where it is, fisherman's wharf, and to open it up to boats from other areas, i guess more suggestions in this regard, and i think i'm aware of some other interest in san francisco to see how you can bring more fresh fish right to the public, so i think there's some more ideas here, but we'd really like to hear how we can expand. is it only in the fisherman's wharf area that we can see this, and also, are we open to boats from other areas? i don't know that we know the answer to that, but i'd like staff to explore and come back with some other information. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner gilman? >> i'm an enthusiastic supporter of this program. i was excited when the port commission launched this before my tenure. the other thing i would like to see is if it's through our own staff internally, or c.b.d., to

do more advertising locally. i think if we're driving more local, farm-to-table or seat-to-table, if we can provide more guidance or the fisherman's wharf c.b.d. can be of some service, i think more advertising would be really helpful to drive more locals and more people from there. and i agree with commissioner woo ho, i'd like to see options for expansion to other parts of the waterfront and also the idea of bringing in boats that don't berth with us, what that would look like, i'm very interested, and i support continuing the program. >> thank you. commission commissioner? >> i have seen the dedication of this port to the fishing

community. once again, when we had the retail sales of fish and this pilot program was about a fourth of this commission, there was a lot of argument for and again, but i remember one man got up and said, i don't have a dog in this fight. i think it's a good thing, i support it then, i support it now, and long live our fishing community, and let's pass this thing and move on. >> thank you. mike, thank you so much for the presentation. i want to thank everyone for coming out and showing support of this program. i guess i just want to hear from a staff perspective because i -- it sounds like it's a very successful program, and so i just want to hear from a staff perspective how the program is running, what your recommendation is. >> well, thank you. the feedback that we've had, obviously, today, there hasn't been a contrary word, you know, so we are -- our goal in this

program is to support the fishing industry, but we don't want to support one as secretary of the industry and step on the toes of another industry. that's one reason we excluded crab from the program because of the crab stands at fisherman's wharf already. and so, you know, i think that we -- we're supportive of the program, and we would -- we would like to make it permanent so that basically what we want to do is give these fishers an option, if they can make more money making money at fisherman's wharf, it gives them an opportunity to sustain their business. that's where we're coming from. >> thank you. okay. so what are the next steps? >> that's what i kind of heard from you.

i think i heard some suggestions possibly expanding the footprint, possibly having a place for out-of-town boats to come into the workplace. we would like to get your green light to would with on these issues, come back to you. this is just an informational presentation. we'd like to come back to you at a future meeting, you know, with some of those questions addressed and ask you to endorse the program with some enhancements and make it a permanent program that the fishers could, you know, take advantage of. and not only the fishers, but a lot of customers. if you look at that video, there's a lot of people surrounding the boat, and it's an interesting thing to look at. so any way, that's the -- >> great. we look forward to you coming back with a long-term solution -- >> okay. >> -- or recommendation for

this item. and i agree that we need more advertisement so we can all go and enjoy fresh fish. >> well, i'm glad the c.b.d. came today, and we can certainly get the word out and grow the program. >> that would be great. thank you. >> okay. thank you. >> clerk: item 12-a, project update on the pier 70 historic port pursuant to the lease disposition and development agreements.

>> please clear the room if you're not staying. thank you. >> thank you. good afternoon, president brandon, vice president adams. commissioners. my name is phil wilson. i'm with the port's real estate department and the project manager for the port's historic core rehabilitation project. this afternoon, i am pleased to

provide you with a comprehensive project update. my presentation will cover ite items 1 through 4 in this slide, and later, everardo mora and eddie orton will provide updates on items 4 through 8, and then later, i'll be available to answer any questions you might have. prior to this project, the pier 70 historic core was in very poor condition with portions of the project site at risk of imminent collapse, particularly buildings 113 and 114 and building 104, two unreinforced masonry buildings on the site. the project buildings were the most important historic structures at pier 70 and as mentioned were in dire need of saving. preserving, saving and repurposing the core will serve a larger purpose in the pier 70

area, helping meet a strong public desire for site access and meaningful site activation. this timeline shows the various milestones the port and o.d.i. have achieved to date with approximately 12 months of additional work ahead of us. as the foundation for these accomplishments, starting during economic recession of 2007-2 2007-2008, the port worked closely with the community to develop a master plan for the entirety of pier 70. the preferred master plan was achieved over three years and more than 50 public meetings. five goals emerged to guide pier 70.

