(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Minutes"

OOCUMENTS DEPARTMENT 



5/S 



CD 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 

REFERENCE 
BOOK 

Nof lo he /(I ken from I lie Lihnuy 



JUL-3 21)W 



SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 1223 05465 5551 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PORT COMMISSION 

REGULAR MEETING ^ 



4:00 P.M., TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8^i996- 
FERRY BUILDING, SUITE 3100 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 



DOCUiyiENTS DEPT. 

OCT - 3 1996 

SAW FRI^NCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



/.GENDA 



L ROLL CALL 



2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - September 24, 1996 

3. EXECUTIVE 

A. Executive Director's Report 

B. Resolution adopting findings under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 
related to a portion of the preferred alternative as set forth in the Final Environmental 
Impact Report (EIR) entitled "Alternatives to the Replacement of the Embarcadero 
Freeway and the Terminal Separator Structure," dated August 25, 1996. (Resolution 
No. 96-102) 

C. Resolution approving the Department of Parking & Traffic (DPT) Variant with a split 
roadway design for the Mid-Embarcadero Roadway and provision of replacement 
parking, and authorizing the Executive Director to negotiate an agreement regarding 
the review and final approval process for the project. (Resolution No. 96-103) 

4. SPECIAL ITEM 

A. Request by Commissioner James Herman to make a presentation on cargo. 

5. TENANT & MARITIME SERVICES 

6. FACILITIES & OPERATIONS 

7. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 

A. Approval of contract amendment for Simon, Martin- Vegue, Winklestein, Moris for 
graphic design and planning communication materials for the Waterfront Plan. 
(Resolution No. 96-96) 

8. ADMINISTRATION 



A100896.igq 



-1- 



J 



1 



3 1223 05465 5551 



9. CONSENT CALENDAR 

A. Approval of travel authorization for one Port representative to be a panelist at an 
event sponsored by the New York Maritime Law Association (New York City, 
October 17-18, 1996) and to speak at an event sponsored by MASSPORT for travel 
and maritime leaders on domestic cruise itineraries (Boston, October 16, 1996), in 
accordance with the Port's Fiscal Year 1996-97 budget. (Resolution No. 104) 

10. NEW BUSINESS / PUBLIC COMMENT 

11. EXECUTIVE SESSION 

A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - Thin session is 
closed to any non-City /Port representative. * 

1) Property: Port property located at Berry Street and Second Street (China Basin). 
Person Negotiating: Port representative: Dennis P. Bouey, Executive Director 
*San Francisco Giants Representative: Larry Baer, Executive Vice President 

Under Negotiation: Price Terms of Payment / Both 

An executive session has been calendared to discuss real property negotiations 
between the Port and San Francisco Giants, regarding the proposed ballpark. 
This is specifically authorized under California Government Code Section 
54956.8. 

B. Vote in open session on whether to disclose Executive Session discussions (S.F. 
Admin. Code Sec. 67.14) 

12. ADJOURNMENT 

Public comment is permittedjurLany mattexjwithiiiJBojLjuiisdic,tiQn^_andJsjiotJiniitedj:o^agenda 
items. Public comment on non-agenda items may he raised during New Bnsiness/Piihlic 

iul_a_sp£.ak£ixai:d-aiidJiaiidJtJQJkejCommissioji_S.£Cietary . 



Ai00896.igq -2- 2 4522 6 SFFL: ECONO JRS 

107 SFPL 06/16/00 26 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 




MEMORANDUM 



Octobers, 1996 



Ferry Building 

San Francisco. CA 9^1 n 

Telephone 415 274 0400 

Telex 275940 PSr UR 

Fax 415 274 0523 

Cable SFPORTCOMM 

Writer 



TO: 



FROM: 



MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 
Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. James Herman 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 

Dennis P. Bouey {(jlf /) 
Executive Director \/^ -^ 



SUBJECT: Resolution adopting findings under the California Envirormiental Quality Act 
(CEQA) related to approval of a portion of the preferred alternative as set forth in the Final EIR 
entitled "Alternatives to the Replacement of the Embarcadero Freeway and the Terminal 
Separator Structure", dated August 25, 1 996 

DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached resolution. 

Background 

The City and County of San Francisco proposes to construct a new roadway, freeway ramps 
and associated street improvements in place of the elevated Embarcadero Freeway and ramp 
connection known as the Terminal Separator Structure (TSS), both of which were demolished 
as a result of damage sustained during the Loma Prieta Earthquake of October 1989. The 
transportation improvements are proposed as alternatives to an in-kind replacement of the 
former facilities which constituted State Route 480, and provided access to and from the 
regional freeway system and downtown San Francisco. 



THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. 3B 



(S 



Embarcadero Freeway Replacement Project, CEQA Findings 
Agenda Item 3B 
Octobers, 1996 
Page Two 



The City Planning Commission certified the Final EIS/EIR for the proposed new Embarcadero 
Roadway on September 19, 1996 (File No. 92.202E/94.060E). The EIS/EIR includes six 
project alternatives, including a preferred alternative. The final EIS/EIR was distributed to the 
Port Commission members at their most recent meeting on September 24, 1996 for their 
review. 

The project described in the EIS/EIR includes two distinct elements: the Mid-Embarcadero 
Roadway Project (which is proposed to be constructed primarily on property under the 
jurisdiction of the San Francisco Port Commission) and the Terminal Separator Structure, 
which is not located within Port jurisdiction. 

Under CEQA, the Port Commission must prepare written findings of fact that explain how it 
has dealt with each significant impact and alternative identified in the EIS/EIR. The attached 
resolution sets forth environmental findings for each significant impact set forth in the 
EIR/EIS. The findings address the following issues: 



• Project Alternatives rejected as infeasible 

• Mitigation Measures adopted and rejected 

• Mitigation Monitoring Program 

• Significant effects on the environment and positive benefits related to approval of the 
Mid-Embarcadero Roadway Project 

A separate resolution has been prepared regarding the Port Commission's approval of the 
preferred alternative for the Mid-Embarcadero Roadway Project. 



Prepared by: Sharon Lee Polledri, 
Director of Planning and Development 

POQ/H: Agd4.709 



I 



c 



Alternatives to Replacement of the 
Embarcadero Freeway and The 
Terminal Separator Structure 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PORT COMMISSION 
RESOLUTION NO. 96-102 



ADOFTING FINDINGS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT RELATED TO 
A PORTION OF TEE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AS SET FORTH IN THE FINAL EIR ENTITLED 
ALTERNATIVES TO REPLACEMENT OF THE EMBARCADERO FREEWAY AND THE TERMINAL 
SEPARATOR STRUCTURE . DATED AUGUST 25, 1996 

WHEREAS, The City and County of San Francisco, as project sponsor, has proposed a project to replace 
the Embarcadero and Terminal Separator freeway segments of 1-480 that were damaged by the 1989 Loma Prieta 
earthquake and were subsequently demolished; and 

WHEREAS, The City and County of San Francisco, acting through the Department of City Planning 
(hereinafter "Department") fulfilled all procedural requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. 
Pub. Res. Code Section 21000 et seq., hereinafter "CEQA"), the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Admm. Code Title 
14, Section 15000 et seq., hereinafter "CEQA Guidelines") and Chapter 31 of the San Francisco Administrative Code 
(hereinafter "Chapter 31'), as follows: 

a. The Department determined that an EIR was required and provided public notice of that 
determination by publication in a newspaper of general circulation on August 21, 1992 and February 
18, 1994. A duly advertised public scoping meeting was held on February 28, 1994. 

b. On August 25, 1995, the Department published the Draft Environmental Impact Report (hereinafter 
"DEIR") and provided public notice m a newspaper of general circulation of the availability of the 
DEIR for public review and comment and of the date and time of the City Pl annin g Commission 
public hearing on the DEIR; this notice was mailed to the Department's list of persons requesting 
such notice. 

c. Notices of availability of the DEIR and of the date and time of the public hearing were posted near 
the project site by Department staff on August 28, 1995. 

d. On August 25, 1995, copies of the DEIR were mailed or otherwise delivered to a list of persons 
requesting it, to those noted on the distribution list in the DEIR, to adjacent property owners, and 
to government agencies, the latter both directly and through the State Clearinghouse. 

e. Notice of Completion was filed with the State Secretary of Resources via the State Clearinghouse 
on August 25, 1995. 

f. The Planning Commission held two duly advertised public hearings on said Draft Environmental 
Impact Report on September 27, 1995, and September 28, 1995, at which opportimity for public 



FindSa.mid -1- 



( 



r 



i 



Alternatives to Replacement of the 
Embarcadero Freeway and The 
Terminal Separator Structure 



comment was given, and public comment was received on the DEIR. The period for acceptance 
of written comments ended on October 16, 1995. 

g. The Department prepared responses to comments on environmental issues received at the public 

hearing and in writing during the 52-day public review period for the DEIR, prepared revisions to 
the text of the DEIR in response to comments received or based on additional information that 
became available during the public review period, and corrected errors in the DEIR. This material 
was presented in a Volume II Summary of Comments and Responses, published on September 3, 
1996, was distributed to the Planning Commission and to all parties who commented on the DEIR, 
and was available to others upon request at Department offices. 

h. A Volume I, Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (hereinafter 

"Final EIS/EIR" or "Final EIR") has been prepared by the Department, consisting of the DEIR, 
a Section 4(f) Evaluation, any consultations and comments received dining the review process, any 
additional information that became available, including minor text revisions to the DEIR resulting 
from the Summary of Comments and Responses, all as required by law. 

I. Project Environmental Impact Report files have been made available for review by the Port 

Commission and the public, and these files are part of the record before the Port Commission. The 
administrative record is available for review at the Department of City Planning Offices at 1660 
Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94103; and 

WHEREAS, the City and County of San Francisco is the Project Sponsor for the Mid-Embarcadero portion 
of the Project, which would be built mainly on property under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Port Cormnission; 
and 

WHEREAS, a Final EIS/EIR for the Alternatives to Replacement of the Embarcadero Freeway and the 
Terminal Separator Structure (the "Project"), File No. 92.202E/94.060E was certified as complete by the San 
Francisco Planning Commission on September 19, 1996; and 

WHEREAS, the Port Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR; 
and 

WHEREAS, the Final EIR described and analyzed a No Build Alternative and five Build Alternatives, 
including one Preferred Alternative, for the Project; now therefore, be it 

RESOLVED, that the Port Commission hereby adopts the following findings regarding the Project 
Alternatives analyzed in the Final EIR: 

1. The No Build Alternative is rejected because it would result in the greatest number of future 
cumulative congested downtown traffic intersections of all the Alternatives discussed in the Final 
EIR; it would result in a future freeway off ramp demand-to-capacity ration greater than one during 
the a. m. peak period; it would not improve the appearance of the project area; and it would not 
improve physical and visual access between the downtown and the waterfront. 

2. Alternatives Two and Four are rejected because they would not provide a level of service for traffic 
flow capacity compared to the pre-earthquake condition; off-ramp travel demand would exceed ramp 

FindSa.mid -2- 



r 



c 



Alternatives to Replacement of the 
Embarcadero Freeway and The 
Terminal Separator Structure 



capacities during the AM peak period, constraining traffic entering and exiting the street network; 
surface street operations during the PM peak period would be worse at key intersections on Market 
Street (Fifth and First Streets) and at Fourth and Folsom; 371 parking spaces would be lost along 
The Embarcadero; and the paired roadway alignment would establish a barrier between pedestrians 
and the waterfront, defeating one of the major purposes of the project; 

3. Alternative Three is rejected because although it would provide a comparable level of service 
compared to the pre-earthquake condition for traffic traveling to and from the regional freeway 
system, the increased niunber of vehicles would result in poorer level of service operations at 
critical surface street intersections at peak periods, particularly at First and Market and Fourth and 
Harrison; the concentrated access points in the congested South of Market area would create new 
traffic conflicts between traffic trying to access the Bay Bridge and Traffic trying to access U.S. 101 
south; and the paired roadway alignment would establish a barrier between pedestrians and the 
waterfront, defeating one of the major purposes of the project; 

4. Alternative Five is rejected, because although it would provide a comparable level of service 
compared to the pre-earthquake condition for traffic traveling to and from the regional freeway 
system, the increased number of vehicles would result in poorer level of service operations at 
critical surface street intersections at peak periods, particularly at First and Market and Fourth and 
Harrison; the concentrated access points in the congested South of Market area would create new 
traffic conflicts between traffic trying to access the Bay Bridge and Traffic trying to access U.S. 101 
south; the extensive intrusion into Justm Herman Plaza would result in a significant impact on the 
users of this heavily utilized open space area; and, be it 

FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Port Commission hereby finds that the following Mitigation Measures are 
feasible and will avoid or substantially reduce the magnimde of the significant environmental effects identified in the 
EIR/EIS, and hereby adopts them as part of the project; 



A. Land Use 



To minimize the impact on Justin Herman Plaza that would occur under the Preferred Alternative, 
the City will be required to redesign and reconstruct the transitional open space area between the 
roadway and Justin Herman Plaza. The transitional open space area will be designed within the 
context of the new roadway rather than a freeway, and will be more sensitive to pedestrian needs. 
Existing landscaping in this area will be replaced with new landscaping that is consistent with the 
proposed landscaping along The Embarcadero. (Added since DEIR to address potenrial impacts of 
the Preferred Alternative) 

To assure a finished edge where the Embarcadero roadway would adjoin Justin Herman Plaza and 
parkland on Assessor's Block 202, the Department of Public Works (DPW) will be required to 
coordinate design and construction of the roadway and sidewalk with the staff of the Pon and the 
City's Recreation and Park Department. Design and construction of the portion of roadway adjacent 
to Block 202 would be coordmated with the Port of San Francisco, which has jurisdiction over a 
portion of the Block. (Modified from DEIR to reflect transfer of Waterfront Transportation Projects 
Office from CAO to DPW responsibility, and to clarify that Port of San Francisco would be 
consulted for Block 202 work.) 



FindSa.mid -3- 



Alternatives to Replacement of the 
Embarcadero Freeway and The 
Terminal Separator Structure 



B. Visual Oualitv/Urban Design 

1. To minimize the impact on Justin Herman Plaza that would occur under the Preferred Alternative, 

the City will be required to redesign and reconstruct the transitional open space area between the 
roadway and Justin Herman Plaza. The transitional open space area will be designed within the 
context of the new roadway rather than a freeway, and will be more sensitive to pedestrian needs. 
Existing landscaping m this area will be replaced with new landscaping that is consistem with the 
proposed landscaping along The Embarcadero. 

Any mature trees removed will be replaced with the same or greater number of trees along the 
transition area or in the adjacent park. Tree removal and new plantings will be determined in 
conjunction with and approved by the Recreation and Park Department. (Added since DEIR to 
address potentUd impacts of the Preferred Alternative) 

C. Li ght/Glare 

1. To prevent or reduce glare fix)m temporary lighting during construction periods, the City will be 

requked to diven any lighting for nighttime or early morning construction away from traffic and 
residential areas. (As in DEIR) 



D. 



Transportation 
1. Traffic 



Transit 



In order to reduce inconveniences associated with temporarily reduced street capacity and 
restricted circulation during construction, the City will be required to restrict any street 
lane reductions to off-peak or nighttime hours and notify the public of such occurrences in 
advance. Alternatively, if lane closures are required in peak periods, alternate lanes would 
be made available by restricting curb-side parking and loading. To the maxiTrmm extent 
feasible, three traffic lanes will be maintained in each direction along The Embarcadero 
between Broadway and Howard Street at all times. (Modified from DEIR to reflect that 
while every effort Mill be made to maintain maximum traffic flow, construction activities 
may necessitate use of traffic lanes for limited periods of time) 

In order to reduce the potential effect of construction traffic on local streets, the City will 
be required to restria construction traffic and stage construction activities so as to prevent 
concentration of construction traffic on corridors with limited capacity or corridors used 
by commute traffic. (As in DEIR) 



To minimize or eluninate inconveniences associated with relocation of bus stops during 
construction, the City will be required to contract each transit operator (primarily MUNI 
and GGBHTD) whose bus stops would be moved during construction and determine the 
best temporary location for these stops during each phase of the construction period. The 



RndSa.mid 



Alternatives to Replacement of the 
Embarcadero Freeway and The 
Terminal Separator Structure 



ability of buses to stop along The Embarcadero would be considered in developing the final 
construction staging plans, and bus stops would be relocated no more than one block from 
their ejusting locations. The City would also be required to contact other transit operators, 
including CalTrain, to ensure that there is coordination regarding construction of planned 
transit improvements in the vicinity. (As modified from DEIR to include coordination with 
sponsors of other planned transit improvements.) 



