these competitive disadvantages faced by small local businesses are reduced by the ordinance through discounts, subcontracting goals and microsatisfied contracts. the contract monitoring division certifies firms as lbe's as small and local firms and also further classify he is them as either minority business enter pries, women business enterprises or other business enterprises. currently there are over 1300 actively certified lbe firms. prior to 2006 during the mebewebe program the chart on the left was comprised of only minority own end and women owned firms. today minority firms make up 30 percent of the total firm of lbe's, women-owned firms make up 20 percent and the remainder is comprised of other business enterprises. specifically those are firms owned by bhiet males. 50 percent of the firm's registered today of the mbe firms are asian american, 23

percent are african american, 20 percent are latino and the remainder are made up of arab american, iranan american owned firms. starting last year we started tracking lgbe firms and will incorporate those numbers as they become available. now turning to the contracts awarded during the reporting period, we had 6 new contracts that were awarded. 5 were governed by the lbe ordinance and 4 p awarded to lbe's at the prime level. approximately 3.4 mill wrupb went to lbe's at the prime level and 1.3 million went to lbe's at the subcontractor level. that's 67 percent of total dollars awarded by the port during the reporting period went to lbe firms. the size and scope of the construction contracts that were awarded during this reporting period lend themselves to high lbe numbers.

we tend to see the discount playing into contracts under 5 million dollars and lbe's do really well in construction contracts under 5 million dollars. in terms of payments, 45 percent of payments made during the reporting period went to lbe firms, 27 percent at the prime level and 18 percent at the subcontractor level. on average we are exceeding c and d set subcontracting goals for each of the different contract types. as you can see in the table, the average lbe subcontracting goal is 14 percent. it is important to note each of these categories is made up of many individual contracts with their own individual subcontracting goals. the lbe subcontracting goal is set on the overall life of the contract and during the life of the contract taylored to lbe's, we predict payments will adjust and conform during the completion of each of these

contracts. again, these are very good numbers and they have exceeded the informal port policy of 20 percent lbe participation. at the conclusion of every contract c and d, the contract monitoring division, formally close out each contract in writing. during the reporting period we had two contracts that closed, both of them were microset aside contracts. microset asides are smaller contracts awarded only to lbe firms. the only requirement on these contracts is that 25 percent of the work is self-performed by lbe's and in both cases that was done on these contracts. we also have one that has been completed and is awaiting final c and d approval, that's the blue greenway signage project and the project looks like it will close at 19 percent lbe, with a

19 percent lbe utilization, that's far higher than the 8 percent goal that was set by c and d chapter 21 of the administrative code allows city agencies to purchase goods and services under $10,000 without going through a competitive bidding process. rather than relying on the bidding process for these purchase orders, city agencies are instead charged with exercising good judgment when placing them. these purchase orders are known as delegated departmental purchases or prop q purchases. again these purchases are not subject to the lbe ordinance. however, during the reporting period, 20 percent of all these purchases were made to lbe's and 60 percent were made from san francisco firms and these entail everything from the purchase of paper to hammers to pilings or tug boat services and we had over 1.4 million dollars in prop q purchases with 60 percent of them coming

from san francisco firms. now turning to the local hire ordinance , we have had 14 projects that have been subject to the local hire ordinance passage in 2011. all 14 projects either comply with the ordinance and requirements or have received exemptions or waivers to bring them into compliance. three of the 14 projects remain open. currently open projects must meet a 30 percent local hire requirement. the blue greenway signage contract, though under 30 percent, has provided off site credits to come into compliance with the law. the office of economic and work force development monitors and enforces the local hire ordinance. their goal is to raise the mandatory local participation to 50 percent by year 7 of the program in 2018. finally, in december the board

of supervisors passed and the mayor signed into law a number of q reforms to the lbe ordinance. they include an aspirational city pf wide goal of 40 percent, creation of the san francisco first program, this is a program that will require city departments to fir solicit s from lbe's before going out to non-lbe's, there is also an amendment that increases the discount for contracts between 10 and 20 million. previously lbe discounts were only allowed under the 10 million threshold. development agreements at the port are now going to be required to submit lbe utilization plans and subcontracting goals. a number of the certification thresholds have also increased and there's a new mentor protege program that's being instituted. fortunately here at the port we're ahead of the curve. we've already been instituting a number of these amendments.

