waterfront, but really down the market corridor. So we’re delighted to be in partnership with people who really care about the property that they’re taking ownership of. And I certainly appreciate the time and dedication of the advisory Committee. Bcd see? Respectfully support. Thank you. Thank you.

rwassum: Okay, Christine, you’re up. And then I have Catherine. Good evening, everyone. It’s actually really nice to be here, having such a partial conversation given, how many changes that were made between last year’s presentation and this one? So I’m the executive director for other staff members in here who,

rwassum: 165 times a year, create an event that brings the public down the farmers market. And I just wanted to put into my own words that we really have been in good faith talking with our, and we’re grateful for the changes that they’ve made. We are excited to renegotiate, at least for this other Kate. It. It is

rwassum: true that you might not be reviewing the exact details of that in 4 years, when we do renegotiate.

rwassum: But we are working towards a common vision of a teaching kitchen. Our educational facilities recorded what we do. We don’t just run farmers markets. We have 3,000 elementary school students who come to visit our farmers market every year. We have a team program, and the teaching kitchen is core to that, and Hudson is aware of that.

rwassum: So we will be in any kind of future visions for this other cave, really holding fast to that view of the importance of a teaching facility. It’s also the space of the farmers market use. It gets references storage. But it’s not. It’s actually an active teaching space that we use regularly. That does bring a lot of people down to the waterfront that we want to have them will feel like the waterfront for them.

rwassum: So I’m just hearing my own words to say we are working together. I’m thrilled with some of the changes that are made. I do think that we can accommodate our market around the cornerstone and the gateway sign, and the and the arcades I mean in the the canopy. But I will steadfastly be fighting to keep our kitchen. And so and I think that that will be quite possible.

rwassum: Thank you. Thank you.

rwassum: Fixed. Okay. Next, we have Katherine Petron. And last, we have Danny.

Okay.

rwassum: good afternoon board members. My name is Catherine Petron. I’m representing San Francisco Heritage this evening. We appreciate having been included in discussions with representatives of and their consulting team. We’ve been following the project since it’s inception. We recognize the positive changes to the project over the last year. We’re still opposed

rwassum: to the proposed changes affecting the North Arcade and the city saw it, in fact, city facing the side. In fact, last year. Our comment was, our feeling was.

rwassum: there was a lot of flexibility that could be had at the rear of the building on the bay facing side, but that

rwassum: the civic, the principal facade, shouldn’t be as impacted

rwassum: we related our comments to the project sponsoring conversation over the last year, and in our letter of last May, and we still believe that these arcades should serve and be recognizable as open and publicly accept accessible public spaces.

rwassum: The facade is characterized by balance and symmetry and listening to the project. Tonight I’m really even more unclear about the treatment of the south side the south arcades.

rwassum: If, in fact, that doesn’t come to pass. Then that relationship of symmetry is is even a bit more off balance.

rwassum: We thought that the presentation had some really wonderful ideas about innovative lighting, and we think that a lower impact alternative that folks on lighting could achieve some of the goals that are under consideration. I think we all agree that the ferry building is our city’s

rwassum: just architectural gem. I mean, there are few buildings that surpass it. City Hall. You know, and so we just would. Really, urge the most serious level of scrutiny for these proposed changes. Thank you very much.

rwassum: Thank you. Next. Okay, next we have, Danny.

rwassum: Thank you very, very much. Good afternoon. I’m Stan. He’s under the president of the Telegraph. and you know the American Planning Association describes the Ferry building as a famous city’s most famous landmark.

rwassum: We couldn’t agree more. We know you feel the same way.

rwassum: We acknowledge the changes that are made in this revised project. We appreciate. we appreciate them as far as they go.

rwassum: for reasons now in our letter, and I hope you’ve had a chance to read. If you haven’t, I have extra copies here.

rwassum: We continue to oppose the permanent inclusion of the historic arcades. the privatization of the designated public access, cafe market zones.

rwassum: and the addition of canopy structures in front of the arcades on the embarcadero frontage.

rwassum: We’re concerned by the resulting loss of more than 12,000 square feet mobile access. We’re concerned that the private restaurant use and the canopy structure is in the North Cafe Zone, and it’s eventual

rwassum: replication in the soft cafe zone are gonna impair the architecturally prized sweep of the ferry buildings, public facing and market. and it will impair the architecture that we’re concerned with. The project is inconsistent with the important public access policies that we operate under, including BC. DC. San Francisco Bay Area plan.

rwassum: And, in fact, the 1978 design guidelines that were referenced earlier. we’re concerned that approval of the project’s future expansion to the South Arcade and cafe zones is pretty assured.

rwassum: and could pose a long term threat to the farmers. Markets, liability. First of all. we’re concerned as a basic and fundamental principle that the very building not be transformed from its historic role as a public market place

rwassum: into our restaurant entertainment and designation destination.

rwassum: In reviewing this project, we strongly urge you to consider the concerns here in our letter.

rwassum: Please ensure that public access is preserved. and that the legacy of this great iconic building remains intact. Thank you. Thank you.

rwassum: Okay. We will move to online questions. Or is there one? I have one public comment online. Good. Okay.

rwassum: Robert Hair, if you could.

rwassum: I’m unmuted you. And if you could take 3 min to speak and please get your name for the record.

Robert Harrer: Good evening my name is Bob Hare. I’m representing the Barbary Coast Neighborhood Association.

Robert Harrer: and the also known as BC. NA.

Robert Harrer: And BCNA. Supports the Revised Ferry building enhancement that is proposed by Hudson Pacific properties.

Robert Harrer: We believe this project will improve the visitor. Experience and the attractiveness of the Fury Building facility.

Robert Harrer: It will also enable the ferry building to remain competitive. These are the other potential waterfront attractions in the future.

Robert Harrer: We appreciate that Hudson has made several modifications to the project. After discussions with the port and food wise.

Robert Harrer: most notably the proposed kiosk in the eastern or river flies.

Robert Harrer: has been removed.

Robert Harrer: the project offers several benefits which should expand the appeal of the facility.

Robert Harrer: Not only will it create a more comfortable customer experience, it will also create a better platform

Robert Harrer: for vendors and tenants.

Robert Harrer: We will leave, of course, the detailed technical judgments of the proposals, architectural and stylistic merit. To others.

Robert Harrer: however, we believe the plan proposal allows the fair building to broaden and improve its future offerings.

Robert Harrer: We note the port is working on developing 2 other major waterfront attractions

Robert Harrer: at pairs 30, slash 32, and

Robert Harrer: 38, slash 40.

Robert Harrer: Thus it is

Robert Harrer: quite important that the ferry building be given the support now

Robert Harrer: to update its offerings, and that it can be positioned to be competitive

Robert Harrer: against those future attractions in the future. In conclusion.

Robert Harrer: we strongly urge approval for Hudson’s proposed project.

Robert Harrer: Thank you.

rwassum: Thank you. I wanna let you know we have one more public speaker here in the room. So, Stuart Morton.

rwassum: yeah.

rwassum: sorry about that. I’m still important. I’ve been in the preservation community over 50 years. That was one of the founders of Heritage Jordan.

I got so excited I fell down. Can you imagine the canopies in front of this gorgeous building.

rwassum: They’re kind of cheesy. They’re probably, if you look at it and imagine that looking at the picture of the.

rwassum: This is not what a new story

rwassum: happen to it. That’s what’s happening. It’s a happening.

What a shame!

rwassum: I can’t believe that you would even think about it. It’s a very serious approach. I have also a question.

rwassum: how will canopy of that when

I mean, did did God have a wind problem? I mean the westerlies

rwassum: they have wanted canopy. I can’t believe you didn’t even think about this. Thank you. Thank you. Alright, thank you.

rwassum: Okay,

rwassum: thank you. That concludes public comment. Thank you. Everyone who commented. We always appreciate the

rwassum: thoughts, and we take very seriously everyone’s comments that have been made this evening. So now we go to the next part of the agenda, which is for discussion and advice. And

rwassum: what we

rwassum: typically do is 3. We have a discussion. a fairly structured discussion tonight, because there are a lot of people here for the discussion. And

rwassum: we wanna make sure that the critical points are all make. So we have been given from BC. DC. Standpoint staff. Just a reminder. Staff asked us to consider 5 questions within the 7 objectives for public access, that we always

rwassum: hey as a foundation for our comments. But there are 5 specific comment specific questions. And so the first question deals with the alterations that are proposed. Do they reflect the civic nature of the very billing potential demands for public uses of site?

rwassum: And I don’t know if we put the questions back up so everyone can see them. And and also it’s a city nature of the very building and surrounding public spaces supported by the materiality and decided project. So that’s the first question. Second question, did the proposed alterations sufficiently maintain or enhance circulation and connectivity to an along shoreline.

rwassum: The third question do the proposed activation areas along the building frontages collectively and individually promote and inviting and usual public access environment that’s very building and allow for adequate public circulation to site entrances and destinations.

The fourth question, in particular, would the proposal to place a cafe, market, zone, slash market zone and public seating area in the South Promenade, or

rwassum: what we call the gateway gateway Plaza activate and improve the quality of the public access experience in balance with addressing the public access circulation needs project area, the fixed question do the proposed elements supported cohesive, legible? Anybody access program. So these are the 5 questions that would be post by staff for the side.

rwassum: We had 3 questions that were posed by Dan Hodap for the Wbac. To consider, and I’m just paraphrasing slightly here. But the first one will in had the proposed enhancements activate the frontage and continue

rwassum: and continue to provide for all important views to this important historic building.

rwassum: And it’s environment the second question for the Wd, IC, will be enhanced enhances on the south end in enhance the circulation, the pedestrian character and the activation of this part of the building. And then the third question, do all of the improvements take collectively? Do they all add up to

rwassum: Do they all add up to an appropriate treatment for historic building and district of this importance to the city.

rwassum: That’s probably 3 questions. Now, I think what I’ll do to start with. What we typically, do we have 5 questions here? But I’ll just ask each of the Board members to speak to one, or maybe

rwassum: 2, of the questions that they feel represents, you know, their interests most. Most importantly, so that we can. And we’ll have some dialogue as we go. So look, I’m gonna go to the far end. Here, Stefan, I’ll hand this microphone down to you and Stefan, if you would like to

rwassum: just lead off with your reflections on these questions. So a couple of questions.

rwassum: I think I’ll say that I’ll start. Maybe that thing that I appreciate a a lot of the changes. And I think, where I would

rwassum: maybe start or focus. I think has to do with question 3.

rwassum: And it.

rwassum: maybe I’m not alone in trying to grapple with this nature of sort of what is perceived as a loss of access with the billing up the portions of the Lookj

rwassum: and

rwassum: also understanding that the loaded today is not a high quality public space

rwassum: and it’s also not very transparent into the building, and that these improvements would actually address those things to a certain extent. But the nature of public access. I think this is still a question.

rwassum: A question here. So one

rwassum: maybe one way I’ve been trying to sort of think about this is that if there is sort of a loss of public space on the ground? Is there sort of a nexus or an enhancement or increase in public space around the building

rwassum: that can be seen to sort of balance

rwassum: the enclosure of a portion of the building. And if they’re if those 2 things can actually sort of be seen to counter each other.

rwassum: Because I think if you even think of storage building going through an evolution where a logic is filled in, certainly seems to be

rwassum: a viable option. But what we have here is a building that it’s really

rwassum: within

rwassum: our Vcdc jurisdiction.

rwassum: Yeah. So this this nature of really trying to maximize public access here.

rwassum: So one could argue that the enhancements promenade into the area behind

rwassum: are increasing public access to certain hours or counter.

rwassum: What’s lost in the logo?

rwassum: but II don’t know the answer to that question.

rwassum: Because the I would say that the

rwassum: South prominide appears improve greatly improved over what we saw before.

rwassum: but I think there still is this question in my mind, and I would sort of invite some discussion on that topic.

rwassum: So if we are looking at a proposal that’s seeking to enhance public access. And if that’s sort of our job. But about this proposal is actually doing.