Pedestrian/Bicycles 



Noise 



During construction, large volumes of pedestrians walking in front of the Ferry Building 
and on the Ferry Building crosswalk may be inconvenienced by capacity reductions and/or 
temporary closure of pedestrian facilities. To reduce this inconvenience, the City will be 
required to require the construction contractor to devise and implement a construction plan 
that would maintain maximum pedestrian flow capacity aroimd the Ferry Building by 
avoiding closure of any pedestrian facilities wherever possible and by providing temporary 
alternate facilities as appropriate. Access would be maintained to nearby businesses, and 
signs would be used to indicate paths of travel to ferries and businesses. (As in DEIR) 



To reduce potential distiu"bances due to construction-related noise levels, the City will be required 
to strictly adhere to the San Francisco Noise_ Ordinance and will require the following additional 
steps to be taken: 

a. Implementation of a careful maintenance and lubrication program for heavy equipment; 

b. Installation of temporary noise barriers, mats or blankets where San Francisco Noise 
Ordinance limits cannot be met with available equipment; 

c. Pre-drilling piles where soil conditions permit; 

d. Use of construction equipment modified to lessen noise such as welding instead of riveting, 
using electric-powered equipment instead of pneumatic tools, using electric instead of air 
or gasoline-driven saws, and use of effective intake and exhaust mufflers on internal 
combustion engines and compressors; 

e. Maximizing physical separation, as far as practical, between noise generators and noise 
sensitive receptors, such as providing enclosures for stationary equipment and barriers 
around partictilarly noise areas on the site, using shields, impervious fences or other 
physical sound barriers to inhibit transmission of noise into the surrounding conununity, 
and locating stationary equipment so as to minimize impact on the community; 

f. . Scheduling of noise-generating activities outside early morning and nighttime hours. 
(As in DEIR) 



Find3a.nnid -5- 



Alternatives to Replacement of the 
Embarcadero Freeway and The 
Terminal Separator Strucmre 



Air Quality 

1 . , To reduce construction period PM,o emission levels by 75 percent (BAAQMD 1985, updated 1991), 

the City will be required to implement dust control measures. Measures to reduce dust include 
watering construction areas, covering haul trucks and storage pUes containing dirt and debris, 
imposing a speed limi t in the construction area, paving the area as quickly as possible, and planting 
the non-paved areas as soon as possible. (As in DEIR) 

2. Ordinance 175-91, passed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors on May 6, 1991, requires that 
non-potable water be used for dust control activities. Therefore, City will be required to require 
the project contractor to obtain reclaimed water from the Clean Water Program for this purpose. 
(As in DEIR) 

3. To reduce exhaust emissions durmg construction, the City will be required to not allow the 
equipment to idle unnecessarily, keep the engines well-tuned, and use newer equipment. (As in 
DEIR) 

Topography /Geology/Soils/Seismicitv 

1. To reduce the possibility of differential settlement affecting relocated utilities, the City will 
implement the following measures durrug construction: 

a. Provide temporary support for utilities that are not relocated; 

b. Provide pile-supported foundations where possible for relocated utility segments that are 
previously pile-supported; and 

c. Use special connections between utility segments with different foundation types. 

Any necessary utihty relocation and/or protection will be implemented in accordance with the City's 
franchise agreement with the affected utility companies. (Modified from DEIR to clarify relationship 
between the City and utility franchise holders) 

2. To reduce the potential for settlement of existing structures caused by construction activities, the 
City wiU conduct a pre-construction survey of existing structures adjacent to the construction area 
and \mdertake necessary soil improvement (compaction and chemical grouting or underpinning) 
beneath affected structures, and to monitor their movements durmg construction. Where private 
structures are in such proximity that they might be affected, the City will follow appropriate rules 
and procedures for acquisition of temporary and/or permanent rights to do such work. However, 
no construction work within the basements of buildings adjacent to the roadway aligmnent is 
anticipated. (Modified from DEIR to clarify scope of the project work) 

3. Existmg SFWD facilities, including mains, valves, valve boxes, hydrants, etc., identified from 
available drawings and reconstruction smreys, will be protected during construction, including 
temporary support during construction, and relocation or adjustment if necessary. Costs associated 
with work required to be done to protect existing water department facilities would be included in 



Fnd3a.mid 



Alternatives to Replacement of the 
Embarcadero Freeway and The 
Terminal Separator Structm-e 



the total cost of whichever alternative is selected. (Modified from DEIR to clarify scope of the 
project work) 

H. Hydrology and Water Oualitv 

1. To minimiz e the exposure of site workers and the public to dewatering effluent, the City will design 
and implement a wastewater management program. Groimdwater samples will be collected from 
well points installed as part of the dewatering system. The samples will be analyzed for chemical 
constituents as specified by the City's Department of Public Works' requirements for batch 
wastewater discharge. This will provide groimdwater quality data specific to locations, so that 
disposal options could be considered and decided upon prior to generation of large volmnes of 
water. (As in DEIR) 

2. To mitigate potential hazards associated with dewatering, the City will develop and implement a 
written health and safety plan consistent with the existing Site Mitigation Plan (SMP) for the 
Waterfront Transportation Projects. The health and safety plan will require the identification of 
safety and health risk analyses for each site task and operation (including dewatering activities), 
employee training assignments, implementation of a monitoring program, and medical surveillance. 
In addition, all wells, piping, and discharge points will be within fenced areas to reduce the 
likelihood of the public coming into contact with contaminated groundwater. (Modified from DEIR 
to clarify scope of construction period health and safety plan) 

I. Hazardous Materials 

1. To mitigate the potential effect of exposmg workers to hazardous materials during construction, the 
City will comply with the Site Mitigation Plan (SMP) approved for the Waterfront Transportation 
Projects, including preparation and implementation of a site-specific health and safety plan during 
construction that would comply with all OSHA requirements, effectively mitigating the potential for 
public exposure to hazardous materials. (Modified from DEIR to clarify SMP and OSHA 
requirements)) 

2. To mitigate the potential effect of exposing utilities maintenance and repair workers to hazardous 
materials during operation of the Mid-Embarcadero Roadway, the City will require notification to 
entities who will be performing utilities relocation work m connection with the Mid-Embarcadero 
portion of the project. The notification wUl include information on the types of contaminants likely 
to be encoimtered during relocation work. (Modified from DEIR to refiect thai Underground 
Services Alert (USA) does not keep hazardous materials information on file; therefore, notification 
of the presence of contaminants should be made by the City to utilities companies with work in the 
area. The utilities can then determine whether during relocation they wish to backfill with the 
original material or replace with clean fill, thereby minimizing the hazard to future workers.) 

J. Cultural Resources 

1. The Historic Properties Survey Report (HPSR) and Evaluation of Effects prepared for this project 

includes a number of recommendations for the protection of potentially affected archaeological 
resources in the project area. Specific mitigation measures consistent with these reconunendations 



Fnd3a.mid 



Alternatives to Replacement of the . t 

Embarcadero Freeway and The ^ 

Terminal Separator Structure * 



to protect archaeological resources have been developed through consultation with the State Historic 
Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). This 
consultation process has resulted in a Memorandum of Agreement (MO A), executed among and 
between the City and County of San Francisco, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and 
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), SHPO, and ACHP, which describes the 
measures to be taken to reduce or eliminate adverse effects. The MO A requires: 

a. Undertake expanded, detailed archival research on the Northern (Mid-Embarcadero) 
portion of the Project APE to bring documentation and identification of potential 
archaeological resources in that area up to the degree of specificity achieved for the 
Southern area. This should be undertaken and the results presented in the same block-by- 
block format employed in the Southern area. This effort should include the area of the 
Parking Remediation Option in Assessor's Block 202. 

b. Formulate and implement a testing/evaluation/data recovery program for indicated 
archaeological resources. 

c. If the subsmface parking structure remediation option on Assessor's Block 202 is selected, 
formulate a testing/evaluation/data recovery program for archaeological resources on the 
block. This would include a search for and evaluation of the Elizabeth which might be 
buried on that block. 

d. An archaeological monitoring program should be formulated and implemented during 
construction related drilling or excavation for all locations. 

e. In the event that buried cultural materials are unearthed during site preparation, grading 
or construction of the project, work will be halted in the vicinity of the find until a 
qualified archaeologist can assess its importance. 

f. A report of findings resulting for archaeological testing/evaluation/date recovery 
procedures will be compiled and submitted at the conclusion of field work and analysis. 
Significant artifacts and samples will be prepared and curated at an appropriate facility 
after completion of research and report preparation. (Modified from DEIR to reflect that 
the MOA has been executed by the various parties)] and be it 

FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Port Commission fmds that the modifications to the Mitigation 
Measures as described above do not result in new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase 
in the severity of an environmental impact; and, be it 

FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Port Commission adopts the Mitigation Monitormg Program as 
set forth m Attachment A; and be it 

FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Port Commission finds that it does not have the legal authority 
to impose the. following Mitigation Measures recommended in the Fmal EIR as they are within the 
responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the Port Commission. However, the 
Commission recommends that all of those Mitigation Measures, and the relevant parts of the Mitigation 



FindSa.mid 



Alternatives to Replacement of the 
Embarcadero Freeway and The 
Terminal Separator Structure 



Monitoring Program as presented in Attachment B, be adopted by the agencies with jurisdiction to adopt 
them: 



A. Visual Quality/Urban Desig n 



To enhance the appearance of the modified off-ramp at Fourth and Bryant Streets proposed under 
the Fourth Street Option of Alternatives Three and Five, and the Preferred Alternative, the 
landscaping that would be removed wiU be replaced with similar landscaping, and/or new street 
trees in the vicinity. (As modified from DEIR to reflect incorporation of the Preferred Alternative) 



Transportation 
1. Traffic 



a. In order to reduce peak period traffic congestion on Battery and First Streets, install signs 
on Battery and Clay Streets dnecting southbound drivers to use Clay, Davis, and Beale 
Streets as an alternate route to South of Market destinations, including ramps to the Bay 
Bridge. Also, eliminate the nine left-side curb loading/parking spaces on Battery Street 
between Pine and Bush Streets in the AM peak period. (Stopping is already prohibited in 
the PM peak period.) (As in DEIR) 

b. In order to reduce delays in accessing the freeway, restripe the Harrison Street approach 
to the 1-80 on-ramp at Fourth Street to add another exclusive lane to the freeway. This 
restriping would require either removing the existing safety cones on Fourth Street, which 
force southbound traffic at the west curb lane to turn right, or by adding striping through 
the intersection, directing westbound through traffic on Harrison Street aroimd the cones. 
The restrq)ing would require removal of up to 76 on-street parking spaces in the area, and 
would be accompanied by a sign program alerting South of Market drivers to other on- 
ramps farther west. 

The existing configuration of Harrison Street includes one shared left-turn lane and freeway 
access lane, one shared freeway access and through lane, and two through lanes. The final 
configuration of Harrison Street would mclude one left turn-only lane, two freeway-only 
lanes, and three through lanes. All changes would be implemented when the intersection's 
level of service degrades from its existing LOS of B, to LOS E or F in the PM peak hour, 
as projected to occur by 2015. (As in DEIR) 



3. Pedestrian/Bike 



For Alternatives Three, Four and Five, and the Preferred Alternative, the triple right turn 
at the imsignalized intersection of Folsom and Essex Streets could pose a safety problem 
for pedestrians who ignore the absence of a designated crosswalk, and cross Essex Street. 
To reduce the potential for automobile and pedestrian conflicts, the City should install 
pedestrian signs and barriers to direct pedestrians away from the crossing of Essex Street, 
and install a crosswalk on the east side of Essex Street to complement the one on die west 
side, so that pedestrians on the south sidewalk of Folsom Street can detour around the 



FindSa.mid -9- 



Alternatives to Replacement of the 
Embarcadero Freeway and The 
Terminal Separator Structure 



triple right-turn. (Modified firom DEIR to reflect incorporation of the Preferred 
Alternative); and, be it 

FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Port Commission rejects the following mitigation measures for the reasons 
stated on pages 428 A and 428B of the Final EIR, regarding the potential costs and benefits of such measures. Those 
pages of the Final EIR are incorporated herein by reference. In sunraiary, a noise wall could provide sound protection 
to the Golden Gate Swim and Tennis Club, at a cost of aobut $144,000 to $216,000, and would narrow sidewalks, 
eluninate street trees, have negative aethestic effects, and be contrary to the objective of reconnecting the City to the 
waterfront: 

E. Noise 

1. To reduce the potential for future roadway noise effects upon the Golden Gateway Teimis and Swim 
Club (GGTSC) facilities, a solid concrete block wall would be constructed along Washington Street 
(from Drumm to The Embarcadero), and along The Embarcadero, from Washington to the northern 
end of the GGTSC facilities (Noise Barrier "A"). The wall would be approximately 3.0-3.6 meters 
(10-12 feet) tall, and would afford about 9 to 11 dBA of noise reduction to the GGTSC. Such a 
reduction would result in future noise levels of about 56 to 59 dBA at the GGTSC. The cost of such 
a wall is estimated to be approximately $216,000. A solid concrete block wall approximately 1.5- 
1.8 meters (5-6 feet) would afford about 5 dBA sound reduction, at a cost of about $144,000. 
(Modified from DEIR to reflect expanded data and discussion.) 

2. To reduce the potential future roadway noise at Assessor's Block 202, an earthen berm or a 
soundwall of approximately 1.5-1.8 meters (5-6 feet) would be constructed along Washington Street 
(firom Drumm to The Embarcadero) and along The Embarcadero, from Washington to the Boundary 
of Block 202 and Justin Herman Plaza. The berm or wall would achieve about 5 dBA of sound 
reduction and would be constructed at 1.5-1.8 meters (5-6 feet) in order to balance the desire for 
noise reduction widi other project purposes, such as enhancing visual and pedestrian access to and 
from public parks and the waterfront. The cost of constructing such a berm or wall is estimated to 
be approximately $70,000. (Modified from DEIR to reflect expanded data and discussion.)] 
and, be it 

FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Port Commission's approval of the Mid-Embarcadero Roadway Project, 
a portion of the Preferred Alternative as set forth in the Final EIR, would have significant effects on the environment, 
as described in the Planning Commission Motion No. , and as set forth below: 

1. The preferred alternative would perpetuate unacceptable future cumulative traffic conditions at the 
intersections of Fourth and Harrison and Fourth and Folsom diiring the pm peak hour. Such 
cumulative future traffic conditions could cause violations to particulate standards in San Francisco, 
with concomitant health effects and reduced visibility. 

2. The Preferred Alternative would require the use of up to 390 square meters (4,300 square feet) at 
the eastern edge of Justin Herman Plaza for roadway purposes. About 290 square meters is under 
the jurisdiction of the Port of San Francisco, while about 150 square meters is under the jurisdiction 
of the Recreation and Park Department. 



Rnd3a.mid 



-10- 



Alternatives to Replacement of the 
Embarcadero Freeway and The 
Terminal Separator Structure 

3. The Preferred Alternative has the potential to affect archaeological resources that may exist in the 

vicinity of the project; and, be it 

FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Port of San Francisco finds that for the reasons set forth below, the 
economic, social and other considerations of the preferred alternative outweigh the potential unavoidable traffic, open 
space and archaeological resource impacts identified in the above findings: 

1 . The construction and operation of the project will improve public access to transit, which will 
decrease travel time within the City and to destinations in other parts of the region consistent with 
current City land use policies. 

2. The construction and operation of the project will, by extending transit south of the Bay Bridge, 
enhance the movement of transit-dependent individuals and reduce the relative transit isolation of 
areas south of downtown. 

3. The project would provide for a net gain of approximately one acre of public open space potential 
in the project area, creating a "Central Plaza" area in front of the Ferry Building, and facilitating 
the creation of Rincon Point Park, by rerouting the roadway inland and allowing for the creation 
of a park at the water's edge; 

4. The project would improve open space opportunities to residents, workers and tourists by widening 
the Embarcadero Pedestrian Promenade and implementing the Bay Trail; 

5. The project would make a number of improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists by widening the 
Embarcadero Pedestrian Promenade and including bicycle lanes in the north and southboimd curb 
lanes; 

6. The project would fiilfill the City's urban design objectives of creating a setting that lends 
importance to the Ferry Building, a Federal and City landmark, and establishing a terminus for 
Market Street. 

7. The project would reconnect the City with the waterfront by introducing numerous signalized 
intersection and midblock crosswalks. 

8. The project would improve future levels of service at certain downtown intersections in terms of 
traffic congestion, relative to the No Build Alternative. 

9. The Project could improve fumre freeway off ramp capacity to the downtown; and, be it 

FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Port Commission, after balancing the significant adverse effects of the 
Project on the environment, and the benefits of the Project, concludes that the benefits of the Project override the 
significant adverse effects; and, be it 

FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Port Commission finds that no new information of substantial importance 
has become available, no modification to the project has occurred that would require important revisions to the FEIR, 
and no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is under taken, 

Find3amid -11- 



Alternatives to Replacement of the 
Embarcadero Freeway and The 
Terminal Separator Structure 



since the Planning Commission certified the FEIR, therefore, there is no need to prepare an addendum or siq)plement 
to the FEIR or recirculate the FEIR; and, be it 

FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Port Commission shall record the action taken in this Resolution and shall 
certify a copy thereof to the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor. 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was ADOPTED by the Port Commission at its regular meeting 
of October 8, 1996, 



Secretary 



Find3a.mid -12- 



0) 


"D 


"re 


<1> 


Q 


^ 


"w 


Q 


3 


E 


re 

4-> 


o 


(/} 


o 



u 

0) 

"o 

CL 
0) 



o 

3 



o 

Q 


.^ 




.5 


c 


c 
o 

o 


o 


(A 
0> 


4-' 

'E 


q: 


o 


o 


S 


.£ 



1^ w 

2 « re 
0- " re 

C 2 O 

•c U. CO 

° 5« 

e- '^ C 

3 C -o 
« 3 c 

*= -o re 

S = 5 
O re "o 

re ^ o 



3 

■a 

0) 

x: 
o 
(/) 



<u 

k. 

'5 

D 
O 

a: 

c 
o 

o 

< 



o = *; 

■o 
re 
o 

re 

E 

UJ 



k. 




o 


CM] 


H- 


c 


> 


o 


..^^ 








r^ 


re 


^ 






c 


'33 


V 


c 
o 


E 


D 


C) 


« 


Q 


0) 


E 



w 














c 














,g 














— ^ 














(0 ra 














> o ■ 














o «= 














^■^ 














Q. 9J 














^ « 




























O T3 








































S QJO 














<" ^ >^ 














q: ij ^ 














o 




























.4-f 






UJ 








c 

T3 OJ 




o 


o 


o 


O 




Recreation an 
Park Departm 
provide letter 


c 
■> 

2 


c 
g 

o 
o 


CD 

CL 
Q 

of 


Q. 

o 
o 

T3 

c 


(0 

c 
o 

ro 
o 
t^ 
o 


cd 


Q. 
Q- 

ro 


Q. 
0) 


UJ 

o 


O 


o 
a. 


m 
O 



o 

Q. 
C 
D) 
"«5 
Q) "O 

Q 5 



UJ 
w 

3 
O 

z 
< 



0) 



■^ C .ti 



2 

3 
O 

UJ 0) -2 o 
O £ ro ro 



i"? 



