[♪] [♪] they certainly have a better funded capital program. at this time they don't see the rating going up to hit the san diego a plus. they note we are managing the capital budget extremely well and getting more revenue to the capital. congratulations to us all. that concludes my report. >> any public comment on the executive director's report?

i would like to congratulate our director for being one of the san francisco business times most influential women this year. congratulations. i hope you have a wonderful, wonderful time at the ceremony. >> thank you so much. [applause.] >> item 9:00 p.m. informational presentation by the city attorney's office regarding conflicts of interest and misconduct. a general overview of the law. >> i will give you abry refresher -- brief refresher about conflict of interests and misconduct to keep in mind this. is no substitute for your annual training. this is a brief refresher. i want to move through comments

and scenarios. please ask questions. feel free to call me at any time if you have any questions about any of the topics. i am easy to get ahold of through michelle or director forbes. feel free to reach out at any time. i will go through five brief scenarios. first is when a commissioner works for a nonprofit organization seeking grant from the department subject to competitive bidding. the question is there any conflict? any issues the commissioner should be aware of? answer is, yes. there are certainly conflict of interest rules or guidelines to keep in mind. first, as you all know, recusals from government decisions are triggered by financial interests. things such as organizations or

entities, nonprofit that abouts commissioners or official's spouse or partner can trigger conflict of interest. when there is a conflict of interest, recusal is required. i should stress this is especially true for contracts. contracts, grants agreements and movies are strict with severe remedies and consequences for all involved. in addition, i should say serving as a board member of nonprofit organization. in this hypothetical if the spouse or partner worked for the nonprofit. serving as volunteer board member triggers conflict of interest as well. please check in with me for questions. the last point. in this scenario there was subject to competitive bidding. that does not automatically cure

any potential conflicts. competitive bidding is important. it does not cure all ethics issues from these circumstances. quickly moving to my second scenario. a gift scenario involving a business lunch. ma'am h imagine a contractor -- imagine a contractor doing business to invite you to lunch. the contractor offers to pick up the bill for lunch. any ethics concerns? yes. no surprise. there are certain concerns that come up with gifts. there is a wide array of laws and rules that come up with gifts. these are basic. under local law we have restricted stores which --

source. any gifts over $25. that hypothetical the contractor offering to pick up the bill would be a restricted source. anything the contractor offered would be subject to the $25 gift limit. in addition to that, form 700, you have gift reporting obligations. any gift worth more than $50 or series over a calendar year must be reported on form 700. there are exceptions such as gifts from family members you don't need to support. a gift or lunch would be subject to disclosure. >> may i ask a question? >> if you should each pick up your own tab for lunch, that is acceptable? >> absolutely correct. one of the common sense approaches is to simply split the bill. a couple ethical concerns to

point out is that the commissioner has an ongoing duty of confidentiality anything they are privy to well aware of what is confidential annan coni and o nonconfidential. if they are heading toward a competitive situation that can raise concerns about impartiality. it is not a ethical concern. third, brief scenario to walk through with you. this is about gifts and tickets. i get a lot of questions about tickets to events. this could involve a private event like a giant's game, city property such as like outside

lands in golden gate park. i get a lot of questions about nonprofit fundraisers, annual fund-raising gala, something of that sort. quickly, tickets to a private event, something like a giants or warriors game would be subject to restricted source rule, $25 gift limit depending who is offering it. it is subject to 700 disclosure. that is $50. with respect to events on city property. sometimes these offers do sort of make the way around the city. something to keep in mind if it is a ticket to event on city property, even if it is offered by another city official or department, please keep in mind these tickets can be subject to gift reporting and limits unless

your attendance at the eventful fills a public or government purpose. it is legitimate for a public official like police or fire chief to attend the large public events. otherwise there is a strong obligation on the official attending to justify why they are getting that free admission. nonprofit fundraisers, a lot of commissioners are involved in charitable activities. they get invited to a lot of annual galas. there is a gift exception applying to nonprofit fundraisers. if the nonprofit holding the event is offering the ticket you can accept. under the law it has zero dollars worth of value. you can accept one for yourself and one for your guest.