Stop there. Okay.

rwassum: let’s let’s keep going down here. I’m mindful that we will just see how the topics expand, how the topics progress is so, Stefan, I and and you’re making some critical, critically important points there. So I we’ll discuss that.

rwassum: Thank you so much for the thoughtful presentation. All of the comments and thanks also to the public.

rwassum: Comments that we received is really nice to hear. Kind of the full set of of responses that people have.

rwassum: and I also really appreciate coming down to the brass tax of the project. I think previously my concerns were about removing public seating that we’re supporting the market hall aspects and kind of focus, shifting to more of a

rwassum: classic restaurant approach instead of a kind of a market hall approach, and that was primarily in response to the bay kitchen. So I’m personally pleased to see

rwassum: what this the public sitting in the kitchen area is maintained. And II also appreciate hearing more about what the tenants need and how you’re engaging with the tenants supporting them. As it’s a very difficult time to be a retailer right now, especially downtown. So I think that was really helpful for me.

rwassum: And I also appreciate while working with the market. I think that was a really important component of the project’s public and accessibility. I think it’s like one of the major snap resources that’s available in San Francisco. So I think that was a really important aspect of public access to food in this case.

rwassum: So I mean I. This may be controversial, but II believe that

rwassum: overall. I think this is a building that has changed a lot over time.

rwassum: And that’s what’s made it work, and I don’t think we should be afraid of the building, continuing to change, to keep up with trends and land uses. Particularly at this moment, in time where we’re seeing our downtown struggle to bring life. And I think seeing a an operator who wants to kind of turn up the dials on bringing life to this really important destination downtown is great. I wanna I think we should do everything.

rwassum: you know, within reason to support that. I think activating the building with successful retailers and ensuring the success of small scale retailers. Here is a really important part of the success of this building, and yet the concept that this building is always represented, which is sort of see the best of the day in San Francisco. You know our kind of local readers.

rwassum: And II think that’ll really benefit bringing life here will benefit our whole downtown district.

rwassum: And I think this billing provides a number of really neat public access. It has assets it has usable seating.

rwassum: That’s comfortable

rwassum: indoor, usual seating bathrooms that you can easily go to. When there’s sun you could. There’s a place to sit in the sun when there’s when there’s places to sit out of the wind. So to me, that’s kind of the main

rwassum: that that is a really wonderful public access part of this building.

rwassum: and I’m not a historic planner at all. I’m not a historic architect, but it’s my personal feeling that

rwassum: public access that is not actively being used as public access, like the arcade space, which is really cafes right now, and storage space.

rwassum: I don’t. I agree with Safan. I don’t see the quality of that space, and I don’t think

rwassum: preserving it as public access just for the sake of square footage of public access is the right approach. I think this isn’t a building just to look at. It’s a building to be activated and used and loved, and to support these successful businesses. So

rwassum: I think that for the for the.

rwassum: with regard to the North Arcade and Cafe Zone key things to me here are sort of 3 things

rwassum: there’s a there’s a sort of a hierarchy that we can read in the facade. There’s the main entry, that’s kind of number one. Most important. There’s these end caps, which are kind of number 2, most important. And then there’s these central arcades between them kind of the wings.

rwassum: And I think that the

rwassum: this idea of holding the glass

behind the line of the columns.

rwassum: Let’s us read that Arcade. I mean what the Arcade is doing is, it’s giving us this sort of depth of facade substantialness of the building. You can read the depth of these big columns holding the glass line behind. Those

rwassum: does help those read, and then I would just say, the thing I’m struggling with is these cannabis which

rwassum: to me sort of make those central places feel like more

rwassum: prominent in this tripartite hierarchy or 5 partite hierarchy, or whatever we’re talking about here. And I think if those cafe areas were a little bit lighter, touch, more fold away at night.

rwassum: you know, less substantial than got, and market hall. Then I think that would actually reflect the kind of architectural character of the building in terms of the use of that space as our key space as as retail space. I think it’s great. Bring light and life into the spaces. I wanna walk down the market arrow and see this building just

rwassum: full of people and lights at night. I think that would be incredibly wonderful. It’s a cold building. Give me conditions, spaces where I could be comfortable at night and see the life on the street. I think to me that is sort of more fully in line with the vision of this building when it was renovated as this really public space.

rwassum: after, you know, pulling on the market arrow, freeway, and all that. There’s been a major project to make this part of the waterfront really public, I think, actually bringing more life to the ground floor of this building.

rwassum: light on the street, and all that would help make it kind of more, fully realizing its vision. And then the last point I’ll make is that I think that the wedge is a fantastic idea. I want to sit on the southern part of the building in the sun. I want more places for people to sit outside every time I go to the I work 15, and every time that which is in the very building every time I go outside to eat, there’s nowhere to sit in the sun, and I would love more places to sit outside. So I think that’s fantastic.

rwassum: And just the last point is on the South Arcade. I think just that. I would apply the same logic which is lighter touch.

rwassum: Keep the kind of depth of facade evidence and live in it with uses.

rwassum: If it’s going. If there’s going to be, you know, cafe sitting outside, it should be kind of like lighter touch, and keep keeping this visual hierarchy of this kind of like tripartite.

rwassum: Can I just jump in on that for a second?

rwassum: I really agree with everything you said. Very clear, very articulate. The canopy, the. Are you referring to the this on the cover? This, you know, my reaction to that, just

rwassum: as a person who goes down there on that side fairly often

rwassum: when it’s hot. I mean, if you’re sitting in Gotson, you’re out in that seating area. It is incredibly hot during summer. And so I actually thought that canopy was a pretty light touch structure, but providing much needed shape. So you know.

rwassum: I liked the way you described the building and the breakdown of the building or the composition of the building. But if you look at this rendering on the first image in the exhibits.

rwassum: I think it to your point about evolution of the time. I think that’s a fairly effective way to improve the comfort level for people. And you know public seats. Could you achieve it with umbrellas? I guess you could. I mean as a possibility. Yes, and you know, the market, after all has is.

rwassum: you know, it’s market days. There’s lots of, you know, temporary structures in that. So yeah.

rwassum: yes, thank you.

rwassum: What I’ve been thinking about the presentation is that I would summarize. The challenge here is. how do we activate support these small businesses and balance public access.

rwassum: and I have some of the same questions that Stephan has in terms of

rwassum: You know, how do we come? Quantify, evaluate

rwassum: purse or footage literally. Do you know that conservation of public access? Given that the proposed design is meant to be flexible and reversible? I think

rwassum: that that

rwassum: lessons my concern, and also given the fact that public access there is

rwassum: not of high quality. So I kind of agree on a lot of the points already made. So I’ll kind of redirect my focus on 3 pause in the back.

rwassum: and and the fact that it’s incredibly under utilized

and I do think that proposed design will help, and I agree that the wedge has

rwassum: a lot of potential to be inviting space to to welcome people, to to stay on the wedge, but also direct people through the back. And my question about the marking extent

rwassum: was because I’m I’m wondering if you would only see that marking. And then some of those key moves to invite people in is queues that there’s something exciting behind here. Please come to back.

rwassum: I don’t think you’ll see them until you’re right in front of them, and so

rwassum: I would just invite people to explore how to extend those moves either to the curve line. I understand that this might be outside your project area, but as people are walking up and down the market arrow, I think there’s an opportunity

rwassum: to really, you know, create a queue further.

rwassum: that is, is not currently in the design.

So I’ll stop there and hand it off to Gary.

rwassum: Gary.

rwassum: okay, thank you. Yeah. Given the kind of economic trough that the city is in and the Market Street corridor ferry building can, and should, I think, play a really important role in reinvigorating, you know. And it can be kind of like an acupuncture move, you know, if you can activate this building, it will spread out from there. And I think we do all agree that the Preservation Building is really, really key.

rwassum: But I also think that preservation of the building reinvigoration, historic building is part of preserving a historic building. And so I kind of agree with what others said, that if it’s flexible and it’s removable and it’s light, and it is not a permanent doesn’t touch the building. It’s set away.

rwassum: I’m sort of okay with the arcades if they’re doing the job of activating the holding. So I see that it’s really tricky. I really respect everybody’s opinion that’s come out today because I think the activation and preservation, if you wanna be a purist in terms of preservation, alright counter purposes. So you know, luckily, I don’t have to decide. You know how you you know

rwassum: resolve that?

rwassum: So anyway, II think also the climatic modification of the the arcade. The new, the new structure provides is good with shade, and the render. It looked as though there there was radiant heaters in there, hanging from

rwassum: structure that seemed like a good idea to meet, so that it deals with the heat, but also when it’s cool and even wondering if there was some kind of roll down, you know, in screens, or something that could come out of those arcades as well. So I know that umbrellas and any kind of fabric creates problems with the point.

rwassum: So that’s I think the North Arcade. I wanna make one comment about the connectivity

rwassum: to the waterfront. I don’t know it’s possible to bring up the one image. There’s a couple of perspectives looking towards the water from the market arrow on the south side, and there’s 2 perspectives there.

rwassum: But The signage at the end to me is

rwassum: as much of a barrier. It’s maybe more of a barrier than than an invitation, and I really like the way the signage and the granite.

rwassum: It’s kind of a ground level, so it’s there if you’re looking for it. But it’s not in your face.

rwassum: I think. They’re in that one image. It says, you know, Fairy Plaza, very building on the ground, and it says very something on the building and very close again, so it seems redundant, and I think people will find their way there. If you’re a resident.

rwassum: you know how to get there. If you’re a commuter, you know how to get there. I’m not sure why that sign is there.

rwassum: and if it does have to be there, then I just think that it needs to be very, very carefully designed.