CD 



O c 



"J m tf 

C 2. O 

g CL 



Q "O w o Ci- CL CO 



CD CO 

■B CL 

(0 CO ^ 

Sli 

CQ CO t^ 

^ 2 ro 

> O Q. 
CL (U Q) 

Q ce: D 



0) 



c 

(U 



^ 3r£^ 



^30 
CO 2 <D 

Eo "j; 
._ 5 CO 

<"5 - 

^ m ^ 
~ N T3 

E jco oj 
:eQ- S5 

£ ECL 

T-: X £ 



o 

3 • 
k_ 
■*— • 
(/} 

C 

o 
o 

0) 

i_ 

■D 

c 

CD 

c 

D) 
W) 
0) 
TJ 

(U 

u. 

3 
O 



CU 

o 

CD 
Q. 
V) 

c 

CD 
Q. 
O 



(U 
O 
CD W 
CZL 3 

C T3 

<^ S 
Q. CD 

O >. 
CD 



m 5 



£ 2 

ii 

T3 
CD 

O 

i_ 

0) 

c 

CD 



-a 

(U 

c 

O) 

to 

(U 

•o 

CD 
JQ 



2 

O . 

c w 

a) CD 

J3 CU 

1 i 

CD <D 
m" CU 



CD 

CO .E 
<u a.-a 

(D CU 

o </) 



o 

Q. 

o 

Q. 
0) 



CU 






CD .ti: .t 
•= c " 



CD 

£ c 
E- 

.E ^±: 

CO £ :^ 

to 5 ^ 
■^ -^ t^ 
jD g aj 

.i2 ^ 8 
X <i> ^ 
UJ XI .52 



o 



to 

O CD 

CD CJ CD 
»il CU O 

o Q.IE 

■§■{2 8^ 
8S-g£ 



-O CU 



^ Z- 



T3 

ro to 
CO o 



O Q. 

ro r-j 

CU '-' 

"— J^ 

O il 

<u ro 

Q:: CL 



-a 
c 
ro u. 



.E ^ 
ro o o 

^ 'to O) 
*:; <u -o 



O O) 

*- c 

CL C 

c Q 



CU 

T3 

ro 
o 

I— 

ro 

X) 

E 

UJ 
CU 

sz 

C3)— V 
CZ CM 
O "O 

ro ^ 
en cL 

ro Uj 

o -^ 

CO ca 
ro t 



c 
o 



o 

3 



5, C D)i= CU 

.2' t: c to CO 

w ■ - c sz ro 

CU !g 3 o -c 

Q X3 -a o Q. 







ould 

sin 
with 1 
nd 
tmen' 




5 c iz ro Js 


-jf 


'W/BOE 
sign the 
scificatio 
ordinatio 
icreation 
irks Dep; 


o 

CL 
CD 




a- CU Q- 6 « ro 

Q T3 to O 01 CL 


ro 


CD. O 




D- -e 




. . CD ^- ^ 




O O B E ro 




CD CQ CD +-• 1- 




> >■ O CL C 




CL CL (u <u ro 





Q Q q: 



CU 



CU 

CU 
■a 

0) 



ro 

ro 
o 
.52 a: 

^ 2 

CD 0) 

2 ro 



T3 

C 

ro 
ro 

N 

ro 

CL 

c 
ro 

E 
t— 
<u 

X 



O x: 



91 ro 

E 

UJ 



(O 

ro 
o 

h- 



CNI 

o 

CNI 

o 
o 

CD 

to 

•\_ 
o 
to 
CO 
CU 
to 

< 

c 
o 

■o 

c 
ro 



T3 

S 2 



to 



o 



o .E 



0) 



0) 



TD ro 



tu 

E 



CL 



ro 



Q.Q $ 



o 

c: 
g 

3 

"to 

c 
o 
o 



o 
o 

CO 

o 

c 
ro 



c 
ro 

CO 

■e 
o 

CL 

O 

to 

c 
o 

Q. 
C/5 

"o 

CU 



ro 

sz 

CU 

x> 

c 
o 
to 



3 
CL 



c 

CU 

E 
■d 
ro 

Q. 
(U 

p 

c 
ro 

CU 

E 
"ro 



Dl 
Q 
_o 

to 

o 
u 

c 

(D 



S = 

"o ro 

-O T3 

C (U 

QJ ro 

<u o 

(U -o 

^ c 

to" (u 



to 






XI 

ro 



0) 

*-< 


•a 


n 


0) 


O 


Q 


13 


F 


re 


o 


(0 


o 



c 
g 

> o 
o s= 

CL 0) 

CO °- 



Z- ^ 



a. 

o 
o 



ra UJ 
0) O 






-d 


?: 


o 
a 


♦^ 


0} 






c 
o 


o 


(A 

0) 


4^ 

"E 


q: 


o 


D 


S 


C 



c 



UJ 

O 

DO 



Q- 
Q 



2 O 

W CD 03 
C =5 o 
O < i^ 
- Q. t 
Q 



ro 



Q. gj Lu 
o Q./=i 



T3 
Q. 

E 
o 
o 



o O 






Q. ^ 

-^ ■> Ql 
Q. QlO 



-a 

c 

(U 



UJ 
O 
CQ 



U3 Q 



to 

c 
g 

o t^ 

>.'o a: 
S- ?^ UJ 



•a 

0) 

£ 
O 



a. 

en 
O 1q 



0) 



o 
ns 

*-» 

<E 
0) ro 

= S' 
15 2 

CO ?> 
o§ 

ro o 

§-^ 

^§ 
™ -^ 

If 

^S 

•^ o 

■a o 

c w 

ns o 

ro ro 
§ u. 

1 ra 

o o 
<u ^ 

TO -J 

2 o 

I? 



0) 

"5 

D' 
O 

c 
o 

'J 

o 

< 



-2 
o 

m o 



re 

Di 



0) 

x: 

o -a 



5. c 

Q E o «= 



o 

(U 

qI 

"o 
to 



■D 

c 

(0 

c 
Q 



■o 






5 



Is 

03 "tr 
CL O 

Q o 



o 

c 
g 

O CM 
Q.O 
<D CM 



0) 
> 

o 
(0 .9 



,_ j«: 



03 
CL 



O 
CO 

d 

(O (0 



o 


■a 

(0 






o 


3 






Q. 


•~~^ 


. 


.^^^ 




(0 


j^ 


CM 


<D 


0} 


o 


«o 


^ 


x: 


o 


CM 










£ 


sz 
o 


CQ 

a) 
o 


Q. 


■o 


d" 


£ 


"to 


o 


c 


iD 


c 


CO 


o 










^ 


'o 


•c 


m 


. o 




as 


o 


1— 




LU 


o 


u. 


(D 





o 

CO 

lU 
Q 

Z 
< 
CD 

q: 

3 



2 

O 

5 



C .ti 



OJ 



EU (D .2 O 

O £ to TO 



c 

Q) 

E 
0) Q_ 



CM 



"S Q <u 



< 
3 
O 

_1 
< 

> 



5^ CO (U o >< i;; ^ 
°i- <u D. o OJ OJ c 

Q -Q (o o D- Q- ro 



= CL 
-1 

CO CO ^ 

SI I 

> O Q- 

Q_ 0) (U 

Q m Q 



3 



o 
o 



c: 

O 



<D C 



i= CO 

to CD 

c ■ 



C x: 5 CD 

t »- X: *:! 



03 •- 
C T3 



5 CD § 



<D <1 _ 

N CO Di Q- 

o E Dl 2 "^ 

0) 0) g 03 
T^ X £ 5 i= 



o 

-_ 05 

E^£ 

-I- O .ti 

-a '^ -2^ 
c c: (o 



CD 



■D "^ = 

03 . > 

O CO ^ 

•- N CO 

£ CL CO 



CD 

o ■ 

^ -o 

1 i 

T3 ■>- 

S «" 

CO 
TO CL 

2 
'^ > 

CO = 

i3 to 



:? CO 

03 .E 

<D CL-O 

i= 03 CD 

TO O to 

to to o 

•= -a 



CD 

T3 tD 

03 XI 

O _ 



05 



= (D 



c 
i_ o 

"to 



0) OJ "2 
2^ XI 03 



i= c 



E "^ 
*- ti) 



C ^ CL 

^ ^^ '^ 
c: CD £ 

■^££ 
■^■S c 

03 JU iJ 

i-ii 

■■^ (D o 

X CD ^ 
UJ XI .?2 



UJ 
(D 

x: 
cn 



c 

05 
0) 



o % 

CO £ 
C. I— 

■q.2 

03 03 

^ E 
JO <; 



o _ 
CD -^ 
E ^ 

03 5 
to ^ 

X to 
-^ 0) 

£ 2^ 

- E 
2 i 



-^ to 5 
en c 
o 



03 
CL t= 



c t= «J 
(U ro c 

o CL.2, 



.55, > - 

^ > o 

ro 03 o 

tD .E 

c: CO CD 



03 

> c: 

E^ 

S CD 



-g 
E 

CM 
XI 



c 

E 
■o 
ra 
li 

03 
O 

o 

CD 
X) 
tD 

V— 

tn CD "2 

to r-- csi 
^ d — 



0) 


T3 


ra 


0) 


a 


0) 


(A 

3 


Q 

F 


re 


o 


(0 


o 



C 

o 
ra 

C 
0) 

E 

o o a: 
0) o m 

a: 2^ O 



Q. 



.o 

TO 
O 

o 

Q-TJ 



q: P 






c 
(u ra 

o "O 
<D c 

•- Q) . 
"p p CO 

ro Q) ^^ 

■- a: 

>'UJ 

■loO 



ro 



■e 


>i 


o 


♦J 


n 


.^ 


0) 


n 


q: 


</> 


c 


i 

Q 


o 


(A 
(1> 


"E 


o: 


o 


G 


S 


C 



a. 
o 
o 







c a) 



ro 
■o 

c 

(U 

E 



c 
o 

ro . 



2 E --o LU 
^ 8 o O 



T3 

c 

0) 



■Suj 

{£ CQ 

ro ^ 

E Q- 

LU Q 



I I- 
T3 <U 

^ ra 
^ o 

^™ 

^E 
8m 



CO 

c 
o 

ro 
o 

<^ 



b 

CO 
CO 

h- 
o 



g 

ro 

TJ 

c 

0) 

E 

E 
o 
o 

0) 



LU 

O 



■o 

'5 
o 
a> 

c 

u 

< 



"5 r^ O 

E _g ex nj 
o 



(D ro w 

ro — ^ -n 
c ro " 



l^^lgpO o,co 
Cd-^roroOo^-DO 



c 

S -^ M- 

Co*" 



O 
O 
O 



W 



(U 



c *- 



o ro «- 



Q) ro 



$ o 


c c 



E ro ro 



E w 
o ro 



i= 





c- -^ 

_ ^ o ^ ro 
ro -^ cr c 

5 O ro . gJ -o 
:^ro-E-o o 
OS E ro 8 





TJ 

ro 
o 

i» 

ro 

E 



c 

U. m T3 -Q 



CO o 

PI 

1- c 



2 

si 



-D UJ 

go 

2 CD 

ra ^ 

E CL 
LU Q 



ro 



o _ 

LL H 



0£ 



OT 



ra 

*3 CO 

ill 

ro ~ .h: 
(U D- 

Q. CO li: 



ro 



ra ^ 
O 



CO 



o ^ = 



c^-5 

ol ro 







co" 



CO 

*- £ =J 
ro *1 CO 
.CQ.ro 

;; o^ 

[^1 g "^ C 

S E ^ .2 

°o^c31 



CO 



£5 



c 



L. 







CNI 


>^- 


c 


> 





<*J 




*— 


■♦J 




re 


^ 


^j 




c 


'</) 





c 



E 


Q 


Ci 


(/) 


Q 




a: 


E 



(0 

c 

ra 

L_ 
■^.^ 

ra 

O 

T3 

C 

ra 



CL 

Q 



•o 

c 
ra 



Q. 
Q 



ro 

E ro 
LU O 



CO 
CO 



> -9 :^ 







c 

3 

a o 

TO o 

I? 

'g ro 

s (5 



ra 

Q. 

c 
ra 
c 
.0 

'•4— • 

ra 


1 

o 

01 


-a 
_ 

P ro 







CO 
CM 



q: 

CO 

,_ ^ 75 
ro Q i:. 



T3 

c 
ro 

.c 
■e 
3 





x: 



•o 

c 

3 



D. O 
Q.U_ 

ro 



CM 



ra 
a. 

E 
ro 

o 

■D 

i^ 

TJ 
O 

E 



c 
ro 
*i_ 
ro 
> 

CL 

O 
Q. > 

J2 

< 



CO 











c 
ro 

CQ CL 










> 
O 

E 


^ ^- ^. 

o i5 (/) 

-° E 5 

-n ~ (X) 

3 CO c 

o £ ^ 

ro -o c= 

XI (U ro 

"" o - 

o) ro o) 

CL (U O. 

ro •- ro 

o © o 

CO S CO 

-D ■" -o 

c = c 

ro $ ro 



CO 
CM 

Q. 
?^^ 

> UJ 
OJ 75 

£ .5 

c LL 



ai 

< 
o 

Q 

Z 
< 

X 

o 



c 
o 

P 3 







CO 



il c 

ro o 
o 



en 


o 

3 






> 



a. 
o 



en 
c 

3 

■o 

C3) 
C 

ro 
o 

E 




3 ^ 

o > 

W CO 

o o 

Q- o 

CO ro 

O C 

O 



o 

ro 

^E 
ro o 

.h: 



ro 

.ro 

c 
o 



i_ is 
£ (o 
c 
en o 
E t-> 

I" 

-I 
ro E 



CO <p 
ro <o 

CM 

ra cL 
"ra CC 
c C 

'co lij 

—. 

•- Ct3 

■a .S 
ro v=. 



-a 
E 

CM 

ra 

"c 

1 
■a 
j5 
jd 
ra 
o 
o 


X2 




CO CD "S 

S? E 

CO t^ (M 

3 CN S 

L; CD 00 



I 
f 

I 



I 







c 






Q 






^^^ 






(0 






o 






«= 






'.*_( 






o 




3-0 


c 




(0 0) 


'o 




9 « 

2 o 


1^ 




% E 


o U 




2 o 


^ >» 




to o 


a: j3 




■e 


2 


a: 




o 

o 


3 


LU 

O 




a 


c 
o 


^.52 




"5 


o^ 


■d 




Q 


c o 


0) 


O 
«^ 

'c 






E 


o 


c 


Q. x: 


0) 


S 


c 


Q 5 


Q- 



3 

■o 

0) 
£ 

O 
(0 



c 
,^ o Li_ ro 
O ^ o 0. 

^ -a -i -BT. 



c 
o 



(0 

o 



o 

c 

o 
a: £1 



en 

UJ 

O 
a^.52 



o 



o <u 

a. ^ 0) 
Q $ Q- 



_c 



■J- ro 
I- <u 
O Q. 



§ 2-35 Q. 

^ T3 -J £ 

(/) 

C 



o 



o 

< E 

o t: 

c 



CO 



2 o 



ro o 
&^ 

!^ § 

E-f 
t- o 

■D O 



ro o 
ro 2 



•D 

ro 
o 
a: 



o o 

ro -3 

y o 

ro O 

UJ ro 



O 



■a 

0) 

'5 

D 

q: 

c 
o 

<1 



re 



Z 

g 

< 

01 
O 
0. 
CO 



0) 






D5 






ro 

c 


r: 


d 


'</) 


Q. 


o 




E 




— 


ro 


ro 


o 


D) 




o 




o 
ro 


1 




o 






£ 






ro 




'o 






••-• 


T3 




c 


C 




Q) 


ro 




E 


en 




■c 


c 




§."€ 




0) 


ro 




Q 


D_ 





lT "? -r^ ra o 

■O ^ m ? <U CO 

S "^ <u ^ c 



c 



i^fS 5.52 P ^ 



"■CD O 
8 C CO 

T3 



> ' 



«d W 



w ro (D 



ro 



-^ c - iz i 

O c: *= >. 1- x: 

- c 2* m — -2 ™ 

2? O ■ w S o -^ c 



■«=s'° 



(B C 



I 2 



^ (a -i^ ui w ro ^ 

-a § •-. £ 2 «> -2 
o " i2 CO « -HJ "i 

-£ 2 tl £^ 
ro i: W O -D CO "o 



(/) 


n 


< 


o 


^*»l 





6 


■a 


Oi 


55 


;g 


*i 


L« 


^ 


CQ 




ro 


c 


CQ 


'c 


0) 





£ 


^ 

•«-• 



o S. 



cn 

^-^ 

Q) 
CD 

0) CO 

CD 3 
c CQ 
o -a 

(1) ro 

U) CL 

D) C 
C (D 

ra ^ 

Q. (U 

S 0) 

-D 0) 

ro ii 

O CO 



C t (0 u. 



C TO 

CO CI. 

■~^ <u 
-d£ 
•2 .5 
a5 T3 

Q. 0) 

ro fi 
(U x: 
Q. o 

< -^ 

£ 2 



Q. 1- 

•c <u x: yj 

- ° g-^ 

r- 9i E E 

i:; n t^ ^ 

^, "^ ro g- 

n^ S O 0) 

Q_ ro ^ >- 



£ 
ro 

oH 
c? 

ro 'rp 

Q.^ 

Q) ro 
Q Q. 