in the past year and a half we have exceeded the mayor's proposed aspirational goal of the 40 percent. the amendment that will have the most impact is related to development agreements and projects at pier 70, see wall lot 337 and even at metro cruises at pier 27 we have instituted lbe utilization plans prior to the mandate. the port staff is currently working with other city agencies and the contract monitoring division to implement the new ordinances, rules and regulations. the new legislation will take place, take effect, on july 1st of this year. that concludes my presentation and i'm available to answer any questions you have. >> thank you. is there public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. i want to thank commissioner brandon, i know you've been instrumental in making sure we

get these reports on how we're doing and want to make sure you were here for this presentation. >> and i thank you for that. boris, i really want to thank you for this report. you did a really good job and it's very clear and easy to follow and thank you very much. it's a lot of information but i also want to thank monique and the port staff because i think the port has become a leader in this space and a role model to other city departments doing such a great job working with local businesses. and i really really appreciate it so thank you all very much. you all deserve a round of applause. (applause). and i really want to thank you for exceeding, you know, the goals in every area and coming up with innovative ways to be able to attract more local businesses. so i really want to thank you for that. and i just wanted to ask

regarding the new ordinance changes that came from the board of supervisors, what is the new mentor protege program? and how are we going to implement that here at the port? >> the mentor protege program was actually a concept that came out of the puc and har lan kelly's office. currently when firms submit their lbe paperwork they need to do a number of good faith outreach steps, that is we look at emails, phone contacts, outreach to subcontractors. through the mentor protege program firms would have that provision waived from their contracting process as long as they took on a smaller lbe and kind of showed them a joint venture sort of relationship with an lbe subcontractor. >> okay, thank you.

then the lbe utilization plans, i'm not quite sure that i've seen one for 337 or pier 70. >> at pier 70 there is one for a 20 percent goal, from what i understand, and the plans are being developed and the rules and regulations that will include listing of all the services that will be performed at a specific development and outreach plans for each of those services and an lbe subcontracting goal. >> so when will those be complete? >> july 1. any contract that goes, any development agreement that goes before the board of supervisors after july 1 will be required to have this plan in effect. >> so we'll see it before it goes to the board of supervisors or only the board of supervisors will see it? >> the board of supervisors -- i'm sure you will see it here and the board of supervisors will have to apend that plan to any development agreement. >> okay, i would love to see what we are proposing for seawall lot 337 and pier 70.

thank you again for such a great report. >> thank you, commissioner. >> thank you for the report. i don't really have any further questions. >> thank you. very, very clear and again i, too, just want to commend our staff. this is something that the commission has felt very strongly that we take a look at and try to see how we can do things better and the numbers frankly speak for themselves. clearly you've done a great job and we're really pleased to see it, so thank you for all the hard work that's gone into this and i want to thank my colleagues for highlighting how important it is, we can do things differently as a city department and improve upon past performance so it shows. thank you, everyone, well done. >> item 12 a, informational presentation on port staff proposal to update the port's waterfront land use plan.

>> thank you, mary. good afternoon, president katz, commissioners woo ho and brandon, members of the public i am diane oshima with the port planning division and we wanted to present an update on the waterfront land use plan. as you know, back in august we released a comprehensive report and we've gotten many different comments and that really has been very helpful in informing our proposal today and we look forward to your comments and direction on that. just as a presentation, we'll highlight some of the take away issues that we have gleaned from all of the comments and the conversations that have

taken place. we will walk you through the proposed process and the community participation model that we're proposing and the commission's involvement on how this process would unfold. first we thought that we would start with the highlights of some of the comments and the issues that we've received through the public review process from august pretty much up through the end of the year. it had been sort of a rolling discussion where we got comments, we've made a number of presentations, they are all summarized and categorized in your staff report for more detail so we can't go into every single one, but we're just trying to give you the highlights. it really did inform a number of key issues that set some strategic framework for the waterfront plan update. first off i think we did receive a number of, you know, positive comments and excitement around the changes

that have taken place along the waterfront over the last 18 years. i think the diversity of activities for many different populations is being recognized and appreciated. people also recognize that maritime use is still a very important purpose for the port and are starting to appreciate better the diversity of the industries that we have and the need to maintain that priority. at the same time there's a recognition that the relationship between a changing city and those maritime industries have changed as well and so while we're looking to accommodate them, we also need to recognize some of the other needs of the city at large. many different views about, you know, bay access, recreation, public uses, concerns around the future of the port's historic piers and rehabilitation. there's a

