waterfront land use working group along with rudy nothenberg. i had no idea what i was getting into, and the fact that this was now happening is incredible. i'm glad to be here to talk about transportation. so i would say there are two things i'll note. i know particularly commissioner presit brandon, you had really pushed for a robust process to make sure there was really all folks in the room had part of these conversations and certainly think through the working group, through linda richardson as the chair of the transportation sub committee and through the advisory teams, there was robust dialogue about so many different things. i've taken part in a lot of different public planning processes, and to see the room fill day in and day out, and to hear folks say, i watched you on sfgov tv, and i'm like did

you? that's incredible. thank you for pushing the port and pushing the public to be involved. i think that certainly happened. secondly and last thing i'll say, my day job is i'm the advocacy director of the san francisco bicycle coalition. i know that can be -- the bike coalition evokes different feelings in people, so it was particular for me to be able to be a part of this process. and what i've learned is i didn't know much about the water taxis. i didn't know about all the ways that the port really is multimodal, and certainly, you know, when we were talking before my time in the 80's, when there was a double decker freeway in the embarcadero, we could never have imagined what noeblt and transportation could look like today. and i think it's been an incredible success, but with

those success comes so many different challenges of being able to maintain the maritime industry, the port industry, as well as the new tourism and all the people biking whether it's from caltrain or the bike tourism. and so i think specifically in the recommendations that came out of phase two for transportation, i think there was a huge acknowledgement of the multimodality and the changes that have come since our original land use plan. where we're at is very different than that. i think there was a lot of good thinking in particularly the land use elements and thinking about what parking should or shouldn't look like on the waterfront, what biking or walking and what street safety along with, you know, all of the maritime mobility options. so look forward to hearing your comments after this, but thank you so much for your attention on this. >> thank you. is there any other public comment? are there anymore members of the working group that want to comment?

alex? jeffrey? corinne? okay. public comment is closed. commissioners? commissioner woo ho? >> well, first of all, i again want to thank linda and janice and everybody on the task force for the transportation for their dedication and commitment. it's been a two year process, and it's been said already but just to reiterate again, our purpose was to engage the community and to engage the public and have the voices be heard. we know they were going to be divergent voices, and it's what rudy said, insisted you had unanimous agreement on all the recommendations. that was a very smart thing to do, and i applaud all of you

for sticking with the process and the process itself. i think this is a blueprint, 161 amendments to policies. i think the categories that you used in terms of from integrated transportation to multimodal, whatever the various categories that you used, was very smart and excellent. i think that it really -- i think this is just the beginning, at least for me, because i think we at the port obviously sit with the whole city and many other agencies of how to actually tackle this whole issue of transportation. so while we took our little bit of real estate and tried to figure out what our role in part of this, i think it's still part of a bigger picture, so it raises more questions and things and conversations and dialogue. and some of the areas that i have which i know that the waterfront plan working group could really not respond to, and they may not have had access, but one of the things that i kept thinking about this was how much do we have

congestion today, and how do we measure that and how can we project what the congestion's going to be based on population, not necessarily the type of vehicles that we're going to use, so that we just know how -- what is the degree the iue that we have to -- to solve from where we are now and going forward? and given also that the city is still growing andet. so these are things that i'm not sure that these are tactics that we should look at to address. i guess i'm an analyst time, and i like data. we live in the period now of big data, andt seems we need to figure out how to use big data to help us figure out some of these issues, and i think that's another step that needs to be taken in terms of using technology and big data to answer some of these things and just think about -- i -- i can

get down to a tactical issue because it really hit me one day is just traffic management. how can we use smart lights? orn the uise ship is in, an had policemen standing around, but they were not directing traffic very efficiently, so it was totally snarled. i mean, i sat there for 45 minutes. very frustrating. those are very simple things. it's a tactical level, but again, how can you have smart information to help you just manage the day-to-day, and i think that's something that also needs to be addressed. even on the parking, we do have apps out there, smart apps that tell you, and i thought it was very brilliant when the warriors told us when they were going to build the arena, t instead of people circling around for parking, you would either buy your parking with your ticket, or you'd go to the app and they'd tell you exactly where to park. right now, we have uber and lyft cars going around, trying to find passengers.

