for revenue lost from the event and other port costs. as you will see from this chart, this demonstrates the cost and benefits and how they accrue to the port. these are preliminary numbers from the budget that you saw on december 14th. while the budget will change, the dynamic holds true. but costs are about equal between the port and the city. it is important that the general fund applies for the transfer. >> this is say contingent -- and we recommend simplifying this to address route lost consistent with the applications. the payment is structured to minimize costs to the general fund. while making the porthole, the worst case scenario is that the loss would total $9 million. we estimate the loss will total $6.7 million. this is not include the lease types -- sites. as this is drafted, there is a contribution of $6.5 million for the terminal shortfall. we recommend that that is deleted. one of the major benefits among many moving from the northern waterfront alternative was the ability to combine the ports already planned capital proje

standing to the port commission policy. the commencement date of the lease amendment will be determined upon the approval of the lease and the file execution of march 15, anticipated. staff request approval to enter into the first amendment with general contractors for the premises located at pier 50. >> so moved. >> second. >> questions or comments? any public comment on this item? resolution 1114 has been moved. but item -- >> 9b, request approval of the port of san francisco's proposed 2011 retail leasing policy. >> commissioners. and welcome to your first meeting. court staff presented this item as an informational item in the fall. with the forbearance of the chair and the vice chair, i would like to present substantially the same presentation for the new commissioners. this has been an area of some policy discussion with the board of supervisors and their budget analyst. typically, what happened in the past was that support staff have been approached by retail tenants of the port who are doing well forming business alo

the port lives and dies by the revenue it generates on the port property. >> how is the ferry building doing in terms of creating revenue? >> it has been phenomenally successful. we are fully leased. the active merchants are incredibly happy to be part of the vibrant community. >> this is one of the most see places in san francisco. anybody who comes here from out of town, you have to walk through the ferry building. >> there are a lot of visitors here. definitely a lot of locals, too, who feel strongly about the connection to the marketplace. >> you were mentioning that this is pierre -- pier 14. >> first, it was a brick water for the downtown ferry terminal, constructed in 2001. after that, we added public access on top of it and connected it to the land side. now is eight 637-foot-long public access pier to enjoy the day, watched the very activity. there is a little bit of art on top of it. there are swivel chairs on a it and there are little sea >> can you t about proposition a that may affect this waterfront parks -- that may affect the waterfront? >> of the voters approved propos

-- the port does short- term leases. in terms of liabilities and obligations, you do not see that, but what could change is the revenues, and that is not really the same vein as a change in material obligations -- that is not really the same thing? >> given the bid and scarcity of parking in this area. chair chu: ok, thank you. supervisor campos? supervisor campos: 80. let me begin by saying i have a lot of russett but. chicks' thank you. let me begin by saying i have a lot of respect -- thank you. let me begin by saying i have a lot of respect. there are people who do not want to see the america's cup come to san francisco or come to fruition, that we are providing some ammunition to present a legal challenge here, but i do think that this is that reasonable minds can disagree about whether or not material changes were made, and at the end, the question is whether or not the amendments that were made were materially different than what the board approved, and to the extent that there is any room for disagreement, the las

one of the concerns that port staff and mr. rose have addressed is the long-term haute -- the long-term rent loss. if we give up rent at too many sites, we cannot do as many public works projects. we were very clear at the negotiating table that 19, 23, and 29, represented, if they all begin development sites, and there were credits offsetting, -- if they all became development sites, that could affect things, so we insisted on a standard of sole discretion for these other piers, with the exception of 29, and that is really so we could make a judgment call later about whether or not the hit -- the port balance sheet could handle that. in respect to 29 -- both the commission and the board have discretionary approval at 29. it is not approval for the rent authority. how much is spent is within the city's control and whether or not to developing 29 is also in the city's control. -- whether or not to develop 29. .-- supervisor mirkarimi: you already -- and then transfer but -- transfer back. >> on that issue, i think the budget anal

