tv Government Access Programming SFGTV March 26, 2019 3:00pm-4:01pm PDT
3:06 pm
made. that is our opinion. >> i can't argue with you. >> you are responsible please do not know his exact. [♪] [♪] [♪] >> i had a break when i was on a major label for my musical career. i took a seven year break. and then i came back. i worked in the library for a long time. when i started working the san francisco history centre, i noticed they had the hippie collection. i thought, if they have a hippie collection, they really need to
3:07 pm
have a punk collection as well. so i talked to the city archivist who is my boss. she was very interested. one of the things that i wanted to get to the library was the avengers collection. this is definitely a valuable poster. because it is petty bone. it has that weird look because it was framed. it had something acid on it and something not acid framing it. we had to bring all of this stuff that had been piling up in my life here and make sure that the important parts of it got archived. it wasn't a big stretch for them to start collecting in the area of punk. we have a lot of great photos and flyers from that area and that. that i could donate myself. from they're, i decided, you know, why not pursue other people and other bands and get them to donate as well? the historic moments in san francisco, punk history, is the
3:08 pm
sex pistols concert which was at winterland. [♪] it brought all of the punks on the web -- west coast to san francisco to see this show. the sex pistols played the east coast and then they play texas and a few places in the south and then they came directly to san francisco. they skipped l.a. and they skipped most of the media centres. san francisco was really the biggest show for them pick it was their biggest show ever. their tour manager was interested in managing the adventures, my band. we were asked to open to support the pistols way to that show. and the nuns were also asked to open the show. it was certainly the biggest crowd that we had ever played to. it was kind of terrifying but it did bring people all the way from vancouver, tee seattle, portland, san diego, all up and down the coast, and l.a., obviously. to san francisco to see this show. there are a lot of people who say that after they saw this
3:09 pm
show they thought they would start their own band. it was a great jumping off point for a lot of west coast punk. it was also, the pistols' last show. in a way, it was the end of one era of punk and the beginning of a new one. the city of san francisco didn't necessarily support punk rock. [♪] >> last, but certainly not least is a jell-o be opera. they are the punk rock candidate of the lead singer called the dead kennedys. >> if we are blaming anybody in san francisco, we will just blame the dead kennedys. >> there you go. >> we had situations where concerts were cancelled due to flyers, obscene flyers that the city was thought -- that he thought was obscene that had been put up. the city of san francisco has come around to embrace it's musicians.
3:10 pm
when they have the centennial for city hall, they brought in all kinds of local musicians and i got to perform at that. that was, at -- in a way, and appreciation from the city of san francisco for the musical legends. i feel like a lot of people in san francisco don't realize what resources there are at the library. we had a film series, the s.f. punk film series that i put together. it was nearly sold out every single night. people were so appreciative that someone was bringing this for them. it is free. everything in the library is free. >> it it is also a film producer who has a film coming out. maybe in 2018 about crime. what is the title of it? >> it is called san francisco first and only rock 'n' roll movie. crime, 1978. [laughter] >> when i first went to the art institute before the adventures were formed in 77, i was going to be a painter.
