but i mentioned before, this bill is primarily an administrative bill. it is delegating to the state lands commission, making these trust exchanges. ultimately, there will be a lot of staff work and tidal research to verify the status and get them from this map to the second. this is not really a matter that needs to be written into state law, the mechanism where the land commission can address these issues as they go by. this is particularly important as we move forward with the development initiatives we have, the waterfront site that we're negotiating before the city development, and for the 20th street building. these are mechanisms that will help us finish those processedes. there are sort of two issues that we are looking at, that have to be resolved before this is finalized.

they both have to essentially do with the trust money and historic buildings. the first is some of these lands seem to be non-trust land, but they're still held by the port, and the harbor fund is essentially a trust assets. so what happens with this money. at the land commission wants to make sure that we do not put general trust money, harbor fund money into non-trust properties. that is a nuance and the details we still have to work out. similarly, do historic buildings get held at the trust with use restrictions or are they held as non-trust assets that achieve the mission of the trust of historic preservation? again, there are some nuances that have to be worked out. it has gone all the way through the assembly, including the

committee. it has gone to the senate side. it has been deemed to be non- revenue. it does not have to go through the appropriations process. is scheduled to be heard on june 28, and our hope is it will be voted in a positive manner and go to the senate floor for adoption and go through the confirmation process. that is the trajectory right now. ab-664 is another ifb bill. as you have probably heard, we have gone to the legislature a number of time, last six years, to strengthen the infrastructure of the finance district capabilities. this particular bill has to do with properties that are subject to the america's cup, and where

the will be long-term improvements done by the event authority or short-term improvements, sites that might become better because they're touched by the america's cup. it is to create a district on these properties. we have gone to the state legislature to say that we've elected capture the ifb's districts. specifically, this is based on the misalignment of local investment and state-projected tax gains, based on the america's cup event in 2013. the report is expected to invest $55 million minimum of improvement for port properties. this will have the effect of having the port authority make those investments that offer long-term development rent credit to that effect. essentially it will be local investment. the city is also signed up to

cover $32 million of the cost raised by the america's cup organizing committee or local taxes. what has been rejected is the $61 million of state revenue from the state from income taxes, sales taxes, etcetera, from the economic activity in 2013. based on those conditions, we have asked through the mechanism similar to what we did at pier 70 last year, that the city and port would be able to capture more of the revenue, the tax increment revenue through this mechanism. currently, we only have the ability to capture sixty-five cents of every tax increment dollar. it is generated through new development. in this district, that would raise it from 65 to ninety cents of every dollar tax capture. it has similar safeguards. the state has oversight. that would go through the state

investment bank to be certain these are projects that are of statewide interest. anyway, this has also passed all the way through the assembly. it has deemed to be a revenue bill, as it should be. it is currently being heard at the senate rules committee schedule on july 6. after that, it will probably go into recess until august to go through the appropriation reviews process, and hopefully we get through that process this year. other bills ended up being two- year bills because of the additional scrutiny of the state is having with the tight revenue bills. that is a possibility.

but also, the america's cup, everybody wants to pitch in. it is getting some traction, and we hope this bill could be potentially a one-year bill. that concludes my update. >> when you say you would be capturing more, what does that translate into total amounts that the port would be of the capture out of this? >> it is about 40% more. our current projections from just the development at 3032 and pier 30-32, the probable production capacities is about $27 million. that is an analysis we ran last november, december, and

presented to the board of supervisors. if you add 40% to that, and is about $10 million, up $12 million on top of that. it is a significant wreck the new effect. -- it is a significant revenue effect. if additional development occurs on the other sites, the additional capital of the tax increments also. >> any further questions? and the public comment on the legislative update? ok, thank you. >> items on the consent calendar, 8 a., to execute an amendment with coast and harbor engineering, inc., to extend the contract term by an additional 12 months, to may 28, 2012, to

provide engineering design support services during construction of the mission bay shoreline protection work. 8 b., request adoption of certain supplements and errata to the 2010 port of san francisco building code. 8 c., request authorization to advertise a request for proposal soliciting professional engineering services to establish a building occupancy resumption program for critical port facilities. 8 d., request authorization to amend the professional services contract with an arm of the sciences associates for environmental review services for pier 27 james herman cruise terminal and northeast wharf plaza by increasing the amount of the contract from $851,000 to an amount not to exceed $2.7 million and expanding the scope of services to include in farming or reduce services and permit coordination for the 34th america's cup. it8 e., request approval to