CM 
CO 

cL 
DC 

00 

^UJ 

o ro 
•c: .c 
(D u 



ro 



(D 



(/) 



•^ ro 15 ^ ^ 
ro *= 9- o :2 



X o-^2 



■o 

0) 

o 
■o 

0) 






ro x: CO 0) c 
15 *" — "- ro 

ro SI 

- "^ " ^ nS 

n aJ ro *-- o; (/) 
ii j= o <u •- ■ F 

,_ *- u_ 0) 0) j^ 

0) en S-i= £ f^ 
■a c S-CO 
9X *^ sz 



O XJ 

o n 

O 1/5 



c 



CO .E 
en 

■D 



■S - <u ro 



CD 
> 

^ Crt 

O (U 
X 1- 



ro ^ 
o ° 



C/).*-_l=j_,t_3^ 



O 

^ Q) t ro 

o 2 3 "o 
o i= o x> 
ro CO u. ro 



en 



cu 
0) 

-•— • 

CO 

-C ro 



£■? E 

C 13 =J 

o o -^ 

co:g2 
^§ ^ 

8 S ro 



c 
o 

crt 
cnt 
,E ro 
t) -^ <u 

.;= o H 
"o o . 

_- ip CO 
§ ro ?^ 



Q. 



c: 



ro 
> 

o 

E 

Q) 
CD 



(/) 

O 

O 

TO 

CL 

CO 

en 
5 c 
er J^ 



^ 'd) O CO 



(U o 

O CO <u 

t- CD ±: 

£ 5 CO 



:3 CD 
O CD 

l^ 

en I 
c c 
CL o 
C CD 
W "^ 
CD O 



E 

CN 

ra 
■g 

E 
■o 
ro 
::5 
ra 
. o 
o 

CD 
JD 
CD 



CO CD ^5 
CNI £ 

cn ro 



CD 
CO 

13 



( 



o 

♦J 


•o 


re 


0) 


Q 


"S 


1/5 


Q 


3 


E 


4^ 


o 


CO 


o 



0) 



o 

•e-g ^ 

SO-J5 CD 



u. C <U "O 
O C Q. C 
LL. LU tf] 03 



.E-2 o 
o^ E 

III 
goo 
coo 



o E 



0) 

o 

0) 



co-g 
h- I 

|i 
£ 2o 



o 


3 


Q 


;3 


0) 


\a 


^ 


'w 


"5 


c 
o 

Q 


o 


V) 

0) 




01 


o 


D 


S 


C 



■o 

c 

0) 

. w 

, 2 o 

= TJ LU 

^ 03 ~ 

O 



xz 

I— 

o 

U- 



O 

m 



Q 





W 




c 




o 




't - 




CO 


k^- 


o 


o 


«= 


>» 


o 


Q. 


(D 


o 


Q. 


O 


« 



g 

o 

3 



a: 

^ LJJ ^ 
J5 O w 

■a o 

^ Q. 

w 



(U 



c 
o 
o 

Ol 

_c 

'l. 

13 

■o 



b 

CO 
CO 
H 
(U 



o 
o 

T3 

.. c 

■I- 0} 
1- w 

£2 



Q.-g 



£Z 
(U 

E 

O HI 

2 o 



2 CO 



x: (0 






ii (0 



O t- .13 



l^ -o 



c o C "O c 

c: d o c o 

o 



o q c o - 
Li_ LU Q. o CO 



co-g ?.t 

'"" C O CL CO 

^ E £ .-^ ^ 



o 
0) .2 



O = Q- 



Si -^.CO CD 



4-* 

I 



o 




S 












< 


E 


£ 


2 


3 


O) 




o 


o 


k. 


3 


Q. 


i_ 




55 


O) 

c 


u. 


*t. 


o 


o 


CO 




iZ 


c 


CD 


o 


O. 


s 


CO 


c 




o 


To 


'~ 


c 


CO 


E 


.g> 




s 


h- 


o 


■D 


o 


C 


(0 


CO 


o 


>, 


c 


CO 


5 
u. 


T3 




(0 

o 


c 

CO 


tr 


CO 






o 


o 


i_ 




(U 


^ 


T3 


c 


CO 


3 


2 


o 


(0 O 


Si 

E 


■a 

c 


UJ 


CO 


i 


..^ 





O 



0) 

w 

'5 
o 

a: 

c 
o 

o 

< 



o 


tMI 


**• 


c 


^ 


o 






nz 


(0 


^ 






'c 


w 


0) 


c 
o 


£ 


Q 


0> 


(/> 


Q 


0) 


E 



(U 



CD 



C 
CO 
Q.^ ^ 

E 3 10 

O O Q. 

<J CO c 
o "^ E 

CO D5 CO 

— ™ J5 
E£ 

CD O 
Oi O 

o -^ 

o. ■- 

CD c 5 

CO O) "O 



o 
en 



CD I 

X it: 
.2 I 



T3 

C 
CD 



O 

5 



o 

T3 

C 
(0 



C O 

o 0) 

O 0) 

cn^ 

c ^ 

■-= o 

w c 

X ~ 

cu gJ 



CD 

oj _ a; 

i5 c CO 

(O •*- r- 

« o o 

CD x: « 

o "^ b 

CO . CO 

^, " ° 

cu — c 

2 -c o 

_, 3 CD 

T3 rt *- 

C E 3 

CD x: D) 



x: 

3 

o 2 

^£ 

OJ (U 

^^1 



CO 

"c 
.g 

o 

CU 

w 
o 
"c 



CD $ 
CO" CO 

cu <u 

C D) 
CO c 
— CD 

c o 
-2 TO 

^ 5 to 

jci=S5oyaj£ 
|-coi53 o.Ei:i2 



- cu O 



cu 
o o 

LU -D 

co§ 

(U 

o" 
cx 



it; 

(U 

c 
o 



cu 
£ 2 o 2 



. E 



^2g 



1- o 
cu _ 

Q. ^ 

E o 



It: "5 

o u.- 

SI 

-" ^ 

05 CO 
C CU 
■^ Q. 

cu 0- 



CM 
C\J 
CO 

cL 

CO 

S TO 
CM c; 

J2 Si:, 



O 
li. 



cu 
■o 

CO 

o 

CO 
X3 

E 



2 

3 
O 
$ 

O £ 

CD CU 

il 

CL O 



LU Q S 



CU 

x: 



cu 



3 

,- o 



cu 



CO O *- 
oi^io 

2-2.1 o 
Q. en Q E 



CD >-' 



m S -D 

O O TO 

CQ CQ 2 

^ ^ CO 

Q_ Ql E 

Q Q LU 



CO 
CO 

H 

(/> 

CD 

lo 
O 



?^ -CD 



05 
CU 

E 
cu 

"3 

O" 

cu 



CO 
CO 

J- 

cu 



o 

Ll_ 



3 ^ 

O t 

5 E 

^ o 

o 2 



to 



</) 


O 

c 
g 
'c 
cu 
> 
c 

O 

o 

c 

Q) 

o 

3 

■o 
cu 



cu 
■a 

k- 

o 

c 







■a 
cu 
o 

3 
■o 

>- T3 o 

■= .g y 

CO i3 d 



Q. lii 
E-D 

B «= 

*^ CO 



T3 

C 
TO 

g 

"■^ ■^-'^ 2 CD 

3 -CO 

(/)(/)> 

O X3 CD 
.2 CU 



^ c 

"si-g 

*-; (0 .g 

CO O — ' 

o *- i2 

o S', => 
<n cu o 

t« i: .h: 
(0 (A O 



en 

8.2 

2 w 

3 2 

^ O 
cu ii 

3 2 

o o 
5 2 

o 8 



cu 

E s: 
u=; o 

I" 

c o 
o.^oj 



(U CO -Q 

CO E ^ 
U) <U -Q 



CD 



;^-^o ^^ 



CD 



cu 



CO 



Q. i: "o 

o ~ c 



CD 



<n 



^-S 8 

.9 CO 0) 

o <n ^ 

3 *- ^ 

-O =3 O 

2E 8 



g 0) 

*- CO (U 

~ cu XI 

cu c -^ 



•J T3 
CD <U 



cu 



2 TO 



■a c 
c cu 

CO "5^ 

en (U 

li 

TO E 

3 o 

0)1- 

1 1 

5(? TO 

2 o 



■g 
E 
cvi 

"E 

"E 
■o 
_ro 
Si 

CO 

o 
o 
cu 

X) 

<u 

CO CD 

to t^ 

3 CN 

l: o) 



i 



i 



i. 



PI -n 

= 1 



. 2^ o §--5 ^• 

i I -5 .-^ o, § o 

^ ro CO OJ .E ~ o 

O O O •=■ Q) 3 

ra S 2^ .-2 "5. -1= 

o ■- F c «" 

o c Q. c y o o 

U. LU (/} 0} c u u 



CD 

fe E 



c 

0) 

. w 

o 

LLI 

o 

m 



o E 
S c 

Q) O 
l_ *.^ 

- OJ 

CO -a 

1- I 



o ^ 



LJJ 



o ^iSO 



ro 9- 
o Q 

>.o of 

O Cpi 



^ Q. 
0) CD 



c 
,0 

"o 

1» 
W) 

c 
o 
o 

CD 

c 

13 
T3 



o 

co- 
co 

H 



c 



ClTJ 



o 



o 
o 

■o 
c 
(U 
CO 



c 
Q) 

E 
o lU 



u> 








c 

















'•^^ 








CD 

















«= 








'o 








Q) 








Q. 








(« 








M— 

















■fS 

























■a 








c 








<u 









to 








5 - 
77, "^ 


2 


(0 

c 





LLI = 

^ 


•0 

TO 


ro 




5 ^ 



'o 


Qi 


S8 


E 
m 


Q. 


ILi 




_2 

■o 

0) 

JC 

o 
CO 



■g 

0) 



o 
u. 



CO *^ .— o 

2 o ^ 3 =5 

t: -e o c o 

LU CL O CD U 



CO 
CO 

I- 
o 



5 ^1 

Si 2io 

C O CL 



CD 



E£.-^> 



o 

0^ .2 = S- 
il :^ CD CD 



Q. 
O) 

Q) T3 

D S 



jc 









(0 




^-^ 




*-• 




< 


E 




2 


3 


o> 










l1 


a 


Q. 


\— 




W 


c 


i— 


*l_ 








?5 




I— 


c 


CD 





Cl. 
(U 


s 


CO 


c 







"cD 


'.^ 


C 


CD 


E 


O) 


1— 

0) 


i 


H 





T3 





C 


(A 


CD 


'o 


>» 


C 


(0 

5 


2 
u. 


T3 
(0 


a: 


c 

CD 

CO 
















v 


>> 


■0 




03 


3 








(D 


E 


•0 


■h! 


(D 


1 


^^ 


^ 


b 



> .0 

(At o 

as 

^ E 
Mi 



(A 

£ CD 

Q) £ 

-o c: 

^ — -co 

.E (U CD x: 

W E "cT 2 

c: CU J:; ,y 

CD ^ Q-h= 



CD 

o 5 ro 
-" ^ o 

^ '^ r- 

«n .2 S 

2-^8 

^ i E 
:5 iS i5 

!5 % Q> 

CD CD ?i 

^ Eh 



0) 



CO 
CSJ 
CD 



co ce 

TO C^ 
6 LU 

■o .S 
CD 'i:. 



-o ^2 

■5 == CD 

o c -o 

> — CD 

LU •— OJ CD 

^"^ £ P 

CQ <U CD t *^ 

^ -O .h: lU " 

Q_ "o crl2 o 

Q .E 2 S Q- 



;g 

o 



CD 



w 

c 

CD 

_ E 
iE ==; 5 2 
o < % '5 

-lis- 



= ^ ^ 

CD O 

,9 CO 



UJ ^ -O 

O O ra 

CD CD E 

^ ^ CD 

^ ^ -Q 

Q. CL E 

Q Q UJ 



CO 
CO 



c 

CD 

i_ 

"cD 

o 



_ CD 

.28 



(D 







CD 



0) (D 

D- O CD 
CD "^ 



§ O 
> O 

CL CD 



CO 



CO 



•^-00 



5 O CD 
O CD ,, 
> ij. CJ 

>< o ra 

o "-^ 

c c 

^ o .0 

■^ "o "cj 

_ i2 2 E 

C O "S to OT 
— 0) 0) C (= 

. a= i: O O 

•U CD CO O O 



T3 "' i= 



CD C 

%% 

T3 O 
2 E 

O "co 

*- c 

a 8 
^ •*- 
o o 



CO CO 

CD C 
O 

> o 



o 

o ^ 

"3 

E 
E 



■= " CD 

C 

o 



CD 
D. 
CD 
O 



O « 

t* £ CD 

.-^fS cd£ 

CO tD O -^ 



CO 



CO 
CD 



O 
U. 



C C 
(D — 

I 2 
il 

O CD 



CD 



d 2 



(O 
^ C= 
O O 
(D -J 
'o' CD 

t: o 



T3 
CD 



CO 
CM 
CO 



•■^"^ E 



o o 

CD c 

c o 

'^ CD 

O i= 

2S 

CO o 

c c 

o o 

o o 



-o (V 

Sim 
^^ 

CO r~ 

:2 "eg 

t -S 
o n. 



CM 



2 


■4— f 


u- 




3 


CJ 


Q. 







2 


CO 




5 

LU 







c 
.0 


c 

CD 

E 


CO 

1 


CD 

I— 
CD 
Q. 






CD 

"3 


CL 
Q 


CD 
Q. 


CD 
Q. 
CO 


CT 
CD 



to 



. LU 













































CQ 












































i 






















D. 






















Q 




1— 




















CD oi 


13 



^ 






0. 



CO 
■o 



■0 








.E 


U- 


^ 


(D 




"to 


E 








ni ■= 


CD 


C 









CD 


Cvj 






TO 


nsit passeng( 
the Ferry Bl 


0) 

k— 

sz 


ro 


c 





(D 
CD 


Q. 
CD 


^ 
^ 






CD 




13 


CD 


(D 


5 

CO 
CD 
CO 

XI 


CD 


"c 







Ci. 

CD 


6 

H 

CO 
CD 


CO 
T3 





13 


1- 


CO 


Cl. 

CD 

C 

=3 


E 
■a 

l5 






"e 


y of trai 
front of 


> 

c: 

0) 


sz 


x: 
5 





(D 
■D 




I— 
(U 
T3 


T3 

X3 

k. 




CD 


• CD 
XI 
0) 






"oJ 


^.E 


< 


cd" 

> 


2 


13 



CD 



(D 


^ 


CD 


x> 




1- 


eficie 
pace 


(D 
■0 


ij_ 

•a 

c 





tr 



CD 
XI 

E 


CJ3 



a3 

CO 

3 


CM 


E 


CD 


-0 CO 


3 


CD 


CD 


c 


LU 


CD 


i—' 


o5 


ro 



0) 

4^ 


T3 


re 


0) 


Q 


*-> 


(A 


Q 




F 


re 


o 


V) 


O 



-o 0) 
^ E 

Ll. LU 



ja i^ o 
^ o S-5 



Q. en c o 

O -tr; 



O 

_ <u 

Q. C 



o « 5 

It? 
goo 
coo 



o E 
S-2 

•55 "t: 

o 



TO '03 .E .2 -C h- 

O O br 1n =J m 



co-g 



r 


>i 





*-» 


Q 


;^ 





J3 


Dl 


(/) 


G 
C 


C 


Q 


1 

C 


V) 

0^ 





n 


S 


c 



0) 
(0 

O O 

-a :§ 
S O 
J£ CQ 

E CL 
LU Q 



O I 

^io 

2 ^ TO 
■o J= 



03 

3 a: 

cnuj 
9?0 



73 

,g 

0) 

CL 

c 
.0 

o 

u 

•4-' 

(0 

c 
o 
o 



3^ c 
0*05 . 

CO Q^-D 

woe 

^■^i - 

-^ <u o c^ 

0-^1^ 



ll o 2d 



T3 0) 
S CO 



1 0.1 

<u 2 o "^ 1 E 

£ CD *- 5 -O *= 

1- c o c: T3 c 

o Ceo cz o 

LL. LU Q. O CO O 



- CO en 






c ®, 
5 O _- 



c b Q- cj 
|il:5-| 

U. ti: x: CD C3 



I 



o 
^ E 

OJ CO 



3 


O) 







"o 


Ll 


3 


Q. 


1— 




rA 


C3) 


UJ 


c 


i_ 


*u. 








5 


c 


CO 





CD 


^ 


W 


c 







"cD 


•*-» 


C 


CO 


E 


D) 




i 


1- 





■Q 





c 


(O 


CO 





>, 


c: 


CO 

5 


CO 


■0 




CO 




c 

CO 


a: 


CO 




u— 








i_ 




<u 


^ 


"O 


C 


CO 


3 


i£ 





CO 


XI 




E 


T3 

C 


U 


CO 


i 


i^ 


1 


b 



■a 

"5 
o 

0) 

a: 

c 
o 

< 



ti. 







CM! 




c 


> 


> 








re 


XI 


«-> 




c 


(A 





C 



E 








(A 


Q 




E 



c 



S ex: 



TO 
C 
(U 

E 
o- Q) 



CD 



3 
00 



3 
to 

CD 

■g 
■> 

o 

^c 
1=0- 

> CO 
^ O) 

0) CO 



0) 
X2 

o 

1 s 

o ^ 

c 



(A 



O g 

CO *i 
CD e 

•o I 

C 0) 

So. 

= i- 

O w 



c 
_g 

CO 
CO 
CD CD 

c x: 
o I- 

N «_ 

cn.o 

C CO 

=0 ^ 

TO S 

^ i9 

.^1 
(1) o 

1^ 
1^ 

Q. C 



C -D 
CD 3 
" O 



CO^ 

TO O 

>« O 
CD N 

■fo CD 
CD "^ 

1^ 

^m 

CO 

o 

CO a> 

X> Ll- 

E o 

ILI £ 



?5 

3 O 

m c 

03 CD 
il JZ 

O (D 
"i- c 

<o 

CD a> 

£d: 

E o 
P ^ 



to 

C 

to 
to 
o 



CO 



£?^ 



o 

CO 
00 

to 

" CD^ 

ro -o E 

-t= 3 CO 

-g to o 

Q. CD ^ 

£ O D) 
N c 



■go 

■t? CD 

0) £ 



Q. to 



■o 
— ^ to c 

E 05 

CD <B E 

-E H o 



to 
e o 

C tDc^ 

2 fe >« 

^^ "O ^ 
D5 C TO 

c =■ 2 

O ™ CO 

o 2 a, 

>, CO > 

%^^ 

CD >- 
0) CD 2 





10 




to 




C*5 




Q. 




or 






H 


t^ 


CT 


t/J 


CO 


Ul 


CD 




■0 


CO 


CO 


.c 


^ 


LL. 



