think the applicants are here, in addition of questions, or they might want to present something different. i just want to hear your absence, so it is really important for you to speak into the microphone. >> hello, folks. >> that is all i get? i was waiting for the broker. >> we might have to have him single a little bit. i just wanted to make sure that they were in compliance, so that is why we submitted the security plan. the occupancy is 49, so there will be one person on the door, and that will be the owner, john, checking id's and running down people if possible. the area is obviously a commercial area that caters to tourists and to business people. they do a very wonderful lunch,

and what they are trying to do with the music is try to keep some of the patrons there to stay a little bit longer, so they want to offer some folk music, some karaoke, some kind of low-level music to keep people's interests so that they stay. the one thing i wanted to do, and i am glad the police of this year is here, in the application, it does state that they would like to do three days a week. they did not specify which three days, and that might be the most pragmatic thing to do, maybe a thursday, friday, or saturday, but if the pd would permit, we would like to make that seven days a week, in case somebody

wants to celebrate something, have some music, and they can comment on this. the applicants would like to tell you a little bit about their model. it >> hi, folks. pretty much, we are a new irish border located in the financial district. we have been there since august. we have had no issues there other than with the police department, and we have had not much. monday through friday is are busy time. we get a lot of hotel trade on saturday and sunday, but monday through friday, maybe thursday and friday, we are trying to keep them from leaving, so we will have karaoke and maybe a singer. occasionally, we might have a dj on. we run a tight ship.

we are responsible. we do not want to be any trouble. we want to be good neighbors. there are neighbors in the neighborhood. we just want to be good neighbors. i didn't get to it yet, but they are pretty much all in support. thanks for your time. president newlin: no, he pretty much covered everything. president newlin: ok. commissioner meko: where is this? >> 500 sacramento street. that is clearly the heart of the financial district. >> the nearest residential

neighbors meet together were six, seven, eight blocks away. president newlin: it is right next to the tavern that we approved. commissioner meko: ok. thank you. commissioner: on this bitmap, where do you plan to have the entertainment? >> towards the end of the bar there, d.c. where the bathrooms are approved you are looking at the doors on the right-hand side, just opposite the bathrooms there. it will not interfere with the exits. there is four or 5 feet back their way from the door.

>> i do not know where they are going to sing. >> it is small. >> you can make a motion, or you in a discussion, or you can do both. president newlin: we probably want to hear from the police department about this change. >> i do not believe the police department has any objection. president newlin: i guess we need a motion to change the hours to seven days a week. >> i do not know if the motion would be to change. you can ask that they submit an amended application so whatever you say to they will be reflected. commissioner: ok. >> we probably might like it to

have seven days a week just carte blanche. i do not know if that is what we would encourage, but we would probably encouraged that flexibility to be open maybe a third or fourth night of the week. obviously thursday, friday, saturday, a special event may be on monday or tuesday. does that make sense? president newlin: yes. >> the suggestion could simply be to allow entertainment any night of the week, but if something is out of the ordinary, you can let the police know or the commission know in advance or send a calendar. you can do any number of those things. >> just let them have it seven days a week. i do not think that is going to impact it. president newlin: ok, a motion to amend it too allows seven

days a week. is that what we need? commissioner miko: i just want to move this permit and strike the three days a week limitation and amended to cover seven days a week, and the police department is not looking for any further conditions on this, so our standard conditions, including good neighbor policy would apply commissioner: i will go ahead and set in that. clerk: same house, same call. president newlin: my grandfather used to say, "you know what i would be if i was not irish?" and then he would say, "ashamed." [laughter]

ok, item number 6, commission's comments and questions. yes? commissioner meko? commissioner meko: koran i have something that might be of interest to anyone it too would be -- i have something that might be of interest. on march 10, and there will be a committee hearing that will consider an adjustment to the pending plan that would require conditional use. the housing developed within 200 feet of a venue. otherwise, where housing is a

permitted use, but within 200 feet of an existing venue, they would be required to go through a conditional-use process, and the task force that is writing the play and is considering findings to be added on, specific to sell the market, so anybody that is interested in either side of this issue or all sides of these issues -- this issue, i encourage you to attend this meeting. it is in room 421 here at city hall. >> item number7, new business request for future agenda items. seeing 9, that will conclude the tuesday, february 22nd meeting of the san francisco entertainment commission.