is there a smarter way to try to figure out how to connect passengers with cars, if you're going to use that. so these are things i think we need to keep going down that path. on the water transportation side, i think you all know i'm real passionate about that, and we've made progress on that, but i think i'd like to know about specific ferry landings, whether it's public ferries or the private charter services for computers, and i know we are working on what we have with the -- with the ferry building here and the office at mission y,t seems like we need to have a lot more specifics in terms of that. i know that's going to be coming, but i'd just like to emphasize that i thinks important that we try to address that. of course since we are just all celebrating the warriors, is just on the one hand, i'm really excited. i'm just wondering in two years when they're going to be here, the traffic on the embarcadero

is just going to get i don't know how much worse. and so that's a very specific incident to think at how we're going to address that. so i think the ideas are great, but i think it's the idea of trying to relate and connecting those, and i think that's going to be another phase. and i think it's greato come to this conclusion so far. so i've gone on and on, but i just wanted to make sure that everybody understands, it's like now, this is the beginning. this is not the end, and i know we've been studying this for a long time. this is not just the port with our waterfront land use plan. every time we ask somebody to come from mta, they tell us they're studying it. i think we want to know what the actual solutions are going to be, and we have some solutions in these recommendations, but we need to figure out what the real solutions are going to be and how do we measure them, and how do we get the results. thank you. >> commissioner gilman? >> i just actually wanted to thank staff, brandon davis for

all of your hard work, and linda richardson for your leadership in all of this. someone who's come in midway through this process, i've been touched by the work of the sub groups, as someone who shares commissioner woo hos passion for water transportation as a nondriver on the commission. whenever i can avoid it, i don't drive or own a car. food transportation i think is really key, and i think looking to other east coast cities that have much more robust water taxi services and others could be constructive for us. it's good to see that while balancing the need of maritime businesses, because i can't have my fantasy where we don't all have cars. i understand we have to have people who drive and move goods. i just want to thank the committee. it's a lot to work with, and i just appreciate all of your hard work and dedication to this. >> thank you. commissioner makras? >> i'm one of those drivers. no, thanks for the report.

well done. >> david, thank you for this report. thank you for working with the transportation committee -- brad and david, thank you so much for working with the transportation committee to come up with these recommendations. i really want to thank linda richardson for chairing t transportation committee and the diligence that this committee has come up with 54 recommendations, and great recommendations. i did have one request on recommendation 21, where it says accessibility improvements to the e and f lines. i would hope that we could include the t line to that because that service needs improvements, also. i think you guys are way ahead of the game because it took six years to do the original waterfront land use plan, and it's only taken you guys a little over a year to come up with these recommendations for

updates and unanimously, you know? you guys have worked together as a great team, so janice and rudy, i really want to thank you guys for leading the way of all the committees and to come up with all these recommendations, and they're great recommendations. as far as -- we've been through the other two, and so as far as transportation, david and brad, do you see any of these recommendations that -- that -- to not be implemented or cause any concern? >> i don't see any that can't be implemented. i think i referenced the onces that could be concerns, primarily as it relates to parking and an it revenue source to the port, and that not all people can ride their bikes, walk, and take public transit, one form or another down to the waterfront. and so i think we're seeing

what some of the development projects where parking's going to be eliminated, and i think we see in the numbers, from what i understand from the real estate division that the demand for parking is getting lower, so i think it's one that we just need to recognize and plan for in the future. and then, the other one that i think will help with the congestion is developing and working towards developing a transportation demand management p andlan whether that's a port wide one or one that we start in one portion of the waterfront or another, that would be good. there's one in mission way that's very successful. there's one that's in operation downtown in both the mission rock and pier 70 projects will have their own. so i think it's finding the staff resources to begin to look at that, and then, if it is feasible, where you find the funding to pay for it, an idea that came out of the nelson nygard study was maybe you can