keep in mind if it is offered by a third-party. a contractor or vendor or private entity bought a table has extra seats and you get invited through that manner, some of the limits and disclosures apply. this nonprofit fund raising only applies if it is through the nonprofit putting on the event. fourth, quick scenario here. political fund-raising. this is something i get asked about a lot of what are the rules of the road in terms of commissioners involved in local politics and may support candidates or measures coming up on a ballot. there is a bunch of rules to keep in mind. many of you have been on the commission for a while. let me cover them. first, no public official is allowed to engage in any political activity on city property.

there are some exceptions. when the city property in question is open for political activity like front steps of political hall that are used for political events and rallies. in addition no public officials can solicit campaign contributions from any other city employees or officers, even if they are not in a direct reporting relationship. it is an across the board ban. in addition, this is a new rule. commissioners may not fund raise for appointing authorities. people appointed by the mayor, for example, are not allowed to fund raise for the mayor. thathat is a new rule this year. in addition, commissioners are also subject from a fund-raising limit or prohibition from certain people appearing before their commissions. these are people who may be

preparing certain contracts, certain permits, things of that sort. with the party before you on the commission meeting like this, be aware there are certain political activities that could come into play. this is relatively new. commissioners and others cannot ask subordinates to volunteer on political campaigns. even if it is not for the commissioner's own attempts to run for office. >> can you clarify. when you say commissioners may not fund raise for appointing authorities. contributions by themselves is covered or not covered? >> great question. commissioners can make contributions on their own behalf. this is contributions from others. bundling contributions, gathering contributions from

other folks is prohibited. they can make it on their own behalf. >> is it the office or the person holding the office? >> appointing authority runs with the office, not person. someone appointed by may or lee to the current percent would be prohibited from fund-raising for mayor breed although mayor breed may not have appointed that person to the position. >> last situation. this is a different sort. it is great a lot of commissioners are involved in charitable activities. this is not for a elected official. this is for a nonprofit organization. many commissioners are board members throughout the city. goes along with such appointments they have to do fund-raising for the nonprofit. a couple things to keep in mind for this kind of fund-raising. a certain restriction on your

city title with fund-raising, for the benefit of nonprofit organization. keep in mind certain payment reporting requirements that comply. a target is someone that comes before the commission. there are reports and disclosures you may need to file with the ethics commission to document that. >> this is the you are a c.e.o. of that organization it would apply to you as well? >> correct. this doesn't require a official position. it can include a member of a board. it could include someone on a fund raising committee or honorary committee. those could be captured by this rule. that is kind of my brief rundown. this is all in the spirit every fresher on these topics. there is a lot more information on the topics on the government

guide, the publication my office produces. please feel free to reach out with questions at any time. >> i have a question for you. as a commission you are out there trying to be a powerbroker, trying to talk to developers or something like that and trying to negotiate and stuff like that. that wouldn't be -- that would be out of character, right? >> certainly those kinds of communications are something that a commission such as yours could adopt policies or expectations around. it is not necessarily every commission has in place, but certainly i think some commissions take those activities very seriously, and in the transparent, may want a policy or general approach to it. >> say, like if you are on your own trying to negotiate or something like that, you could be under mining what is happening with whoever else like the staff would like to

negotiate stuff like that. we live in a time with so much transparency. people need to do the right thing. i just wanted to know how that worked. >> that would be a policy decision for the commission about whether it wants an understanding or expectation on those issues. i think i also understand the other perspective that commissioners should be out there engaging the community and hearing from people. not just formal proceedings but more formal proceedings. it is good to have a shared understanding what the accepted or expected approach in those situations. >> thank you. any public comment on this item? commissioners any other questions or comments? thank you so much for that refresher. we appreciate it. >> clerk: 10 a request adoption of the final mitigated negative

declaration and the mitigation measures and improvement mesh measures for the fire boat headquarters project this action constitutes approval for projects for the purposes pursuant to add enough code section 31.04. resolution number 19-21. item 10b. request retroactive authorization to modify construction contract number 786, pier 94 back lands improvement project to extend the substantial and final completion date. resolution 19-22. >> i have a motion. second. any public comment? seeing none.