3:11 pm
i did not know i would turn into a punk singer. i got back into painting and i mostly do portraiture and figurative painting. one of the things about this job here is i discovered some great resources for images for my painting. i was looking through these mug shot books that we have here that are from the 1920s. i did a whole series of a mug shot paintings from those books. they are in the san francisco history centre's s.f. police department records. there are so many different things that the library provides for san franciscans that i feel like a lot of people are like, oh, i don't have a library card. i've never been there. they need to come down and check it out and find out what we have. the people who are hiding stuff in their sellers and wondering what to do with these old photos or old junk, whether it is hippie stuff or punk stuff, or stuffestuff from their grandpar,
3:12 pm
if they bring it here to us, we can preserve it and archive it and make it available to the public in the futur adjourned.the futur >> shop & dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their shop & dine in the 49 with within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services within the neighborhood we help san francisco remain unique successful and vibrant so where will you shop & dine in the 49 my name is jim woods i'm the founder of woods beer company and the proprietor of woods copy k open 2 henry adams what makes us unique is that we're reintegrated brooeg the beer and serving that cross the table people are sitting next to the xurpz drinking alongside we're
3:13 pm
having a lot of ingredient that get there's a lot to do the district of retail shop having that really close connection with the consumer allows us to do exciting things we decided to come to treasure island because we saw it as an amazing opportunity can't be beat the views and real estate that great county starting to develop on treasure island like minded business owners with last week products and want to get on the ground floor a no-brainer for us when you you, you buying local goods made locally our supporting small business those are not created an, an sprinkle scale with all the machines and one person procreating them people are making them by hand as a result more interesting and can't get that of minor or anywhere else and san francisco a hot bed for local manufacturing in support that is
3:14 pm
3:15 pm
3:16 pm
>> clerk: please be advised that the ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers and similar sound producing devices are prohibited at this meeting. please be advised that the chair may order the removal of anyone using a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound producing advice. please be advised that each public speaker has three minutes to comment on any item unless ordered by the president. item four, public comment on items not listed on the agenda. >> we have a few speaker cards. william glasgow. >> william glasgow, i'm a resident at brannan and delancey street, around the corner from the proposed navigation center, seawall lot
3:17 pm
330 i think that is before you in the coming weeks with a lease through the city of a 225-bed navigation center for the homeless. i believe the port has a responsibility to ensure that its property is being used for productive purposes that do not harm surrounding neighborhoods and they're not at cross purposes with its own objectives. first, i would point out that the city has not articulated publicly how this navigation center will benefit the city or conversely how it will adversely affect the surrounding area. for example, mimi sodberg who's the renouned founder of the dlansy foundation has helped some over 18,000 individuals has publicly stated that this is the wrong location for such a facility and is worried that
3:18 pm
the prevalence of addicted people as well as the mentally ill around her 200-odd residents who are recovering from prior addiction and other social problems may put them at risk. this is just one example of potential consequences that have not been publicly considered in evaluating the -- whether there has been net benefit to this location. as far as the port's own objectives, i don't pretend to know all of those things, which is within your sphere of influence, but it's pretty clear to virtually everybody that the boardwalk, or promenade is a major public amenity which you've no doubt invested money in and taken time to make sure it's available both to the residents
3:19 pm
of san francisco and numerous tourists. this abuts a section of that. it will be a major daytime location for the residents of this navigation center if it goes forward, and i believe it will materially impact the ability for people to use it, whether they're walking, cycling, recreating on that space or going to a giants games, or eventually, coming up in the next year, the chase center, which is scheduled to have some 200 events throughout the year. so the consequences of this particular location are potentially severe, and i think the port needs to evaluate it and it needs to be on the public record. >> thank you. [applause] >> bruce soldesky.
3:20 pm
bruce? soldesky? >> hi. thanks. i'm bruce goldesky. i live in the same neighborhood in district six. and you've heard at the last meeting there was lots and lots of people that told you that they were against the navigation center that was just spoken about, and i'm not going to go over the reasons again. it was like 99 to 1. so my real question is, i guess, does it matter to the board what the -- what the local residents think? >> is that -- are you done with public comment? >> i have a question. >> right, but this is not on the agenda, so we can't answer, unfortunately. >> oh . well, if it matters, i would -- you can't help but know what the local community thinks. it's impossible. and if it doesn't matter, it's just kind of a waste of time
3:21 pm
for everybody. okay. that's all i got. >> thank you. marcus tecunha. >> good afternoon and hello again, commissioners, staff. my wife and i remain opposed to homeless shelter on the embarcadero. while we continue to support the fight and the causes against -- the causes of homelessness and will continue to donate and volunteer for the cause, this proposed shelter on the embarcadero is a colossal, an epic failure in understanding the surroundings. our south beach, rincon hill, and east soma area is home to over 10,000 people from newborns to elderly, from athletes to folk in wheelchairs. on a fair weather day, over 600
3:22 pm
people use the sidewalks during the weekday rush hours. usage during weekends and giants games is much higher. this shelter will wreck our surrounding blocks. homeless folk aren't easygoing. i have experienced volunteering at a shelter. i know the drill. they have problems. in plain numbers, 225 beds, each occupied by a different person in average every seven weeks, that's 1,600 new neighbors per year. over the minimum lease period of four years, that's over 6,000 new neighbors. that's more than half of the population of our neighborhood. that's insane. there are many problems to list, but to focus on one alone, dogs.