use some of the parking revenue that we get off of our parking to help pay for it. in some respects in mission bay, it's funded by each of the tenants down there. so i do think that they're all achievable. the one thing that i would like to just say that i didn't mention earlier today to go to commissioner woo ho's comment is you know, we're not a transportation provider. we rely on our partners, whether it's weda or golden gate or mta or other providers that service the waterfront in one form or another, so we rely heavily on them. they're the experts, so we rely on their advice, but we need to collaborate with them like we are on the downtown ferry terminal or like we are on the mission way ferry landing to increase service. >> thank you. and i do think the expansion of the water taxi service is going to be key to our traffic congestion. so hopefully that ksh ksh we

can expand that. commissioner woo ho? >> yeah. i mean, i agree. we're informing. we're just anxious to see that our partners are able to sort of work on the solutions because we cannot impment those solutions by ourselves, but there was something that you sahat now just escaped me that i wanted to comment on in terms of -- she mentioned the t-line. i was just wondering if for instance in the sense there should be more of the public transit buses or is the frequency or the volume -- those are the things that i'm looking for, how do we actually relieve congestion? and the other -- you know, just -- you mentioned something earlier in terms of how do we actually measure relief? i mean, how do we understand, oh, now, it came back to me. the transportation demand management strategy. you said it's working for mission bay. can you give me some sense of how is it working for mission

bay? what is it doing for mission bay? >> so for mission bay, and i'm going to invite carly payne from mta to talk about how they help the city manage transit and what their plans are for improvingefficiency. but in our discussions with the mission bay transportation management agency or t.m.a., is -- is that as an example, one of the things that they do is when a new tenant comes into mission bay, the t.m.a. will go to the new business or tenant and say okay, you have 800 employees. 50% of them live in the city, and 50% of them are commuting from marin, sth bay, east bay. do you know that one -- you can give your employees tax benefits to give them prepaid commuter benefits on the clipper® card which brings down the costs. there are programs like

emergency ride home, so if you're a driver, and you drive because you're worried about your child getting sick, you can take a taxi home and get reimbursed for it. they have in all other office buildings, a large screen installed that says where the next t is coming, and when. and so they -- and then, they also talk about their -- their internal bus shuttle system that's open to anyone that wants to access the site. and so i commute down market street nearly every day. i see the mission bay shuttle parked near the powell street station, waiting for all those people to come out of b.a.r.t. and hop on that bus instead of hopping in a t.n.c. or a taxi. so those are the types of tools that they have. they're not necessarily high tech, but it's just offering and educating people about the resources that are available to them to, you know, get that 1%,

get that 10%, get that 20% that are now driving and probably paying $50 a day to park down there and congesting the street. and losing a lot of their time. and with that, i'll let carly talk about how they measure metrics. >> good afternoon, commissioners. carly payne, sf mta. so one of the questions was i heard about the e and f line and transit in general and what kind of improvements we have in place. i'll say i am not with our transit services division, so my answer is going to be high level. i'm happy to follow up with more specifics through your staff. so i do know that we have plans in place. we'll just -- well, the board of supervisors has not adopted our budget yet, but with this next budget cycle, there are improvements for the e and f

lines in terms of service frequency, which i think will be important to address some of the needs that you've heard from your northern waterfront tenants and visitors. and as you probably know, we have service service frequencies coming on-line in the next two years along the t line that's going to significantly increase the t line service. and i think one of the things that people really rely on in making a decision to take a train or a bus is how long am i going to have to wait? is it really going to come when i think it's going to come. on the t line, we also are doing a number of things to bolster the service frequently in terms of reliability, so reducing the delays that might be caused by improving the

signaling at intersections to give the t priority. and to let drivers know a train is coming so somebody is not trying to make it across the intersection, so they're at the red light, they're stopping the t, and that car full of one or two people is stopping 40 other people from where they need to go and deterring other people. i do want to know that sometimes when we make these improvements, that's a trade off because when we're prioritizing transit, you know, if you're in a car at that intersection, you might have to wait a couple extra seconds to make it through or there might be a little more cueing. so we really are confronting a lot of those tradeoffs and keeping our transit priority -- transit first hat on all the time but recognizing that there are other people who need to get around in other ways, and so we also have our parking control officers who are also deployed to manage intersections at various, like

super peak times. and i wanted to follow up on something somebody else asked about in terms of the warriors. the warriors, we've required as a city that they have a transportation management plan and we're working with them and the chase center really closely to make sure that everything's going to be in place from our side and transit services but also their side, making sure that people really know what to expect and how to get there on transit, but for people that don't, that they're not mucking up the system. so i hope that answered your question. >> thank you. any other questions? any other comments? thank you very much. [agenda item read]