as shown on this slide, the master plan served as a framework and a guide to the port moving forward. it has served the port and the port's partners implementation efforts over the past eight-plus years, since the plan's adoption. we have nominated and successfully achieved the listing of the iron union works district, crane copark construction, partners with orton, as you're hearing today, and partner for a new adjacent site on the historic waterfront core. however, it also acknowledged that development of the site must be responsive to the

challenges of the historic rehabilitation, real estate market conditions, and yet to be determined, the time environmental mitigations. the preferred master plan having been done prior to any ceqa analysis of the prior site. this slide illustrates the challenges of the site over time. in this slide, the historic core is circled. you'll see the buildings outlined on both sides of 20th street, with the buildings shown in dark red, all the buildings in the core except for building 14, identified as both the most historically significant buildings at pier 70, and also the most at risk of collapse. as mentioned buildings 113 and 114, and building 104 were of unreinforced masonry construction type, and 113-114

was red tagged and cordoned off from public access due to safety concerns about its collapse. so following a competitive r.f.p. process and extensive negotiation with orton, the master lease was approved in 2014. it includes subleasing provisions similar to other port master lease developments, and includes public benefits such as public access, historic rehabilitation, and tax increment to fund pier 70 infrastructure. in a few minutes, as i mentioned, you will hear from adi about subleasing at this historic core.

this shows land uses at pier 70, with p.d.r. and light industrial shown in purple, and office uses shown in light blue. the slide also shows a new restaurant in orange, behind building 101 on the north side of 20th street at the corner of illinois street. at full buildout, the project will put back into public use, eight structures totaling 338,000 square feet. while the -- with regard to the project's financial performance, staff have drawn some interesting conclusions by preparing anticipated costs and revenues at approvaled with the actuals more than four years later. chief among them are that costs and revenues have both

increased appreciably. total costs increased by about 55%, and annual revenues increased by about 90%. the overall balance is that the project is doing financially better than anticipated at approvals. the port expects to receive significantly more revenue in the near term and midterm, with annual revenue over $2 million by the year 2024. i'd now like to invite everardo mora from ortan to provide an update on construction and workforce outreach. >> hello, commissioners, director forbes. i'm everardo mora, and this is eddie orton. i'd like to share that six buildings have been completed

at the pier with two other construction. our estimated completion date is first quarter 2020, which doesn't seem too far away, but it's coming. our local contracting hiring commitments, we have local business enterprise goals initially of 17%, currently at 18% -- our actual number's 18%. the local hire goal for the project was 25%, and our actual is 28%. this next slide details one of our previous apprentice carpenters named shawn zavala, and next to it is a letter i received from jewish vocational award for an employee of the year award that was given to him in 2016.

shawn zavala was recommended by local 22 business representative peter garza has a new high school graduate, also graduate of their preapprentice carpentry program at one of arthur local high schools here. pete explained that in order for shawn to enter the workforce, he needed to be sponsored and nominated into a company, either a general contractor or current signatory to the carpenter union, and he reached out to me and asked if i had any available openings to him. i said i did. we interviewed him, we hired him, and it was one of our -- he was one of our key apprentices at the time. the construction project required a lot of hands-on, intensive carpentry work. one of our buildings was brick and timber, and we had a substantial amount of window restoration on the project. luckily we had great success in recruiting and retaining top

talent in the trades from local 22, especially with the carpenter union. shawn zavala had a great opportunity at an apprentice to join the workforce and train under the direction of a lot of experienced carpenters. for me personally, it was a great opportunity to see this apprentice and the other apprentices that have joined us at the construction site grow. i also went to apprenticeship with local 5, butcher, and i am still with them to date. when he came to me as a project superintendent foreman with his desire to learn and to be educated by his fellow construction workers, it was a great opportunity for him and for us to be able to help him with the efforts. the next slide is going to show -- the next slides are going to show the hard work and the results of these construction trades peoples over the years.

this is an image of what building 113 through 116 looked like before construction. this was taken in 2014, when we started construction. this is what it looks like now. this is an image of building 115-116, before construction, 2014. this is what it looks like now. another interior image of building 115-116. this is an image of building 113 through 114, preconstruction. this is an image of what it looks like now.