resolution 1921 and the 2 approved. >> clerk: informational presentation on competitive solicitation strategy for selected historic appear facilities in the embarcadero historic district. >> good afternoon. i am joined by my co-writers. i want to as knowledge to bring this item before you today. we have an informational presentation on the historic piers rehabilitation program. we will go over the background information and talk about the direction we heard back in february in the additional analysis we have done since then and then go forward with next steps to get in put from commissioners on the next steps. if you will recall the focus of

the historic piers program is on the embarcadero. it we all know and love it is one of the key economic visitor ship and transportation hubs in san francisco. they spent a concerted and diligent amount of time on developing the trusts. is the key item was recognizing that historic preservation is a key goal. it led the working group and others including the lands commission staff to understand and agree supporting historic rehabilitation as trust goal means you have to have a financially feasible project and that led to office in the piers to support the trust goals shown on the left hand of the diagram.

it is wonderful. we love it. it is three miles more than 20 misstor hickory sources, six -- 20 historic resources. we have been able to do six. we will talk through how we get from the green circles shown here at pier 27, 5, 1 in the ferry building which have been rehabilitated. we want to get to as many as we can as quickly as we can. in february we came forward with the presentation and recommendation ongoing forward with the first cluster of r.f.p.s on the northern waterfront and piers that could most readily achieve successful outcome. we recommended study of the south beach piers. 26, 38, 28, 40. we also have items for input

including staggering release of r.f.p.s. at that time the key feedback was for staff to do additional work on considering a master or single r.f.p. we also heard pairing piers for a cluster and to do more work on the south beach piers and come back with that additional work. since february we have done a number of different internal meetings. we have been working with the model that was put together for us during the waterfront plan. we have done due diligence on the solicitation. on the pairing concept the good potential outcome. we are supportive of. the potential downside is pairing geographically disconnected better and worst

condition piers. that in our minds led to two kinds of offsetting downsides. one increase in entitlement risk as the private partner works with community in different parts of the waterfront they might face risk in working with those communities. we also thought that we would then get a limited benefit from construction mobilization they would have to mobilize in two separate parts of the waterfront. there is a benefit to be located geographically together for the construction project. we thought the point was very good and that you want to cluster piers together that if one doesn't get it done, the second one gets it over the financial feasibility hump. we did like this concept from that perspective. the other concept we looked into was the master r.f.p. or single

r.f.p. that also has an efficiency of solicitation. one rather than multiple r.f.p.s. there are risks too high to undertake. including what i mentioned before geographic locations you face more entitlement risks. we think we would decrease the size of the bitter pool because it would be a very high capital project. it would be so much larger. we are concerned about our ability or lost ability to have this diversified counterpartty risk. we have multiple teams working with different capital. if one doesn't come through we have another bird in the hand. in the last thing we are worried about is combination of four and five. our negotiation position being

costly to walk away from a large r.f.p. and we would lose what we view as precious time right now to move forward with the r.f.p.s as we confront deterioration and sea level rise and we have a finite time right now to work on these r.f.p.s. on the other item we were asked to look at is looking at the south beach. 26, 36, 38, 40 are shown here with some of the current revenue, tenant types. we thought it was instructive to look back on what attempts we made in the past to work directly on the piers or do work on rehabilitation projects to inform the piers. it is a checkker board of hits and misses. some bad historical presidents like 38, 28 through 13

ultimately failed counter balbalanced as a development site. we need to go forward with r.f.p. to get there. on pier 40 there was a lot of historical investment prior to the portaing control. eventually there was a significant investment. in 2009 they made a significant investment in the shed and ended up removing the bulkhead to create the parking lot. they advanced the concept of mixed use development site there. there are fits and starts on each of the piers that might have informed how we night go forward with them. with looking at the piers next to one another, we believe the best course of action is to learn from a pier 38 and 40 cluster r.f.p. the reason for letting that inform our next steps on 26 and