CD 

. 2 i I ^ 

1 -S S 0. 2 

CD 2 CQ C y 



=: ^ tj 10 



£2 o 

" ^ ^ o 

"5 ^ tD -O 

S TO £ "^ 



■o 
g 

0) 
Q. 

c 
g 

o 



O CO C3) CO i: 
w c: CD - - 

CD CD O 



^SSi'So ___ 

i-CnOCDCDOCc 

ocQ-Q>t2cncD3c: 
LLHJQ0COCOCT3UJ 



E i3 w 



>• C O 

== o -a 

O £ en 

CO I 2 

[2 8 2 

O *- CO 

= 50 

o o 5 



t^ 



.— CD 

LU S -D 

o o g 

CQ DQ E 

^ ^ CO 

Q Q UJ 



CO 
CO 

to 

c: 

CO 
1» 

lo 
O 



CD 



c x: 

CO XJ 

" s 

o 
o 
to 
to 

CO 



N to 

"E 

c 



tD 
O 

eI 

c| 
. o 

X) o 



o 
ro 
"c 
o 

O) o 

•i:g 
^ i 

to > 

w O 
to CD 

3 JZ 

XI -" 

o § 

c x: 

o o 

■■^ 3 

CO in 

o to 

o c: 

2 8 



S to 

>, ^ 
= o 

CO ^ 

I - 

D.-Q 
"-' CD 

o S 
2f 

CD ^ 
g-p 



C 

o 



o 



CO 

B o 

to Q. 

o>1?5 
•i 9^ 



XI -s 



"O CD 

■a £ 

> ^ 
o .E 

E E 

CD q5 

SI 

$ CO 



each 
d. Tl 
he 
3 rod i 


;2 
iz 


■a 

E 






o).2i-:5 


-9 5 


CNJ 






e (u en CO 


to 


£ 






'>- Q. c — 


Z3 C 








ZJ 


±= 


ro 






hese stops d 

construction 

es to stop al( 

would bo c 


he final cons 
s, and bus st 


"c 

E 

■D 

to 
:2 

CO 




CD 






•^ d) to >- 


-*— c 






1- ^ 3 

t= XI -D 


cia to 


J3 
(D 






*^ *r «_ to 


k_ 






c 

<D >, to 


tg^ 


■(O 

(1) 


CD 


■a 

'e 


■ti to .-^j^ 

ro CO = p 
5^ -e -Q t 


eve 

tagl 


to 

Z! 


CNJ 


CNJ 
5 


a. CO liJ 


-0 to 


iJ 


o5 


ra 



i 



I 



SI 




o 




ro 












< 


E 




2 


3 


O) 




o 


"o 


L— 


3 


a. 


L_ 




0) 




l_ 


'l_ 


o 


o 


tZ 


E 


ro 


o 


Q. 




S 


C/D 


c 




o 


"to 


'P*- 


c 


ro 


E 


O) 




§ 


1- 


o 


T3 


o 


C 


CO 


CO 


'o 


>» 


a 


i 


5 

Ll_ 


■D 




o 


c 
ro 


q: 


CO 




<<— 


o 


o 


1- 




0) 




ro 


3 


2 


o 


ro 


O 


^ 




E 


T3 

C 


'M 


ro 


1 


2r 


5 


b 





"D 


re 


0) 


Q 


4^ 


Tfl 


Q 


3 


E 


re 


o 


35 


o 



■c 


> 


o 


*; 


Q 


^^ 


0) 


ja 


^ 


w 




Q 


O 




'E 


Di 


o 


o 


S 


_c 



3 

■o 

O 



•a 
o 

"5 
o 
a> 

a: 

c 

' ^ 

< 



^ 




o 


oil 


•«- 


c 


> 


o 


«^ 






1*^ 


nz 


re 


n 


4-^ 




c 


'w 


0) 


c 
o 


E 


o 


_aj 


w 


Q 




E 



c 




o 




'~ 




ro 




D) 


ai 


■*-* 


3 


E 


ro 


0} 


(D 


^ 


E 



b 

d) to ro 
° .2 



ro 



— ro (- 

o o 

o e ro 

E « § 

C 0^ o 

■a •— « 

^ ^ ro 

ro *- xj 

Oi ti > 

I- H- > 







■o 


o 


C 


<D 




o 


C 


^ 




c 


c 


ro 


ro 


'ro 


c 


CL 




E 


o 


ro 


o 


O 


o 
o 


c 


D5 


w 


o 


•a 

3 


2> 


3 


O 


^ 


c 


c 




o 




ro 


o 


{"" 


x: 


05 


o 
ro 


2 


c 
•o 


k^ 


ZJ 


ro 




r— 


D) 



CO 
CO 

Q. 



2 Ul 

eS 



(D 



O (U £1 i= 



CO ro 
c .c: 

2 LL 



o 
o 

o 
in 



ro 

0) 
CO 





q: 




HI 




O 




>» 


•*- 

o 


13 


^m^ 


(0 


a. 


C 


o 
2 


o 

8 


c 
o 

Q. 


■(3 

0) 
CL 


3 


(0 


>. 




Q. 




O 




O 




T3 




C 




<D 




(/) 


■«— * 


O 


0) 

3^ 



i2 w 

C C 

<D g 

> y 

d o S <n O 



0} 










(0 










ro 










Q. 






, 




C 










O) 










'to 










0) 










Q 










tion 
igns 


ro 








J5 (0 


to 

ro 


-«-' 


w 




ro c 




0) 


c 




cify inst 
edestria 


CO 

'i— 
ro 


2 

CO 

CO 
CO 


Q) 

E 
o 
> 

o 






1- 







CO o ro O — Q. 



1- 

Q. 
Q 



T3 . 

C 

ro > 

^ ro 

9 E 



T3 
N 



LL 



0) ^ 
^ ""^ 
H^ 

(O (U 

'ro^ 

c 0) 



E 

0) 

o 

Q. 

ro 

CO 

ro 

(0 
C/) 

o 



cu 



< 


TJ 

c 


1- 


ro 


o 




LL 


<u 




> 


ro 


Ll 



ro ^ 

.y CO 

w HI 
3 XJ 
^ ro 

r E 

ro o 

I- o 
3 U. 

■ ■ M— 

en c 
'^ o 
0? o 

'S i2 
5 £ >- 

£ .9 CO £ 



cu 

o 

c 

D) 
O 

x: 

Q. C/) 



^ ro 



2 o 
o I— 
■o 

B 
ra 

.5>C0 

CO v> 

Tj CO 

ro w 



T3 J2 

T3 O t 

c 5 ro 
ro C,-Q 





ro 

= X 

ro 

^ CO 



(O . 



CO 



o 
E 

o - 

■3 B 

ro o 

o c 
o 



ro 



-= o ,„ -E 



CO 


T3 

Q. 



OJ CO 

" 

Cfl T3 

ro ro 



c 




o 

c 
ro 25 



O CO = 

Q. CO 

^ "^ 

£ CL.E 



'*' ^- v/^ 

£ •- LJJ 

E-i o 
o ro 0) 
'*"■*-•" "5 

>% CO 

ro ^ 

5 i: CO 

roco g 

CO X 
C 

ro CO s 
c: CO ■" 

(D *- <-> 

cn ro 

t1 CO CO 

1^ CO CO 

.^2 2 

■QUO 



(U C 
-£= £ ctJ 

O m 



o 

Q) CO 



ro CO 



c 
o 

-t: F 

i: O 

*- -O i^ 

C <u O 

QlU- 

0^*0 
Q.£ :^ 

E o ro 
o «« 5 

si- 

— :E 

CO "5 

i3 g 

CO 5 CO 



x: 

C35 



"i: CO 
CO 



-o q: 
§^ 
2 CO 

ra Uj 

^"^ 
B c 

iT 



ro 


O) 


o 


c 


««_ 


'~ 


o 


o 





:t^ 


CL 


C 


CO 


o 




E 


'o 




t • 


"ro 


CL 


c 


■0 


c^: 


O 


"D 





c: 


a: 


ro 


-a 




c 









(O 




o 








UJ 

O 


T3 

is 


m 


o 




CL 

o 


Q 


o 




c 


■o 


g 


ro 


o 


c 


3 


O) 






"co 


"en 

Q 


c 
o 
o 





, 


■o 


T3 


3 


^ 


^ 


_c 


o 


w 






UJ 





O 


E 


CQ 







i_ 


t 


"3 


£3. 


cj- 


ci 






T3 

C 

ro 

m 2 

O O 

CD m 

Q. Q. 
Q Q 







CO 



u ■" 


■a 






o'S 


E 








CNJ 






cj) 2 








■^ i 


ro 






"c 














5 CD 

.0 c= 


E 
-0 






t5 -^ 


ro 






3 ro 








■^ 5 


ro 






«" n^ 









C CO 









c 









.ro 


XI 






cn -i= 









c <n 








~ 


"w 


CD 


TO 


3 "O 




cn 


OT 
f^ 


cvi 


3 


eg 


n 



XI o 



LJ C35 (O 



i 



i 



I 



o 




ro 












< 


E 


2 


2 


3 


en 




o 


O 


Ll 


3 


Q. 



CO 



C3> 



o o 



2 


'c 


CO 


o 


o. 


s 


CO 


c 




o 


To 




c 


ro 


E 


.O) 





s 


H 


o 


T3 


o 


C 


w 


CO 


o 


>s 


c 


CO 

5 


2 
u_ 


■Q 




CO 

o 


c 

CO 


a: 


CO 




M— 


o 


o 


1_ 




(U 


^ 


"O 


c 


CO 


u 


ii 


o 


CO 


O 


XI 

E 


■a 

c 


LLi 


CO 


i 


^ 


1 


b 



o 


•o 


m 


o 


Q 


^ 


w 


Q 


3 


E 


CO 


o 


55 


o 



o 


.^ 


Q 


JS 


0> 


\Q 


^ 


"S5 


"5 

c 


c 
o 

Q 


o 

"E 


0) 

a: 


o 


o 


S 


_c 



T3 
0) 

"5 

D 
O 

a: 

c 
_o 

u 

< 



k 




£ 


CMI 


*^ 


c 


> 


_o 


*j 






^ 


7Z 


(0 


^ 






c 


■« 


0) 


C 

o 


£ 


Q 


u 


(A 


a 


CU 

a: 


E 



a: 

UJ 

o 

>. 
s> 

o 

Q. 
<U 



CD 

■o 

CO 
O 



^ Q 



D)Q 



O 



CO ^i= 
E g.LJJ 

UJ 0) O 



(A 
CD 
(/} 

CO 



0) 
Q) o 

o <u 



o •</)■ o ? . 

-g .2 ^ ^ .1 

ra TO O "^ t) 

^1^5 o 2 

CO -^ -5 »;; *J 

xj o < E cn 

E g.g I § 

LU w Q E o 



(U J3 O 

c 2 ra 
o E o 

T3 r^ >• 
C CO -" 
CO 5 -o 

05 ? g 

•E S c 

■o >:- cu 

•5 "E 

CD g' ^ 

0) 3 O 
Li. CO .E 



3 


CD 


W 


o 


o 


3 


o 


■a 


^ 


2 


fo 


o 


O 


H 


CL 




E 


cn 
CD 


■<-' 


^ 


i— 


— — 


o 


o 




CO ■ 


■^ 




CO 


c 

CO 


(/) 


*k_ 




CD 


3 
X3 


T3 
CD 
CO. 


2 


o 



CD 

.hr <D 
3 W 

cr'> 
(D 0) 

■- -a 
12 o 

3 *- 
^ CO 

b t 
^ 8 

CD O 
-1 

.5> 2 
o " 

O CD 

C jc 



_co 

Q. 
.11 

■G E 
2'i 

*- CO 
CO c 



<D 



o 


cz 


o 


'co 


CO 






"c 


"c 


'co 


CD 

E 


E 


(U 


"O 


Q. 


3 


£ 


o 
5 


-a 

c 

CO 


TO 

x: 



T3 

3 

o 

CO Oi 

>,.E 

O 05 

«*= .E 

c :g 

.55 3 
i= CQ 

<D ^ 
"D >- 
CD (D 
Q.U. 



CO 

o 

Q. 



j« <D c - 
O 1— c i_ 
■q CD CD CI 



$ g)^.E 



CO Q. 

i- 
■I? 

0) 

-a <u 

c o 

CO Q. 



CD 

■D 
CD 

C 

Q-ro 
CO E 



CD 
XI 

-o o 

o "55 

to is 
D) O 

CO « 



(1)0.03 

CD ^ 



(O 

(O 

Q) lo 



" 3 

2 o 

(D > 

CO c 

E <D 

S o 

CO < 



(0 

.. 3 
O XJ 

■S x> cu 

CO CD V 

CD en 

C 3 



(D 



CO 
CO 

Q, 

cc 

CO 

u] 

"to 

c 



UJ 
CO 

o 

z 



'cD 


UJ ^ 
O-co ™ 


eipt 01 
from 




(U 


>s c: t^ 


c 




W. 


Si v= o 


CD 




lid- 
jero, 


^ o 2 o d 

.2 Q. D) E o 


SS, r 

ndati 




^ CO 

CD 2 

SZ CO 


ificat 
recei 
itorin 
Dietic 
truct 


1- 1 




*- XI 


spec 
and 1 
moni 
comi 
cons 


Fort 
reco 


^ 


U_ UJ 


b 




B 


cf 






CD O ^ 


_o 


>. 




m'g 


b 


d" 


r. «« CQ . 


UJ 2 




1 >— 

T3 CD 


OEt( 

ation 
PW/ 
gulai 


w 


co" 

CO 


S CO 


orts tc 
ing CO 


\- 


the 
bare 


opy of 
pecific 
)ER;D 
end re 


cu 

x: 


o E 


2^ 





u. m 


LJ O CO CJ (/) 


u. 


he Mid- 
arcadero, 


to 

ract bid 
during 
;truction. 


he TSS, 

mmenda- 

following 




(D 
0' 
Q. 


^1 


V- .S CO 

o c -o c 


^ 8 c 


b 


coco 


.0 


^~ 


U_ UJ 


Q. O CO O 


u. S: :j= 


CO 



■o 


^ e :g 




.S' 


3 

o 
5 


— a 3 
c "o • - o 




b 


— CO « > 
■^ o c: > 


OJ 


ifS 


o £ 


CD CO x: ^ 


CD C 

x: CD 


CO 


E -9 500 


r E 


1— 


CD. CD 


•5 "l' (U ^ 


CD 


CD 


!"§ 


'cz 'Z2 




Q. O 


2S Q.^Q 


or 





P .E 


E 2 


u_ 



C3^ 



■0 








^ii^co- 














CO — t: CO 








liJS-gt 








ro y, 








CQ CQ tf C 








^ ^ CO CO 








a. Q- E CO 








Q Q UJ 


CO 






W <D 


g 






QJ *- 








^ li^ 2 ^ 


^ 






CO .i2 CD c 


■0 






-Q X ~ 


CO 






"=: c -0^ 


CD 






\ disti 
lated 
ctly a 
seO 


c 






5 








CO CD '^3 


;o 




(3^ 


1. To reduce potent 
due to construction-i 
levels, the City will s 
the San Francisco N 






CSJ 


CD 
X 

CD 

i_ 

'3 
CD- 
CD 

\— 

1 

T3 

CO 


TO 

(D 
XI 



(0 
CL 
Q) 
« 


CC 

CO 

Uj 

"to 
.c 

it 



T3 




E 




CN 




£ 












(0 




«^ 




c 








"E 




T3 




iS 




^ 




CO 














<D 




SH 




CD 












(/) CD 


T3 


03 2? 


E 


W h- 


CNJ 


3 CN 


Si 






"iJ 35 


(0 



i 



1 



0) 

*•> 


■D 


re 


0) 


Q 


0) 


« 


a 


3 

■4-' 


E 


■4-t 


o 


(0 


o 



■^ 


^ 


o 




Q 


rz 


0) 


^ 


^ 


*« 


c 


c 
. o 

Q 


o 


(A 


'E 


a: 


o 


a 


S 


c 



0-2 



- E • 
S 2? O 



JO 

(0 

> 
o 

l_ 
Q. 
Q. 



.9-iu ^ 






° E 








SO-J5 c^ 






.=->: 
tlJ ^ 








<u >, c t:: 






o c 








*- ^ic: o 






0) o 








, o w "5 g--- 


c 




co"l 








i-g.Q-S.o3c 


g 




W S 








S oj (0 (u .E ~ 


o 




1- 1 








^si^lt 












-— o O F c 

o E Q. c 2 o 

UL UJ CO CD C O 


c 
o 
o 




Fort 
reco 








-D -2 






d 
g 

o 

Z2 






2 


0) o ^ 
. <o *- O 




q: 


b 


o 


o 


id- 

dero 

Eto 

ions 
W/B 


1— 
CO 

z> 

O) 


ILI 

o 


(O 

c 


CO 
CO 


o c 


2 ro n CD CL 


2 


8 

O) 


H 


O 


E ■ 
E ^ 


For the 

Embarc 

DPW/B( 

copy of 

specific 

OER;D 


2 


^ 




■D 


T3 


o 


c 




cu 


o a: 


c 

CO 


a. 

2 


T3 


o 
u_ 


to 
o 


O LU 


he Mid- 

arcadero, 

to 

f-act bid 

during 

truction. 