growing sense of resilience, the need to plan for sea level rise and the protection and management of the port's historic facilities, the bulk head buildings and the piers in particular. moving on to development, there are a number of comments around different ideas and desires about land uses and recreational activities that people would like to see along the waterfront. a lot of concerns around development at large and i think it was one of commissioner woo ho's comments in particular that really highlighted the question how much land is left to develop really? and it really triggerd for the staff our need to articulate more clearly how many different kinds of uses are taking place. people did not understand how much land was being used for maritime and open space and on-going real estate assets and the

development projects in that larger context. and so we thought that this map turned out to be a very, very helpful way for people to understand the port better. that said, there's a lot of change taking place in the city at large, a lot of changes and development project proposals that have been tried, some of them successful, some of them not, and the questions that they raise around the future of the waterfront. clearly building heights were a very sensitive hot button issue for the public, got a lot of comments on that. i think the proposition b certainly sets the new frame for what port projects will have to go through but even so there are questions about what the city's involvement, what the port's involvement, should be about. commenting or weighing in about information about building heights and how that can be incorporated into information before the voters are presented with a ballot measure on port

development projects. there were also a number of very strong comments about public private partnership development projects. those were the model that were highlighted in the waterfront land use plan as a major implementation strategy for rehabilitating piers and being able to bring developments online that brought public benefits as well. and we got a number of comments questioning the value and the effectiveness of that as a tool, particularly in light of sea level rise and some of the issue that is they raised for amortizing capital investments and private investment. there are also a lot of excellents about what we call unique development opportunities or development proposals that came through a

not -- we didn't have a competitive process for them. so the exploretoriums, the women's museum, we have had a number of proposals come through that have been considered for port property and there is concern around a lack of a clear process to be able to provide a public forum for determining how projects like those should be considered for the waterfront with some comments questioning whether that should be allowed. so we understand that that's an open issue. sea level rise and seismic safety. water front resilience has become a very high profile issue and concern for the port. i think people now have a much better understanding about the vulnerability of the port's seawall and the fact that the port commission has directed the structural study of the

seawall. it's an issue of a high level of interest and that the seismic risk may be more of an urgent concern than the sea level rise, which a lot of people are more familiar with, quite frankly. so there is an interest in really being able to understand better what the ramifications of those risks are to the waterfront and also an understanding about the value of the seawall to the city at largement it's not just a port resource but it has ramifications for downtown and adjacent upland neighborhoods and the city transportation and utility infrastructure and so i think that there is a real need for us to be working with the city family in those discussions. with respect to port finance and capital needs, i think

commissioner woo ho stated it well in terms of the capital shortfall that we highlight in the 10 year capital plan. people now have a much more dire understanding of that disconnect. there is on top of the fact that we've got these needs for seawall repairs and sea level rise responses which are not in the capital plan, there's concern about funding resources for waterfront improvements that are not only about development but are about infrastructure as well. again, everylapping into the finance comments were many comments around public private development projects and the need to come up with different strategies for improving pier facilities for improved uses. those issues also overlaped quite heavily into concerns expressed about the embarcadero historic district. national register historic district that depends on maintaining the integrity of as many of our

piers, our finger piers and bulk head buildings as possible. and with the seawall itself being a historic resource as the spine of that historic district and the aging condition of the piers and the bulk head buildings, the cost associate of managing and repairing and rehabilitating them are growing as the time frame for being able to finance them are shrinking. and so there is a more open sense of the need to look at alternative financing strategies as well as rehabilitation strategies. in terms of open space, i think the short statement on that is people love waterfront open space and i think the go bond measures that have enabled us to expand parks have been very successful. people point out the need for waterfront open space in light of the fact that many of the neighborhoods

adjacent to the waterfront don't have enough open space or are projected for growth so there's even more pressure to try and provide that kind of amenity along the waterfront, as well as public rel being and how the streets and public spaces interface with those open spaces as well. the west side of the embarcadero being a key example of something that we could do better on. transportation. we received numerous comments about the concerns around traffic congestion, transportation services, running short of what existing needs are let alone new needs associated with new development and changes in the city fabric. we are working very closely with mta and the waterfront transportation assessment which will have to continue because the port is a transportation agency is really pretty much focused on things like expanding water taxis and