rwassum: with the same degree of care as the canopies. I was especially saw the way that sign meets the ground, and as soon as you put a

rwassum: obstruction in the traffic area, now you have to do it with concrete footing at the base to keep, you know, cars from running into it, and it just made me realize that that wasn’t fully designed. I know it’s not fully designed, but as it goes forward, if it goes forward I’ll keep that in mind.

rwassum: Thank you.

rwassum: Thank you. Thank you. Gary, and yeah, excellent comments.

rwassum: you know. Bob, I’m gonna hand to you. Why don’t you?

rwassum: Yeah, it’s a beautiful. It’s a beautiful building I feel a little out of my depth here as a engineer and not a designer.

rwassum: In the sense that we’re talking about here.

rwassum: I’m concerned about the kind of the conflict between

rwassum: some comments about wanting to keep the arcades open space and to maintain public office space and

rwassum: desire to activate the space and to change the use. And II really, I’ve been thinking, and II can’t think of a way to mediate that. I think that other board members have some great comments

rwassum: on how to do that. so I’ll just

rwassum: give my time to the other board members. Okay, thank you.

rwassum: Well, for me. I think I I’m I’m not going to

rwassum: build on what the other Board members have said. I think it’s II agree with everything that people said, and

rwassum: I think, for for me the critical question that you know I want to address is is the the question of the publicness of public space and the evolution of public access of the time, and

rwassum: I think, for those of us. on. of improving or creating public space over the years, you do see a constant evolution of how public space is used, and

rwassum: you know what may be very effective for 5 or 10 years, then may become redundant, and then something else might become more effective, more appealing to people. So

rwassum: well, I know our BC, DC, you know we we have to have purpose, and we do establish precise with footages. I think, when it comes to the public space around this early.

rwassum: the precision of how many square feet represents a compromise that could not be

rwassum: well back from versus a compromise that might actually enhance the overall public

rwassum: sense of

rwassum: quality of public space because of other things that are being added in there, or other attractions or other destinations, can in my mind, be a reasonable

rwassum: justification for being able to compromise a little bit on these square footages.

rwassum: And I think, in South Plaza, I think, what is proposed is is very positive enhancement.

rwassum: I actually like the way finding

rwassum: aspect of that very class assigned Gary. I agree with you. The detailing could be refined, but obviously there would be time to do that.

rwassum: But I know from the standpoint of the type of visitors who come here not everybody really knows how to find all the different very

rwassum: you know which way to go, left or right for the different walks, and I think that was actually quite a useful thing to to have there, as well as the additional signage. So I think that is very well handled.

rwassum: I

rwassum: and I won’t repeat what we said about the update. But I do think that evolution.

rwassum: viability, activation, comfort are really critical aspects for public space. And II think this proposal is has done a good job at at creating that

rwassum: better environment and focusing on those areas.

rwassum: So I look, I think that with that I think I’ll hand over to the W. Tac.

rwassum: you have. I think we’ve pretty much touched on the 5 questions here. So stuff, please clarify. There’s something handle adequately. But let’s go into the wdic. And

rwassum: and those 3 questions that you were asked to to look at and discuss. Thank you.

rwassum: Catherine, please. Ii can’t speak loud enough. Can you hear me? I think. Use the use of zoom again.

rwassum: may I say for introduction that your questions, 1, 3, and 5

rwassum: very much resonate with me, and I wish I would be allowed to comment on them. Very thoughtful. And I very much appreciate it. Just send us a summary, including specific aspects that are very important to me. I personally actually received 5 questions in my memo.

rwassum: Of which Dan, I think, summarize 3. And I’m gonna try to identify the questions because the way he stated them there was slightly different phrase than what you said, so I will try.

Do the proposed design enhancements reflect the history and sign nature of the ferry building.

rwassum: I think that is a big, big question, because over time the fairy building, as was presented today, particularly with respect to looking at history and challenges over time, is gone. So many, many changes. What is our responsibility? Is the building, as it is

rwassum: beautifully restored to a historic building that we all feel is of extremely important civic nature and civic presence in the city it does actually anchor. The city between

rwassum: City Hall is unalterable, and the ferry building, where land meets water. And I think that analog for me leaves the building itself so precious and so important that I have very little tolerance or appreciation for those changes of which I see too many on the west facade

rwassum: given absence mission of to to utilize and activate the building. I’m very much in support of everything that’s happening on the south side. Again, some of the design choices in detail can pro probably be elevated and can be staying as a longer discussion. There’s certain aspects which I think we could all discuss of improving on.

rwassum: However, it is the building itself, and what we are suggesting on the west side. where I have big questions. Most and foremost, I believe

rwassum: I fully support the idea of activating the building. However. the canopy, as proposed from my perspective, is extremely static.

rwassum: It is so static that it actually changes the perception of how we perceive the building from the long view from across the street, as well as how we seize a building, or don’t see the building. Well, when we are on

rwassum: society work in front of the building.

rwassum: the canopy is too massive, the canopy is too long, and if the wisdom of the arcade gives us a clue for activation, then I believe that the

rwassum: motion of the arcade is being obliterated by the static nature of the canopy

rwassum: you have like waves, and all of sudden it’s all flat. It’s covered, it has lights on it. It’s very regimented, and I think it wipes out the dynamic of what could be

rwassum: earlier today. Alman made a very important point that immediately sparked my curiosity, although we’re not here in a real design discussion. When she said. consider of how you could basically

rwassum: utilize or furnish a space undernecrate in a slightly different way. And I think there are other ways doing that.

rwassum: the second question and then you need to correct me if I’m not quite hitting the right number here, based on what I’m providing and what you said.

rwassum: What’s the proposal to place a cafe market zone and public seating area in the South. Permanent improves the quality of public space.

rwassum: I would say, most likely. Yes.

rwassum: I answered, that another one is other proposed canopy structures along the west side of the building, compared with history with the historic district? And do they continue to allow appropriate use of the building? The answer would be.

rwassum: No, I summarized that.

rwassum: Do the proposed improvements enhance circulation and connectivity to and from the fair building, Zambagu permanent, and the fair plaza

rwassum: my answer would say, in the way it is delineated. I would question it. My answer would probably be, no.

rwassum: What starts to really concern me is that the changes that need to be made to the ground plane 3 times during a week

rwassum: creates an element of too much activity and haste

rwassum: that takes away of perceiving a strong

public space

rwassum: as being really there. There’s constant changes. And I like the dynamic what’s happening on the South Plaza and in the wedge and beyond. But as it addresses the front of the building.

rwassum: I am concerned about that. Those will be my comments.

rwassum: I think. Many of you have said many of the things that probably will have to say. And I was just gonna suggest that I don’t know how this works, but we do have 3 different spaces, and which we’re looking into, and I guess eventually evaluating. And that is the wedge in that front of the building.

rwassum: So definitely, if we’re talking on those 3 terms, I think the proposals we made for the pluses seem pretty reasonable to me in terms of focusing on late

rwassum: the ferry bill, the ferry plaza sign. The only question I was gonna ask whether that would also include the function of providing that separation for for traffic, because right now you have this temporary barrier that doesn’t necessarily look that great, anyway. So going back to the point of what currently is happening can be improved by having that arc

rwassum: be functional for that separation, or that separation is no longer necessary.

rwassum: so in in which case, then, I prefer honestly to have a more design element that incorporates all those functions that the will require, and that then feels a much more welcoming and clear element to include.

rwassum: Given that it is definitely gonna go through. As you know, the design to be done carefully and integrated. So it feels very

rwassum: oh.

rwassum: friendly to pedestrians, while at the same time barriers.

rwassum: cars when needed and if needed.

rwassum: So in that case, I think from that perspective, I think that’s fantastic. This whole area on the wedge and the reactation. I couldn’t agree more. That’s phase. When you are in the market day it feels like the most amazing place

rwassum: most of the time when I’ve been there it always feels like it’s an empty market space, which actually is the whole point of these new improvements

rwassum: that I think will change that perception. So I’m pretty much in favor of all of these, and whether

rwassum: even sort of to Patricia’s comment, whether it has to come out or not. I don’t think in in essence people need that. Once you begin to see it activated, you will understand that this is an inviting place as opposed to the back of house, which is my perception currently today.

rwassum: That brings us back to what I’m receiving in the conversation the more controversial. and from my perception. I would probably lean on the side of saying, we do need to support our

rwassum: vendors. Our restaurants are ours. Everything in the city today is becoming more, more and more paramount that we actually go a little bit above and beyond, in order to reactivate all of the areas that we all enjoy.

rwassum: And to me the biggest conundrum had always been. Why is it fair building has such a limited schedule? And it is because we don’t know that it is openly. And so the whole notion of whatever needs to happen that to activate that I think I’m very much in favor of.

rwassum: I am not a retail or commercial expert. But I do know that all those activations in reality are a bit of a gamble. You have to test something, put it out there, see how it works, and then evaluate and revisit. I think

rwassum: I presume some of that will play a factor in how this activation happens. I couldn’t agree more that I am a fan of blue bottle in the world in general. In that location a blue bottle at the very building seems like something that somebody forgot to finish up.

rwassum: You feel you really feel that you’re under some kind of temporary situation. So currently, the activation of the publicness of that space. I think in my mind as a user of the city, not as a designer. Anything else feel somewhat.

rwassum: Am I supposed to be here. This is the backup house like you know how the slant store used to have the out. The door thing like this is a little thing where, like there’s a blue bottle inside which, indeed, there is one. So there’s this whole perception of what happens on that secondary function. I think this

rwassum: proposal is the current risk the current gamble to try to figure out. I do think that there are many things that the minor level of design, whether that perception is 6 foot.

rwassum: although the grandness of that movement is is perceived correctly or not. And and it’s not about the 6 foot dimension it’s about. I think Patrice was bringing that up about it is making it work, not necessarily fight over feet and inches.

rwassum: And that’s why I was bringing up the question. Can we think of this parallel axis that feels pretty open because currently, right now, my perception only in terms of what cost the cost.

rwassum: Sorry. No, is that that is definitely pretty unaccessible unless I work, I go by

rwassum: which I haven’t. But if the idea that I’ve seen here from for this proposal is not quite like that it is perceived as something that you can come through, go through, pass through, and I think that’s the big difference, I think.

rwassum: And so for that, from that regard. I like the class.

rwassum: All of those things, I think, are fantastic. I do wonder, I think the benches that are supposed to be in front to kind of delineate that as or anything that we’re introduced as a public benefit.

rwassum: And I wonder if that’s necessary in this context of keeping this perceived as much more flexible than with Mark, please. And Goth got thoughts

rwassum: he’s doing because those 2 spaces don’t. Don’t feel as public, let’s say as I just. I’m just wondering if it’s a decision of those little end elements that may have you perceive us. I’m giving you something at the turn that perceptually is making us feel this is more private than it should be.