another image of 113 through 114. this is what it looks like now. this is building 14, preconstruction. this is an image of what it looks like now. this is the courtyard, preconstruction. this is what it looks like when there's a party going on in it. this is from the san francisco heritage soiree, but you get the idea. it's very much open now. this is building 104, preconstruction. this is what it looks like now.

this is building 104 again, preconstruction. this is what it looks like now. a big component of our project is achieving public access and inside activation. we've initiated the second great listening tour, which is part two of our efforts in the community. part one was the great listening tour, which started the project. our -- we're reaching out and listening to the central waterfront advisory group, dogpatch neighborhood association, potrero neighborhood association, and individuals. our goal is to reconnect the kmu community to the formerly inaccessible building and the creation of new publicly

accessible spaces, exceeding the requirements of the master lease requirements. some of these spaces are a new rooftop access at building 101, piazza in the courtyard, the atrium at building 113, atrium rest rooms as an amenity, the entirety of building 101 be accessible, and building lobbies in our historic corridors. now -- and then, in addition to that, we as a company aren't in it for the credit or for the awards, but these buildings are important, but they are yours. we thought it was important to list of project awards that the building has won to date. i won't read them off, but it's

been recognized quite a bit, and we are very proud of that. next, i'd like to introduce eddie orton. >> so on the subleasing update, i'll go through it chronologically. our first tenant was restoration hardware. that included a new podium restaurant in the back. that roughly 60,000, 70,000-square-foot structure is open to the public, including a garden that has extraordinary views. our second tenant was in building 104, was the key collection, which was a dogpatch-based group of women who were designing girls'

clothing. and then, our third tenant -- and that was about 45,000 feet. our third tenant was obscure digital, the world famous light masters who light city hall and many other projects. after them, we leased to a company that was then called otto. it was the -- a firm that was designing systems to have self-driving trucks. that company was -- during the lease negotiations, it was acquired by uber, and that facility became uber's very high-tech garage. our final lease was to a company called gusto, who was a web-based h.r. and payroll

processor for small and midsize companies. we have two small retail spaces in the atrium that remain available. subsequently after t-collection informed us that they were not going to occupy the space, and we entered into a complex series of negotiations which resulted in a sub-sublease to a very controversial tenant by the name of jewel packs. we have heard loud and clear everybody's concerns about this tenant, and we are in direct communication with the city attorney's office. we have responded to a series of document requests and have some further document requests

that we are going to respond to next week. and i think we are in full compliance and continuing to cooperate. questions and answers? >> thank you, commissioners. that concludes our presentation. we are available to answer any questions. >> thank you. thank you very much. there is public comment on this item, starting with calvin chin. >> my name's calvin chin. i am a business owner located in dogpatch, and i am here to speak out against jewel. this space was originally intended to be a community space, and i think that the use of the space by a private

company with very -- very controversial business practices is unacceptable for this -- this type of public space, and i just -- in the five-year plan, the five-year strategic plan that director forbes just shared with us, one of the things that came up several times is the public benefit, and i don't see any public benefit from this company being a tenant of this space. thank you. >> thank you. peter lindenthal. >> hello, commissioners. my name's peter lindenthal. i've lived on potrero hill for 40 years and have been with the potrero hill project over 30. we advised developers about the

plans about irish hill. i really can't describe how disappointed and shocked i was to find out that jewel would be a tenant at pier 70. pier 70 would be a great public benefit, and it's juul's benefit to addict young people to nicotine. please do something to find a better use for the port and san francisco and san francisco for the future. >> thank you. toby letharne. >> good afternoon,

commissioners. it's very nice to be here again. i'm toby levine, and i'm the chair of the central waterfront advisory group. the central waterfront advisory group has been following this project for a number of years. in my case, i'd say close to 20. not just orton, but the whole area. so we're very excited and very happy with the work that the port has done and that orton has done with the rehabilitation of the buildings. and it's -- it's almost a work of art. if you go and look at those buildings and see what they've done, it's fabulous and someday, hopefully, you'll get an award for being so artistic. the problem that has occurred which has to do with the