3:23 pm
homeless folk don't own cuddly shih-tzus. they own dogs that do not play well with humans and are rarely vaccinated and neutered. that's insane. the embarcadero is the wrong location for a homeless shelter. i've attended four meetings about the shelter and officials and employees list the low criteria for choosing this location: public land, access to public transportation, etc. public outreach and acceptance isn't on the list or if it is, it's never mentioned. i urge you to work with the mayor and the city to find a better place for the shelter. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. mark drayton. mark? >> i think i have two cards, so
3:24 pm
if you see my name again, i know i can only speak once. >> you're only going to do it once. >> i'm only going to bore you once. i'm here to oppose the navigation center on seawall lot 330. last week, you heard widespread opposition to the proposal. and what i want to focus today on is your role in disapproving or on proving this. i'd ask you to -- approving this. i'd ask you to delay the vote. it's not giving the neighborhood to engage with the city to create a win-win situation. by moving this quickly, you run the risk of citizens and neighborhood specifically losing belief in the city's ability to take their interest into consideration, their neighborhood losing faith in the city to consider their interests, to protect their interests, and so i encourage you when it comes to the vote next month that you not move forward until the neighborhood
3:25 pm
has had a chance to engage with the city. because the risk is that citizens come to believe that government is the problem, not the solution to the problem, and i don't think that's what you want the political legacy of the port commission to be. so once again, i'm opposed to the navigation center, but i'm hoping to postpone the decision to allow the neighborhood to engage with the city. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. christie chavarro. >> hi. i'm christie scorvano, and i live at 38 brandt street. i'm here again today to underscore my concern over the proposal for seawall lot 330, which is directly across from the building that has been my home from the last eight years and is 20 yards away from my three-year-old son's bedroom. since the last port meeting,
3:26 pm
i've learned more facts about the mayor's proposal, and i'm alarmed particularly to keep the area safe, police will patrol the streets four times a day directly in front of my own building. i think about the harmful images my young son will see when he looks out the window or what he could encounter walking to and from school, and hear, falling asleep to the sounds of profanity and street conflict just outside his window. i can't risk raising my child in that environment. knowing he would be exposed daily to what h.s.h. has said could endanger our neighborhood if this center is built. while a few people outside of my district who suggest it will all be fine, i am one of the countless parents who is
3:27 pm
unwilling to take a chance on my child. the city is forcing out families with this proposal, and i will be forced to move out. it's clear that this is being pushed ahead with very little due diligence, and civic leaders are truly neglecting to understand the impact that it will have on such a large population of families. port commissioners, it is within your power to halt this fast-paced proposal and ask the city to pause and conduct the necessary analysis to determine the lasting effects that this could have around the area around seawall lot 330 before it's too late. i ask you to please make the decision after much empathetic deliberations, putting yourself in the place of a parent who only wants to protect the well-being of their child. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. is there any other public comment not listed on the agenda? >> good afternoon. my name is wallace lee.