rwassum: because I do think the intention, and I believe that this is meant to be pretty common.

rwassum: And it’s just some. Some of the things, even though, that physically are allowing public access might be prevent projecting an image of not being as public as it could be.

rwassum: The question of the trail is in my mind. Is.

rwassum: is it again part of this idea of of activating within a little bit of a gamble. Do you need to shade in order for them to be successful or not? And that’s probably the question that we need to ask is whether shade is a must or a good thing to have, and in the presentation to be fair, I don’t know if I heard that is

rwassum: a deal breaker. If if some person decides to put a rest around this location without the canopy or the

rwassum: they would be like, I’m out of the I’m out of this game. This is, this doesn’t work on this. They have some ability of shaded in there, and that maybe that’s something that we can clarify, and that may bring another

rwassum: way to evaluate the value of that canopy. Within the context of what we’re trying to achieve, which is activating.

rwassum: Yeah. So

rwassum: I’m sort of gonna echo some of the same thoughts that have already been

rwassum: brought up. But he was Kirsten.

rwassum: Everything everything you said was kind of what I was thinking about. I completely agree with the the very plaza area. I agree. I think the proposed

rwassum: updates are reasonable. I think the wedge

rwassum: The wedge plaza area also seems like.

rwassum: you know, that’s kind of the right thing to do in that location. I will say that the very

rwassum: the fairy sign.

rwassum: yeah. I’m not sure also how I feel about it, but I do know that

rwassum: I was recently in Hong Kong, and there were moments in these crowds, but the only way I could way find is to look up. And so I think that might be something we wanna really just think about when it is crowded. And you know, you can’t see sides that are ground level. So I think that’s important.

rwassum: And then, as far as the south treatment.

rwassum: Yeah, you know again, I think I agree with the

rwassum: idea that it is not well used space. And I used to. You know. I used to come here a lot to the ferry building during lunch and on weekends.

rwassum: and these spaces were never places that I would want to be

rwassum: my dog would not even want to walk under them. And so I think, you know, we really need to think seriously about you know how valuable some of this public spaces, if it’s not being used.

rwassum: and we have an opportunity here to

rwassum: make them more publicly used. And so I think I would. You know I would, you know, want to keep that in mind.

rwassum: I think the other thing I would just add is, and this might be. Controversial, too, is the idea of the canopies.

rwassum: Don’t offend me. I think if they’re done right and are

rwassum: finely detailed, they can actually accentuate the architecture.

rwassum: the historic architecture, I mean, I think they’re really great examples throughout the world. this country, Asia, Europe. where

rwassum: the integration of a modern structure, or even support systems into historic architecture. When I see them.

rwassum: I think it’s beautiful. I think they actually accentuate the historic architecture in many ways. And you know, this one’s a little bit hard to see to read, because, you know, you see the sort of powerful line across this canopy across the south face, and I’m trying to figure out if I were standing across Barcodero.

rwassum: What I really perceive this canopy, which at least in the renderings, appears to be very porous. You know, if anything, I think, looking at the renderings, I still, kinda I can still make out the the historic facade of the building.

rwassum: So you know, without that kind of rendering, you know. Who’s to say whether that’s really that dominant or not? I think again, if it’s done. Well, it could help. It could help to sort of light up the

rwassum: the elevation of the building. So

rwassum: any any comments?

rwassum: Okay.

rwassum: okay, I will. Book. I’ll go through the 3 spaces. And I think we’re agreement. It’s restrained. It’s really not that big change. And the mighty makes a lot of sense.

rwassum: The wedge plaza. I agree with a lot of the comments. I do think that

rwassum: that the Graphic is on actually the vehicular surface. But I can appreciate that’s where the like visibility, the figure. And we’re trying to drive traffic foot traffic.

rwassum: I think the comments about devils and the details. And I know this is really service room. But it’s gonna get probably choppier like with crosswalks and things, so

rwassum: that I will put faith in the design team and the like process to kind of find elegant ways to resolve how that thing fits in to things I do.

rwassum: And you know it’s not for Wjc. To maybe comment on the permits, but it is the public access. It feels strange to me that there is like we’re moving pieces of permits around. But we’re not over maintaining a pattern on the South that doesn’t actually have to do it.

rwassum: The usage

circulation. So I see that this is like a a first move in the

rwassum: added proposed public access requirement. But I would say it like, you have

rwassum: pinch points, and it just seems strange. So it is maybe a moment to think about. Is there an opportunity

rwassum: to clean up actually, what’s important about the public access on the South and then on the arcades and the Northern, II think, agree. I have concerns about the Southern being something we have no real notion of what

rwassum: the details are so I’m not really comfortable, that that is a thing that just gets rolled in for the Northern, and, I should say, really really appreciate the thoughtfulness and the restraint, and coming back

rwassum: and I think this presentation was really well organized. and I hear the nighttime

rwassum: goals, which I think is a really important one. So to me, then, the canopy is about lighting and heat, actually, maybe more than shade and so that how do we can we achieve that? I I’ve come to kind of agree on the Arcade.

rwassum: The possibility enclosure. I think some of the things I feel like I take issue with is the things that feel like their gestures to maintain publicness. But they’re not right. So even in maybe is actually about fire. But the passage between the 2 restaurant spaces.

rwassum: It’s not really. Maybe that’s I don’t know. It’s preservation or fire, but it doesn’t seem to me about like public circulation. I like what? Where Alma was going about, actually affiliating it with the outside space, especially with opening up those

rwassum: arcades. I am in the same. I think, thinking of like some hesitation about the canopies. I appreciate

rwassum: person, how you talked about that and I do wonder the length, I mean, 115 feet is pretty long. So that is, I think, thinking about how can you

rwassum: downgrade and maybe straight on, like I do think that aerial view on the front cover does like do a better job of convincing? That’s not actually do. Any of us are gonna experience.

rwassum: I am curious to the dentum, like what the height that is, and having you can see through. And the arcade. Thank you. Okay, I go look at that.

rwassum: so that it’s not obscuring from a distance. And I do think that is.

rwassum: that is the privatization. So I don’t know. II I’m reading that is like that is a controlled perimeter most of the time, and I know it’s like meant to feel airy, and it is a control perimeter. So I would like to see emphasis on additional seating in other places which I think would support. I mean finding the seat over there sometimes can be hard. So II support in general. I think you know, design could be talked about.

rwassum: So I’m gonna give him. I think then I’m conclusive on the canopy. But I think my recommendation would be. I think it could be done. But I’m concerned about the details. I’m concerned aboutings. I’m concerned about how the perimeter really works in the end, and whether it should be one singular length.

rwassum: Thank you to everyone. One of the benefits of being last is that all the good ideas have been spoken. I have a lot of empathy for everyone in this room, of, from all perspectives, including the

rwassum: heritage and hill, and as well as the applicant and the architect is a

rwassum: authority problem. I’ll

rwassum: keep my comments to the arcades and the canopies. I think everyone is, had very good comments about the I will note that the 2,002 project, which was

rwassum: pretty controversial when they cut the holes in the floor, and people were

rwassum: very concerned about that. And that turned out to be the right book and

rwassum: it was, you know, argued about, and people who argue about the certain territory standards can come to very different conclusions. You know all in good goodwill and good faith.

rwassum: To my mind. The arcades fundamental nature changed when their ends were enclosed and they ceased becoming connected tissue, and they basically became covered outdoor space so that the North and South Arcade, which is what we’re talking about, really don’t connect anything

rwassum: and in fact, they’re already privatized, and they’re privatized in a very ad hoc, and not very successful way where they’re

rwassum: 22 foot interior. Gracious! With this, been carved up with these little boxes and kiosks, and and a little kind of mean circulation area along the north side, and then themselves side. As much as you know. We want to see food wise seated, everything storage lockers, except on, you know, when when conditions operating. So I hope

rwassum: with the successful. So lease extension that they can actually build something that’s that’s more permanent and visible. so I do support the enclosure of the arcades and the rendering. If you could go back a couple of shows that view of the restaurant

rwassum: this one

rwassum: side by side. Yeah, those are good, just position. And I have 2 months, 2 months of this. This to me, restore the spatial characteristic of that arcade.

rwassum: and you can kind of see in the background. Oh, there’s a little box that’s the backhouse.

rwassum: I’m very concerned that once you layer in the ductwork for goods and make up air and possible space conditioning. And you do a more realistic version of what a backup house restaurant looks like that we’re going to approach

rwassum: more what we what we have now with simply a glass wall. And so, boy, is the double of the details of these restaurants.

rwassum: and I do note that well, gods is successful. Gods has about 10 feet on the other side of the wall.

rwassum: and while everyone wants to watch exhibition cooking. Nobody wants to watch exhibition dishwashing. And so that’s really gonna make a break.

rwassum: As to the privatization of the public room, I would say that we should keep in mind that the ferry building, as a whole, as a marketplace, extremely successful, to separate people from their money, and while you can walk through there without pulling out your wallet, I think.

rwassum: Kind of not the point.

And a cafe presents a fairly low barrier to entry

rwassum: for a $15 beer. You can sit there for 2 h.

rwassum: So get that leaves leaves me with the

rwassum: Kennedy’s. I’m of 2 minds. Half of me would rather see a bunch of clunky market umbrellas and and space heaters out there that they roll back on at the end of the day.

rwassum: But intellectually I do believe there’s possibility of a successful design for those candidates. I think it has to be very minimal.

rwassum: I think even the what’s intended now has 2 horizontal bars, and it doesn’t appear to be

lower of which seems to intrude on the

rwassum: on top of the arch.

rwassum: I’d love to see a series of perspectives from across the street, from the curb line from. you know, every 20 feet, to actually see

rwassum: without all the beautiful entourage just showing what with the, with the stuff, with the heaters there? And are they clunky, or are they streamlined and integrated house thin? Can you get this thing? How elegant can you get this such that it can visually recede?

rwassum: And I think there’s the possibility for that. I think there’s a lot of design work.

rwassum: And I would have like to see more detail on that going forward to future design review boards. I would recommend the apple. Do those studies without the entourage that you know everybody loves happy people eating.

do it, do it in a more sort of stripped down way.

rwassum: Oh, one last comment, which is these market lights which are ubiquitous on every parklet and most people’s backyards, and you can buy them depot.

rwassum: I think that this as a canopy element, is is minimal

rwassum: approach would be far more successful with completely concealed sources. So you have pools of light on the dining, but you don’t walk, drive by, and it looks like this, you know.

rwassum: It’s cheap lights

going back.

rwassum: Couple of comments. I saw everybody’s head nod when he said concealed lights. Just wanted to. Nobody else expressed that. But I saw 5 heads, not at the same time, and one clarification on public access square footage. This area, where the candidates being proposed anticipated for this cafe restaurant use

rwassum: in the original remodel permit for the ferry building. So it’s not technically a loss of public space. This was the intended use, such as Gots and market bar. It’s not a balance that probably needs to be hit on square footage

rwassum: for this area. but it’s a I think, a design question, and that’s why we have the design experts here.