particular subtenant that is not popular at all in the neighborhood and in the city and probably around the rest of the world, although they seem to make great profit -- that doesn't always mean that it's a great use. so the question that you have to ask yourself, and i've been asking myself as i've been listening to all of this, is what can we do to keep this from happening again? obviously, the port has an important agreement to recognize the developers, especially developers that are putting in so much funding into making this project terrific, and in paying so much attention to the detail work. asking questions about exactly who they're going to sublease to is -- to cause people not to

want to lease there because of the questioning that might go on -- or could go on. so how could that be avoided? and you do have something called the central waterfront advisory group. the first time we knew about juul was last november , and that was an exciting meeting, let me tell you. after that, in december, we didn't have a meeting, and we have our next meeting a little bit later, after you. i think there should be a way for interesting and unusual subleases such as juul to first of all pass it to the port, you know, through whatever structure is the right structure so that the port staff can get a feeling for

what this particular or those particular subleases are going to be. and if, in fact, it's going to be something like a bazooka manufacturing company or something that we all would prefer not to have in san francisco, that then, at that point, perhaps it's time to let the community know that this is going to happen -- or that this is not going to happen, but that this is being considered, and then, the community has a chance to respond. as it came in thhappened in tht just came and it suddenly exploded. so what you could possibly do is when organizations like orton are subleasing, which they have to do, you can have some provisions for a time

period, especially when it is going to be something as dramatic as this, maybe a 30-day waiting period. maybe we should be doing it for other things. >> i'm giving you leeway because you're chair of the central waterfront committee, but your time expired quite sometime ago, so conclude. >> thank you. i will. so i think what you need to be thinking about is ways that this does not happen again, because this has not been a pleasant experience. however, by the same token, the fact that the city attorney is involved, i think that does help. at least people can say well, the city attorney's looked at it, and he thinks whatever he thinks. >> or she. >> or she. >> thank you. thank you. >> any way, please think about what you can do to try to -- [inaudible] >> okay.

thank you so much. is there any other public comment on this item? come on up. >> hi, commissioners. my name is basil haish. i'm a parent raising children here in frisan francisco, and care about our ports and shoreline. what we are not willing to pay for it enabling juul's success by ignoring public and prestigious public facilities for that company to base its operations. juul has become a tremendously valuable company because its clever way to deliver tobacco products and create new markets for addiction. key among those new markets are youth, and when it comes to capitalizing on tobacco

addiction, the younger your customers are, the longer your revenue stream. whether juul was granted port property because someone closed their eyes while holding out their hand or someone pinched their knows while holding out their hand, there should be no gray zone in this case. i want to know what the port is doing to end juul's use of port property and what will be done to ensure the public's trust is done to protect us in the future in managing port properties. >> good afternoon, commissioners, again. i'm alice rogers, and i was at the november november c-wag meeting when this issue came to the floor. there was a secondary level of

concern not addressing the subleasing issue. that's very complicated and very difficult, but the public access and public vitality and inclusion issues in the public realm aspects of these buildings don't seem to be delivering on their promise. i can't speak highly enough of the quality of the reconstruction and the engagement of the developer company during the process, so it comes as quite a surprise that the lobby area, the ground floors, the piazza area, the wonderful picture of the party notwithstanding, are not really being activated in the way that we all anticipated. and i'm truly hoping that the second great listening tour

will help rectify that. i think this is really important not only for this historic core project, but also for what we're hoping to achieve as a result of the waterfront land use plan update, and the kind of vitality and the kind of diversity and the kind of authenticity that we're looking for across the entire waterfront. this project has so much hope, and it really is a poster child for fabulous development, and i just hope we can pull it off to help integrate it better 234509 community. i can't speak first hard, but at the c-wag meeting, there were testimonies of people actually being turned away from the lobbies and some other very

unfortunate things, so i don't want the public access issue to get lost with this other very large and important issue, so just to bring it to your attention. thank you. >> thank you. is there any other public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner woo ho? >> thank you. well, first of all, i do want to thank eddie and everardo for the update, and phil williamson. i think that was one of the first projects that we addressed when i first became a commissioner, and that was six years ago. i want to commend everybody's efforts to get us to where we are today. i've been at the site several

