way in addressing -- we have some retired folks. there is a lot more discussion that needs to happen. talk to people who are it marina businesses. to expand what it is support is providing coverage thank you very much. >> you already spoke, but our rules are that you cannot speak again. >> commissioners, i have been a partner in a sailboat at south beach harbor for seven years.

under the proposed parking plan, my partner will get a free parking pass he will never use because he does not use the boat. i will have to pay $600 for a special parking permit unless my partners pass is transferable. i would like to say this about other partnerships. there are many partnerships and this marina. some consisting of three or four families. they take a weekend of the month to enjoy these waters. the well-being of these diminished partners is not protected by the port's parking proposal.

unless the single permits can be transferred among the minor partners, to use the boat. south beach marina -- there are 670 holders. there is approximately 406 hundred minor partners. we're talking about a community of 10001100 people at that are not represented -- 1100 people that are not represented by the advocates of south beach harbor, which is an organization that represents 150 people. proper notice has not been given to the community at large.

i am asking what everybody else is asking. the 1000 people affected by the decision by the commissioners and the port be noticed of what is going on. i further prayed the commission will entertain an amended parking plan were all partners are treated as equal financial players and not as cash cows, the 500 people that are not represented in this proceeding that somehow they get proper notice of what is going on and that the transference of the

parking permit among the owners of the boats be addresseduñó%!. i read your e-mail and it did not clarify who exactly could use the permit. >> thank you. >> i have one more thing. >> your time is up, i am sorry. [applause] any other comment? >> thank you for allowing me to comment on what is going on. >> please identify yourself. >> i have a slick at south beach harbor. i have been here for almost 30 years. i have a sailboat. what i see here is when i became a tenant, i signed a lease and included the i would get a slip

and parking. i have been paying for that ever since. now we are talking about taking the parking away, reducing my services, increasing my face, and putting electrical services. i think this is unfair, it could be considered illegal. if you are going to reduce my services, why are you increasing the fees? i happen to be a homeowner and the rent part of my house. if i took away the garage from a tenant, he would call that a reduction in service and i would have to reimburse them somehow for that reduction. in this case, i am not getting that fair shake. all the tenants better currently -- that are currently renting slips have not been given the opportunity to discuss these issues with the port commission.

that is unfair and we have to have more dialogue and we have to have more representation so that we can be treated fairly. [applause] >> any further public comment? >> i have to open my mouth to represent the sailors. i am a nurse, my husband is retired. we have a spectacular privilege to sell out. -- to sail. we go to the tenant advocates meetings and they speak for us. we appreciate their volunteer work. [applause] >> any further public comment? >> hello, commission.

i'm a resident. i am new to the harbor. i was able to get a slip as of november. this is the third harbor idea that a boat, and the staff, the communications is wonderful. there has been a disconnect as far as being able to notify all the tenants. trying to push ahead with this seems to be a little bit of a problem. with the loan from the california boating division, that money that comes from that is part of -- that is excise tax money. it comes from gas tax and voter registration. -- boulder registration. there are restrictions on what can be done with that money and what can be done with the project. there are some legal ground that needs to be looked at because

that could be problematic. you are looking for additional funding sources. there needs to be some work done at the harbor. the one area that the boating department is under state parks, state parks wanted to steal some money. part of that deal is that they have grants available to be able to upgrade and improve the facility. that is another area that can be left out as far as a funding source. -- looked at as far as a funding source. >> further public comment? commissioners? >> i have been there for almost 20 years. i haven't dort the construction

of the ballpark and paid -- i have in georendured the construn of the ballpark. i have a partnership, even though it is a small boats and i could maybe get $8,000 if i sold it, the management and upkeep is more than i can afford. so i have a partner. the additional cost of $600 for a parking fee would be very difficult to spread across our partnership. almost unaffordable. it seems to be there is an assumption that all boat owners are rich. this argument came up a lot. i attended a lot of the america's cup early discussions and that was a fear that bring the america's cup to san francisco, that the un wealthy

would not benefit and be squeezed out. that is how i feel right now at south beach with my 30-foot slap been increased by 41%. if a residential rent increase was presented, there would be riots in the street. some earlier comment about low hanging fruit. that kind of hit the target. there is a lot of income about to be available to the city with the america's cup. there is a lot of people who would have big boats that could afford whatever rent increase because they want to be here in the center of the america's cup activity.

that -- i am a season holder at the ballpark in the bleachers seat and i pay my $20 and now the world series is coming to town and their people willing to pay $200 for the seat and i'm getting squeezed out. for a long time, it seems a very unreasonable and it smells of creep. thank you for your time. [applause] >> i have a nonprofits. we operate out of south beach harbor. we're not a very big organization, but we do a lot of work. we clean up plastics and ocean trash. over the last few years, we've brought in over 2600 volunteer hours.

i want to request that there is some consideration, a special meaning that addresses the conversation with the port the hd e services. hd e [applause] >> it looks like we have no further public comment. peter?