So

rwassum: if we had kind of something to add to your discussion is now the time to. Yes, I was just going to summarize. So yes, go ahead. Yeah. So one of the things that we’ve been discussing with the applicant and with the port.

rwassum: Sure. So one of the things we’ve been discussing with the applicants and with the port I’m having to do with that Southern wedge is the circulation around I guess, like the north side of the drive aisle where? In the proposed cafe market zone. They would have like some barriers around that meeting area where, right now, I guess it’s like kind of where the cons are. And so we are curious. Because it

rwassum: it has been like a topic of discussion is like how that space and we can figure if anybody had an opinion about like that like circulation through that space. Or if I don’t know if you just like to find on that a little bit, so that we have a little bit of feedback to work with.

rwassum: that would be great.

Okay.

rwassum: I’ll I’ll let me respond to that. Anyone else can jump in. It’s an important question. And I think the

rwassum: majority, I mean, I think everyone actually feels very positive about the activation of that area. So this is one of those questions about

rwassum: human behavior in relation to a defined cafe seating zone when there is still a very large area around it, some of which is defined roadway

with

rwassum: certain times that they might be activity on that, but for the majority of the time pedestrians to most that

rwassum: really in without even, II think, thinking about the fact that they’re on the roadway versus defined pedestrian area.

rwassum: I think the

rwassum: the other thing I would say about this is, this is very much a a a flex zone here from a pedestrian standpoint. So you know the definition of where the pedestrian walks

rwassum: is not.

rwassum: this seems to be a very big area open to the pedestrians, even with the definition of that that restaurant area with the planters that move back and forth to accommodate the market. So

rwassum: I don’t see an issue with that. II appreciate that in the end you’ve got to define these. Some of you know what is formally defined as as pedestrian versus vehicular, or

rwassum: or the other side adjacent the plaza. But I think in this case, the benefits

rwassum: that are accruing from that outdoor seating area and the desire to have that.

rwassum: I think, means that

rwassum: area can be accommodated in what I would call that that quite large, flexible area.

rwassum: Do people agree with that? Do you want to add something.

rwassum: I completely agree. And I think what’s happening around the edge of this building in general is the bump out in front of got in the bomb out in front of Market Hall. Kind of create this like soft.

rwassum: occupiable edge around the building. And

rwassum: it it struck public. Just square feet of concrete is not by itself great public space, right? What makes great public spaces

rwassum: offering different ways to use it, and I think, providing these kind of soft, occupable edges around the building and clarifying circulation patterns, and opening up spaces where there’s eddies and things as necessary, and giving gracious enough space to entry ways, and all of that

rwassum: is a way of structuring the way to use the building that just makes it more legible. And I think to me this is

rwassum: adding a kind of a soft, occupyable edge in a way that makes this face not feel like back to house anymore. It’s still navigable. With this kind of you can cut the edge of the corner and go around edge if you want to see the tables, but it does also on like a market day when there might be people. A lot of people wanting to find a place to say it does kind of clearly indicate where you could sit comfortably without people bumping into your legs, and where you can kind of walk

rwassum: without having to worry about bumping into people’s legs. So I think, giving this this space.

rwassum: I think there’s enough space here for circulation, clearly for people, and it seems like enough space for this kind of nice seating and adding this structure to this, and I think this also goes from the side, giving them a little bit more structure and opportunity to occupy these spaces, and also have plenty of generous circulation. Space, I think, isn’t total improvement to the legibility of the whole building. So just to really fall on you, said I agree.

rwassum: and I ask a question. Aye.

rwassum: so the open public seating is only on the west side of that south facade and on the eastern facade. What we’re trying to get to is like, is that a porous dining area where people can walk through? It’s like it’s packing like gold Starbucks out here.

rwassum: or is it appropriate or acceptable, for there to be dividers, and it becomes an exclusive space that public then needs to circulate around. I have an opinion on that. I have an opinion.

rwassum: So II think this gets to this idea of like what’s what’s measurable. And so

rwassum: maybe the window that I look at that through is that if you can create spaces along the edge of building where the public

rwassum: can have a good experience

rwassum: in in a way that the public can have a good experience all along the edge of, like a really well designed commercial building on Market Street, in downtown.

rwassum: That we should

support that wherever we could get it.

rwassum: And so I was talking to

rwassum: my faithful seat maker. About just this

rwassum: The edges of the building right now are not so great. And so, if you look at them from the same point, what’s the quality of the sidewalk in front of the building, where there is not an outer seating area.

It’s not that it’s really not that great

rwassum: but if there was sort of an active edge that you could walk along.

rwassum: you could argue that you’re sort of

rwassum: a larger portion of the building that is today somewhat inconsistent. So I would. I would look at the web to that web and say, maybe the goal is to try to make space around as much of the building as you can where it feels really great to walk along the edge.

rwassum: I mean, I’ve I’ve sort of go for that shy zone, that where you can actually put people next building, you can

rwassum: have entrances and other things that open up, you can have transparency instead of the back of the kitchen store. That sort of encourages

rwassum: the kind of pedestrian activity that’s oriented to the building.

rwassum: So I wouldn’t be supportive of having that continue around the southern side of building.

rwassum: Very welcome.

rwassum: Yeah. I mean, I think, yeah, Stephan, specific question was, if that was leased to a restaurant, would that be acceptable? And I think what I’m hearing you say is

rwassum: yes or no.

I think the answer is that

rwassum: having that publicly accessible space around the edge of the building.

rwassum: yeah, not restaurants. or the condition that we’re seeing in the in front of these loaches is that

rwassum: there, in theory, is a passage along the edge of the building between the actual restaurant space and the outdoor seating where I could continue to walk.

rwassum: It’s not in the permit yet. but I think that kind of space is something. I think that from a policy standpoint I we would, I would support. So just to be clear in the south at the south side. So in this rendering.

rwassum: with the outdoor seating area with the plan of boxes. It’s not the other outdoor seating areas with

rwassum: everyone can. You know, you could see tables, chairs that everyone could see that. And then further along. There’s a zone that might be attached to a restaurant that might occupy that corner in the future. This is all might, you know, but I mean, I feel like that’s appropriate. I you know the building is is big enough, and the offerings that you know you want variety. And

rwassum: I think it’s okay, zones are getting closer together. Right? So from the pedestrian standpoint, it’s not that big of a deal to move around. And sort of that’s fine. The idea again of walking around building.

rwassum: Yes.

rwassum: it’s an enhanced through this proposal that I would sort of see how far we could take them right now, May, Wdc, add a comment to this conversation, or do we keep these separate?

rwassum: Go ahead. I just wanted to note, and I’m hopeful that the team could work it out. But I not clear on how Ada is handled here, and I think that may send you in different directions, because if you have to have a strong edging for the whole length of that.

rwassum: Then you’ve got

rwassum: like cause. If if it’s able to be fluid with the where the striping is, then I’m completely in agreement. But if you’ve got an edging that needs to be more controlled than what we’re seeing.

and it’s forcing everyone to come across, walk over and back. That would be my question of like attention to that.

rwassum: How that is reconciled.

rwassum: So, Alma.

rwassum: I was actually just gonna react to to the question. So the question was, is it appropriate to have a more private zone or less public, to say any other one? From from the point of view we were arguing earlier about with the ferry, plus up sign was useful or necessary, or whichever way is done

rwassum: under that, I think, having something that is a little bit more dedicated, presumably constantly more occupied by people servicing and eating, or having coffee

rwassum: in my mind, works as another anchor to pull people into that or into that location rather than just to leave it all open, ended as public, fully public space in which you have to decide

rwassum: how to activate

rwassum: different countries, different cultures. They do that differently. But in the Us. You do have to be more instructional. You have to say, this is a good place for you to hang out. So I feel like, from the perspective of that point of being at the embargo, seeing that corner and seeing those people always there versus. Here’s people transiting and sitting occasionally. I do think that that’s a that’s a helpful thing to have now the proportion.

rwassum: the axis, how tight it is close to the building, we need people more access to to your point.

rwassum: I agree that in the proposal is chosen in the right place, because this is what it gets narrow. So naturally you, your movement is somebody who’s not interested in having a coffee

rwassum: will be less abrupt than if you do it the other way around. So from the perspective of what they’re presenting to us, I think this is more consistent to one of my questions I need to answer

rwassum: from here that whether this is this maintains that the perception publicness, but also, we are asked to say, are the features in the signage will add clarity, and still permit views. And so I think in that perspective, the answer to your question would be, from my point of view, probably this is the right balance.

rwassum: Helpful? Yes. Good.

rwassum: Okay. So I’m just going to briefly summarize where we’re at after the

rwassum: dialogue before we ask for the. So

rwassum: I think I’m just gonna look to the areas of consensus. So if we wanted to check off the the plaza, I think everyone feels very positive about the enhancing that through additional lighting so.

rwassum: and

rwassum: consensus on that item on the south plus of the wedge, I think there is consensus again. All of this is in the context of devils in the detail, and take on all the comments they design. Ada. And you know the other things that we talk about

rwassum: the the South Arcade.

rwassum: I think everybody supports our market operator, who was, I think, we really

rwassum: very committed any, and want to see their long term. We want to see the kitchen their long term he is not clear, because we didn’t see any proposed details, and we understand why, from Hudson the city that this is not

rwassum: on the front burner. Yes, and I wanna pick up on something that Alma mentioned earlier, too, that I think

rwassum: if this is some years down the track.

rwassum: I think it gives a very good amount of time to be able to observe the experimentation on the north, the success of the North Arcade and find out, hey? Down the track. So I would say, we can’t offer consensus on the South Arcade, because, in a way, it’s not being presented in detail to us tonight. So I would put that aside and just say, we don’t need to

rwassum: really resolve that

rwassum: tonight on the North Arcade.

rwassum: I think there is general consensus that enhanced lighting is good activation drawing people into the building especially at night, letting us know that

rwassum: it’s a great place to be is very important. I think there’s general consensus that the you know, having restaurants operations that activate the the North. Is a positive.

rwassum: but you know, very be brackets. After that the devil is in the detail. The operational complications and challenges the movement public movement through these areas of deception of publicness.

rwassum: You know, outstanding questions. And then, of course, the

rwassum: And then the third point that I wrote down that I think this general consensus on is that cleaning up? What’s there at the moment, which is really very modest and not really very attractive, is a very positive thing, and, you know, can only enhance

rwassum: everyone’s experience of the of the free building. the unresolved issues.

rwassum: Academy.