times, saw it in its original state. i think we were extremely fortunate at the port to have a developer step up just to maintain the buildings. and obviously, we've gone much further than just maintaining the buildings and building them back. they are -- in strategic plan terms, they are very productive for the port. i don't want to lose site of the fact that that's a major contribution, and i want to thank or developer for get -- our developer for getting us to that point. i'd like to suggest we hear a little bit from staff. number one, i had ac'd like to little bit about the discrepancies in public access. we'd have either phil or eddie orton address that. and i do have another question as it results to the other

issue. >> thank you, commissioner. the lease is quite specific about public access requirements. there's an exhibit to the master lease that spells out where -- what views will be preserved inside the buildings, what access will be provided into the buildings, what exterior views will be preserved, and to my knowledge, as project manager, o.d.i. is meeting those requirements. as you heard, i think there are two building still under construction, but when those are done, building 2 and building 101, they will meet the requirements for public access. to the specifics of site activation, that is the major part of this project. bringing the public to these buildings is one of the reasons why we did it, and it was really the gateway to pier 70, and will be the gateway to pier 70 once it's built. if you go there today, even with six buildings done, it's still a construction project.

i mentioned the brookfield project, they're just getting underway and building this project. it's going to be a construction zone for the next 12 months at least. so not super inviting to the public today, but we are worki working closely with orton. we expect orton to polish stuff up over the next week or so, and bring an update to the next c-wag meeting with a proposal, getting feedback, so once the project does finance issue the next two buildings, once 20th street is rablthed and reopened, i think we'll be ready to go with a meaningful site activation plan. did you want to say anything in. >> yes. as phil mentioned, the conception project is still

underway. i'm there every day, and it's a -- it's greatly improved. one of the best moments was taking the fences down and putting sidewalks down so people can walk on flat ground. our neighboring construction projects are going to be a challenge. we're going to have to come up with creative ways to negotiate that in the interim, but our goal is to provide a series of programming that we're currently working onto activate the space while construction is still going around our project, the city laws and also the projects around 20th street, we are very committed to that goal. we heard the community loud and clear at the c-wag meeting, and in addition to other meetings that we've been having with individuals and community stakeholders. and we look forward to activating the space in a

meaningful way, and it's really just a matter of time before we start rolling that out and start feeling that level of warmth in the space that people wanted to feel in the beginning. >> i just wanted to reiterate, this is an interim report. this is not the final report, and building 101, you all, i'm sure know, is the keystone to the project. it is the statement building, and that is the building that is not going to be completed until first quarter 2020. so i think the 20th street has tremendous work planned for it this year, and i think the activation will be in very good shape when building 101 is done and 20th street is passable. >> okay. well, that sounds great, and i

hope there's more communication and discussion with the community on that. addressing the subtenant issue, i guess i'd like to hear a little bit from director forbes in terms of where the port stands in terms of what we can do at this point, and i think more importantly, as toby has pointed out, is what we can do going forward in future leases. i will have some thoughts to offer on that, but i'd like you to at least comment on the current status. >> certainly. thank you, commissioner woo ho, and i think toby's statement about what we can do so this doesn't happen again is a really good structure and question to ask in a go-forward manner. the master lease does require that every tenant comply with local laws and policies, whether -- you know, and we have a broad range of social policies that are required of our lessees. that was all negotiated and

included in the lease packet that orton signed, and we are enforcing. we are not aware of -- and i say we are not aware of because you heard that the city attorney, dennis herrera, is asking for documents. we are not aware that juul's tenancy violates any city policy law, regulation, and we're fairly certain it doesn't violate any rule or regulation in our lease. the city is very progressive in terms of tobacco. we had a city tobacco policy. in that you can't advertise tobacco in the city, but there's nothing that prohibits vaping or tobacco firms from being located on city property. so from our perspective, it's very important that we think through how to avoid things going forward. we're always open to looking if our requirements are broad enough. i think it is an important

principle for us that what we agree to with our investors and our developers is forward looking and that there's certainty for them. we want to provide the public benefits up front and have them meet the requirements. it is hard to deal with a shifting sand of regulation, so if we are to explore how to avoid this happening in the future, we would look toward a policy that is clear and concise and that everyone who signs up with us can under and we can enforce. so with that, i have more specifics around -- we don't actually -- i don't make an affirmative decision as it relates to the subtenants. we do allow for a nondisclosure for subtenants, but i have to exercise reasonable discretion for those, so i don't actually sign up or down with the subtenants. our agreement is with orton, and that is how the agreement