>> good afternoon again, commissioners. i'm joined by an extensive team of port staff and partners, including dominick marino from port maritime division who assists in managing the maritime facilities, jamie hurly from the port's real estate and management division who's managing the downtown ferry terminal expansion, jonathan roman who's the port engineering project manager for the mission bay ferry landing and kathrin purcell who is assisting with the mission bay landing planning. and then, also joined by taylor lewis from tideline marine group, dave thomas and his group from sf water taxi, and alex from prop sf. here's an overview of what we plan to present today, just a brief introduction. our meeting the port's

strategic objectives, and then project updates on those four projects and next steps. so i'm meeting the port's strategic objectives of liveability and economic vitality, and also we're also coordinating with all the various water transit providers, both public and the private providers. here is a map of the two different operations. we have san francisco bay ferry and golden gate routes on the left, and then, the small vessel landings on the right. on the right are the small vessel landings, and prior to the port's request for qualifications in 2012 for water taxi operators, none of those were being used for water transportation. they were all primarily water recreation facilities or used for private excursions.

so we've taken advantage of those facilities and now are using them for water taxis or what we're now calling privately operated ferries, and we may need to come up with a better term for that. [please stand by for captioner switch]

>> and then we have prof sf, a private charter operation, essentially a tech bus on water running chartered transportation services on the water for private company between san francisco and the south bay. so, collectively we have called those private ferry operators, and again, we may want to come up with a better term. so i'm just going to briefly go through some of the projects that we have mentioned, including the downtown ferry terminal, we initiated it in

2008, you can see the large scale projects take a number of years to deliver, we'll touch on in a little bit. it's two new ferry gates for four berth, designed as an emergency response facility in the event of a catastrophe. designed to a seismic strength that can hold emergency crowds and also accomodates quing. hoping f and g later this year, and embarcadero project and gate e completed at the end of 2019. it's a $95 million project in total, around $75 million of that is construction. next few images to show what the ferry facility should look like, so we are looking at this south basin area from the top of the ferry building, and looking at gates e, f and g, and the new plaza area to support quing and

emergency response. plaza and the gates are elevated to address sea level rise as well. here is a view looking south, just south of the ferry building, looking at gates f and g, east of agricultural building. and then a final look at gate g directly south of the agricultural building, in between the pier 14 breakwater and pier, so good, just like a sense of what these three new gates andilitacs will look like. we have the mission bay ferry landing, to serve regional and water transit to mission bay, recognizing the significant growth and density of uses in the mission bay area. we have the hospital, bioscience campus, housing and arena, the port initiated the planning for this in 2016.

also in the strategic plan in 2016 and adopted by the board in 2016 this project was not scheduled to be implemented for a number of years so the port and the city took the initiative and we need to partner to deliver it. we'll have the design complete later this year, the permits secured in the spring of next year. we want to put this out to bid later this year with opening no later than the spring of 2021, with potentially an early delivery, and the next few slides talk a little, about 6,000 passengers a initially served by wheta special events, golden gate transit has a willingness to serve it for special events but still working on some environmental and regulatory concerns about

expanded service and are not certain as to when level of service we'll be able to deliver down the road. both facilities, the ferry terminal and the water taxi landing design, will be completed later this year. the funding that we have in place is $7 million of port and city capital funds for the design and permitting, we have development impact fees from mission rock and pier 70, equates to $6 million. we are working with the mayor's office of economic and work force development and securing about 6.7 to hopefully $5 million of mrieft funds. and then with the recent passage of regional measure three, significant measure of the funding for the project at $25 million and need to work with both wheta and m.t.c. to secure the funding to deliver the project on schedule. the water taxi landing at this point in time is not funded. but we are working on getting