CO 

H 
cu 

sz 


mmenda-. 
following 


o 

0) 
Q. 


CO 
CD 

> 
o 




♦^ _Q 1_ .S CO 

I- c o c -o cz 
o c -c o c o 






§ o 


b 


Q. 






o 


^ 


Q. 




U- UJ Q. CJ CD U 




LL 


CD 


CD 





.S-m ^ 



CD ^.^ 

9r^ 



0) . . _ 
o" to 



o w o oj - 



-o ^ 

CD CD 0) 
O O O 

E g.-g 

UJ to CD 



.2 Q. O) g o 

•.;= o 

^ E 

b c 

o o 



"<D 
O 
tU 

co" 

CO 

v- 

(O 



E 
o 

«*— 

c 
o 

"cD 
T3 

cu 

E 

E 
o 
tj 

(U 



T3 

tz 

_ CO 

2 o 

Cl> 

-a UJ 



cu b: CQ 



to OQ 

2& 



CD 



o ^ 
S- S UJ 

O to CJ 



._ UJ - 
^ O *" 

i>£8 
2^S> 

^ o .E 

i §-- 

to - 



Si -6 



(U 

■o 

CD 
tj 



CD 
XI 



■g 



D5 .g 



i_ i: *-^ to 

c o c "a c 

o c -c: o c o 

u. Ul Q. o CD o 



- CO C31 
CO -D c 

I- ® § 
o E^ 

oil 



> 



•a 

0) 

"5 
o 

c 
o 



o 

iS 


< 








.*-» 




< E 




0) ro 




3 D) 


w 




■?< o 


O 


r4l 


O 1- 




c 
o 


E ti- 


> 


w ^ 


♦J 






*3 

re 


>- c 


!q 


•«-> 


O o 




c 


2-1 

CD O 


33 

c 
o 


E 




Q 


(0 


Q 


alS 
tion 


0) 


E 


C CD 




E-^ 




fei 




>- o 




-o o 




c w 




CD O 




>- S 




5 u. 




T3 ^ 




s,^ 


(0 


a: CO 




o o 


3 


L. 


(0 


0) ^ 


(Q 


^ c 


O 


CO 3 

B o 


S 


CD O 


c 


X3 Z, 


_o 


El 

•U CD 


TO 


J-^ 


5 


«o 




SI 



CO 

£l .E CO 

c: .E Q) oj .s 

I CO E o- S 

£ c: <u ^ .2 

F to .^ Q.Jt= 

O :^ => CO ^ 

o Id ctco o 



26 



3 




O 




$ 




UJ 


to 


O 


x: 


CQ 


Q) 


i 


T3 

3 


Q. 


O 


Q 


_C 



CD O 

•B oj 

— CO 

c 2 

d) CD 

Q) C 

.i: UJ 

g-.-2 



CO 

c 
_g 

ro 

S 

"2^2. 

01 CO 



2 

O 

O 
00 






£ CD 



f; CO" x> g t^ ■« 



CD C 

.C CD 

r E 

■2 2 

'C 3 

O D- 

E 2 



CO 



CD 

£1 



CO 

c 
o 



"T O :^ 3 CO 

{;? .CO o-co 



o 

U. 



c O 

(D (D _ 
2 Q.>5 

o 




2 o 



CD 



to 



■o 




"o" 


CO 


CD 






CO 


UJ S 


(D 

■a 


H 


O O 


CD 


to 


m 


CQ 


E 


c 


ii 


CO 


2 


Q. 


Q. 


E 


CO 


Q Q UJ O 




E 








CD 
















O) 








O 








u. 






"5 


Q. 














'oj 


C 






>_ 


g 






CO 








o 


ro 






CD 








•4— 

O 


X) 


.j^ 




_3 


c 




c 




tD 




o 


■D 


E 
9- 




"co 


CD 








'3 




c 
tu 


CD 
O 


cr 

CD 




E 

CD 


c 




CO 

c 


> 




Q. 


CD 


CD 




E 


C 


CD 

x: 






"co 


1— 




CD 


E 


£ 





3 
O 

UJ 

O 



CD O 



CO 



— CO 

c 2 

CD CO 

^ -- E -2 

CQ CD CD t *- 

^ -a .hr Ul " 

> 3 3 ' .2, 

Q. o CT^ p 

Q .E 2 2 Q. 



2 

3 

CO O — E 

lie? 



?1 









'0' 


CO 




CD ^-' 


iZ. 


CO 




UJ IS 


CD 
■0 


H 







CD 


(0 




CQ CQ 


CJ 


c 




li 


CO 


2 




CL CL 


E 


CO 




Q Q UJ 




c 








CD 








CO 








CD Q) 


OT 






to S: 








P 

^ to 


1 









CD 




CD 



XI 




2-55 


C 


_CD 




:^ 


CO 


'co 




Cl c= 


c 


> 




E i5 


'■p 


CO 




(U XI 


6 


£ 




? ° 


CD 

to 


1 




c to 
.2 ro 




■z. 


"S 

E 




TO E 





(D 


c 


— 





XI 


tD 


i5 CO 


to 




E 


to q3 











— E 


c 

CO 




"5 


. CD 


\Z. 


CO 


cr 


XI XI 


u_ 





CD 



■g 
E 

CN 

E 

T3 
CD 

CD 
O 
U 
CD 
X} 

CD 

i» 

■Jo CD "S 

q5 5 E 
■to r-~ c\i 
B ^ B 



i 



J 



0) 


•D 


(0 


a> 


Q 




3 


Q 

F 


CO 


o 


03 


o 



b 



o 



■g 

0) 



TO 

2 52 o 



o 

Q., 



ili.I?.8« 



ro to 
P o 



LU V) CO 



It? 

goo 

COO 



2 £ 

9-2 

o c 
<u g 






o 



(U 

E 
E 

o ■2' 

2o 



2 CO 

(u 2 

o E 

U. UJ 



LU ^ 
XI s*= o 

.2 "^ o5 5 



o •*= 



o o 



o ^ c c «« 

D. c 2 o o 
(0 CO b o o 



Q. 

'cu 
o 

CO 

w 

H 
(0 



o 

U- 



■e 


^ 


o 

Q 




O 


!a 


^ 


"55 


c 


Q 


o 


(A 


"E 


q:: 


o 


o 


S 


^c 



b 

C/3" _ 
05 O 
I- O 
T3 

e 

(U 

(/) 



0.2 



(U 



o 



E 

O LU 

20 



o 

0) 

2'w 
Q-ro 

O ^ 

= Q. 
(0 CO 



<u t; 



■o 

c 

0) 

. to 
2 o 
<u 

T3 
CO 
O 



S E^ 
U. LU Q 



73 


0) 


2 


T3 
CO 


CD 


O 


SI 


CO 


•*~* 


XI 


O 


E 


Li. 


LU 



o *== 



LU 
O 



O ;= 



ro 9- 
o Q 



.2 >, 



LU 



o^iSO 



2 « 

- •- -e 
>. o ir "o o 

O W U CO vZ 



1-1 
*- ~ o 

-2 CO ^ i: 

O c TJ c 
•coco 

Q. U CO O 



o 

3 


b 


1- 


^ 


to 


CO 


c 


CO 


o 


H- 


o 






CD 


Di 


.C 


c 


-*— ' 


'l- 


I— 


3 


o 


■a 


LL 



o 

c: 

CiXJ 

o c 

-I 

O QJ 



CO -g g'l 



(U 



c^ro 



|e1.^S 



o 
o " 



a: 

LU 



Q^ 2 =^ S- 

C X . CO CO 



T3 

c 



0) 



o 

LL 



CU 



O 
LL 



(U 


o fk 


. C/) 


*- o 


O o 


(0 03 


ir -i^ 


c s- 


-giu 


%^ 


CO O 


'■ CO CI. 


Embarc 
DPW/B( 


•^ O Q 


o Q.is 
o m CJ 


o' 


- 


-a 

CO 


tbid 
ing •. 
ction 


2 o 

CO *" 


rac 
dur 
itru 


XJ •- 


-ti in 


.^■° 


C T3 C 


o c o 


LU Q. 


U CO O 



c 
u. UJ ^ 

jo o <" 

■D O .E 

^ Q. !:; 
CU (0 3 



- CO 



-D 

c 
<u 

E 

E 
o 
o 

(U 



i 



O 




(0 




<-• 




•*.» 




< 


E 


2 


2 


ZJ 


en 




o 


o 


t; 


3 


CL 


l_ 




55 


c. 


1— 


*L. 


o 


o 


2 


"E 


(0 


o 


Q. 

(U 


^ 


CO 


c: 




o 


"co 


'i»,' 


c 


CD 


E 


O) 


0) 


1 


h- 


o 


■a 


o 


c 


(O 


CO 


"o 


>, 


c 


CO 

5 


2 

LL. 


"O 




CO 


c 


o 


CO 


d: 


CO 






o 


o 


1- 




0) 




CO 


3 


o 


o 


CO O 


E 


T3 

c 


LU 


to 


1 


^:> 


i 


b 



T3 
0) 

'5 
o 

a: 

c 
o 

< 



w 




O 


CMI 


>»- 


c 


> 


_o 


^-f 




■— 


<3 


^ 


'«-' 




c 


'35 


tu 


c 
o 


E 


Q 


_(j} 


(0 


Q 


01 


E 



o • .«« 

O I -D c 

"o 



to -D O -£ - § 

W C C (u jjj ._ 

t- ^ CO E o- S 

c c 0) i- ,2 

E CO .^ Q-it: 

^ O :b n CO Ja 



CD 

x: 



2 

O 
$ 

LU 
O 

m cu 



C/l 



cu o 

£ q5 

— CO 

ti o 



2 

si 

o -^ <u 



"O }=. 
ZJ 
O" 

cu 



Q- O 
Q c 



-Q to O *" F 
L§0ii§02 

:2 o" 0) g^ § D- 
2 Q.S-Q E 2 



o .<2 
0^2 



CO -o o 
to S^ -^ 

<i^ ^ s 

£ £ 2 

o 



o 
11. 



cu 



CO 



cu 

x: 

.£ CO 

•^ ^ c 
coo 

(U cu -x: 

E-o' g 
CU i; ,2 

0) "■' 



20 2i H w 



li 

HI ^ 

o o 

CQ QQ 

1^ 

CL CL 
Q Q 



"o^ 


CO 


l1 


CO 


cu 


H 


CO 

2 


c 


to 


CO 


X3 


k. 


E 


"to 


LU 


O 



o 

CO 

cu 
cu 



(O 

o-E 

~ Q- 
<o 

c 
o 



cu 



c 
o 
o 



•o 




.3 




o 




$ 




lU 


CO 


O 


^ 


CQ 


cu 


1 


■a 

z> 


D- 


o 


Q 


_c 



cu o 
£ 5 

C "D _ _ 

— CO CO :5 to 
c 2 

cu CO 

^ p 

0-2 o 3> Q. o o- 
2S Q.S-Q E '" 



o -^ cu 

•*= ^ x: 

CO O *- 

^CQ ^ 



(U 



T3 








?1 








o^^ 






CO — ' 


^ to 






LU S 


■Sb 






O O 


S- 






OQ CQ 






H 


CO CO 
JD ±3 






CL Q_ 


E ro 






D Q 


LU O 








"o 
■a 


■a 

CO 


cu 

(O 

3 


.^ 


CO 


CO 


■0 


^ "^ 


D)ii 


c 


c 


oj ro 


C (0 


•^ 


to 


E ^ 


w .2 


.0 


c/T 


ex O 

1-^ 


3 ^ 

. c 
en <u 




(U 


5 
to 

CO 


<u cu 


.2 E 


(U 


c 
cu 


c }£> 


■5 .2- 


en 


o o 


> 13 


c 


> 


•^ c 


■|- 0- 


CO 


*l_ 


i§ 


«- <U 
-0 


ZJ 


CD 


■(0 <5 


"O 03 


(O 


c 


^ <o 


(0 >- 





• — 


se of cor 
fied to le 


ng inste 
ric-powe 





"(0 

E 




CO 

CO 
C33 

k_ 



d. U: 
modi 


weldi 
elect 


:3 
cu 

c 

Q- 


CO 
*«— 





w _0 
ro « 

"I 
(u E 

C O 
CD C 

to ^ 
c c 



c 
o 
to 



o 

E 



CD 



CO 

o 

CO 

to 

(U 
Ci 

E 
o 
o 

■D 

c 

CO 

to 
(U 

c 
cm 

c 



■g 
E 
oi 

ro 
"c 

E 

■D 
CO 

o 
o 

0) 

X] 
(D 

to CD "9 

oj 5 E 

to r^ cvj 

^■ ^ B 

l: CD To 



0) 

^-1 


T3 


n 


0) 


Q 


0) 


3 


Q 

E 


re 

*-> 


o 


W 


o 



r 


> 


o 


■M 


Q 


J^ 


(U 


\a 


a: 


"«3 




i 

Q 


o 

'E 


(0 
01 


o 


O 


S 


_c 



E 








o 








i_ 








^*— 








c 








o 








*r^ 








CO 








T3 








C 








cu 








E 








E 








8^ 








2^o 




Q 




3r 




c 




b 


o 


g 




C/D 


Q. 


"co 

T3 




CO 


O 


c 




h- 


O 


CD 

E 




(1) 


TJ 




^ 


c 


E 


. 




CD 


Q 


q: 


o 


(O 


o 


LU 


o 


2 


O 










?^ 









i 2 JO 

o Q- CO 

O = £2. 

•i= CO CO 



■g 

'^ 

0) 

o 



•g 



o 



o. 

■flj 
o 

0) 



a: 

LU 

O 

XI 



U «J /-) 

1_ c »J 



CO 

o 



o E 
.9-2 

o c 

0) o 



0) 


o 


.w 


■o 




Q. 


CO 


"co 


Q) 


o 


o 


O 


CO 


(^ 




X3 


o 




E 


Q) 


■o 


CL 


c 


LU 


CO 


CD 



2 o d 


- 


CO 


en 


"O 


O) c o 


CO 


c 


nnonitorin 
completic 
construct 


1- 
<u 

1— 
o 
u. 


o 

E 
E 

o -cr 
2 O 



T3 

C 

<u 

_ (O 

2 o 
■a LU 

go 

2 CD 
CO ^ 

E Q- 
LU Q 



O ^ 

(O CD ^ LU 
O^ -55 O 

o Q 



>^'0 Ql 

O Q.^ 
o CO O 



T3 CD 
^ CO 

o 



■g 

1q 



a> to 

^ "C 

^ d. 
(U 

to 



cu 



c 
.g 

"o 

i— 

to 
c 
o 
o 

D5 

i: 

■D 



0*0 
co' 

CO _ 
1- o 
cu 



Q.-a 
o 



o 

LL 



T3 

c 
cu 
to 



cu 

E 

O LU 

2 O 



(u t: o J^ 

-C CO — 2 T3 

V. p O C -D 

LI_ LU Q. O CO 



c 
en .9 

■11 



2 5? 



co^ ?1 

C O Q- CD 

£ E 1 .^ I 
^ 8 c: O ^ 
050=0. 
u. S: -^ CD CO 



cu 

x: 



- LU ^ 
80^ CO 

2^^ti^ 

o ^ o §"5 



-S.S 



S S'8 

C CD T3 

t: Q. C 

LU CO CO 



T3 
C 
CU 
CO 



o i!^ E 

111 

£ o o 
boo 



■0 


cu 


^ 


T3 
CO 


cu 


2 


JC 


to 


•f-* 


XI 





E 


Li. 


LU 



2 o 

UJ 

O 

CO 



UJ 



■D 


tu 


^ 


-a 

CO 


CU 


2 


£ 


CO 




XJ 





E 


u_ 


m 



-^ 
to CQ _ 

1 i 1 O 
D- 0)5 

to 



"5 ^ — 



>> o q: 

Q- <u UJ 



g-o 



T5 

c 
to 



o 

Q. 

cu 



u, c Q 



*- ~ o 

o '^ ^ ^ 

i= CO ^ i: 

i= O C O 

£3. O CO O 



CO 
CO 

1- 
CU 



O 

u_ 



I 








CO 




■4-t 




^^ 




< 


E 


2 


CD 


u 


CJ) 










l1 


3 


Q. 


L- 




w 




k- 


'u. 








"co 


'E 


CO 





CU 


^ 


CO 


c 







To 


'P^ 


c 


CD 


E 


.2> 


cu 


s 


h- 





■a 





c 


to 


CO 





>% 


c 


to 

5 


u. 


73 




CO 


cz 





CO 


(T 


CO 












i_ 




03 


^ 

c 


CD 


3 


2 





to 





XI 




E 


■a 

c 


UJ 


CD 


1 


^ 


i 


b 



'5 

D 

c 
g 
'J 
u 
< 



k 







on 


>^ 


C 


> 





«^ 






^■rf 


*M 


re 


^ 


4^ 




c 


'53 


« 


c 



E 


Q 


(U 


(A 


Q 


CD 
01 


E 



o .52 

-^ £ cu 

O ^ ^ c 

. i= ^ - to 

CO TJ o ■£ -^ ^ 

^ E TO .t ^~ 

Li. C O w h- to 



-0 




3 









5 




LU 


CO 





^ 


CO 


(D 


^ 


X3 

3 


Q. 





Q 


C 



CD o 

— CD 

c 2 

CD CD 

CU c 

-i= LU 



CO 

c 
g 

-^ o 
o !^ 
tu o 

Q. CO 



o 

5 



to 



_ cu c= 

^ jz cu 

^ '^ 2. 

a. o D- 

Q E 2 



"O 








^1 








"o w 






CD —^ 


i;^ w 






UJ S 


-gt 









ra tn 






m CD 


2 c 






ii 


CO CO 

XI ±Z 






□l D. 


E "to 






Q Q 


m 






CO 








CO 






>^ 








10 


c 









cal separatio 
reen noise 


sensitive 
Dviding 


ary equipmf 
articularly n 


cu *- 


c 


Q. 