3:28 pm
i prepared a report. is it possible to pass them out? >> you can give it to the commission here. >> okay. there's been a lot of talk today how there's very little information, so i've gathered the information that is available, and it's taken me quite a bit so i hope commissioners do take a look at it. i believe getting six copies up there. and page -- i'll just give you some highlights. on page five of the report, i mentioned the u.c. berkeley report that we heard director kozinski talk about at the last presentation, and he said there was no crime around navigation centers. what i found was that the number of respondents to the survey who said that crime increased rather than decreased was in the 3:1 ratio. so for every three people that
3:29 pm
said crime increased, only one person said that crime decreased. and somehow this is being used to validate the fact that crime hasn't increased around navigation centers. i'm also using data from other cities. in vufr, crime increases around a navigation center by 82.5% and thefts from vehicles by 42.9%, and in a study down in los angeles county, they found that proximity to a homeless shelter was only behind prior drug arrests as cause or a predictor of crime by homeless persons. onv page six and seven, i
3:30 pm
mention crime in the dogpatch. there are six crimes in the last six months reported on one block, an auto theft, a burglary, and a firearms, to name a few, call to the police. on page eight, i tried to show that navigation centers haven't been able to control encampments, which is one of the supposed benefits to the community that director coz-- director talked about. figure seven shows images just this week from right outside the dogpatch navigation center. on page ten, i talk about drug use and how the director says
3:31 pm
that a third of homeless are drug addicted, and how the navigation centers don't allow introducing use but all-- drug use, but allow drug users, so they have to go out in the community to use drugs. on page 13, i talk about the demographics of the area, and there's been a -- in the last five years, there's been a 25% growth in population of the census track, which is about half a mile around the navigation center, and a 50% growth in children. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> paul scorvano. >> my name is paul scorvano, and i've lived in south beach
3:32 pm
for almost ten years. i strongly oppose the navigation center at seawall lot 330. the city is racing to put up the navigation center without any due process or evaluation on the impact of the neighborhood. there's a rush to judgment here. there are many other viable sites in the city of san francisco that have been arbitrarily turned down. we have simply been told that all of these other sites don't simply work. no explanation, no third party independent assessment. the city is trying to circumvent or ignore a number of existing laws. many homeless are sex offenders, yet we have not heard anything if any of these homeless will be required to register under the california sex offender statutes. the port commissioners have a fiduciary duty to guard the
3:33 pm
port property. there needs to be public input and adequate time to address the health and safety consequences on south beach of putting up this navigation center. as you know, south beach is densely populated. 10,000 residents, over 25 preschools, daycare centers. small children are uniquely vulnerable to the homeless, many of whom have substance abuse problems, mental health, and other issues. the city and the port need to slow down and do the smallest amount of due diligence before you bring this navigation center and placing it in a densely populated area. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> is there any other public comment on items not listed on the agenda? seeing none, public comment is
3:34 pm
closed. >> clerk: item 6-a, executive director's report. >> good afternoon, president brandon, vice president adams, members of the commission, and public, i am elaine forbes, the port's executive director. i have two brief items to report. one, i wanted to let everyone know there will be another community meeting about the proposed november gas station on seawall lot 330 april 3, 2019, at 6:00 p.m. at delancy street foundation. opening day for our san francisco giants is next friday, april 5, versus the tampa bay rays, and we wish our home team the best of luck, and that concludes my report. >> thank you. is there any public comment on the executive director's
3:35 pm
report? seeing none, item seven is closed. [agenda item read]. >> good afternoon, commissioners. mike martin, real estate and development, here today to talk to you about our long-term retail leases at fisherman's wharf and potential lease extensions. i think the first slide shows a lot of why we're coming to you today, and that's because we had ten separate retail leases that were issued in 1970 for the full 66 years that were allowed under state law. last year under the policy and action a number of operators
3:36 pm
came forward and wanted to discuss with port staff sort of how that process went and whether and how we consider potential lease extensions when their leases approach their expiration. we saw that as a real opportunity because i think there's a lot of considerations around fisherman's wharf in particular that we thought were common to all these leases, so we invited all ten of these operators to join us. we had a really robust discussion on the things we learned last year and sort of how we see different issues, different emerging issues playing out in the fisherman's wharf area. so today, we wanted to come back to you, and sort of report out on those discussions, get your feedback on the discussions that we're seeing that could be part of those potential lease extension applications and then obviously answer any questions and think about how we move forward if and when those operators come forward. so to begin, i think it was
3:37 pm
really important as we were writing our staff report how this relates to our strategic plan. on one level, i think it's just basic business sense to sort of layout a set of criteria that everyone's aware of to port staff and the commissioner's perspective so we're all sort of playing by the same set of objectives and rules. it allows people to make investment decisions, think ahead for their own business planning and allows staff to really take a thoughtful approach in what they bring forward to you in the future. in addition, i think the real strategic plan objective, the stability objective is to sort of look at these lease extension opportunities to inject investment to renew this vital neighborhood of the city and this vital section of the port's property. you know, by doing that in a thoughtful way, i think we can do a lot of things to really
3:38 pm
refresh and renew this great tourist destination for the benefit of the port and the city. so to start off, i think i wanted to really emphasize that we as staff are looking at those potential lease extensions along the lines that we've talked to you about both in the boudin discussions and other retail lease discussions really centering around the port's retail leasing policy. i think the two key factors of that, as we've discussed with you quite a bit over the last couple years, so performance standards, so reserving these standards for operators that provide rent on a per-square-foot basis that's above average in addition to other light tenants. and in addition, and i think this one's critical, as you know, linking any term extension or the length of that extension to the specific capital investment that's
3:39 pm
required under the proposed extension or proposed lease amendment that allows for an option to takedown that extension as we saw in boudin. this leads me to say pretty concl concluesively, any extension would allow us to have more opportunities to course correct, see whether these investments are doing what they should and not be locked into a relationship that sort of extends past the useful life of those improvements. i think the second thing that we think applies on the recent basis of these discussions is when we come to you with those. there's a certain predisposition to not want to bring these forward too soon, but we've seen a number of considerations that may prompt us to begin discussions with you and the operators sooner than the expiration in 2036.