shore request for proposals soliciting public relations and media services related to the port's special events and other revenue generating and strategic media activities. 8 f., authorization to enter into a letter of agreement between the bay area urban area security initiative and the port of san francisco for the distribution of fiscal year 2009 urban area security initiative regional grant funds. 8 g., request authorization to advertise a request for proposals to solicit consulting services to develop a waterborne all-hazard response plan for the san francisco bay region. commissioners, with regard to item 8 a and c. the date should be changed from a 24 to may 20,

and the resolution number should be changed. >> i had some questions. >> consent items, if there is discussion, it should be rejected-- >> ok, move them from the consent, there? >> yes. that uh, like to move some items of the consent calendar. 8 c., 8 e. more specifically, those two. >> with that, madam chair, i will move that consent calendar items 8 a., b., d., f., and g.

>> any public comment? >> all of those in favor? those resolutions are passed. >> item 8 c., request authorization to advertise a request for proposal soliciting professional and sharing services to establish a building occupancy resumption program for critical port facilities. >> sorry, as the new commissioner, i will ask some questions. it is more informational. i guess part of it is that this looked like it was developing agency plan in the event of some emergency facilities. in addition to what we're trying to do going forward, what are some of the existing currency plans in place in the event there is a relatively long time line before this gets implemented? what is in place now? to protect?

>> ok, we have a representative from the engineering division. right now, the building occupancy resumption plan only applies to the private sector. i think only one of our master tenants has officially signed up, and two major tenants are looking at it. the plan is the same as everyone else's, which is in the event of an event, earthquake or something else, that renders a facility closed, then we have to go one by one out to inspect each individual facility. we have sought federal funding to allow us to get an engineer to create a plan for us so we could quickly resume at some of our key piers. we will not be able to do all of those with this funding. maybe you want to elaborate? >> good afternoon, commissioners.

i am the senior civil engineer. at this moment, so far we only have two facilities that are part of this program. one is the ferry building, only the building apart, but not the substructure, and the second facility that we were able to bring into this program was general 7 abc station, which is on the sea wall side. what we have right now is we have provided all the port facilities into three categories. we call category one at a high priority facilities, which is pier 1. >> need to articulate that is?

>> department dealt particulate -- department of facility. we work with the emergency center to give them updates on what is happening at the ports. pier 1 is doc at the moment, and we have also designated pier 50 a critical facility. when something happens, port needs to help start helping with inspections and removing debris and other items as needed. so, we have limited qualified staff to do these inspections. " we will be doing first, if something happens, we will be inspecting all of the critical facilities first. once we're done with the critical facilities, will be

moving onto priority to facilities -- priority two facilities, which are in densely populated areas. priority three facilities, which are not as much high importance, not in densely populated areas. we have only maybe 10 qualified staff to do these inspections, and we have 3 koehler coatings. one means it is green, which is safe to occupy. the other means it has restrictions. red means the facility is not suitable for occupancy. so only people with certain qualifications and certifications are allowed to do the stabbings. -- are allowed to do these

taggings. ewe have 39 piers, but if you include all the substructures and buildings, we have close to 100 facilities. even inspecting the critical facilities, it will take days, because we have to send people out in the boats, to inspect the pilings underneath, and then let's take for example the ferry building. although we have the building component, we do not have the substructure component. >> the intent of my question -- i just wanted to understand the completion of the timeline of this if it is extend it. i was not sure reading the material with the existing plan was, and allow it to be sure there was a plan. i understand the resources may be limited and may not be as well as what you would like, and this new plan may give you a

better road map. i just went to make sure that anything did happen between now and the completion of the new plan we do have a plan. >> we do have a plan in place, but we have limited resources. we may not be able to do everything we want to do in the short time. that is why we're trying to bring private industry on board, and they will be on-call. if something happens, we give them the phone call and they show up right away, within less than 24 hours. it would be supplementing the port staff. we will be doing inspections. >> that is the interim plan? >> desperatyes. >> that was the intent of my question, thank you. and any public comment on 8c? is there a motion? >> i move that we pass as amended. >> said. -- second. >> all those in favor?

all opposed? 8c passes. >> 8e, request approval to issue request for proposal soliciting public relations and media services related to the port's special events and other revenue generating and strategic media activities. >> again, as the new commissioner, i wanted to get a better sense of the background. i guess my question, number 1, in terms of the various, it is pork-specific and the other offenses that are more sort it -- are port-specific and the other events that are more a city-wide. in terms of the amount that was determined, the limit, 600,000.