28 is to enjoy the significant level of revenue they provide the port. we couldn't replace at this moment. we want to learn how it goes. it could be repeated on 26 and 28. on what we recommend you consider for potential r.f.p. 38 is the best opportunity. it is a really special and attractive site. if you have been by the piers. this is incredible and open and next to a site we invested a bit of money in. it has had attraction to private partners through r.f.p. we have had limited success. we did a little investment outside in administration. we haven't got over the fact there are a number of code

violations. >> on its own as you heard in february 26. on its own it isnos financially feasible. we think that pier 40 provides the injection of a lot of different attributes that if combined with 38 the two would be a financially feasible project. first we want to recognize that pier 40 supports south beach harbour and water recreation. we think r.f.p. with the two would be attractive to the public. we could maintain if not enhance the public water range uses there. there is an existing revenue stream to get the investment going in 38. there is a parking lot area that is fairly large that could be intensified with different uses

and built upon to generate revenue. the pier shed should be intensified and still maintain the provision of the spaces. it is currently providing space for water recreation and support services. that was reviewed by the redevelopment agency 10 years ago. there is some sequel work on the project. 40 is in a good position to move forward in terms of development. we like that cluster. we still like the northern cluster as well. our recommendation is to pursue two r.f.p.s. one for south beach. we suggest overlapping but a staggered release of solicitation. we want one at a time. allow that to close, allow us to select the next party and release the next one right

after. we recommend two slightly definition and more flexibility for the south beach piers r.f.p. for the northern they are standard in r.f.p. the one specific to to northern are early activation. 29 is tied to 27 providing special stability that could allow it to be an early activation site prior to significant investment in peer 29. that is something we would talk to the public about the northern piers r.f.p. for the northern piers we think it is size and scale and we can get different types of spaces for the public, visitors and water uses because the scale of the r.f.p. is so significant. on the south beach piers we

think that it is special in that it currently has water recreation offerings at the site. there could be more. the space isn't utilized intensely. the second item. we think you would look at targeted locations for activating sites. we have run various models, full rehabilitation for pier 38. public assembly. sense building spaces. the market might come back with activating pier 38 that might make financial sense. we want openness to where we make investments and keep things industrial and welcome the public to the piers. we are seeking your advice and interest in how we would order these piers, understanding the r.f.p.s would be of different flavors. you know where the northern

piers are, high tourists, a lot of activity, a larger offering to attract a larger partner. we are suggests more defined r.f.p. criteria to go to the public to speak about. with the south beach piers moderate to worse conditions a smaller r.f.p. offering with more flexibility. this is the character of the piers we would love to hear your thoughts what might make the most sense in terms of ordering. this process brad and diane and i are joined at the hip. you have to stay together and stay in close communication. i am coming to brad and steven with with staff reports to stay closely connected because we feed information to one another. the waterfront plans graft amendments will be released.

we will be going to the public. on the seawall team we are feeding information. they are feeding information about leveraging the project to bring more money to the seawall program. they are working in tandem. we are set on doing that because we know we are going to benefit one another by doing that and not step on one another's toes. on the next step for the r.f.p. program. if you direct we would be working over the summer to go through the r.f.p. criteria with the advisory group and solidifying the numbers and what is important to the public for projects. we would come back to the commission after the summer with the action item to release the r.f.p. first one late in the year and second once that first one closes. that is all for my presentation.