3:40 pm
one would be the financing for the capital improvements. oftentimes, operators need to be able to show lease terms to be able to get financing to do the improvements, and oftentimes, it makes sense to us that we'd structure it as we did with boudin to make the extension an option so they have to make the expenditure before they get the term. in addition, there's another situation that we want to keep our eyes open for, we want to come in sooner and again, i think we make any extension term an option-based term to improve the revenue generating capacity of the operation. i think this set of three
3:41 pm
contractual well provisions have emerged as we've worked on leases over the past three years with leases that we want to see anywhere along the waterfront. the first is set sales and prose of financings. this doesn't exist in these existing leases. it's not something we negotiated for back in 1970, but it's something we've seen a growing value of going forward because the port can't generally sell its land, these provisions are our way of participating in the increase in market value of a property during the term of a lease, so we see that as a real key to keeping the port's revenues strong sort of during the cyclical ups and downs during the course of a lease. sea level rise and flood protection, obviously an issue that's top of mind for the port. we've worked in my division with the chief harbor engineer and our department to develop
3:42 pm
provisions in the leases that address sea level rise and flood protection where the harbor chief and chief engineer is able to take certain measures to protect flood impacts and surrounding access to buildings that may affect the continued use of those buildings. we think those provisions are necessary frankly just to make sure everybody knows their rights and responsibilities as needing and sea level rise becomes more pronounced over the course of the coming decades. and then third and somewhat related is the embarcadero seawall program. we know that request army corps picking up, that the seawall project will become more evident, and there will be more projects that emerge in other locations in fisherman's wharf, so we want to make sure that we're keeping in good coordination and communication with our tenants and the
3:43 pm
general public and also any projects that we're doing on the seawall or the tenant's doing on their own property is well coordinated so we're reinforcing each other's benefits rather than working at cross purposes. so these are points that we've negotiated in current leases and we'll revise as we know more about the projects going forward. additional considerations, i would say these are things that we don't have the exact recommendation yet, but they're things that spring to mind. the first is substructure maintenance. so the leases for these operations -- just to the clear, a number of these restaurants are over pile supported structures, they're wharves, so they have the responsibility to maintain that substructure.
3:44 pm
we have plenty of substructure to maintain elsewhere, and we can devote our money elsewhere. we can definitely cooperate and strategize about the best way to maintain, but we may want to leave ourselves open for a different approach, where the responsibility lies with the operators, but the solution is collaborative. if one operator is doing what they're supposed to do in terms of maintaining the substructure, but another one isn't, the effects of the substandard maintenance may attach to the operator that's actually doing what they're supposed to, and that's not a good situation for anyone to be in, including the port which owns the property. we're not sure of the exact tool to do this, but we think that the idea of all of these
3:45 pm
extensions will come forward concurrently sometime between now and 2036 allows us to come up with provisions to sort of knit these together once we figure out what the approach would be. second, this is the 50% rule which requires that major seismic upgrades or maintenance of existing pile structures must reduce the footprint of the business to 50% of the site. in association with the waterfront land use plan update, our planning environment division has engaged in really productive discussions to talk about this policy and its goal of really looking at sort of improving public access, and also looking at the things that the port has already done to remove pile supported structures and bay fill in the fisherman's wharf
3:46 pm
area. we're really satisfying the goal of this 50% fill policy but at the same time still allowing these businesses to maintain their footprint and doing their capital improvements that allow them to have another generation of successful operation. so i think there's still work to be done. i think we'll want any negotiation of a lease extension to sort of operationalize that understanding going forward, but it's something we want to be aware of as we go forward. and then lastly, this is sort of a general rule, i think we want to be oppurtunistic. i think it was really highlighted by the cbdb's public retail strategy. the private enhancement attracts public investment.