■55 -g 


OT Q- 





■0 


>» <u 


c 


ro 


c 


-^ -Q 


c ro 


3 


D. 


-0 J= 


"to 


2 


ojIo 


c " 


1— 


CD 


c: 

.y 


CO =3 


to 


to 


E S 


S2 


2 


g 


X Q. 
S CO 


generat 
recepto 


3 

to 





CD 
XI 

■a 


0) ^ 


c 
tu 


CD 



c 

ro .2 
o to 

to >, p 

tu Q. C 

to _2 *^ 

§ o^ 

to — 

cu <u o 

*j O ■'-' 

'to c: to 
cu >*=- tu 
£ to t 

o -a m en. u 
•- <- si c o 

CD .5 to 



o .«2 
O I ^ c 

(/?" -g g -^ r; 



CO 

1- 
tu 



o 

Li. 



- c 

£ " o 

CD (D -x: 

Eo^ g 

'^ o ^ — 

i: 3 rn " 

^"J CU 



CO 



c 
<u 
E 
E 
o _ - , 

CJ CO ^C/5 F> 
cu /■ ^ O r "- 

ii O fc: I— to 





^ 




CD 




c 







Oi 


"co 


c 




'■a 


"to 


c 


05 


3 


c 





'■*3 


k— 
to 


to 




<D 


■0 


x: 


c 


'*-* 


CD 







g 


-^ 






tu 
to 




c 
E 


c 


E 


«*— 

















to 




Q. 




E 




(U 




N 




E 




c 




E 









.4— < 


>, 


to 




CD 


"E 




to 


3 
E 


C 

tu 

E 


E 



(U 


Q. 


-C 


'3 


••— • 


cr 


c 


tu 






tu o 

£ fe 

— CD 

c 2 

cu CD 

^ ^ ^ XI 

CO CU CU E 

~- — 1- ir I 



O 

UJ -52 
O "" 



CD O 



CQ CU CU c *< ,y CQ 

=5 "O .i= LU y — =5 

a. u D-P o g^o. 

Q .E 2 S Q. w Q 



cu 



CM 



?i 


"5^ CO 


(D ^ 


^ CO 


UJ S 


■gb 





?3 to 


CQ CQ 


2 c 


1^ 


CD CD 
XI i: 


Q. Q. 


E lo 


Q Q 


UJ 



O) 



CO 



ll_» 


D5 




CO 


c 




q3 


"c 




c 


L 




tu 







D) 


E 




tu 


_>> 




to 


k-. 







CO 




c 


CU 




M_ 


cu 







■0 


to 






k— 


O) 


JO 


3 


_c 


3 





3 





x: 


x> 


to 


(U 


CU 


0) 


E 


x: 


'•^ 





CO 


> 



CO 





■g 

"E 

"c 
"E 

T3 
CO 

o 
o 
cu 

JD 

2 

to CD "5 
q5 2? E 

to h- t-si 

3 CNl £ 



0) 


■o 


C3 


o 


Q 


*-< 
o 


(A 


Q 


3 

4^ 


F 


re 

•4-> 


o 


CO 


o 



o E 

Q.9 



(U 

o 

0) 



- (D 
CO T3 



Q) 



O 
LL. 



E 
E 

2iO 



o 



q; 



(1) 



Ol5 






■e 
o 

2^ o 

O) g 

ro (0 (u .E - 
" " o ^ 

.ti Q. 

1° 



V) 

c 

O Q. 



o £ 
.9-2 

o c 
(O o 

.2 CO c 



P'6 



- "5 n - 

L- e <u "a 

o c Q. c 

Ll LU (/} (Q 



H^ 



£ E 



o 



8^ 



Q. 

'(D 
O 



T3 <U 
^ CO 



x: oj 

■^ XI 

o E 

U_ UJ 



LU ^ 

^^ o 

^ o 0) 



^ Q. Dl 
CO 0) .E 
0*=; 

cu -o § 
CO CO b 



lit 

c 



•EkI 



c 
o 

o 

:3 

to 
c 
o 
o 

Oi 

c 



o 

CO qI-O 

CO O C 

H- O a 

(D -D t 

x: c: F 

*- fU o CC 

^ w o UJ 



T3 0) 

ia CD 



T3 

C 

cu 

. CO 

o 

LLI 
O 

CD 



.^ CO ^ 

r -9 ^ 



o -^ 
«n CQ 

It 

O "E - - — 

o Q-bi: _ 
o CO (J en 



a: 

UJ 
O 
o 



c 

.9 >, 



• O 



o 

3 



TO 

cn 

0) g-3 



CZ 

o 
o 

cn 



6'o.2 



CO 
CO 

H 
o 



o 
u. 



Q.-a 



UJ 
O 



T3 

C 

(U 

- CO 

■ 2 o 

.= T3 UJ 
^ CO 
CD 2 



O 

u. 



O 

CQ 



CO 

o 

To 

o^ 

>% o 

Q. (U 
O Q- 



-g ?.^ 

e1.^| 
8 cO ^ 

m O = Q. 
it: X: CO CO 



CD 

■o 

CO 

o 

CO 
XJ 



x> 



c 
D) .9 



o 



O " 5 -3 

2 CO ^ i= 



o 
■c o 



co-S ?1 
[^§|2 

£ E o 
J:; o 



uiQ-ocoo u.S:-j3COco 



P.9 =^ 



CO 

CL 
£1 



O 



TJ 0) 

^ CO 

o 2 

-C CO 

-" XJ 



1 o> 



ii CO 



C O C T3 

o c -n; o c 
u. UJ c u CO 



o .^ 



I 



o 




3 








i^ 




< 


E 


2 


CO 


3 


O) 


♦-* 


o 


O 


l1 


3 


a. 


u. 




CO 


D) 


1— 


*L- 


o 


O 


2 


"E 


CO 


o 


Q. 
0) 


S 


CO 


c 




o 


"to 


^fs 


c 


CO 


E 


.O) 


0) 


i 


h- 


o 


T3 


o 


C 


(O 


CO 


"o 


>, 


c 


i 


2 
u. 


■o 




(t> 


c 


o 


CO 


d: 


CO 




u— 


o 


o 


i_ 




-a 


3- 


^ 


3 


2 


o 


CO O 


XI 

E 


■o 

c 


^ 


CD 


1 


^ 


M 


o 






(U 





^ 


"CD 

XI 


Q) 


x: 








o 


T3 


c 




. 


0) 






ZJ 






CO 


co- 
co 


-D 

C 
(D 

E 


o 


0) 




c: 
o 


E 
d) 


1- 
o 


CO 


E 

0) 


2" 


o 


CT 

2 


x: 

o 
u_ 


E 
o 
o 

(D 


CD 

V— 

To 
O 


CT 
CU 


CO 
CO 

H 


o 

CL 
(O 



< 
o 

< 



2 

o 
5 

UJ-P 

CD (U (U b 
^ "a .h: UJ 



O o 

£ 55 
.^^ 

c 2 
0) CO 

E-? 



f 1 

Q. O 

Q .9 



g-:9 

0) — 



^ ^ 



zj 

CO O •*- F 

•— -5 -ti — 

(o O b w 



-n "9 - - '— . 

CO ■— ' i- CO 
-2 H 



O o 

GQ CQ 



CO 

o 



CO 

_ c 
-> -> CD CO 



Q. CL 
Q Q 



■o 
o 



c: 

CD 
O 

u. 

OJ 
Q. 



^^ ^ 
C |v. CT 

•2 >,2 

O XI -a 

2 JO — 



to 

c 
o 
o 

0) 

o 

•a 

0) 

o 

I- 



o 



OJ 

> 

c 
o 
55 O 
.52 H 
E DH 
<u O 

OQ. 

CL -B 



o (o 

8 CD 

3 ^ 

C O 

<^ *1i 

i 2 

E CO 

•- 0) 

5 2 
to 



(O <U ro 
CD = O) 

(0 (iJ W 
9 CO CL 
•2 fe E 

1— T3 •— 
■*-'?-'- 

"^ 5 -Q 
c CO 0) 

o to -o 

" -^ -n 
0)0-0 

.9 S CO 

CD (0 T3 
D).9 

c c 



to 



0|-D 

CO -a 15 
CO - 



H 
x: 
o 

U. 



CD 

E 
E 
o — 

O m 



CU 



<U 

E 

Oi 

i_ 
'3 
cr 



o 2 



to 
o o 

(U *= 

S o 
Q-iE 

CO Q. 

1— to 



0) 2 

> c 

o o 

o o 



CO 




> 
CD- 






CO 




CL 
1 






c 



to 

CO 


C 


c 









>» 


CU 

x: 


oi 




3 


^ 


J3 




"to 




'3 


O) 


to 
to 


ot" 





cr 


_c 





10 





to 


c 


Q. 


■^ 


tu 


CO 


JO 


to 


. 


x: 


CO 





CO 


Q. 


^^ 


2 




c: 


q: 


_c 




T3 







1 


CO 

tu 


cr 

CD 



to 

to 


5 
c?5 




*^ 


CU 


CO 


u] 


■0 

(U 


0)X) 

.9 w 


to 

CD 


"co 


CU 


> 


to 


tu 


.c; 


CL 


CO 







lC 


to 


Q. 


CL 


(0 





■o s: 



<D o 



CO 



= tu 
— CD 



o 
5 

111 >" ^- — 

111 "F <D to 

O S E -9 

CD to o E *-< 

g 1 ^ S .M, 



CO ^-^ i- CO 

LUS-St 
O O ra 



o 



to 



CD CD b: 

^ ^ _§ 2 

CL CL E lo 

Q Q UJ O 



<u to 



<D 



CO 



i= 


■ a 


3 


"O 








iS 


cr 

2 


'£ 






T3 0) 
0) CL 


-.- (O 





csi 






CO 3 


1 


X3 






to 5^ 


£ "C 


•^ 






JSw 


to 


>» 


E 






°:o 


— -0 









5-91 
oard 


2 ^ 


2" 


■D 
jD 






r>- CD 


- tu 


2 


(0 






^— 


•^ XI 




(J 






(u 8 


. 


03 


tj 






6, 19 
walei 


SZ 
\- 

to 


(U 

x> 

CU 

i_ 






.— CD 


>s CU 


.9 


"(O 
0) 


CD 
CD 


■0 

E 


c 


2 3 


[> 


to 


f^ 


(NJ 






3 


CN 


.Q 


. CD 


c 











x> CO 


Q. 


CD 


LI 


O) 


TO 



k 





"O 


ra 


u 


Q 




7/5 

3 


a 

E 


n 


o 


O) 


o 



t 


> 


O 


•w 


Q 


;3I 


Q) 


^ 


^ 


'« 




C 

o 

Q 


o 

'E 


(0 

01 


o 


c 


S 


c 









o E 














^2 














05 "^ 














o c 














Q) g 








*o 


d 




W-| 








o 


o 




1- ^ 








"5 


=3 










Q. 

E 






^ 8 


^^ 






o 
o 


o 
o 




£ a: 


b 






o 






g 






O 


s 






>> 




c 


O 




a: 


13 


o 


**— 

o 


g 


CQ 


1_ 


LU 


L— 


. 


>, 


ro 


1 


03 


O 


w 


CO 


Q^-a 


Z2 

en 




c 


CO 


o 


c 


Q. 


o 


o 


1- 


o 


E 


D 


(U 


(/) 


o 


<D 


■D 


. - 


^ 


■c 


D5 


JZ 


c 


E ■ 


a: 


T3 


o 


_C 




<u 


O (T 


LU 

O 


C 


Q. 


■o 


o 

Li. 


03 
O 


O LU 

20 


c 




CO 


03 D3 
T3 C 


0) 






o 
o 




05 

H 


E M 
E £ 


o 

Q. 


tn 

> 
o 




w5 




1— 


§1 


o 


Q. 




o 




O 


^— 


Q. 




o 




Ll_ 


cu 


CD 





o 

.9-S5 

J3 U= O 

2^ o §""5 



<U o — 
0) 



:g Q^ o 



■D -^ .9- ? § 

S S S 

^ Q. C 

LU (/3 (0 



O °i 



X3 O 

a? E 

o o 

o o 



o E 
.9-2 
S '^ 
o c 
0) g 

i 8^ 



TO 

c 

(U 

_ w 
3 O 



■D LU 

2 CQ 

CO ^ 

E CL 

LU Q 



O ■u= 



O "^ 
to CQ 



-a 



o 



Q. 
O 
O 



o a: 



g 

._ LU - 

J2 o <^ 
■a o .E 

'^ Q- h: 
0) oj 3 



6 o 

CO" q] 

CO o 
I- o 

0) 13 

x: c 

*-- 0) 

1- (/) 

£2 



c 
o 

'■♦-« 

CO 
XJ 

c 

Q) 

E 

o cc 
o LU 
20 



XJ 
CD 

2 o 



1^1 



5t: 2t3- 

C O C -D C 

c c: o c o 

LU Q. O CD O 



co--g ^-■ 

I E £ .-^ o 

O ^ O = Q. 

LL 2f -.iS CO to 



Q-lo 

>> > 



■g 



o 



■g 
o 



4-^ 

I 



o 




ro 












< 


E 


2 


CO 

1_ 


3 


D3 




O 


O 


k. 


3 


a. 


L. 




w 


CD 

c 


1_ 


'l_ 


o 


o 


ro 


•^ 


i^ 


c 


CO 


o 


0) 


^ 


CO 


c 




o 


To 


*~ 


c 


CO 


E 


03 


0) 


1 


1- 


o 


T3 


o 


C 


w 


CD 


o 


>s 


c 


CO 


CD 
LL 


•a 




(0 


tz 


o 


(0 


a: 


CO 




•4— 


o 


o 


t_ 








CD 

2 


3 
o 


CD 


O 


JO 




E 


"O 


LU 


CO 


1 


^ 


1 


b 



« 

'5 

D 
03 

cn 

c 
o 

o 

< 



w 




O 


Ml 




c 


> 


_o 


*j 






'■? 


■^ 


(Q 


^ 


'^-^ 




C 


"55 


03 


c 
o 


E 


Q 


_a3 


W 


Q 


O 
01 


E 



]g 

CO O 

-I 

03 Q 



c 
<u 

E 

03 

'l3 

o- 



E 2 







03 








*-> 








CO 








^ 








c 






c 


CO 






'ro 


CD 














o 


o 


03 






03 


(0 




o 


x: 


o 


(A 

03 

k. 
3 


o 
o 


E 
g 


purp 
453) 


(/) 


2 




<n 


03 

5 


o 


03 

"co 




c 


(J 


5 


£m 


o 

'■S 
re 


tj 


T3 


«3 CO 


CD 

■2^ 


0) 

E 


1? 


D 


CL 
(U 


(0 

o 


S'.i 


i 


^ 


2 


Q:ii^ 



"^ CO 



±: 03 



03 

■o 
CO -o o 

03 — 
I" 

o 



O 



CO 



03 



03 



CO 



-E C/i 

coo 

03 03 -x: 

Eo g 

2 Q.= 



03 



CO 



lif O li? I- w 



3 

o 

LU -52 

o£ 

CQ 03 

CL w - .— 
Q.9 2 S 



03 o 

— CO 

c 2 

03 CD 

03 b 



CD O 



03 



i2 

03 

E 



m 0303 E-^"cQ o 0) 

^ T3 .i= LU S^ — ^ -^ .h: 

«~. c 03 -5 k 9-?=; C 03 



Q.^Q E 2 



o « 

.t:i tS 03 i: 

CO'-o o -^ 

•^ E ^ ^ 

IS 

cj CO 

03 - 



03 



in 
o o 

03 •.= 
- 'O' o 



o 

u_ 



o 2 



Q-'E 



UJ 2 
O O 

m CQ 

Q- Q. 
Q Q 



03 
XJ 




CD 

2 


CO 

c 


CD 


CD 


J=l 


1— 


E 


"co 


UJ 


O 



o 

c 
m 

.11 

^^ 
EO 

03 03 

*- x: 
(/) *- 

x: .Q 

^ 

03 •= 
g to 

-§ § 

03 O 

O ^ 

' 'i— 

. 3 : 

O TJ 



03 

03 

C 

'D3 

03 C 

- 03 

O £ 

c '^^ 
^ 03 

C2. - 
03 CD 

g w 

03 

o 

03 

c 
c 

3 



C 
03 

E 

Q. 

'3 
O* 
03 

O CO 

03 

C 

03 
W 

3 

■D 

C 
CO 



CO 3 zi 



Q, 
DC 

CO 

ijj 
§1! 



CO 

-J 

o 

CO 

>-" 

o 

O 

o 

UJ 



t-^ 



X 
Q. 



3 
O 

UJ 

O 

CQ 



CL 
Q 



C 
(0 

UJ 

O 

CQ 



Q. 
Q 



TO 

c 

03 
I 



o 
!o 

'W3 

to 

O 
(2. 

y 03 



2^ 

Q. Q 



03 

o 

3 
XI 
03 

k— 

o 



■g 
E 
cvi 

"c 



X3 






TO 












^ 






CD 




















03 






X3 






03 






i_ 












2 


CD 


■D 


03 


92 


E 


w 


r^ 


fsi 


3 


CN 


J3 



CT3 ro 



> 



0) 


"Ol 


n 


0) 


Q 


t; 


(A 

3 

■4-> 


Q 

F 


re 

4-' 


o 


CO 


o 



"CI 


> 


o 


•^■i 


a 


^zz 


0) 


JD 


CC 


'w 




c 

O 

Q 


o 

"E 


to 

0) 

a: 


o 


u 


S 


c 



0) 

'5 

D 
0) 

c 
g 

u 
< 



•HI 



o E 

-^ o 



0) 

o 


O-oB 


OJ 






(-1. 
0) 






CD 


>> c 


•c 






o 


c: 




k. 