we are all here to answer questions for you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? come on up. >> good afternoon, commissione commissioners. thank you for allowing me to speak this afternoon. i am martin lee. i actually spoke at the last meeting you had in february. in response to the rfd issued. the approach to the seawall and the embarcadero. there was a proposal that brought together local expertise. the master plan and delivered

major plans internationally. some relevance to the port is where we breathed life into the historic structures bringing the locals back to the water's edge. the darling harbor sydney's project is most significant urban renewal initiative in 20 years. it is a once in a lifetime opportunity. for san francisco to stand on the stage as a world class next generation waterfront. as you stand now we have lost more than 20 piers. hassle responded to the rfi to the port with a historic vision for the port. we have done a great deal every source into the social cultural

and economic value for the city and public benefits we would bring on. with the holistic approach to the master plan for the waterfront. i request any processor solicitation has the opportunity to be expanded. in the best interest of the port and city of san francisco. some solicitation have a minimum requirement with the opportunity to go beyond. i respectfully request the board consider this for this solicitation. thank you. >> any other public comment on this item? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am john william templeton. last night i was reading a book about how redevelopment was done be in san francisco and how

it was orchestrated as a top down process that was to the benefit of certain large landowners. the environment that we look at now is the result of those priorities, and as our labor leader knows, the historic character of the piers is one of a very diverse group of people who made this city a hub for international commerce and trade and national defense. so as we put together thi this r.f.p. we need to make sure historic preservation is not so often neutron planning where we focus

on the buildings and forget the people. but that the vision that we create truly represents what the history of this water front has been. of course, i have been working with the port for 20 years to interpret the african-american history. i am the subject matter expert for the national park service for the african history in the west. today doctor lotty bunch who created the national museum of african museum of history has been el situated to be secretary of the myt smithsonian institut. he is excited about the tonight to do something comparable to what has been done in washington

here in san francisco. we look forward to vigorous process that keeps all of those perspectives in mind. >> thank you. is there any other public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner makras. >> commissioner makras: i support this. it is well thought out and will give us advantages of those that bid on the first being able to go to the second if they are not successful. i do support the idea that if the private sector wanted a different pier in there we should be open minded and be prepared to say because another pier is in we don't have to go out to bid and start the whole process over. we should allow the creativity of the market place to drive it

and be open minded to good ideas. i want to loop around to staff's combining 40 and 38. could you walk me through why you say pier 38 is not economically fessible? i will give you my benchmark. i assume if we get it for free and give them a 66 year lease they can't make money. that would be unfeasible to me. walk us there, if that is true, and that is why you are combining them? >> good question. the reason we call it infeasible at the modeling level is based upon our consultant at the time during the waterfront produced the models for 19 and 38. at that time pier 38 was just barely financially feasible if you put in place office and

restaurant retail. there weren't be a lot of lower generating uses. since then we have added in some seawall risk reduction costs. those are very preliminary at this point. the sea wall team is working on those. we escalated construction costs and rent. we reduced historic tax credit. in making those changes that makes the model negative. i agree with your perspective. if we put it out to bid, we couldn't imagine what comes through the door once we put something out to bid. we think if it is capital return focused entity they would probably come through the door and try to retrade when they got through the door. tax increment, low cost repair

loans. we are fearful when -- concerned not fearful. concerned when we have a model that is coming out negative and we all know construction costs are never what we think they are going to be. we call it not financially feasible at the planning level understanding we can be wrong on all different assumptions. we think if we hold the lines we will want to have a lot of public activity around the pier. if we have the other items we are teetering on feasibility. that is why we suggest pier 40 is incredible. if you go there you will see and you have been there. you will see how connected they are and the opportunity to an interesting water recreation space if the piers were under single management. >> i agree with combining them.

i also think the economics have changed from 2017 to today. i think all of our piers are more feasible than perception and our history has for them. if we don't know intensity, we don't be know the cost. the people bidding will let us know the intensity they plan on each portion of the shed. then i guess my next question is to the director at the previous meeting we talked about doing something with pier 30 and 32. could you walk us through how that will play into this timing so we can have an understanding that there will be three objectives that we are reaching and how they will interplay with each other. >> excellent question. we plan to put out piers 30, 32 and seawall as an offering.

like north and south beach we look to provide maximum flexibility to respondents and respondent can bid on 330 alone or piers 30 and 32 with seawall 30 so we can look at the economics of the piers. our plan had been first piers rft if that is south beach or north. pier 30, 32 and seawall lot 330 and second piers offering. we are seeing a world of three competitive solicitations starting in the fall and ending in the winter of the new year. march. we would say -- can you pep me. south beach piers are first. pier 30, 32, seawall 330.