rwassum: again, the brackets, the devils in the details. So design really needs to be looked at. Could the links be broken up. Can they be studies to convince, to to have the designers and

rwassum: port and BC. DC. Or feel very confident on the the the

rwassum: character of the candidate. Lightness of the canopy is not going to impact the facade of this very important historic building.

rwassum: The public access under the colonnade unresolved, and I think that is also tied to the question of the restaurant. Layouts and operation are not resolved yet, because that doesn’t get resolved until you have potential restaurant restaurants coming in. And so I think this, you know, that has to all be taken,

rwassum: you know, into further study, which is not really our role as advisers. Our role is to point out exactly what you know we’ve done tonight provide our concerns and hear the concerns of the community which we take very seriously

rwassum: and then provide that guidance, so that the really excellent professionals who are responsible for working with the proponent to advance. This can do a great job.

rwassum: So there are definitely unresolved issues, north canopy and I think, I I’ll pause at this point, and I think, headed to the Department to or to make a comment.

rwassum: Thank you, I think. Thank you for tonight. I think your comments, your both concerns and direction, are helpful as we move forward, and we just look forward to the opportunity to work with staff to evolve it. So it’s something we’re all proud of when it’s

rwassum: eventually implemented.

rwassum: Thanks.

rwassum: So I think the question, the final question before us is whether we would want to see this again or not. And

rwassum: my view is that we have provided several hours of excellence. Analysis by really top class people. And we’ve listened to really thoughtful calls from the community.

rwassum: and I don’t think it would be productive for us to sit here again and have the same conversation. So I want to recommend that we that this now moves, we don’t see it again. Although I would say

rwassum: I would ask that the

rwassum: South Arcade is basically taken out of this for now, and reserved for the future

rwassum: a.

rwassum: For some years down the track to, you know, be able to deal with it then, and you know, if Staff at that time feels that it should come back for further review, then you know, we should see that when there’s more detail on stuff. But otherwise I’d say,

rwassum: please go ahead, and I am personally very excited to see

rwassum: some improvement to to the very building. I think this this will go a long way to accomplishing some, you know, really important outcomes. So

rwassum: I think that’s the conclusion on this item.

rwassum: Okay, so there is a second item on the agenda for tonight, which is the briefing on the San Francisco waterfront coastal flats, study draft plan.

rwassum: And should we move straight into it? Given the time?

rwassum: Okay.

rwassum: okay, we’re back back online here and

rwassum: lease is with Communications guide. And he’s gonna give us a quick run through with the flood study. Thank you very much for waiting us out here. So

I think you can hear me.

rwassum: Yeah.

rwassum: thank you. We still have full Design View Board pretty much full.

rwassum: advisory committee over here. And why don’t you take it away with a summary of what the Flex study is up to.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: Thank you. Dan. Hello, everyone. My name is Luis Barata. I’m a senior planner with the waterfront resource program, and I think I I’m hearing some echo.

rwassum: so we should. You can mute your

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: can. You hear me? Okay? So I will just go ahead and go through it. Well, I wanna say thank you, everybody for for having me here, and so

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: I’m happy to see so many familiar faces, and I’m sorry I could not be there in person. I had some family commitments, but jump into the presentation. Let me share my screen.

rwassum: Can you see it?

rwassum: Alright.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: So I’m gonna talk about the water the San Francisco waterfront residence program the the draft plan of the flood study that we have been working on

and

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: you know, what is this flood study? II think I assume that a lot of you are aware. But it is a study to analyze the coastal flood risk and the tax of slab or ice in the San Francisco waterfront, along with the 7 and a half miles of the. So it extends from aquatic park on the northern side all the way to Harold’s Head Park on the southern end. So basically covers the base side of the of the city shoreline.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: it is I still

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: it. It is a study to to address. You know, Sila horizon and seismic risks. Right now, the the estimated cost cost for this this project are adding up to 13.5 billion dollars in today’s value. And with this, this study is a partnership with the undercups of engineer.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: this partnership is very important, because if the project gets approved by Congress the Federal Government will will pay up to 65% of those costs, and the city is gonna have to come up with the other 35% of those costs. We are also working with in collaboration with other city agencies under the climate Asf umbrella.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: including the office of resilience at capital planning. Mta. Public Works, Poc and the San Francisco planning department

rwassum: chair.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: This graphic here shows

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: the areas that are sus susceptible to flooding by 2,100. So we expect 2050 that up to 500 structures and city assets will be vulnerable to flooding. And by 2140 those damages can add up to 23 billion dollars.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: They they do this scenario that is called the No action scenario to establish a baseline of costs for damages so that they can compare those costs with all the different alternatives that they’re proposing, and see what? What is the to each one of those alternatives?

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: As many of you know. You know, the services for line. A lot of data has been built in over Bayfield on the

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: using Baymad. And because of that, a lot of that, those areas are susceptible to British action. If you have a large earthquake. So this picture here shows some of those potential damages.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: If you have an earthquake of a large scale, and you can see some of the utilities infrastructure, you know the sea wall. And of course both the the peers and the the works are at risk. You can see. Here’s on the right hand side some of those pictures from the 1906 earthquake.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: and the the one on the bottom right is actually at the Mercadero. And you see that rupture. So if you have an earthquake that happens during the day at any given day, we can have up to 40,000 people at risk on pro property. For or earthquake events.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: This is showing like where we are in the process. We have been doing this work since 2,018 doing this general investigation last year we released 7 adoptation strategies.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: We’ve been working with the army for 7 engineers, and also visited agencies to come up with this square that was released at the end of January, and we are in this 60 day. Public comment period that is part of the Nepa process. That we are, you know, reach out to the public doing a lot of community engagement workshops, walking tours

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: and trying to get feedback from the public. The idea is that once we have additional public feedback. We are also working with them. They are doing further feasibility analysis. And we also are going. We are also working with the other further comments.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: And so the idea is to come up with a final plan. By the end of the next year, 2025 and seek Congressional approval by 2,026 if the project gets approved, we we start this the process of the construction engineering design and that is

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: you know, expected to take place, you know, starting 2020, 26 until 2030, and construction is is expected to start by 2030. We. We hope those first actions will be implemented by 2140, and this 30 is to cover

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: between 2140 and 2040 and 2140.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: And so what is this plan? Is this trying to cover it is trying to cover where we’re going? Are we building them existing shoreline. Are we pushing Bay Ward? Are are you pulling inland? We also looking at how high? We are building defenses

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: that is in response to some of the the the projections, but also also also to respond to the different conditions that we have along the shoreline across the the 7 and a half miles.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: And also we are looking at how much space is going to take for us to to update those our lines. One of the comments that we heard from the public. And I think also from this body, was that nobody wants to have a a wall, you know, walking the connection from the city to the bay. And so we are looking at this transition space where you’re gonna have to create this

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: grading additional grade from the new elevated program to the existing grade. This space is also is the area that we are expected to have those seismic fits along the shoreline.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: and what is not being decided at this stage we are not deciding about the detail design for the full defenses. We are also not designing the waterfront streets or open spaces, and all the infrastructure. This is a very high, level plan. that is, is looking at at the location of those line defenses.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: But we we also not not going to have the timing of construction because we don’t have those detail designs. Yet.

rwassum: Also, the plan does not, including a funding plan. So at this moment the city

rwassum: it is going come up with the funding to match the 35% of the 65% Federal government funding

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: so this plan is not a redesign for the future of the other front and wanna plan from the other district or those. But one of the things that is plan is trying to do it is trying to tie in existing city projects that are already on going such as Mission Rock or the Bay Front Park along Terry Francois, and is trying to tie in all those projects in a more cohesive

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: defensive strategy to protect the the city shoreline.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: One of the things that we are very proud of this work is that is one of the first times that we have. A more robust, comprehensive benefit analysis that is being included as part of this plan. The undercover engineers. Typically they, they historically, they have been taking into account only the national economic development which is dollar signs from the damages

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: in this case here there are also technical consideration, economic impact, including jobs, environmental quality consequences and the compliance. But also we have taken into consideration the other social effects

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: that includes the disproportional disproportion affecting effects in our own. This disk here that you see on the right hand side shows some of those other social effects that have been taken into account and defining the discount, and and the 100 years have metrics for each one of those effects. In order to compare different alternatives that have been looking at.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: The plan. We are one of the people working. Some of those early problems are not part of this plan. Those are the funded by the

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: first actions. There will be implemented Harding. 2030 to defend against 1.5 to 3.5 feet of celebrity.

rwassum: Those actions are going to be prioritized the planning fields are robust that are going to.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: Are you guys hearing? Okay? Cause I’m hearing a lot of background noise. So I just wanna make sure that you can hear.

rwassum: Yes, we keep going then.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: one of the things that is important is that is that this plan? This should be adaptable over time. So we wanna make sure that that this plan can he can. Address the adaptation over time to include higher levels of adaptation. Passing beyond the the 7 feet

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: 7 feet of silver ice projections

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: this graph here shows, in a very summarized way, the what is the draft plan? So you see this orange line? Band across the the waterfront that extends from

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: Herons Head Park all the way through Pier 27, or Telegraph Hill. More or less.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: It is the area that we are proposing to elevate the shoreline and doing such a retrofit along the shoreline.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: there is as I mentioned, the the panic extends all the to the area as well as in Baccadero. We are proposing to improve some of the peers and and some of the select buildings

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: a along the area we are proposing to delegate some of the historic communities in the world. And I have some graphics that shows in more detail how that is gonna happen.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: And across the entire area, we are trying to as much as much as possible some of those nature based solutions.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: another thing that that we are going to that is proposing is to propose a waterfront. Wide storm water management adaptation, because elevated, the shoreline is gonna increase the bathtub effect of, you know, trapping water that is trying to reach the bay. So management is gonna be pumping is gonna be needed. And it’s gonna have to be increased.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: Both pumping storage systems, and and also storm water management, you know, through Greenway infrastructure. That is something that the the pen is considering.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: So we will take a closer look at each one of those reaches. The planet is divided in 4 reaches the first reach. Here the Fisherman’s wharf

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: in general this area has. A.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: It has a higher

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: ground. You see this dashed line, and so the plan is proposing a lighter touch here in terms of what is proposing.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: So it is looking at footproofing. So those buildings along water sage and add those short walls around the piers. The idea here that those short walls will extend the last 10 of those piers until the port and the and the tenants and the the city. We can figure out what, how we’re going to, how we’re going to adapt those those peers in the future.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: So some of the subsequent actions that are have been identified here are, includes the shoreline, the works, and the historic buildings with. So some of the seismic improvements. And of course defend the utility and the transportation networks.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: This graphic here shows

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: what do we mean by so happen can happen in several different ways, you know.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: it could be happened by sealing some of those openings at the the lower levels. You know those and and bars. It could include also, you know, elevating some of the transformers, or some of the more critical infrastructure of the building? And but one of the things that that the plan is proposing to add those short walls on the piers, and that is to protect against, you know, wave action and and gain some time. Extend the life span the lifespan of those those peers