the necessary permits and entitlements to build that should we be able to secure funding. again, some imagery of what the facility will look like. this is the architecture, looking directly east down the terminal with the ship repair to the right, looking a little bit towards the south of the bay front park that we are coordinating with the office of community investment and infrastructure on, and peck tures of the models developed to help with the design of the architecture of the facility, so wen, looking east, and on the bottom it's looking westward on the fixed pier. on to the privately operated ferries, formerly known as water taxis, we have tide line, the men between pier one and a half and berkeley, significant growth and are projected to service about 30,000 passengers this

year, including both the one and a half to berkeley service, the special events they run, and the other on call services. they have currently two vessels, and significant growth. we also have san francisco water taxi, again, the hop on, hop off on the northern waterfront. they are hoping to increase their fleet so they can offer more regular service with smaller intervals, which they also feel will expand their business and grow ridership, and they are also considering expanding to pier 52. and prof sf, to do the private charter service. and lastly, wheta board a couple months ago has approved a feasibility study to look at small vessel operations.

essentially using vessels similar in size to tide line or sf prof, provide expanded service to less dense areas or areas with less demands, such as the southern waterfront. assist with capacity relief. also be used at midday operat toring cost down, and lower their cost and providing free service. the other point i wanted to recognize delivering the large facilities, like the downtown ferry terminal or mission bay ferry landing, from 5 to 7 years to deliver. there's a thought that utilizing smaller vsels by weta may allow them to get in smaller population areas, deliver service more quickly and allow them to grow passengers at the same while planning for expansions.

our next steps are to work with the maritime department to establish a ferry landing use policy. so, what types of vessels get priority over other types of vessels for the public facilities. coordinate with both m.t.c. and weta on the rm3 funding. in addition to that, return to the commission to get approval for lease agreement with weta on the mission bay ferry landing project, similar to how we have done it for the downtown ferry terminal. weome to the commission to get authorization to advertise construction of the mission bay ferry landing. we want to continue to support and track the private ferry operators and collaborate with all the operators to expand service, particularly as we are looking to the south and growth that occurs in the south checking the density and demand for service in the southern waterfront and how we begin to

think about bringing operations out to that. and with that, any of the port, and weta teams are available for any questions. thank you. >> thank you. i have a couple comments. arthur freeman? there are no public comment cards on this item. is there any public comment on this item? please. commissioners, taylor lewis, i don't know if i have seen many of you since i won the water taxi contract in 2012, but nice to see everybody again, and thank staff that put together the overview. i wanted to take a few moments to clarify and give a little history on tide line and maybe

how we can continue to work in conjunction with the existing weta scheme and the greater plan ahead. so, tide line operates under two contracts for the port of san francisco and on demand water taxi and small scale ferry service contract, works in conjunction with our cpuc approved license which which attained last year to run a service between berkeley and san francisco and work in conjunction with the existing operator such as weta. the business was built to be complimentary to the area in which weta and other large providers could not go so, so we have specifically picked routes that don't conflict with services and provide the communities an alternative way of moving around. so, in berkeley, we have, last year we took 30,000 people in that year, and this year we have continued that growth, about 20% growth every month, that drove us to build two new vessels. so, at the end of the summer, introducing two new hybridized vessels to complement our fleet

of vessels. we control four docks and maintainhe river and support the sub tenant groups out of the napa city, entities looking to come up the river, give us a call, we would like as many to work out of that area. and our goal is work in conjunction with these other elements. we take 40 people, we want to support their mission, their labor movements, we will pick up on a relationship we had in 2012. our whole mission here is work in conjunction and actually the small scale feasibility plan, worked hard and self-funded to build the service to make sure we are working in conjunction with weta and providing the solution to engage the small scale study with our platform now, whether or not we are the providers of those going forward is really irrelevant, but a cost

effective solution to provide the port weta and other staff information in realtime, we are doing that now. so, we have valuable information of all the corridors that are forecasted for the growth platform that we have been beta testing and piloting along with prof and water taxi, and hunters point and candlestick. we work as maritime consultants for various projects they are doing, as well as tida and other facilities. so, we see ourself as a supporting complimentary role and look to weta and yourself to provide the guidance that we are alleviating the congestion on the streets we find growing daily. so, just wanted to give you a recap on tide line and where we are going. thank you very much for your support and as a small entity, like the rest of us, we would like to ensure as we look after your interest you look after