>> a couple of quick words. i do apologize is outreach is perceived to be poured -- poor. this meeting tonight was noticed in their newsletter. i know you do not open your bills, joe. >> does everyone read latitude? >> we are going to do a special outreach to all the tenants. we will have been another town hall meeting in the next couple of weeks. we will have our staff call e . we will do everything we can do to reach out to everybody. our website is a great location. we will put signs up down at the harbor. relating to someone's comments that the port was the dillydallying on sending out

list of tenants. the request was sent in by e- mail to the ports, who sent it to the city attorney, who came back to us and said that information is proprietary and against the law to send it out. we will explore it further. we are reacting to a specific legal opinion from the city attorney. if there is a way to get around it, we will try. but i do not know how. i do want to thank the advocates for south beach harbor. we do have a good relationship. we will continue to meet with them on a regular basis. it is not easy. there are some difficult questions. regarding the america's cup, that is an opportunity.

we are housing five or six of the chase boats for the race that will be happening next week. they will be here for a number of weeks. i looked at that as an opportunity for revenue going forward. that is all i have to say. >> do we have a list of all current slip holders? >> yes, we do. >> we are going to send out a mailing to all of them? >> yes, we are. >> and e-mail. >> everything. >> that is going to be the fastest way. >> i sent an e-mail to the advocates to work out a date. we will come up with one by tomorrow. we are thinking possibly the

first week after labor day. >> there were comments regarding san francisco residents. >> that is a tricky one. we had discussions with cal boating. we did a quick survey of every municipal harbour in the bay. in san francisco, there are none. san francisco marina does not. treasure island does not. it might have something to do with the loan, which somebody stated has language in it that requires the harbors to be available on an equal term. we are researching that aspect of it. right now, it it seems to be an impediment. we will look at it more carefully. it looks like it is a tougher road to hoe.

>> we are not getting the tax increment that people are paying. we're trying to work through with the city on where it is going. >> do we have guessed birth -- guest berths? >> good point. there is a guest dock that we want to monetize. america's cup boats, they are paying top dollar to use it. we will be vigilant in collecting as much money as we can. >> [inaudible] >> we cannot take public comment at the close.

>> the renewable power options. if you could address that. >> the advocates, they talked about solar energy. it is on our list of things to do. alternative energy, wind energy, it is something we will look at in terms of power in the marina. the harbour office, we need to get the pros and there to look at it carefully. >> peter, you mentioned some of the requirements. are we in technical default today or not? >> boy, that is -- >> we would not want to say yes to that publicly.

>> know. >> -- no. >> the requirement is 1.3 times revenue. we're working with the redevelopment agency to understand the indenture and how much revenue as are defined. the city has bought this investment and it is now principal interest investment. we will be working with the office of public finance. we're looking very carefully at it. at this point, it would not likely result in 1.3 times coverage in the current year if it starts in january. we are going to be working very carefully with redevelopment and the office of public finance. >> ok. thank you.

>> in terms of covering the indebtedness we're trying to make up for, what does happen once we hit that point? >> we will pay off the revenue bonds in four years. december 1, 2016. the have an outstanding obligation for the permit, required capital work that we have not size carefully at this point. it is probably in the neighborhood of $10 million. we need to issue new debt obligations. the cal boating loans go on until 2035, 2036.

will be relieved of the revenue bonds in 2016 december. the booklet we need to find a new capital program and set aside for repair and replacement capital needs of the harbor. that is not in their operating budget. we have a program for those funds. some of the speakers have spoken about wanting to ensure that the net revenues remain in the harbor. we have set up a special fund, looking for the operation to be in the green. we have no anticipation where we would either subsidize or move net revenue to other port operations. it is all retained in the harbor. >> could you clarify for the port operation within the harbor funds and there is no access to

the general fund? >> all the debt, the revenue bonds and the loans are not general obligations backed. they're pointing to the harbour revenues. also, in relationship to revenue bonds, the agency collected interest tax revenue and pay down that debt. they found the rate sufficient to pay back the debt. they're paying interest only and we're working closely with the city to try to assert that those tax revenues should accrue at the harbor. >> ok. i want to make a couple of

comments. this has been a very helpful session. part of it is that we're trying to improve our communications and give all the stakeholders a chance to talk to the commission. i want to speak to a couple things. we will commit to a more communications in meetings. the port commission supports the staff in that regard. we had hoped that perhaps one meeting would be able to resolve these questions. there is no magic about the september timeline. since the rate increase was not proposed until january, we do have time. we will work with the timeline to meet the interest of everybody. we are trying to -- i think all of you understand we have a problem. we need to solve it. we need to figure out a way to

solve it together. it is not about -- if we recognize we have an issue and that we are trying to manage the issue with you, we have to figure out how to manage the change as best we can to meet the requirements we have in terms of what the port has to do. there is no extra funds today to support that deficit. understand what the port is facing. it is not like we had another fund we can go to. this deficit is real. you have mentioned many possible things we can consider. that was the purpose of hearing from you today. we have been through some of these things and other issues, we will not satisfy everybody's

concerns, but we hope to get to a point where there is more common ground and understanding of what is happening. the commission supports that and it has been very helpful to hear from all the today. thank you for coming in spending the time with us today. [applause] i'm going to go back to the agenda. >> item 11. >> i have a request for a five- minute break. we will take a five-minute break, thank you. >> item 11, a second

informational update on the june 20, 2012. 29 fire damaged and port response. >> i will ask the speakers to be a little bit briefer in your comments. >> good afternoon. i and the port architect and project manager for the pier 29 at reconstruction project. in response to the comments about commending everybody working on that project. it takes a village and there are a lot of people who care about it. as reported, we explained we initiated to emergency contracts.

restoration on utilities are on the critical path to eliminate the need for generators as well as to provide power to the terminal as scheduled. during this initial period of we have to approach this project

utility restoration. phase two will be able cadbury construction -- bulkhead reconstruction. they will not be in the area of immediate work. all the work has been performed with approved building permits and exemption under ceqa. further permits will need to be secured for the remaining work. port staff have then and will continue to keep the san francisco historic preservation commission briefed on the project's project -- progress. phase one is coming to a close. to accommodate the america's cup events, port staff, consultants and contractors are responding to a request to meet a march 1, 2003, substantial completion of the reconstruction of the bulkhead through integrated

project delivery. port staff will be working with the same contractor along with the san francisco branch of architectural resources group and their construction conservation arm. this will provide some additional architectural preservation expertise. along with the architectural engineering team, the consultants we have on board. phase three will be completed after the america's cup event. the work for replacing the building in