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: for them. Barcadero. Area. This is an area that we it is the depending, identified as with a lot of critical city infrastructure. And this is it is an area that has some of the lower elevations along the line and therefore it is more at risk.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: So the the plan is proposing here to elevate to defend against 3.5 feet of celebrity, all in one step in the in the first actions and that is to minimize disruption. due to construction.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: in this area, we also find some of the buildings along the walls so the bulk bulkhead of the buildings, and and some of the historical infrastructure, including the ferry building.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: And I have a graphic that shows in more detail how that how that would work in this area, we also adding, the short walls around the piers, so the piers themselves, they will stay at their existing height. They will just receive those short walls to extend their lifespan.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: So in this area, we, the plan, has identified any subsequent connection since the the first action here is already elevated through the fan against 3.5 feet of level rise

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: this graph here shows how we would elevate some of those worms and and bulkheads of the buildings. So that is showing here in the in this red color the areas that are being elevated, the peers themselves. They will stay at the existing height, and and they will receive those short walls around them. So you’re gonna have to create positional space between the bulkheads of the buildings and the piers themselves.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: Looking back towards back towards the city. Will create that transition to space, you know. And there could be terrorists or

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: have a grad grad gradual Transition Office of this grading that to meet the existing city grade, and that is the area that we will receive. The seismic retrofit

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: in South Beach and Mission Bay reach. This is the the third reach this is an area that depend identified, that we have in general, we have a little bit of more space. So the pen is proposing to have a more international route.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: and and that is to elevate the shoreline, to defend against 1.5 feet of sliverize and that can be a a doctor in in the future. So you see here, in this orange don’t color the areas that have been proposed for to elevate the shoreline with some of those brown improvements.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: The the planning within 5 areas where we could apply some of the nature based solutions. So you see in green areas marks here. You know.

rwassum: towards the south, and also along the the shorelines of the creek

rwassum: for the the bridges in this area. Mission, the Mission creek, the bridges. Will

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: you remain at existing height? For the for doing this first actions.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: and they will receive those closure deploy voice structures that will be deployed. when we have storm events.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: and I have a graphic that will explain a little bit more how that could work.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: You see, also, seeing in the grease this bray area. The. So the areas that are not part of the this project such as the the Mission Rock and the the Bay Front Park along Mission Bay, and that is so. But the plan here is to tie back in the this proposal with the existing mitigation measures that those projects are already. Including

rwassum: this.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: the the peers along those along these areas is also will receive some of those short walls. And also to extend the the lifespan of the the peer of the peers.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: This graph here shows how those closure of the bridges could happen.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: You know, once you relocate the the shoreline of the creeks the if the bridges stay at the existing heights, they they they offer a risk, because the water can sip through the bridges. So the idea here is to have this deployable. There will be deployed, and we have stormwater events and and high tides.

rwassum: and it is anticipated that that those

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: those bridges will have to be closed very frequent less than once a year for the first decades of the project over time the frequency and the intensity is is going to increase. And and eventually those bridges are gonna have to be elevated.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: Oh, sorry! And I forgot to mention one thing here in Mission Bay. So some of the subsequent connections are

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: that we identified are to elevate the short line, to withstand 3.4 kilos and and potentially add more nature based solutions.

rwassum: Here. So this is the last.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: the last reach that we have with the is less quickly view. This is also an area that we haven’tified, that has a a a little bit of more space. So we also approach 1.5 feet of lever eyes there is in orange. that we are proposing. The peers around the pier. 80 and Pier 96. We also receive those short walls and some of the petrol fits

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: along the creek. We are proposing some of the solutions, particularly west of the Thirst Bridge and

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: and also closer to the mouth of the the tree.

rwassum: and a long warm water.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: And the southern edge of the creek here in in red, we are proposing to continue those operations that the port has over there. The Third Street Bridge here. Is not part of this plan, because the public works is already working on on elevating that that bridge.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: But the even Illinois Street Bridge will receive those deploy deployable paper disposal structures. Similar to what the ones that are being deposited at John Creek.

rwassum: And let’s see

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: So this is showing some of how those some of those solutions can be applied, and the idea is that

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: is that those elevated short lines with natural burns can be part of the open space open space systems so they can include trails, you know bike paths. promenades in in order to

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: also provide also needed benefits to the.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: to the neighborhoods.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: So just to finalize

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: the way that we are looking is, it is our once in a century opportunity to defend the the communities and the assets including the solve, those vital city infrastructure.

rwassum: And

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: and why we can address some of the those seismic re risks. Improve that safety we. We can also see, this is an opportunity to secure funding with collaboration with the Federal Government and invest in a great public waterfront. That we can, where we can add some of those nature based solutions and adapt some of the historic resources to climate change.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: As I mentioned, this is the last slide. As I mentioned this. We are in the public period comics. So we we have done

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: a lot of public outreach we just had

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: last week before last we had. we have been. We also offer walking tours to make as possible for the public to make comments. We have updated our website, we added a lot of information on our website, including story maps. We also there is, that people can watch at their own time.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: And we have really reach out to all the different cbo’s and also going to bodies of decision makers in the city such as this one also, we we go on to the entire Conservation Commission. we are

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: We are going to the planning commission this week.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: We are. We are going to empty board and the board supervisors and I’ll I believe also, you see, Board, we are going there as well. So we’re trying to to cover as as much as possible this very short time and try to get feedback from from the community.

rwassum: So with that. And thank you very much. Thank you, Louise. That’s that’s a lot to present. But we appreciate your hanging around for. And so it’s just to get this straight. The you’re officially taking comments on the Army Chorus. Let’s study plan through the end of this month.

rwassum: And tonight’s presentation was kind of a primer to let you know what’s going on with study. This is a very design based pair of groups. And this is not a design plan, but it’s getting you ready, for when these projects come through is a lot of what it’s about. But now we have. Now we can take some comments and see if we can address those even have an expert back here studies. And Bob Kelly.

rwassum: can I? Yes, please

question

rwassum: finally, some engineering to talk about.

rwassum: yeah, this is really interesting and fascinating. I agree it is an opportunity. 1 one thought that occurs to me.

rwassum: which you know is, is, you know, I have to admit is is from a person that’s not in the room. So this may seem off the wall, but it would seem to me that there should be opportunity to

rwassum: realign the Short Line a bit, and maybe have some natural areas that service buffers and transitions, and not just wall off the waterfront, which II know you have some edging.

rwassum: some green edging.

rwassum: but I think, especially in the southern part of the waterfront. I think not sure port operations, Guy, but down around here, instead, I thought there might be some spaces there that

rwassum: could be converted into wetlands or beaches, or

rwassum: and so the more natural shoreline is what I’m hearing there more natural solutions. And, interestingly, I know they’ve gotten a number of comments along that line, and they’re looking at some options even in the central waterfront, for how that could be consistent with some what I’ve grouped so far. Thank you, Dan. And and I think aquatic part. Also there’s a beach there. And and so there’s other places where you might have some opportunities.

rwassum: the problem with natural infrastructure that a lot of folks that haven’t actually been involved in design of that may not realize is that it takes space.

rwassum: And this design is really kind of an edging.

rwassum: And so I think, fundamentally my point is.

rwassum: it would be nice if you could go inland a little bit and not be

rwassum: stuck with the existing shoreline, which is somewhat arbitrary, given, you know, relative to modern conditions and future conditions.

rwassum: and uses, etc.

rwassum: Secondly, I think the

rwassum: project should be reviewed by the Engineering Criteria Review Board of Dcd.

rwassum: Which I happen to be on. But there, there are other people that I think are would have more valuable input. Geo, technical seismic

rwassum: and Geo structural structural.

rwassum: So those are my comments. That’s great. Great. Thank you.

rwassum: I don’t. I don’t know if you wanted to respond

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: to support

rwassum: Louise. Let’s get through a couple of more questions here. First. Okay? No problem.

rwassum: I was phone and could just scoop to wait in. On the design side. The core of engineers is known to be pretty much by the books. At least, that’s what their primary purposes

rwassum: there are exceptions to the rule. I like to quote the San Antonio corridor, my first project actually, I was involved in there. We challenge the quote engineer in a very significant way.

rwassum: and we came up not with only the improvement of the Web Walk, which is a public works project, but how to extend the entire cross section over Wibblewobg walk from Flour Mill all the way to the very north.

rwassum: That is a type of challenge I believe we have here, and I believe, picking up on what you said, we should actively look at every aspect of port property, and this tremendous amount of group that over the decades, has gone into creating a fabulous reappointed shoreline, and make sure that we can save it by doing other things to it.

rwassum: That may either mean moving the line further in, or finding different cross sections by which we meet different conditions and do different, very public ways. I think it’s a great urban design project, and I would encourage every landscape, architect, architect, and engineer to roll up the sleeves and help support, not to oppose them, but helps them to do a better job than what they normally do.

rwassum: And II strongly encourage participation. Could I follow up on that real quickly?

rwassum: Sorry I’ll be. I’ll be brief. we’re in a good spot here in the San Francisco Bay area, both with the San Francisco District Army Corps of engineers pretty flexible and innovative.

rwassum: But yeah, it’s not gonna happen unless people push, because there’s millions of reasons. maybe a billion or $2. Why? It won’t happen.

rwassum: So yeah, people really have to push and have vision

rwassum: beyond the existing lines. I think so. I really appreciate what what you said.

rwassum: Others wanna comment on the presentation or where it’s going.

rwassum: I mean, for what is worth. I have to say that this is a very succinct and clear presentation for something that is

rwassum: very difficult to explain. So II would like to recognize that this is pretty.

rwassum: I’m encouraged by the fact that they have this whole

circle other benefits to be considered in the equation.

rwassum: I would be looking forward to understanding how they applied to this different interventions the different color coded solutions. Because that’s actually what

rwassum: I mean. I think the reason you mentioned it in the presentation that our record tends to just look at our numbers, and

rwassum: you know, dollars, and in this case, having to add that other components, I think it’s gonna be the super big challenge. But I’m encouraged by seeing that as part of the foundation of this work. So right

rwassum: team is listening and taking notes.

rwassum: Could I say something?

rwassum: Also talk, please, about the fact that the challenge is not just the San Francisco Bay edge. There is a requirement for integration with other measures all along the bay that sets other constraints. I do not know exactly what they are, but we should be aware of them if we choose, or ultimately decide to be actively involved in it. Could you briefly explain that?