ours, a solution with the weta goal that we are already working on together on providing so we see the small scale service is there and the information we are more than happy to always provide. >> thank you, thank you. any other public comments? seeing non, public comment is closed. commissioner. >> great presentation. thank you very much. >> great presentation. i hope we can do more with the vessels and water taxis. >> david, thank you so much, you have been on the spot and i think we have heard a lot about what's been going on, nice to see we are implementing. i don't have a question but i did, i was, my interest was l piqued a plan to increase by 700% by 2035.

so, i would request and say at the end, other new business, that we would like to hear the strategic plan for weta of how theyre going to increase capacity by 700%. thank you. >> david, thank you for the presentation. just clarifying, who is responsible for this project? is it the port or is it -- >> i provided an overview of four different projects, the downtown ferry terminal, which weta is the primary lead on, and they have entered into a lease with us for those to be able to construct, maintain and operate those facilities. the mission bay ferry landing is a project that's in weta strategic plan, but was not planned to be delivered maybe for the next 7 to 10 years, and

so the port and the city took the initiative to try to push the schedule on that project to deliver it earlier because there is definitely demand i that area. you may recall that the commission approved an m.o.u. with weta as it relates to the mission bay ferry landing where they have agreed to assist with us, assist us in raising funds for the project, and have demonstrated a desire to take over the management and the operations of the facility, once it's completed and to help with permitting and design and coordination all along. however, we will need to, once it get built, go back to the commission, the weta board and a lease in place for those operations, and need to work very closely with both weta and m.p.c. to make certain that we are able to get the $25 million

out of the regional measure 3 funds. on the subject of weta, managing the small vesseleasibity study. however, they are indicated they want the port to participate and i also believe t they have asked some of our small vessel operators to participate. they have established a working group to help keep that movie on track and to get diversity of representation. and then our privately operated ferries are just that, however, as it relates to the san francisco waterfront, they land primarily at four, maybe 5, and 6 facilities on port property, where each of those operators enters into an operations agreement with the port that allows them to land at our facilities and pays us to land at them as well.

>> okay. so the $42.7 million project. >> port led right now, provided by port capital and general fund dollars. >> a port project that we are delivering on behalf of the city, the plan of finances primarily other people's funding, rm3, city general fund, and other sources and there has been some port contribution in the design. >> so we are going to authorize to advertise hopefully in december. >> potentially sooner, i believe. i -- could i get the slide back up, manny? project bid and award, it may happen sooner, i have spring of

2019 up here, jonathan, we may be looking to put it out to bid late this summer or early fall. >> i don't know if i'm getting confused with the staff report and this, but the staff report, authorized to advertise in december 2018? design completed b october 2018. but my question is, when we are ready to advertise, will we have local hiring goals, l.b.e. goals, any type of goals? for the project? >> we will have all of those goals for the project. to the extent that we can do with the sources of funds. so, i don't know, i don't think there's any prohibition on regional measures, so depending on the color of money we are bound by the rules and regulations associated with funding sources and because it's planned for external funding sources when we come to you to request bidding we will discuss

whatever rules and regulations, the standard is l.b.e. goals with the local hire requirements. >> this is wonderful presentation. will you be coming back to ask us for the bids, or -- >> we can definitely come back. prior to going to bid we can do an informational presentation. >> thank you, wonderful report and this is really exciting. >> thank you. >> item 12a, informational presentation on fiscal year 2018-19, monthly rental rate schedule, monthly park and stall rates and special events. >> good afternoon, commissioners, port leasing

manager. >> informational presentation on the upcoming 2018-2019 rental rates. joined by several colleagues who can answer additional questions as well as siefl consulting, our third party consultant. they will provide a third party independent review of the report. i apologize it was not included in this format but will be included when we are back approval.