he was previously the port agent and had been a merchant marine and recently located. he was renowned for his love of lsu football, which was as alma mater, we apparently played the trumpet -- i have not heard that before -- and he was fanatical about the roman culture and loved to cook anything roman and would regale us with great meals he had cooked. and was considered a great friend by all, so we are all very sad to see him go, and we hope he is in a better place, and we still miss him terribly. so, wanted to let you know that he had passed on. that is it. >> is there any public comment on the executive director's report? >> item on the consent calendar. request authorization to advertise for competitive bids for the round house 2 hvac retrofit project. >> so move. >> second. >> any public comment? all in favor? the resolution has been approved. >> item 9a, requests approval of resolution to -- authorizing the port executive director to execute a memorandum of understanding with the comptroller of the city and county of san francisco to reimburse the port for revenue

we know that the port is struggling to build infrastructure. it will be to where it will be hauled out or wherever. there is a way to -- especially at the site where the distribution center will be at hunters point. i wonder if that makes sense. >> i think it is the will of the commission. we can add those potential to be reviewed. noting that the time frame is short, it could be all right. i am not so sure about the issue being done now. there may not be issues that you want to explore that might take longer than three weeks. what we would get back is a fairly cursory were -- look at that issue. we could get some information about if anyone has ever tried it, is if the revenue source, that kind of thing? >> it might be good to look at the airport staff as well. i expect it could be cursory. without having to start from scratch, understanding something much deeper and much more brought on that issue. supervisor mirkarimi: this is probably a fitting time to update the conversation. since we put the contract on hold, my office has been conducting

we thought we, the port, and thus should do that. i thought when you pick somebody, they should be architects and other lawyers available to work on the project. we believe we should go get the best architect in the world, whether is someone on a team, not on the team, whether it is norman foster, and jointly work on that together because we view this as a partnership. in our opinion, the partner you can trust is a big check mark. the all-inclusive track record -- those are our projects in the green. as i said, we cover all the attributes i think you are looking for. public/private partnerships. well leases. we have done successful neighborhoods. complicated land uses. we were awarded the platinum -- the first platinum award from reed for a neighborhood in emeryville, so we understand this things. historic rehabs. you could walk across the street to the southern pacific headquarters building. ground up construction, and intended relationships. we think this project will be driven by a tenant user. we think that the 2.5 million feet is

this lease was approved by the port commission august 12, 2003. the initial lease provided a term of 9.5 years, with an initial rate based on the greater amount of either the minimum rent, which at the time was $3,389, or 6.5% of gross sales, so the greater amount of the percentage rate was raised to 7%, as was negotiated on the second anniversary date. the initial investment that hi dive put into the premises was about $289,000, and it was completed in 2003. fast forward to 2009, hi dive undertook an outdoor seating area, outdoor patio to increase their terms or they're seeking in the restaurant, and the area is about 522 square feet, located on the north side of the restaurant. for the premises currently, it is under a separate license, and rent is paid on a percentage basis. the cost of the construction was $138,000. this value triggers in the court building code. the 100% requirement for upgrades, and therefore, high -- hi dive undertook these upgrades, which were prioritized by our building inspection. the reconstructed the bathroom. there was

there is also a contract that the port is pursuing brisbane . maybe 75 acres of area that the city missed the boat on not pursuing that contract as well. if there is some rule for this question, i could see it to being cursory because of the time line. i wanted to add to the conversation that the port is not an afterthought. but definitely not out the front burner of being able to galvanize new business. it is pre-disposed for new business. i am hoping that we will be able to report something that will definitively, on the progress of the question of the port before we turn back to the contract as a whole. i will determine if that is -- which will determine if it is something that will bolster the ecology. it has to be answered. >> we can certainly put in the rfp the issues that have been raised in terms of looking at that issue and potentially working with support staff -- port staff to talk about their ability to provide a service. we can certainly have them work with port staff in making sure we have that input. supervisor mirkarimi: i think w