>> issued at the end of year. we feel 30, 321 a different pool. >> issued in 2019 then the final in the early new year. >> second not the final. the program second. >> have you looked at 30, 32 going with first one simultaneously. they are not competing. >> they are not competing. it is a staff capacity issue. >> just more color, commissioners. the last 30, 32 discussion the commission asked for detailed look at sub structure we are working with engineering for that. better defining the maritime deep water first so we anticipate coming back for this presentation in july and doing

the same community work with the criteria for selection of pier 30, 32. because of the staggered start we are talking about the same people about the issues. we can come back. we wouldn't want to hold this up. we will come back to you for approval when they are ready. >> in the r.f.p. process, walk me through what we would do if you have your r.f.p. bid and you are close to picking someone and someone comes in with an idea you like and missed the process. what would you do? you really like it. >> really like it. >> what is our posture going to be as a landlord for the integrity how we do it. we are setting ourselves up by tiering the bids for people to

stay on the side line and wait for the third one and not bid on the first one. >> the key is fair and competitive process. we want to talk fully with advisory groups and commission to make sure we have got what we want. it is clearly stated. have a concept of the economics. the public benefits. then the day the bids close they need to be on time, timestamped. we wait in the lobby. reempanel a group of people -- we empanel a group of people to represent you well. they will screen the bids. we will come back with a recommended selection for you. you will hear likely from all of the bidders at that point, but you will know who we should choose. you give us ability to do so and

we negotiate with the preferred development team. if along that process after that 12:00 or 5:00 p.m. deadline, somebody comes in with a fabulous idea, they didn't make it in on time. the thing that may cause a difference is if we don't really find a preferred development team, and there isn't a clear winner or we don't feel confident in the proposal we may cancel the r.f.p. altogether and go back to the drawing board. >> commissioner makras: that concludes my comments and questions. >> i think that some of the questions on the topics commissioner makras addressed. to the last point, i do think we have let the world know about these piers. we had the rfi, waterfront land

use plan discussion. there has been a lot of the air let out on this for a long time. i think we have a process, as you suggested. if we could not get a bid on something and we had another person that missed the deadline, we can cancel the r.f.p. this is not something we have been kept secret for a long time. it is important for us to document when we come back again where the other piers are in the process because of our recent discussions to make sure the pier 30, 32 and sea lot are on the cander and it is going -- calendar and it is going to be addressed in due time. i don't know how this fits in. water transportation is a key element and something i have asked about in the past. i don't know how we make sure in

the r.f.p. that we do talk about that there is the ability to provide further access to water transportation. i have never understood the answer to my question about the piers to have the water transportation. it doesn't matter which pier. is that a way to improve the water transportation system for us, not just for -- i said water taxis. small water taxis. i am talking about something not as major as a ferry service but more impactful than the current water transportation we have. we should include in our r.f.p. solicitations some creativity to tell us how to tie in water transportation in an innovative manner than what we have today.

today it is small or big, nothing in between. we have a discussion later. that is something to consider. a separate topic. i want to understand the feasibility of floating piers. is that something to think about or is that not feasible. i don't know the answer. it is a question. those are my comments. >> thank you. this is a great presentation. a lot of my questions are answered. what would happen with existing tenants or lease cease of the piers. pier 40 has individuals renting that. what is our policy for those folks currently leasing with us? >> we look at the individual leases to see whether or not they had any particular provisions with them. they are on the shorter term.