industrial shed development ground leases, concession parking lots, quite a large space there. restaurants and retail office space. so, this is the total port portfolio. the reason we are here, i'm seeking -- your authority for director forbes to engage in leases, licenses and m.o.u.s within certain business parameters. not exceed five years, not a total amount of a million dollars. rent must be at least the minimum parameter rate, hopefully more. the tenant must sign a boilerplate lease without any substantive changes. and there can be no retail. our portfolio managements, you can see the parameters leases we do account for currently 19%.

it was 18%, so it has gone up 1% from this time last year. you can see the nonparameters parking, which are bid nonparameter shed, etc. of the 19% on the right-hand side, the parameter shed and land is about 12%, office is 7%, and parameter parking is 1%. in the last ten months, we have shortened this window a bit. last year it was 12 months, but going fiscal year as opposed to year over year. we have executed 38 leases with a monthly rent of over 480,000, and annual rents of about $5.7 million, annualized, and we have leased a million 2 plus square feet.

this graph is an important graph. demonstrates that since 2012, 2013, we have increased our average rates of just about 50%, so in that short amount of time we have increased 50% going forward. the methodology, we review the available data, industrial reports, survey all the parking lots as you have seen in the staff report. we call harbors for fish processing and other related activities. review the most important we do is review the leasing activity. our port -- our property is hard to comp. we consult with our master tenants and have said we hire a third party consultant to review the staff report to see if there, if we are being reasonable and they agree with our assumptions.

these are the proposed changes. we are suggesting that we increase all of these rents on a monthly, these are monthly rates. lower pier 23, it's challenged, compromised, some code issues. however, there is some availability to lease it on a short-term basis to event companies or film companies. and these are industrial fishing rates that we propose increasing modestly from 33, the aprons, pier 45, etc. vacancy rate. office vacancy is currently 7.51. industrial, 7.2. that number is up from last year. we were 0.9.

the -- what accounts for that is that we have had pier 38, for example, we were engaged with a master developer, that deal did not materialize, so put it back on the vacancy list and including pier 31 and pier 23 in the vacancy as well, so it's still a vy good number, but it's not 0. having vacancy is a good thing. it shows you have a healthy portfolio, if you have 0 vacancy, maybe you are not charging enough. so, we think it's healthy. unchanged rates 42, proposing 20. we have a total of 62 rental rates. the southern waterfront beautification, this graph represents the initiation period of, in 2007, those are average

rates, the average office, storage shed and land, versus what we are proposing, the average proposal, so you can see it increases the set aside has increased in all categories. at this point, i would like ask our deputy director of finance and administration to come up and discuss the next slide. >> good afternoon, commissioner. katy patrucioni, i'm goingo slip in quickly to address some questions that president brandon raised the last time the perimeter rate schedule was in front of you and i would like to quickly summarize the allocations that the port has made to the southern waterfront beautification fund over time. since 2007, the policy has

required the port to set aside $4.7 million for beautification. as of today, the port has funded $6.5 million in the southern waterfront to fund projects such as pile removal, park improvements, as well as a general southern waterfront beautification fund. currently the amount set aside annually is about $876,000. with the increases that are being proposed by the real estate division in this new parameter rate schedule, finance and real estate staff have done the analysis that shows that the increase to the set aside will likely be about $186,000 in additional revenue a year, and that once the backlands project is completed, that amount will

go up by another $90,000 a year or so. this slide just gives a high level summary of the projects that have been funded in the southern waterfront since 2007. i do have staff, my finance staff here as well as david beaupre, the expert on the southern beautification fund so when we come to the end of the presentation, we would be happy to answer questions. >> thank you. >> we have included the slide, these are additional request for delegation. we are requesting the commission delegate the san francisco film office to issue film permits,

film licenses in the common area of streets. these typically are done at the last minute, they are done for very little money in the hundreds of dollars. they do ask our permission, they do obtain certificates of insurance for the activities. you know, for us to do a lease can take 2 to 3 weeks and typically these are last minute spur, or not spur -- last minute calls requests. the second delegation is for subservice utility infrastructure agreements. these would be, for example, fire suppression system that is for the mission bay, for example, that you know, a cistern program that, where they have installed pipes and sea water is sucked in if there's a fire to suppress the fire. so, we feel that we are