with them was structured, to provide for flexiblity in leasing, and this is true of other master development agreements we have on port property, as well. so i think that will conclude my remarks. >> all right. i think you've pointed out something important in terms of the city's policies, examine there's nothing -- and there's nothing at the current time that would preclude that we or orton could not lease this property, so that is the legality of the situation. we do understand the social and concerns of the community here, so i think the suggestion that i think i have, since we have some other policies -- and you know, we can go into a lot of marijuana -- all sorts of things. you can have all sorts of issues. i think that, you know, being on the corporate governance side in public companies where

ethical social governance is becoming more important, it is important to have policies. and i think these have to be adopted, not just at the port level, it has to be adopted at the city level. so my suggestion is we have to adopt at the city level if we think these types of enterprises are not beyond city property, we cannot do one-off transactions because everybody has there are own opinion on being on one side or the other side of a particular company and their purpose in life. i think we have to have broad social policies, and i'm sure maybe the retirement funds or pension funds have these policies to describe what companies they will sanction or not sanction. i think that's what we have to have going forward. you're always going to find, as you've said, we've discussed in the past, a company like

anchorsteen that deals in alcohol. we have to have a broader policy that guides our leases. i think we need to tackle this on a much more strategic level and at a city level to address this. >> thank you. thank you. commissioner makris? >> i do agree with you, commissioner, but i do think it's a broader issue when it comes to compliance. for instance, lots of agreements have in it no smoking of cigarettes 25 years ago. they didn't really contemplate smoking marijuana or marijuana becoming legal, so when you have a no smoking provision in your lease, and your tenants say i want to smoke marijuana because marijuana is legal, i think it's a fair

interpretation of the provision that was struck of no smoking cigarettes to deal with the no smoking of marijuana issue. it's not an issue of where we stand socially on all of this, it's a lease provision we should look at in honor. let's take a step back and say what happens if our tenant came and just asked us to make an interpretation on this. let's take it from a very positive perspective, not where we're at today. let's just say what happens if they just wrote a letter and say we want this tenant to come in, and how do you interpret this with your no tobacco policy, which it is in their lease on page 102. if you read it, it is a rather broad paragraph. so i think it's fair for us to address it because we have a tenant, and the tenant is going to address it even in their

reputation with the tenants. we owe it to the community to say this is how we look at it, rather than hiding behind the lease. for me, if you look at the face value of the no tobacco, it's concerning to me. if you look at the f.d.a., and turn to what they've done, they've issued 500 notices to major retailers and manufacturers, that's a fact associated with page 102 of our lease of no tobacco at least in principle. i believe we have a large operation here. we're the policy makers. we have to deal with these actions whether we like it or not. they're finding us. we're not seeking problems. we have an issue of a moving target similar to the no cigarette smoking in the

marijuana smoking with the vapor component to it, and i think it's fair for us to address that concern. >> commissioner gilman? >> first off, i really want the public who came out to understand the commission hears you, and all of the e-mails and letters that we got. and while i, too, want to say as someone who's new to this project, orton has done a great job in the rehabilitation of the buildings and the plaza from what i saw, but i really hope you hear this commission and you hear on your second listening tour the outrage from the community, to have almost 65,000 square feet in two locations to an entity that has recently been fined by the f.d.a. for not doing their

community benefits from a nationwide perspective that is charging tobacco to children. while i agree with commissioner window with hoe that we need a citywide policy that deals with office and p.d.r. of any kind of poe tatobacco, and i urge y move as quickly as possible on that. i do feel being a new commissioner, bringing on such a risky tenant, it's sort of an act of bad faith. because we have this gem of a project that we're reactivating for the community that has so much public trust, has access issues, has land, and i feel like this is almost like a

smudge on what confer we're tr achieve on this incredible opportunity. i agree with commissioner woo ho and with what i've heard from the director is our hands are tied. there's very little we can do in this instance. i hope moving forward, we have greater freedom to look at who our tenants are. >> thank you. commissioner abbott? >> this is an issue that gives me a heavy heart. the public came out today, and their concern -- they have a legitimate concern about their children and this tenant. eddie, i'll just say this to you, that i think you've done some great work, but on this

lease to j you huul, i think y missed the mark. i have to tell you that, with all the love that i have for you, because i know in your heart and soul you always try to do the right thing. i understand with this commission, we have to follow the law. don't like what i've heard, but we have to follow the law. i would like to know how long is that lease, and if there's any kind of way -- because i think that -- i think commissioner gilman said, we've got to change the law. if we don't like it, we've got to change the law, and i want to know how long is that lease with them? is there something that we can do? i think we -- something has to be done. >> excuse me, commissioners. we believe the sublease is for ten years, and if i am incorrect, somebody will standup behind me.