by the time we are done with the process the lease would be up. we have a discussion. we look for spaces along the waterfront. we have an interest in making sure water recreation and water support services are in the best location. we wanted to maintain those to make sure the harbor is well supported. we would integrate that to the r.f.p. and whether it is one tent or type of use. we would look to make sure there is a continuation of that space for those functions. >> i do like you combining 38 and 40. that is a smart move to make it more marketable. i would prioritize the south beach piers first. so many walk on the water front. northern piers have more

activation and spaces for the public. they are very vibrant. i would like to see more activation on the south beach piers when there is not an event at the ballpark is it des so lat to be walking around? i recommend we move those piers first. that concludes my comments. >> thank you. >> madam president. that presentation was smooth. it was good. you really present well. very articulate, no hum. you were right on it. i appreciate the comments of commissioner makras and woo ho and gilman. i don't believe in running slick

and rules. the rules are the rules. if the bid is not in on time, you are done. i don't believe somebody sitting on the side line, you need to get in the game and get out there. that ismize opinion. i can't wait until you come back. this is a great opportunity for us to transform san francisco and transform these piers. we don't have a lot of money, but we can do a lot with what we have got. i think there might be good partners to come in to really build these piers up. i am excited about it. this is a great challenge. it is going to be good. i agree with commissioner gilman in the south to start out with, and because we have been working on the southern and it will add to where we need to go.

on pier 30, 32, the maritime component is big. i think commissione commissioneh the getting the people off the embarcadero dare. what are we going to do? more people are open to take transportation and stuff like that. with the warriors opening up down there, that is a great opportunity be to have more ferries and more water taxis and to just maybe make it easier for congestion. thanks. >> thank you so much for the presentation. it was a great presentation. i, too, think this is a wonderful opportunity for us. commissioner makras has my questions answered.

i agree with commissioner gilman and adams regarding the southern waterfront. those piers really need attention. we told the community peer 38 was going to be released six years ago. i would like to focus on that one first and focus on 30, 32 and the northern waterfront. i also agree with commissioner woo ho that it would be great to have all of the opportunities lists so we know what we are doing with this. thank you. i am looking forward to the r.f.p.s. >> 11b informational presentation regarding the proposed terms of a new 15 year

lease with two five year options to extend with golden gate scenic steamship corporation located at appear 43.5 in fisherman's wharf. >> good afternoon. i am joined here today with the red and white fleet. i am supported by our new recently promoted fisherman's wharf manager and the maritime operations group. we were here back in february of 2017 for an informational presentation regarding red white fleet's proposed investment of approximately $4.6 million into

land side and shore side improvements at their cost. in return red white fleet requested a lease term sufficient to amortize those improvements and ongoing financial performance falls within the lease renewal which is outlined in the staff report. this item today is an update summary from that time to new developments that have occurred that have happened in that flame work. from there we will get into those. red and white fleet has been a long standing partner of the port of san francisco, and has been operating at this particular site under this current lease for approximately 40 years. the lease expired in 2015 and

has been on a month to missouri basis since -- month-to-month basis since that time. they have had a long history of active community participation, commitment to hiring diverse staff, has been good partner with labor, environmental stewardship, and engaged in good business practices with the port. on the screen in front of you is the new vessel option which is a hybrid vessel which is indicative of the red white environmental commitment. they have had several other awards. one is state of california waste reduction award 14 years.

recipient of karl moyer award. member of the green waters program and most recently certified green business for the city of san francisco. in addition the site serves as red and white's fleets equipment and resource for the emergency plan. this is a summary of the phase one improvements,the shore side improvements. this investment will enhance the visitor experience, provide improved public access, also improve the working conditions through improvements to the

booth, and has an estimated cost of $1.6 million. the phase two improvements to the water side improvements comprise the majority of the investment at approximately $3 million. as part of those phase two improvements they are going to add a fourth berth to consolidate to one location,improve passenger loading and boarding, reduce vessel time in each berth. these results will be significant operating eyeficiency improvements with improved financial performance to the port. there is a pot to -- photo the of existing water side facility

and photo rendering of what is phase two facility would look like with the fourth berth. through this time period 2017, red and white fleet has been very active and achieved substantial mile steins including seequa determination, acdc permit phase one. we have had negotiations on a draft term sheet, we hired appraiser, ron plum associates. we have been able to renegotiate the term sheet as of our last commission meeting in anticipation of this meeting today and also reflective of the most recent appraisal at fair market