ferry service and working with mt on bike access along the embarcadero, but many of these other systems really relay on a coordinated city and regional strategy. with respect to comments coming down in specific areas of the waterfront, the northeast waterfront clearly we gt a lot of comments there. very much supportive of the staff recommendation to do more subarea planning in the northeast waterfront, which is highlighted in orange on your map. there is a support for the asian neighborhood design vision, a community plan that was done by some of the neighborhood groups and they brought that into the comments so we expect that that would be part of the discussions in the subarea planning process. concern around past develop. projects that failed and some of the processes behind them, the level of public engagement and yet a recognition that public trust uses should be

something that should be prioritized in development. and that said there is an openness, we've got a number of port parking lots, there is a recognition that there are opportunities for development improvements as long as they are worked in sink synch with design and land use discussions and exchange. with respect to the south beach china basin proposal there is a very high level of interest in continuing in subarea planning and the south beach area as we have recommended. transportation then and now is still a continuing concern, but there's also an interest in having more

discussions to pick up where we left off after the lawyers in terms of the future for pier 30-32. fisherman's wharf you heard from troy campbell about concerns about transportation, also a universal concern that's been expressed by the public and in particular they are looking for improvements to the second phase of jefferson street and ways of making the circulation through and within fisherman's wharf improved even further, a pleasant attraction that complements the improvements that have taken place so far and to provide complementary open spaces along the way. for the ferry building area, i think the ferry building and piers 1 through 5 are very, very warmly regarded. people are very excited, they take pride in this section of the

waterfront. at the same time we did receive a number of comments, concerns about and in opposition to the 8 washington project and that figures into future discussions about the future of seawall lot 351. with respect to the southern waterfront, with your direction and with some guidance from commissioner brandon we have been able to really work together to develop a more clarified strategy for the pier 80 through 96 area to create more of an understanding about an ecoindustrial district that really takes advantage of the synergies of cargo shipping, the concrete batch and asphalt batch plant opportunities for construction materials industries centralizing in the southern water front area and that really is i think the platform that the southern

water front advisory committee and other groups are advancing as the economic heart of the southern water front around islais creek. at the same time the support, the level of support for the blue greenway expansion and the way finding system down through the southern waterfront has gotten a lot of positive response. so, with that, we also did get some comments about revisions to the waterfront land use plan review report itself. there are relatively few, most of the comments we got were forward-looking but in the staff report we have articulated then attached as one of the attachments the actual replacement pages that would be added to finalize that report. we hope that that report really does provide a helpful comprehensive resource because i expect that we will be using that on an on-going basis through the water front

plan update process. and if you have any questions on the details of that i'm happy to review that with you. but now looking forward in terms of the proposed process for the update of the waterfront plan, the staff report lays out in some detail what our proposal is but one of the things that we took to heart from the comments from the commission as well as the community is the need for robust public participation. so we have proposed the creation of another port advisory group but one that would be able to look at the issues on a port-wide basis crossing over the many different districts along the waterfront by creating a waterfront plan working group. and we see this as a forum that the fat column there tries to articulate the various categories of interest and expertise that port staff is

proposing that we have represented on the waterfront plan working group. in addition to having liaisons, delegates, from our current port advisory groups as well, because it's important to not only have these discussions about comprehensive port wide issues but to make sure that there's a good cross fertilization and exchange between our localized advisory groups along the various neighborhoods and districts with that port wide discussion. so we wanted to structure it in a way that would enable that to take place. and included within the range we also are proposing that bcdc and state lands commission staff also have seats in the waterfront plan working group because of this overlap questions around what's a public trust use and in what conditions are they appropriate and in various locations along

the waterfront. that all said, we also are looking at making sure that we have a city inner agency coordination strategy too between the various city agencies outlined in the box there, the planning department, rec park, oewd, mta, and again making sure that we have a city-wide discussion about all of these issues. i will point out that in the waterfront plan working group list of prospectives, community prospectives, we've added a few more beyond what we had in our staff report because we just were continuing to think about how to be as inclusive as possible. so we have added vision zero in particular as one perspectives that we want to bring, given that the water front is