>> kimberly brandon. commissioner ann lazarus. commissioner francis crowley. item two, approval of the minutes for the february 8

meeting. >> so low. >> second. >> motion -- all in favor. item three, public comment on executive session. public comment on executive session? item four, executive session. >> so move. >> all in favor? executive sessio. >> commission voted to approve 4a1a and moved not to disclose any other matters discussed in executive session. >> item 6, please be advised that the ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers, and similar some producing devices are prohibited at this meeting. please be advised that the chair may order the removal from the meeting room of any persons responsible for the ringing or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound producing electronic device. please be advised that members

of the public have up to three minutes to make pertinent public comments on each agenda item unless the port commission adopts the shorter time and any agenda item. >> moved in light of the popular loss of a quorum to public testimony to two minutes. >> second. >> any public comment? all in favor? >> items from the consent calendar, 7a, second quarter contracting activity report fiscal year 2010-2011 for the october 1, 2010 through december 31, 2010 reporting ton. b, requests approval of the biennial operating budget for fiscal years 2011/2012 and 2012/2013. c, request approval of the $21.7 million capital budget project for fiscal years 2011/2012 and 20 12/2013. d, requests approval the

executed contract modification with dfpf corp. doing business as fine line foconstruction to extend the original contract duration of 120 days. -- buy an additional 34 days. e, request authorization to execute a contract modification to extend the original contract duration of 200 days by an additional 113 days. >> so move. commissioner crowley: second. commissioner brandon: public comment? all in favor? we have accepted the order consulting contract activity report resolution 11-08, 11-09, 11-10, and 11-11 have been approved. >> 8a, informational presentation regarding the annual update to the 10-year capital plan for fiscal years

2012-2021. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm with the special project group and executive division here to present the senior capital plan, beginning 2012 through 2021. first, the legal and procedural. city admen code sections 2.3 and 2.31 require that all city departments create a 10-year capital plan and that it be approved by the mayor by may 1. this is not the normal timeline we are under this year. normally, with the city's capital planning committee, the department are to submit their capital plans by november. the port had a lot outstanding, and it warranted a delay. you will see on this timeline that on march 7, t capital planning commission will consider for adoption this plan one day before it will come back

to the port commission. be reassured that adoption is conditional on approval by the port commission that will then move forward. the plan will still be introduced to the board on the first, and supervisor chu will then introduced eight -- introduce an amendment. there were a number of changes this year over prior years. the big change to our process, some schematic changes, and the bottom line changes to our estimation of need, which changes year to year as well as with new sources of revenue. i will follow that up with working for the waterfront talking about where we are spending our various colors of money across the waterfront, and then, highlighting the sea wall. so this is a terrible slide. i know of the thought -- i know

that this is completely a little, but i wanted to put it up anyway despite advice not to because it shows you this is the end result of the new process we undertook this year with the two-year planning process for the capital budget, which i think you just approved on consent. the medium term plan, and then our 10-year plan. first columns on the left are the budget, and left half of that is the medium turn -- medium-term plan. that spread sheet, which is really about this big, is how we found a home for all the projects submitted through the process, whether they be through for funding or other funding. i had to put it up there because it was not going to see the light of day otherwise. so the next slide is not a lot better, but for your one, the top of this to the right here is how we dished out all the capital funds for the budget for the first year. an interesting story here -- below the line, at the very

bottom of that, where we enumerated the other funding sources, it shows you how we are leveraging federal dollars. in this case, the patch for the central basin dredging project and the disposal project are both included in our budget of top. the other budget sources below. that was the end result of this long process. what that process was really all about was changing the two-year budget process and planning process from one were different divisions were essentially, you know, vying for funding advocating on their own, to one that was really about consensus. representatives from each division got together, agreed on the criteria we would use, how much those criteria were worth, and as we went through is courting the project, what those scores were, so there was a great deal of consensus all the way through, and the end result was everyone was pretty happy with it. so one other change and process

i will note is where's previous jurors had been in the financing administration, now is in the federal projects group. some larger thematic changes to the plan really also came from the idea that we wanted this to be a more rigid planning document and be a better tool for the for moving forward as opposed to an assessment of what we really need but do not have -- a better tool for the port moving forward. to that effect, used to be splashed all over with red, and that has been taken out, really, again, a focus on what we can accomplish and how we are going to do it rather than a focus on what is missing. also, a note at the bottom of the slide, we made a subtle change of policy on size of need. -- seismic need. we had been explicitly astray of the city's convention for seismic, which is the needs are

only assessed up to what is warranted by code, we had a higher standard than that. while this plan moving forward, we are only program and funding, being realistic, really, up to what is required of us by code because there are so many outstanding needs. the bottom-line -- our costs went up by less than they have in the past, but really, this morning, i was looking at how the total need has changed over time for the last six years. so much of it is driven by the cost escalation that the city, the first few years, they were between 6% and 8%, so looking at a $2 billion capital plan, if we increase the need by 8% a year, the notion that we could come up with nearly $200 million in additional revenue every year just does not really work out that way.

for that reason, i should note that four capital planning commission, all these are in current dollars and not escalated out to the end of the plan. two major changes here were here 70, we had a place holder, $40 million to do hazardous materials abatement. that was in the last five years. over the last year, some new information about what is there has allowed us to reduce that down by quite a bit. that was unfortunately more than offset by the result of our new aggressive utility infrastructure program, so you see the adjustments no. there. the third one down is usually a negative number because we got this done, but the one-time the cost estimates were just eclipsed that. on the funding side of things, most of the story is about the