but the sublease for 102 and 104 are for ten years. >> and they've been in there how long already? >> it's ten years beginning from late last year. >> okay. i guess director forbes -- maybe i should address this to the city attorney? if there was -- what would you have to do to change the sublease? >> an existing sublease? >> yeah. >> you would negotiate with the existing tenant. >> so if -- so could orton do that? >> yes. >> okay. i just wanted to know that because i -- we had another commission where parents came, and they were really upset about this issue. and then, the letters and fines and things like this, and it just seems like to me juul doesn't portray themselves as a good citizen. orton does, juul doesn't.

and i think, eddie, that there's some community work that needs to be done with the parents and those that are really concerned. i know as commissioners, we can't do anything, but i think some work needs to be done to assure them that -- that you could try to work with them to resolve this issue. might not be everything that everybody wants, but i think it needs to be dealt with. and this is just me as one commissioner talking. i feel the pain of the community. it's kind of like this country that we got right now, all these people that are going to work and not getting paid. they're feeling the pain right now. well, the parents that come out and the people of this community, these are the people, eddie, that's going to be bringing you money, going to be coming to your property, going to be coming to orton development. and i think whatever we do, we

can't lose that human touch. so i just ask that you think about that, and whatever can be done, and to work with the concerned families and parents to try to come to a resolve. the city attorney said that you can negotiate out of this lease. clearly, juul is not a good citizen and doesn't fit what a good tenant should be, and i just don't think enough oversight was done to really look at them and their practices. because if that was done, a lot of this would have came out. this is just me. one commissioner speaking. i'm not speaking on behalf of all the other commissioners, but the public deserves to be heard and have their concerns taken, you know, strongly. thank you. >> thank you. phil, eddie, everardo, thank you so much for the presentation. i do want to say that when we

started this project in -- when we started the planning for pier 70 in 2007, it has been a very long process, and i think we have come a long way because at that point, we didn't know if we would find anybody to restore these buildings, and we thought we would have to pay them, and so this -- this project has been extremely successful, and you have done a work of art out there at pier 70, and so we really appreciate that. i think that we really do need to stay on top of the public access benefit of this project and make sure that that is happening because the public has been behind this project since day one, and they've spent a lot of time monitoring and looking at every detail, so i hope that we can really do

the public benefit piece. i understand, my fellow commissioners, that orton is not obligated to do anything with the juul lease at this time. i would listen to commissioner adams and see if there's any way you can shorten that lease or if there's anything you can do to maybe get them out because the public -- as you can hear, the public does not like them, you know? and this -- i think this is a big deal, and so i would just -- you know, i know our hands are tide. we have to honor our lease. it's like any of our large master tenants, we have no control over the subleases. we know that, but just, from your own conscience, hear what the public is saying, hear how people feel about this particular company, and maybe something can be done. but i would like to direct the

staff to advocate through the board of supervisors, through the mayor's office to try to come up with a city policy to prohibit or some type of ordinance to prohibit companies like this from leasing our city property, all right? commissioner makris? >> just to it's clear on the record. i withheld saying this, but it's more than a discussion item, but there's a lot of discussion saying that our hands are tied, and we cannot do something. i do believe that there may be one or more lease violations based on this. on the face of it, i believe that the lease violates under the tobacco component of the lease, and i will share offline with the director and with the city attorney's office my views

of where i believe we have jurisdictions under the lease. i may agree that they could have sublet, but i believe that the violation is under the lease with the tenant, and i will elaborate further on all of the provisions because i have reviewed the lease carefully. i have made notes on all of the areas where i think that smoking components are primary, and one other that i believe may be in violation at this time. >> commissioners, is there any other comments on this item? okay. if there's any new information that needs to be brought back to the commission's attention, we'll definitely look forward to it. >> i will say in response to commissioner makras'