in my experience, if you use 200,000 and end up on a monthly retainer, something like 600 and month, there are three major areas to cover, i am not a public relations expert, but i don't think that covers very much. i am concerned, how is the amount determined? now that you want to cover three major areas discussed in the resolution, will that be sufficient to do what you hope to do? >> i will start, and then renee who is our public information officer will respond. traditionally, public-sector departments of the city do not have media advisers. this is a new concept for the port, given all of the work that we have going on. as of right now, we traditionally do or marketing

and public relations and house, it in close coordination with the rest of the city family. in fact, ms. martin was asked and participated in the media event related to the memorial for the firefighters last week, stationed at the service all day. we typically work very much hand in hand. we found when we had that the emergency operation center that was stood up more than two weeks, while there are a number of public information officer staff to the city, only three, counting renee, were willing to staff that. that is one of the things we'd like to have it in the event there is a sizable emergency. renee is one person to back fill that. we don't have a plan for that right now. likewise, with the america's cup, listed as an event. it the event authority has their own pr people.

the city has been working very much with all of the affected departments, but we thought it might be useful as we move forward with our obligations to have somebody on call to do that. we're not looking to have a retainer. we are looking to have specific on-call services from time to time, and we hope that it is enough, but we have never done this before. >> but as the director state id this would be on an as needed basis. we're hopeful that it would be a

contract to the private sector. >> as this relates to the america's cup, is there an overall public relations media plan that the port would be a component of? in addition to these other areas, the 150th anniversary, and whatever other unforeseeable things, i am not debating that you need to have these resources and help. i have a stand there's a lot of pressure, but it is just -- i am just wondering how the $600,000 is estimated. if i boiled it down in a typical way, it did not seem like it was

that much if you were looking for three teams of people. that does not go very far in of p.r. world. >> you are right, but that is the amount that we came up with, as well as the america's cup. >> ok, america's cup is going to put up? >> i believe about 50%. let me back up. what we're trying to create is an as needed pool, which is where we have on standby selected consultants to do work as it occurs. let's say that the port decided that we needed some sort of special public advisory regarding traffic conditions, the day of the race. then we would take from the pool, we will look to the funding we expect, three in the pool.

we would not do that without coordinating. wheat for doing it as a good to see. >> it is more or less a contingency number, but not based on some -- >> it may help, what was the value of the contract for the pier 70 solicitation? >> that was about $10,000 over three months. >> this is all really very new to us. i apologize i cannot draw the picture, but we did retain the services of the pr firm to help

us. for the pier 70 contract. it was a very discreet task, and to answer your question, that is based off of that experience and something similar to that. i think your point is well taken. >> my experience is there has to be some sort of went up for them to understand and maintenance, and addition to be about to respond to the special circumstances.

>> it is not a large sum of money for all of the work we have between now and then. bu>> having been on both sides f this process, and that many of the contracts, many of the contractors recognize public agencies did not have the same kind of funding as the private sector, and they recognize that in their response. it does not go as far as many of the responders would recognize. >> my only point today, is this

going to be sufficient funding. i think it is good to try to work these issues through. >> and it was a big stretch for us to come up with that much money. i will say for your benefit and the public's, if it proved to be too little and we are able to find other funding, what we do is come back to the commission to augment the approval and would go back to the civil service commission, which has the authority to say this is work that can be contracted out or not. they did that at their meeting a week ago. we would come back through the process and see if we could amend the contract if we really need to. >> it seems to me, i imagine, the america's cup will be doing a lot of work in this area, so hopefully we coordinate with them on much of that.

it will ideally save us from having to spend too much. >> right, and that is their preference, but there are some port issues. that is why we wanted it. >> thank you for your support. >> any other questions? is there any other public comment on item 8e. is there emotion? all those in favor? resolution 11-41 is approved. >> item 9 a., informational presentation of the proposed fiscal year 2011-2012 monthly rental rate schedule, monthly parking stall rates, and special event and filming rates. >> i am here to give a brief presentation on the fiscal year

2011, 2012 monthly rental rates, the monthly parking stall rates, and the special event and filming rates. in 1993, the commission delegated authority to the detective director to negotiate -- to the executive director to negotiate agreements within certain business parameters. first, the agreements must be consistent with the minimum rental parameter. it cannot be longer than five years, staff to negotiate one month early. port staff provides this commission with a monthly report on the leases executed under this policy. under this policy, from june 30, 2010, unti