3:47 pm
we want to do this in a way that enhances and revitalizes for the fisherman's wharf area financially, for the benefit of the wharf, and the city and culture and residents and visitors alike. so that concludes the prepared remarks today, but we're happy to answer questions and really interested in your feedback that we can take back as we continue in discussions with our operators. thanks very much. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. commissioner woo ho. >> commissioner woo ho: thank you, mike, for a very complete presentation. i just want to make sure that i understand clearly. the leases that you mentioned in the first part of your presentation are the only ones on the port with 66-year leases in terms of retail, is that
3:48 pm
correct? >> to the best of my knowledge, i think that's true. >> all right. and so this group is somewhat different and unique from our normal retail leasing policy, which is ten years with extensions, correct? >> can i amend my prior statement because i think we have retail extensions under 66-year leases, so i think these are the only ones that are sort of freestanding restaurant leases. >> okay. outside of fisherman's wharf, most of the leases that we would do for retail freestanding operations would be more like ten years with options to renew. >> yes, i think that's -- >> so this was kind of a unique category that was done a long time ago. >> correct. >> so i did hear you say that you somehow want to think up the existing leases that we have under the existing policy, and these that were, i guess, for lack of a better word, grandfathered because they were done in a different time. and i'm still not clear how
3:49 pm
we're going to sync that up. >> well, it's not so much syncing up. it's the idea that these leases are going to expire, and just like any other leases that don't have 66-year terms, we'll have to decide if that lease is going to expire and we'll offer that opportunity somewhere else or, if the operation qualifies, we could directly negotiate an extension. and i think what we're laying out to you here, we'd expect them to look like the extensions that played out here over the last few years, and not in 1970. we think it's closer to the ten years that you described. >> so -- okay. they want to do it before the end of the 66-year lease. they want to come back in and talk to us about the capital improvements and do what they need to do and give us the incentives needed to continue operating. but the new lease extended would be more than likely ten years from the expiration of
3:50 pm
the existing lease? >> i think bow teen is the best example. bow teen was well in advance of its 2045 ex -- boudin was well in advance of its 2045 expiration lease. i think really, what -- what we're seeing is you don't just get the term, you need to show us the capital improvement. once you show us that, you have the option to set the extension -- >> right, but i think what you're saying is we're not going to enter into another extension of the 66-year lease. >> i think it's unreal to say any projects to generate -- when we see 66 years now, it's usually seismic rehabilitation of a pier.
3:51 pm
we don't they think could justify that investment based on their business. >> how many of these leasee -- lessees have already approached us? >> we have a couple that reached out. we invited all ten to come. seven of them came, and we had a good discussion. none of them made proposals about capital. i think we'll follow up with meetings if they want to talk about it now. i think they certainly want an extension, but when we talk about what we want to see, i think they need to sit down, sharpen their pencils and talk about what they want to do and whether this would make sense. >> okay. it sounds like we're on the right track and start the process and start the dialogue, but we're opening up the process to talk about it.
3:52 pm
>> yeah. there was a chance to get your feedback, but also, i think for us it's a chance to say this is really what we've learned so far both in terms of our contract negotiations and lease extensions. >> one thing i thought was important which i thought i understood is basically the existing tenant, whatever program we come up with, would basically have the right to extend and there would be no open bidding process for any new tenant to come in. >> no, that's not true. these are discretionary at your discretion. i think when we laid out the retail leasing policy, we said there are standards that we worked with you on. one of them is being an above average performer in terms of rent. there are some below average performers that aren't currently eligible under that framework, and i'd expect you to say that's not something
3:53 pm
we're willing to do. i think doing it this early, it gives people to say, do we want to improve our business? if they want to do that, it gives them a way of improving their performance -- >> right. in your report, you did say they had to be a tenant in good standing, which means they obviously paid their rent on time. >> right. >> okay. that's all for now. >> commissioner makras. >> this tenant in good standing, it's going to be interest to me how we do it. will it be a tenant in good standing today or the tenant in 66 years that they've been operating with us. >> so we have a tenant in good standing policy. it's a snapshot, but i think it's within the commission's discretion to consider the tenant's history.