supervisor avalos: we have a representative from the port and others here to speak. several years ago when we undertook workforce reform, i wanted to single out the question on the ex-offender community. we put out the issue of bonding so that there would be incentivizing to employ people with a criminal record. the bonding was made available by state government for pennies on the dollar. that is not something many cities have used three well. it is a program that i think this of use to us. the state is not in a position to provide the bonds anymore. something along the lines that obligates the city or engages the city's supervision to incentivize employers to hire people they may not be inclined to hire beyond maybe a construction job or retail job that is already in the queue of vocational 3 entry services. what can we do to make more of an effort? >> probably the best opportunity we have is when we are able to take advantage of the jobs now resources. in this economy, it is an employers' market in terms of who they can hire. the incentive on the program was the abi

[applause] >> i'm the point for men at the port of sanford cisco. john has been with me for the last 18 and a half years. he has helped me out. he runs the shop when i'm not there. he has been a

any tenant relocation plans would go to the port commission for its approval. that is where we stand on the tenant relocation peace. >> i think we can go to public comment now. >> why don't we open this item up for public comment? >> we are only able to give you two minutes. >> i have requested this discretion. two separate matters. >> we will reset this. we cannot allow someone to see their time. >> i will disagree. -- which you might see on more t-shirts. the disposition of the 330. i strongly disagree with the city attorney's determination. this is a giveaway. this is a gift of public funds. we are $30 million, if you can believe mr. rose's determination. you are getting nothing for it. san francisco is one of the longest tenants. if you look at the pretty pictures, this is being thrown away. the rest of the tenants and the peers have received notices from the port authority. give them money. the place right next to the house is the -- restaurant they were given a nine-year lease. rain now, pier 30 turn to 1000 people come there for every given baseball game.

they became material changes in the process and contain material impact on the port. as previously approved by the board of supervisors on december 14, 2010, so i use the term "material impacts," as opposed to what was stated in the resolution, liabilities and obligations, and that is why i stated we made no judgment as to whether the board of supervisors' resolution -- we simply at the request of supervisor mirkarimi, we are reporting on changes that are made. regarding the inclusion of pier 29, as modified by the mayor's office and other city officials, we have been asked, and some of question the accuracy about our report, that they can decide unilaterally to include that as a -- turbulence inside. to clarify, et -- to include that as a long-term developed at -- development site. 19, 23, 27, 29, and 80. these five properties were not included in the agreement that was previously approved by the board of supervisors on december 14, 2010. as stated throw out the details and the report, the properties can only be conveyed to the of the authority if the expenditures on

our interest is to continue to work with the port to figure out better mechanisms. those opportunities will be generated not just by construction. there will be opportunities across the board. we want to have a system in place to match the needs of san francisco workers with the needs of an employer to try to make that linkage as strong as we can. supervisor avalos: the teeth is not in any legislation we have the requires that level of compliance on mandatory local hiring. >> that is correct. supervisor avalos: that is as it relates to any port project. in this case we're talking about america's cup. redevelopment is also similar to port. that is also not included in that particular law. is that correct? >> the law the city passed on the mandatory local hiring ordnance is only four contracts were let out by the city and county of san francisco. the redevelopment agency is its own body who has a similar program as our local hire program. their commission is going through the process to look at their policies and mirror of them as close as they can to the city's polici

just walking through the peers with members of the port. i can not only say that not only did we make the right decision, the world has made the right decision. this is one of the most beautiful places on our -- earth that this 34th america's cup could possibly be. when you look out today, you'll get a glimpse of what millions of other people and viewers and visitors will see in 2013. my first thought was to let you know that this was a very high priority for me. many of you know i was not here december 31, so i have been looking for the unopened champagne bottle that was supposed to be left in room 200. maybe it is in some supervisor's office, but there has got to be one unopened bottle there to celebrate because knowing that this is coming -- on december 31, it was a culmination of what i saw was a whirl wind, a solid year of activity. ever since the cut was one in february and the immediate negotiations that gavin newsom and others had started, culminating in the negotiations and certainly working very closely with our board of supervisor