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: Yes, yes, so

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: so yes, it. It is correct. And and one of the things one of the comments that we received now when we like last year, when we went to the community is, you know, people are concerned about what’s happening. You know, Southern Southern of the the House Head Park. That was among the comments that we received.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: you know in our project is is limited by the geography of the port on on the southern edge. We, we have those development agreements. Both the the Bayview hunters Point and Kendall Stick point that they are

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: have their own set of or mitigation measures trying to address the, the, the sliverize

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: one of the things that we identify there. There is an area of the Yosemite Slue that is, not that it was not. They didn’t have any planning for that part part of the of the city. And so we worked with the with the planning department. They got a grant, and they are starting that work right now.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: But yes, but that is only talking about San Francisco. Right? So there is a need to

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: to have more coordination.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: you know, across the bay with the other efforts. And and we we have been, you know.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: God.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: in conversations with Bcd. C. You know I’m a part of one of the Dcdc. Subgroups on equity. Adam Varad, who is the the deputy director. He’s also part of the BC DC, coordination effort. So we are looking at how? How this plan can

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: can not only can only like, inform what’s gonna happen here, but also maybe provide ideas for what other jurisdictions can do, and and also

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: talk to people about ways to work with the army cops of engineers. Because this is a lot of this is very new. To the army cops of engineers as well. So we are kind of like.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: you know, creating that path of of collaboration. And and one another thing that II didn’t mention in this presentation that

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: anything that is above and beyond what the army corps of engineers approve or the Co. The Congress approve, that is, on the Army Corps of engineers plan. The city can still do it. It’s just that the city is gonna have to come up with all the the funding for that. So what we’re trying to do is to leverage, you know, the maximum amount of dollars, so we can try to bring the most amount of community benefits for the city.

rwassum: Thank you, Louise Kristen. Yeah, I just had a question for Louise on. I know at least

rwassum: I think 3, if not 4 of the locations on our San Francisco waterfront. We’re studied by resilient by design. And I was wondering if that work needed into the

rwassum: study and how it informed the

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: yeah. So so that was looked at the the area of the this. This list creek? because that we had a team working there there was looked at. I think

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: you know. when

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: back. Then, when you start to look at these different alternatives, I think, inform some of those strategies that we had that in included a whole lot more of a retreat areas. One of the things that we we heard from the community, and through this process of of looking at the equity as as one of the components is that you know that

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: retreating that area, it seems to be not recommended, because all the the equity impacts both on

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: you know the community, but also the loss of jobs. And and you know, loss of of affordable industrial light industrial space. So a lot of the those things were looked at. But they end up being vetted in the in the process of of coming to this plan

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: we are still there is still providing there is some areas that are identified as possible. Retreat. moving forward. And this is also something that you know we are working with the agencies. And and see if you can. Still, push for those ideas forward. But but it is. It is complicated. Because yes, again, you know it, it takes a lot of space and has impacts on economic impacts on on the on the some of the.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: you know the social infrastructure.

rwassum: Thank you for that explanation. I also just want to say I don’t know how everybody else feels, but looking at this plan.

rwassum: it it’s very sad that we would be having all of these

rwassum: walls and levies along the waterfront that we’ve been working so hard. A lot of you have been on this. I have, but we’ve been working so hard to create this access to, and I lived in New Orleans for a number of years, and it’s a city that’s very confusing about where the water is. You can’t see it anywhere, cause there’s always levy. So II you know, I know that this is a very complex

rwassum: topic, and there’s a lot of brilliant minds working on it who have taken a lot into consideration. But I just want to say that I think that if we ended up with a plan where we’re raising

rwassum: pretty much all of San Francisco’s waterfront, so that we can’t really see it

rwassum: or easily get to it. I really think that’s a poor outcome. And on on the Pcc. Side of the table over here. I would just encourage

rwassum: the Commission to be exploring more ideas about changing the shape of the shoreline, and some of the ideas that Bob was talking about and re looking at our policies so that we can. This is not

rwassum: we, the policy of no more fills was a response to a moment in time. And we’re now at a new moment in time, and we need a new policy response, and so I don’t know what the proper channels are, whatever to say this, but I think it’s an important conversation to be having

rwassum: at the question.

rwassum: and I can assure you, being part of the ports I’m trying to review on this maintaining a relationship of the city to the bay, being able to see that, being able to observe that they, making that a part of the experience is a high priority of the team.

rwassum: putting this together and showing all options. How that continue to occur to avoid that wall

rwassum: against one. Subsequent actions are between 3 and 7,

and a lot of the moves are to construct a 3 and a half with adaptability. 7.

rwassum: Is there? Is there a year that is estimated to correspond to the 7 that you’re working towards?

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: So that’ll be at the end of the century.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: Yeah, like 20 beyond 2,100.

rwassum: Luis, do you want to acknowledge the monitoring, though. that you mentioned?

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: I’m sorry

rwassum: the the kind of monitoring that happens in between. And sorry. I, Laura, working. Say, Lab is also working on the the Wrp program.

rwassum: You wanna mention the kind of monitoring that comes in

rwassum: in between the short they have near actions.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: Yes, the the monitoring. you know. It starts, you know, from from the beginning of of

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: off from the for those those first actions you know, between that is the defending between 1.5 and 3.5, and depending on that monitoring that is, gonna define those those subsequent actions that is.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: you know, could be potentially from

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: defending from 3.5 all the way up to 7. you know it. There’s a lot of uncertainty in terms of of the curves that we are that the pennies range should be, you know, as flexible. And that’s the way as possible over time.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: it is.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: it is, you know, trying to cover between 2040 and 2140 but again, I think, I think because there is so much uncertainty, we are trying to move away from from giving a specific dates of saying, you know.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: by by this time we’re gonna have this amount of celebrity, because we don’t know.

rwassum: So

rwassum: you know, the reason I asked is because by the time any significant portion of this is implemented, you know, 2,100 won’t look like it’s that far away. And so when you talk about levies. You talk about pumping.

rwassum: It doesn’t end in 2,100 like 2,100. The problem solved. It just means nobody in this room is alive. But

you know it’s committing the city to endless pumping and

rwassum: levy raising, and

rwassum: I thought the ferry building was a difficult problem. You know, I don’t know where all this we’re all this leads, and we’re all that money comes from. It sounds like the the funding is tied to engineering solutions, I mean, can you use Federal money for

rwassum: manager tree, or or it’s only when that money is being used by

rwassum: the army corps, and therefore you only get army corps. So the funding is tied to solutions that and they’re all engineering solutions. Some of them are software itself harder.

rwassum: And if there’s determined to be a Federal interest. In other words, that there’s more to save than spent. The fence will finance 65, and then, locally.

rwassum: we’re required to come up with 35%. So there’s a it’s going to be a pick and chooses to which ones go forward, and

rwassum: where that 35 comes from is not identified, I think, for people that have ideas. But that’s why this is going to be a long running project here, or

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: yes, but II try to that then. The army corps is is much more open to nature based solutions today. From where they were maybe 2 years ago.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: I think you know. And this plan is, it is we are

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: trying to add as much and

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: as much as possible of those nature based solutions. And you know, I think retreating is, it’s it’s it’s a little bit more complicated. That we are. Gonna have to to keep. Have those conversations. But

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: but but yeah, but it is. It is something that we are trying to achieve

rwassum: any other questions in the room here.

rwassum: I still have a question. I’ll try to phrase this as a question.

rwassum: Louise. Thank you very much for that presentation. It’s great to see you.

rwassum: I have a question about

rwassum: the the Board’s role. In commenting on or influencing or reviewing this plan? Moving forward.

rwassum: And then I guess the related question to that is, the

rwassum: is, maybe some more information about how the port is working with with the city.

rwassum: Particularly where these issues of adjacency.

rwassum: and land are constrained

rwassum: and through what that process looks like, and I think I would assume that that is also a place where. there aren’t a lot of good precedents for that. And so this sort of relationship building that leads to implementation is after ground breaking. Please, could you comment on either one of those.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: Yeah, no, I think I think that

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: the way that we see you know we see the BCC. As partner of of on this on this effort, and so we have presented to to a group of at Bcd. We got we we also got comments from them. You know, from you, but like from, you know, different people at BCC. And

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: you know we are

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: one of the things that we are. We are.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: We are

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: working on is it? Is to get coordination between the city agencies, city agencies. So we can have like a city ladder, that is gonna inform you know what is the the city’s position on this plan? Because it’s not only the port it’s has all the the, you know, all the different agencies.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: I think.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: moving forward, II

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: I believe you’re gonna we’re gonna keep coming back to you. To to provide an update whenever we have those milestones? And and get comments and and see if we can.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: and see if you can address those comments as we move along. That’s my. that’s my personal opinion. But II don’t know exactly if there is.

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: If you need to establish like a mechanism of meeting frequently, or have like a small sub group. That is

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: part of that that I don’t know

rwassum: works with the different agencies. Mta, public works. Poc city planning right now. Our consultant advise throughout this process coordinating comments on the flip study responses as well, so that one

rwassum: thank you.

rwassum: The one thing that

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: the only thing I was gonna add is that we are lucky to have a great team of consultants, and some of the consultants are, are, you know, part of this body. So it’s but

rwassum: from these species perspective, I think they’re mostly coordinating with our planning division and not the regulatory. But when we start seeing actual projects that are impacting permits and then constructed.

rwassum: that is, when we start bringing it to the Board project related.

rwassum: I think the the the fear in my mind is

rwassum: is that the the levy is a project that is a reviewable stage where decisions about the constraints around that levy have already been determined.

rwassum: And so like a nature based solution or

rwassum: a a different kind of approach becomes outside the purview of our role in trying to guarantee public access.

Hey? Just also, some combination of the 3 of us have been participating in the regulatory advisor working group

rwassum: with the part of San Francisco and the army corps. We are currently also reviewing the

rwassum: The name of a document is a

Luiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: thinking right now I can kind of find what the document is that we’re reviewing it.

rwassum: Yeah, yes.

rwassum: On the yeah. Yeah. So we’re involved. And then I think we’ve also

rwassum: we’ll be having a briefing at an upcoming commission meeting for the Commissioners.

and we have to kind of continue trying to figure out how to

rwassum: thank you. I’m not gonna do, Ashley, but we can

thank you.

rwassum: We have one remaining item this evening, and that is to close in memory of partial item. We need someone to make motion in her honor to do so.

rwassum: I’ll make a motion to closing your honor so moved

rwassum: all in favor of closing in honor of the late, I see unanimous. Thank you very much.

rwassum: Thank you, Lucy. Yeah, thanks.

Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act

As a state agency, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting.

How to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits

Pursuant to state law, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically, (2) all teleconference locations, which will be publicly-accessible, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting.

If you plan to participate through ZOOM, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above, which will be distributed to the Commission members.

Questions and Staff Reports

If you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda, would like to receive notice of future hearings, or access staff reports related to the item, please contact the staff member whose name, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item.

Campaign Contributions

State law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year, and if so, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest.

Access to Meetings

Meetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities, as well.