3:54 pm
i think the totality of the picture is something that you'll take into account. >> i understand that. i would expect it to be currently in today's value going forward, and i think that's a fairw way to do it, bt i hope we have a clear lens on what tenant in good standing is and maybe have some guidelines on what it is. for example, if we're out there looking at a person's roof, and they're responsible for the roof, and it looks like it has not been repaired properly and it looks like it may be caving in, whether we called that out or not, we have the obligation to say that that's not the maintenance program that we would have on the roof, and i believe that would be a tenant that we should say is not in good standing. >> i think in a hypothetical sense, i see where you're
3:55 pm
going. i think much in collections of rent, we should be putting them on notice if we're seeing that. if we're noting that, i don't think it's a smart investment of the port's land to say this is going to continue if that's not remedied. >> maybe a suggestion would be if if a person wants to enter negotiations for a further lease that we actually go out and inspect the premises and give them a check list that the premises should be in before we give them a tenant in good standing, no matter who is responsible for doing the repairs, so we can say that's a tenant in good standing with the monetary part of their lease and with the maintenance part of their lease. i think it's fair to the agreement, it's fair in good standing, and i think it's fair for the 500 other tenants that's looking at every action we do and have some consistency
3:56 pm
with what good standing would mean. >> that's a good suggestion. i think we'll do that. >> could you give me a bit of history first. i see on the ten leases that you brought us, all ten expire on april 30, 2036. was that a busy day that we a -- april 30, that we approved ten leases? maybe you can walk me through how we got all of them in one day. >> my understanding is 1970 is when the state transferred the port to the city, and so i believe this date was a date that these actions could have been taken to, now that the city was in control, to try to spur economic development at this location on the
3:57 pm
waterfront. >> would you believe that this concentration of ten restaurants is sort of the core and maybe top percentile of the best that we have? >> i certainly think it's the core of fisherman's wharf and what people traditionally think of fisherman's wharf. i think the performance levels vary. you know, for example, boudin, as we talked about, wasn't a 66-year lease. that's probably our top performer in the area in terms of per square feet, although some other tenants have done really well. i don't know that it's a core of top performers without exception. >> is the real basic question that is in front of us or the fact that we're contemplating is we're going to take some very, very nice real estate that businesses traditionally
3:58 pm
are doing or should do some of the best business restaurants can hold, and whether we should put them out to bid or whether we should continue leases and have them be sold in the marketplace rather than for the city to put them out to bid? is that really the crux of what we're dealing with here? >> i think if you look at it in the context of some of the other policy discussions we've had with you, i think you can see that this is something that this conversation is going to -- it's going to put those questions in front of you and in front of us in the near term. so i think more of what we want to do here is to say if the path is to stick with this current operator, what is the right set of things we want to see from them, and what is the right set of things we want to put in the lease to stay with that operator, and we've talked about the considerations about whether some of them might not be in that, and that would result in the expiration of the lease and a bid. but what we've learned with you
3:59 pm
on things like participation in sales and refinancings, if they're trying to get this extension to monetize the lease for the next operator, we want to make sure that these are done the way they should be. >> we're giving everyone a fair shot at this space. that is a policy decision. >> that is definitely a policy decision, and that's absolutely the idea that we're advancing before you is the precedent of that policy to date and the implementation of the leasing policy which came about after the 66-year leases were put into place. that's how we see this playing out going forward, based on what we've learned from you and the other situations. >> out of these ten operators, what do you think the annual rental income is to the city for the ten?
32 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
SFGTV: San Francisco Government TelevisionUploaded by TV Archive on
![](http://athena.archive.org/0.gif?kind=track_js&track_js_case=control&cache_bust=1963007066)