benefitting and we were, we are asking that director forbes or her designee have the authority to wave any fees for this activity. i'm available with other staff to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner mckras? >> presentation is well presented. i agree with delegating the short-term permits and being able to get them out shortly. the only thing i would like to add between now and when you bring this back in july, the report indicates almost no fee

for underground utility space, and it sort of suggests that's d.p.w.s rule. i checked what their fee schedule is, and if they have a fee schedule, i would make it consistent and that they are getting money for underground boxes, we can get money for underground boxes. >> i agree, like a franchise agreement. >> and that's some consistency how utilities charge. >> we would be happy to include that. >> well done. >> thank you. >> commissioner woo ho. >> again, i guess a lot of information, thank you very much. i think the question i have is so, pier 38 is vacant for a long time, even though we were under some development agreement and now all of a sudden is a contributing factor to the somewhat 11.41% you also put in the vacancy rate. so i guess i was a little surprise to see the vacancy

rate go up so much year over year, and pier 38 is vacant for a long time, i guess i'm not sure how we have got to this year matters and the years past we didn't factor it in. >> did the -- 38 at the time last year when this went to publication, we were still engaged with t.m.g. for a master developer. >> if it's not being utilized and it's not leasing it out, it's vacant. terminology wise. >> we have been working on the definition internally and discussing when to count properties vacant or not vacant, and staff has historically not included the numbers in front of the commission when they are under a development agreement or working towards occupancy. however, to our bond holders and for other financial reporting we include them as vacant. so, we have been discussing internally making that consistent throughout, and so the report reflects that.

that has been internal conversation. >> ok. >> some of the conversation is, do we want to put tenants into facilities for 1 or 2 years that we are going toeav to terminate. >> i understand. the question is, is it being occupied and is someone paying, and if they are not, in my definition, i mean, it's vacant. and i think that we are trying to get every vacant space to be occupied, whether it's under long-term development agreement or short-term, it's ready to be rented. so, i would say be consistent in the definition. >> i think in the past space on the market when they were describing the vacant square footage. >> feel a little more urgency if we saw the numbers higher and i understand the situation we are in, not criticizing, we know what is going on with pier 38, but the commission a sense we have something here to accelerate our interest in terms of figuring out what the

solution is in that regard. the only question i have on the film permits, i agree we don't want to be involved. but should we not give the guidelines for anybody on premise doing something, film crew that we have some guidelines of how we wish them to operate? so, we don't find out we gave a llarsr whatever and then something happens on property that we regret later. >> sure. in our interaction with the film commission is excellent. we do make money from film companies. we rent them sheds and rent them offices. last year made about 600,000 from the film industry. what these really refer to is a drive up and down the embarcadero for a car commercial, something so minimal. but that being said, we have a great relationship with the mayor's office. they provide great oversight so there is no shenanigans, if you will.

>> i'm not worried bit, minimum standards of conduct on port property is what i'm talking about. >> oh, sure. >> so i mean -- i think it's just very simple and saying if you are going to be on the property filming and giving you a permit, here are some things you should be aware of. >> oh, they know our property managers and they are very clear what you can do or can't do. good point. >> thank you. commissioner gilman. >> i concur with all the other commissioners. great report. thank you. >> thank you, jeff. this is a great report and i'm glad to see everything is moving up. >> thank you so much. more revenue to the port. i do have questions regarding the southern waterfront beautification. and i think it's been, what, ten years since we have docked at this beautification policy? >> 2007. >> and i think it's time to address it again, and i think that we need to not spend any more money within this fund

until we actually set up a method for how the funds are being appropriated and how they are being used, and i personally would like a detailed accounting of what has gone into the fund and how the funds have been used over the past ten years. because it seems that, i do think that every department head should have a copy of this policy, because it seems like i'm the only one that remembers that there is a policy, and when leases come forward, when the budget comes forward, you never see the policy or the funds included. so, had i known that when we were doing the budget and appropriating funds that the funds for the southern waterfront were coming out of this fund and not out of the general budget as every other portion of the waterfront

funding is coming