34th america's cup and the infrastructure investment that would be made at some of the port facilities as well as another reason why the plan was delayed, was because we through this under inspection program -- we were finally able to meet with the puc only about a week and a half ago to determine how we might work with them to use some of their assets to help us take care of this problem. i will expand on each of those briefly. the america's cup is $55 million. infrastructure where it is mostly 30, 32, and 37, although i'm not sure it is completely nailed down at this point. we reported experiencing some loss of revenue bonds capacity. we are in an ongoing conversation with the city's capital planning committee about how we can replace that. this makes a strong argument for us to be included in general obligation bonds.

unlike the 2008 bonds, which were the first time we were ever included in city-wide gm bonds. the puc has agreed to assist us with $34 million in financing. a lot of that, we are hoping -- we hope that it is most of that, actually -- will be tied into the eyes hillary water supply system, which was passed by the voters just recently. that is tied into the fire broke, and its access to water at the end of our peers. the puc will consider it as part of that program. we are eligible for our general obligation bonds, which they have a lot of for this project, and are largely and spend. where that will not work, we are in talks with them about rate adjustments to offset the costs of addressing this, and they are

going to help us out with great sensitivity studies. on the federal funding side of things, we have been engaged with a couple of different entities long enough that we are starting to sense a pattern. a few years ago, we were able to get $3 million for some work at pier 70. we got another $3 million for the department of defense for demolition of the dry dock, and we asked for about $8 million, but they gave us $3 million again in committee last year. the same is true on the army corps side. to be brief about that, the story is that we have really gotten into a pattern with them, something we can rely on over the long term. it is a good change. the waterfront maps will move from right to left. the colored squares you are looking at here, the insert from the maps.

memorize that slide. starting from the north, the fisherman's wharf area, the little spot of green you see there is there is really two sets of revenue bonds reflected there. there is a 2010 series revenue bonds, and we have another set, $40 million worth, which we are looking to issue soon. this one would be in 2014, about the about thej9 would be taken -- about the time the j9 would be taken care of through this mechanism here. ne waterfront, you will recognize the crows terminal there. that big trade bloc is mixed uses because it has a number of different sources going through with a lot of money. i should note that unfunded or lack thereof is one of the mixed

sources going into that project. of course, the vix bought a blue there is the exploratory and project, which i'm very happy about -- the big spot of blew their is the exploratorium project. another change in these matters is that and in prior years, we had noticed where we might program infrastructure financing, district funding, the volatility in the market has had a not specifically program those funds over the last two iterations of this plan, so that follows here. south beach, that stack of camouflage there is the army corps of engineers, which we have engaged to remove pier 36 to make way for brandon street wharf. this is now on a very short fuse with america's cup and meeting our obligations there. then, the big piece of red is no longer unfunded. that is now the america's cup.

these two revenues, the sears 10 revenue bonds, and the move is something we're looking at the new capital plan process for the next round of revenue bonds. those are actually two separate funding sources. then, the southern waterfront, which has a big triangle, camouflage, and the lower right is the central basin, which the court has been looking for help to dredge for a long time. we have been gauged the army corps of engineers on that project, and it is moving forward and looking positive -- we have engaged the army corps of engineers. the last project wanted to talk about is the sea wall, which

seemed like the ultimate long- term capital plan. potentially a humongous amount of money, and the legislative process moving forward to address that problem -- the project is very long. the path forward first requires a study of 40 and then a steady appropriation, a construction authority, and construction appropriation. problem is that the authorizing vehicles for these kinds of projects only, once every seven years or so on average, so we miss one of these deadlines, and the whole project is set back coming up on a decade. most importantly is that no. 5 on the list here, which is that if repair of the sea wall comes back at $120 million, and it could -- it could come back much less than that -- the city and port have to come up with 1/3 of that theory to come up with $40

million to contribute to a project like that also has its own very long planning window -- the city and port have to come up with 1/3 of that. i will conclude with that. it is going to continue to be a useful tool. i am available for questions. commissioner brandon: thank you. any questions or comments? is there any public comment on this item? >> i have one question. you referred a moment ago to a congressional leader of the funding. a euphemism, but that is okay. do we expect to be affected by the lack thereof in any other way? have there been other

congressional directed monies that we have received that we now may have did battle a little bit more for? >> we had about -- we had $8 million in committee markups that were coming into this year prior to the ban on earmarks. we are looking very good for the port. it was consistent with what we have received in the past. we had the backing of speaker pelosi. then everything changed. the ray of hope is that because, in particular, the army corps budget and defense budget and to a lesser extent, the transportation budget, are so driven by project funding and what is now considered an earmark, there is a great deal of speculation about how they will do what has been done many times in the past when this has come up, which is to refine the definition of year