^ ic: 


o 






0) 


o 




2 


-o 


Q. 
Q) 


o 


d 


CO 


■a 






-g "^ 


D) 


c 


g 


CO 


c: 




05 
O 


ra 0) 
o o 


_C 


o 


t3 


(1) 


0) 

E 




TO 


i^ 0) 


2 


"q. 


k- 


^ 


E 




X) 

E 

LU 


Ql C 
W OJ 


'E 
o 
E 


E 
o 
o 


10 

o 
o 


O 

u. 


o 
o 

0) 


b 



T3 

C 
0) 

. w 
2 o 

ro O 
2 m 
ro ^ 

E CL 
LU Q 



2d 

to CQ 



CO 



CL 

o 
o 



o Q:: 
to (-) 



c 
g 

J5 O "J 

§^2 8 

■o o .E 

^ a. b: 

tu a, ^ 

to ul T3 



c 

Q.T3 
O t= 
O <U 



O 
co" 

CO 

l- 

0) 



*- (U 
1- to 

£5 



E 

o UJ 
20 



3 
T3 
O 


cu 

■D 
CO 

CO 
X3 


o 


T3 

JQ 

O 

to 


en 
c 

13 
■D 


k- 

o 
"to 


CO 

H 

■ tD 

x: 


£ 


E 


g 


c 


T3 


c 


i_ 


O 




o 


C 


o 


o 


(0 


UJ 


Q. 


o 


CO 


o 


LL 



, - to o) 9. 

CO T3 C ^ 



5 2 JO 
- Q- lo 



c 

E ° - 
E£.^g 
Q ^ O ^ 



o 



O = Q. 



LL 2: .= to CO 



o .52 



tu o 
— to 



to 



•E 2 



;g 

jd" i to 

— - O -er CD C 

, tu to -^ ^ ^ tu 

±= £ X) CD o ■" E 
<utuE»r;^moP 

-rj I- III O It: S; i- *- 

Q.^Q E 2 



CD 



SIS 



CO T3 O -^ 

CO c c «= 



o cr:g 



to 

r- >- O O 

E tD <u -j 

to E o' g 

c tu ^ ^ 
CO ^ Q-it: 

J= 13 CO " 



tu 



tu 

E 

E 
o 



^ to '-' CO ?< 

2o 2h S- 



ja 




to 




•e 




o 




£3. 




tu 




i_ 




•4— 




o 




•*-' 




a. 




■go:: 




O UJ 




d: o 




■o 


o 


c 




tu 
to to 


E 


2^ 


>.2 


XI o> 

-o o 


O >- 


S a. 


5 o 


2 en 


DPW 
copy 


gene 
testin 
OER, 


tu 




to 




CO 




sz 




Q. 




£Z 




CJ) 




to 




tu 




Q 






M- ^ 


O) 


as part o 
hase wor 


c 


and 
nt test 


Q. cu 


E °- 


o E 


co c 


tu tu 


^ c" 


DeV' 
impI 


i£ tu 

Q-XJ 



un 



to 



5 R' 
o 2 



o o 



2 


'c 


to 


o 


Q. 

CD 


2 


CO 


c 




o 


"to 


'i ■ 


c 


to 


"e 


.D5 


(U 


1 


H 


o 


■o 


o 


c 


to 


to 


"o 


>, 


c 


CO 

5 


2 
u_ 


T3 

CO 


c 


o 


to 


a: 


CO 






O 


o 


1— 




tu 
•o 


3^ 


to 


3 


2 


O 


to 


O 


XI 




e 


T3 


'^ 


CD 


J 


1.-^ 


s 


'o 



k 




o 


CNll 


<^ 


C 


> 


o 






1= 


re 


SI 


4-t 




C 


'53 


tu 


c 
o 


E 


Q 


C3 


to 


Q 


tu 
Of 


E 



o 

CD 



CO 
CO 
H 

to 

c 
CO 



~> to 
a. E to 

Q UJ O 



to 

i= E 

"3 1.. 

"O = c 
0) £ o 

to CU "o 
tD *-< i- 
CU c WJ 

lis 

CD _ -o 

c '5 to 

53 ^^ to 

■tr, tu tu 
8)5 E 



•i E 



O. CD 
13 O 

to ^ 

^ 2 
to *^ 

ex '^ 
~ tu 

tu "ro 
~ £ 
o to 

CD "5 



to 

c 
g 

T3 = 

**- tu 

■ss 
§.£ 

ci) 0) 
"5. .-9 

cu OT 

:2 o 

> Q- 

2 g) 

D- oJ 

x: 

xi 5 



"q. 
_>. 
to 

o 
"> 

tu 

CL 
(U 

to "tf 

E a. 
Oi a. 

(D 3 

to to 



<u 

(U 

"S 

-°"c 
« a; 

. c x: 



o 
o 

"ro 
"o 

Oi 
Q. 
to 



to 

tu 3^ 
E c 

C3) O 
-^ 



tu (o ro 
d 3 £ 



tu 
to 

S >> 

O 1= 

c ■— 

to 3 
0= -D 

to 0) 

.■^ tu 
^^ 

^ 0) 



3 tu r- -^ 

ro 
to 
to 
tu 
o 
tu 
c 



■D 

c 

ro c 

~ tu 

to "c 

■^ E 

2 S 



^E 



= 5 

5 tu ^ 



tu 
o 

c 
ro 

rs "2 



O (U 
o iZ. 
O C3) 



< ci. ro ro 



C35 

to 
■<*•. 

ci 

q: 

to5 
g CO 

8£ 



tu 
UJ -a 



O 

CQ 



-> ro 

Q. E 
Q UJ 



— o 
ro 3 



o c 

„ = <u 

■" o o 

to" E -^ 



tu 

x: 



k- i— .-t± 
£ ^ > 

H— *-> ■ — 



i5 ^ to (U 3 



5; w c 
^ <^ = 

*- CU C 
<U tr o 

o o o 



- T3 

^ ro 

o to -o 
ope 
ro 

ro 
tu 



I 



CL 



O 



3 ^ 

■a c 
tu tu 



ro .t ro 

3 O) O 

■o .E fi 



(O 



O JJ 



E ^ 

^ (U 

to 



O X i: 

o 

CJ 



rJ 3 

. tu ro 
CM to o 



3 O 

i =- 

> Qi d) 



•a 
c 
ro 



>, to 

^ CL 

to p 

to t 

to O 

tu o 

o — ' 

ro gj 

o 2 

■o Q. 

3 .E 



-552 

.E T3 
(= C= 

E ro 
'2- to" 
tu a) 

3 O 

k. E 

°"t}5 

?-o 
.= tu 

O Q) 

^^ 
"^ 

E S 
CU c: 
x: tu 

O XI 



E 

CN 

E 
■o 

ro 
o 
o 
tu 

XI 

2 

to CD 

CO r^ 

3 CN 

!_• c5 



(U 


•o 


ra 


0) 


Q 


4^ 
0) 


V) 


Q 


3 

•4-1 


F 


ro 


o 


W 


o 



o 
u. 



80i5 



- o 

TO 0) 

O O 

o •- 

Q. C 

w to 



•a 

03 

o 

E 
m 



03 

o 
P o 



c 
c o 

II 

o o 
o o 



o E 



1^ S 







b 



tr 


>i 


o 




n 


•^ 


0) 


^ 


q: 


<fl 


o 

c 


c 
o 

Q 


I. 

o 

'c 


(A 
0) 

a: 


o 


o 


S 


c 



T3 

C 



-D 0) 

.= T5 

0) 2 

JZ CO 

fe E 

u. UJ 



Q- 
Q 



LLI 



O «= 
CO CD 

■COCL g,0 

>, 'O of T3 o 
C2. CD LLI C Q. 
O Q-Ji^ CU Q) 



g 

i_ 
w 
c 
o 
o 

c 



O CO 



en il T3 



c 

Q.T3 

O c 

O <U 

c 

CD 
CO 

o 



E 
E 
o 
o 

(U 



o 2i O 



(U 

o 

U- 



1-1 

C O C "D C 
,V; != O C O 
UJ Q. O CO O 



CU 
T3 
(0 

2 O 

(0 *- 



' S 'I 2 CO 



CO 



cu 



o 

UL 



c o Q. CO 
El.^i 

if: -^ CO CO 



(/) 



CO 








^ 




< 


E 


CD 


2 


3 


D5 




O 


t5 


u. 


3 


CL 


i» 




w 




L_~ 


"u_ 


o 


o 


2 


'E 


(0 


o 


Q. 
0) 


S 


CO 


c 




o 


To 




c 


"co 


E 


g) 


0) 


i 


1- 


o 


■o 


o 


c 


en 


CO 


o 


>> 


c 


i 




■Q 




CO 


c 


o 


CO 


a: 


CO 






6 


o 


L— 




<u 


c 


• CO 


13 


E 


o 


CO 


O 


^ 




E 




liJ 


CO 


1 


^ 


P 


b 



0) 

'5 
o 

0) 

c 
u 

< 



k^ 




o 


CMl 


»*- 


c 


> 


o 


♦J 






CO 


5 






c 


'w 


0) 


c 


c 


o 




a 


^ 


en 


Q 




i 



_C 
3 

■o 
cn 

<u 
E 
cu 
> 
o 

E 



(U 



>< <u c 

2 £ TO 

Q. . cn 

f- -o cu 

o i3 3 

=3 O •- 

<n (u CU 

QJ 0) Q. 



o 
jn 



F^ 5 co-° 2 



-c ~ cn 2 Q. 



o a 



cn x: "• 
2 CO S- 

d (U = 



o c o 

s ^ ""- 

•^ I ^ 

^ 9J ^ 

O 1- o 

CO o X 

cn " o 
2^5 

-2 2 -c: 

^ o o 
cu 

2 ^ o 






±5 4=; CLjJi T3 



(U 



C 
CU 

cu o 

-C TO 

■*" -o 
E ra 

•5i 

i| 

o w 

li 

cn (D 

c cn 

O CO 
O XI 



■a 

0) 
Q. 

o 

CO 



cn Oi 

E^ 
c q: 

TO ^ 

CO :S 
O U- 



■D 




3 




o 




$ 




111 


cn 


O 




m 


cu 


1 


■a 

3 


D. 


O 


Q 


c 



cu o 

£ cu 

— CO 

c 2 

cu CO 

^ p 

cu c 

.i= UJ 

g-:g 

CD "5 



cn 
o 



3 
.- P 



CU 



CO O -^ 
0^5 Q 



<u 
E 
cu 



>» -^ *" 
.t; fg cu 



co't3 



cu 



.0) O 5 c 3 



cu 

sz 



.i= CO 

coo 

cu cu =■ 

^■p'o 

2 Q.<E 

o 



CO 



2 S.CL O O- ^ O CO O-co I 

(3.coQcii: U-vzOSil— cn 



li 

UJ 2 

o o 

CD CD 

II 

CL Q. _ 
Q Q UJ 



CO 
CO 
H 

<n 

CO 

"co 
O 



. cn 
O) en C7) 
.E -£.E 
■^ CO $ 
— -a 2 

■~ - ^ 
en cn" jD 

•^ X — 
= O CO 
o -Q > 

^ cu ™ 

ill 

CO (1) cu 
D) > fE 

cr CO -J^i 



3 

o 
^ c 

cn-.9 
>" o 

|5 

3 CO 

I- o 
o " 



1 ^ 
X 

UJ 



cu 



CO 



CO o 

E "S 



o 

3 C 

i= 3 

to "O 

c 
o 

o ^ 
cu o 
>- cu 
■o 
c 

CO Q. 



cu 



c 

-D O 

o o 

£2. CO 
3 O 

cn _0 

^2 
2-D 

Q. CO 

-2 .1 

C35 "O 
C 3 

II 



0) 

x> 



cn T3 
O (U 

si 

«" o 
cu 2 



cu 

> 

x: 
o 



>- <u 

> 3 

D5 O 

.E 5 

w c 
x.^ 
cu ~ 



■o 
cu 

o 'i^ 

to cn 

o — 

o cu 

— > 



c ^ o 

«_ > <a yi^ sz ^ 

— > -^ . . -^ m 



P O 



.h: O 



"E ""^ 
E ro 

■§ 8 

.=, cn 
■o tn 

CO CO 



cu cu 

sz 

j_i "^ CO 



Q. CU 

s| 

cu CO 

c ex 
o cu 
X5 -a 



T3 > 

CU CU 

T3 X 

^ O 

O .C 

.E 5 



CJ) 
CO 

cL 

CO 
Uj 

"co 
c 



■g 

E 

CNJ 

j5 

c 
"E 

CO 
CO 

o • 
u 

(U 
X3 
<U 

\_ 

"(n CD "2 

Qj 22 E 

<n h~ rvi 

3 csi S 





•D 


ra 


0) 


Q 


"S 


To 


Q 

E 




o 


(0 


o 



ta 


> 


o 


♦; 


Q 


j^ 


0) 


^ 


a 


w 




Q 


o 

'c 


(0 
0) 


o 


c 


S 


_c 



3 

■o 



£ 
O 





Q. 


LU 
















O 


O 


to 


ro 












(U 


>N 


c: 


■c 












i- 


J3 


c: 


o 










1 


o" 


to 


O 


Q. 

2^ 


o 


c 






■o 




o 


Q. 


O) 


c 


g 






^ 


03 


TO 


tu 


_c 


o 


o 






0) 




O 


O 


o 




3 

L. 






I— 

o 


E 


O 
(U 
Ql 


-a 

c 


'E 
o 
E 


■ E 
o 


to 

c 
o 






u. 


uu 


to 


to 


o 


(J 










T3 






B 






C 






C 

tu 
to 




o 


o 




tr 


o 
o 

3 


■a 

is 


d" 

0) 
■D 

ca 


o 

UJ 

o 




to 

c 
o 

"to 


m 

Q. 


1— 
to 

D5 


LU 

o 

o 


"to 
c 
o 
o 

en 


0) 


o 

JQ 


CO 




o 
o 


Q 

of 


CD 

I— 


o 


o 


E 


o 


Q. 


LU 
O 


tu 


CL 
03 

1— 


^ 


LI_ 


UJ 


Q 


o 


to 


to 


T3 




6" 
















1 


■o 

OJ 




Ici 


CD 
C 


cf 
o 

o 








0) 


o 


o 


o 

CO 


13 


3 
^ 








JZ 


03 




X3 










^-^ 


o 


^_ 






to 








1— 


E 


o 


"c 


T3 


c 








o 




o 


C 


o 








U- 


LU 


Q. 


o 


(0 


o 











Q. 


LU 














"cD 


O 


CO 


"to 










tu 


>, 


c 


■e 










U- 


JH 


«= 


o 








1 


e 


to 

c 


O 


03 'B 


c 






T3 


tu 


o 


Q. 


en 5 


.o 






^ 


CO 


"to 


■(U 


c o 


o 






CD 

o 


o 

CO 

E 


o 

o 
tu 

Q. 


■D 


monitor 
complel 


zz 

w 

c 
o 






U. 


LU 


tn 


CO 


o 










T3 




o 






d 
o 

o 

3 






c 
tu 




oS 










to 




■!=' O 




Dl 


1 
T3 


2 

tu 

■D 
CO 


o 

LU 

o 




ations 
PW/B 


CO 


LU 

o 

o 


1— 

"to 

c 
o 


CD 


2 

CO 
J3 


CQ 

Q. 
Q 


o 


cific 
R;D 


tu 

XI 


■c 
o 


o 


1— 
O 
Li_ 


E 

LU 


Q. 
O 

o 


to O 


c 
tu 
to 


Q. 
(U 


13 

•o 




d" 














■a 

is 


I— 
tu 

■D 

to 




■a 


CD.O 








CD 


2 


o 


o 

CO 


^ E 








sz 


CO 




"D ■*:; 








■*^ 


Xi 


t— 


1 - 


^ to 








L— 


E 


g 


c 


X3 C 








o 


'k_ 


o 


c o 









Ll_ LU Q. O CO U 



I 



o 




ro 












< 


E 


cu 


2 


3 


C33 




O 


"tJ 


L— 


3 


Q. 


k— 




55 




t_ 


*t_ 


o 


o 


"to 


"E 


to 


o 


(U 


s 


W 


c 




o 


"io 


*.*_« 


c 


CO 


E 


.2^ 


1— 
tu 


i 


1- 


o 


■a 


o 


c 


to 


CO 


"o 


>, 


c 


to 

5 


2 

LI. 


T3 




to 


c 


o 


CO 


CC 


W 




•«— 


"o 


o 


k- 







^ 


T3 


c 


to 

O 


3 

o 


CO O 


X3 




E 


TJ 


W 


CO 



II 



■a 

w. 
3 
D 
03 
CC 
C 

u 

< 



k 




o 


«S1 


*^ 


C 


> 


o 






l^Z 


'■S 


rm 


re 


^ 


*- 




c 


w 


c 


c 
o 


s 


Q 


_QJ 


(0 


Q 


0) 

a: 


E 



on 

Hi 
< 



< 
O 

O 

a: 

Q 

X 



< 

O 



2 

3 
O 

LU 

o 

CD 



to 



CD O 

£ <u 

— to 

■F 03 ra 
- E-g 
tu tu c -^ 

T3 .i= LU " 
3 3 ' .9^ 
O CT.^ P 

.E 2S Q. 



3 
O 

o ^ 



to 



to 



o 



c 
^ — ^ <u 
CO O *- E 

lie? 



11 

LU S 
O O 
CD CD 

Ql CL 
Q Q 



cu 

T3 
CO 
O 

L_ 

CO 

E 

LU 



CU ^ 



c 
tu 
E -D 

D3 CO 



CO 



to 
tu 

E - 
ra o 

to "- 



to 
to 



03 -— 



"P n, nt 



to O 

tu Q- 

03 tu 



CU "O 

ISl C 

.£ to 
•I 03 



E .gi 

«_ to 

03 03 

TO -^ 
§ 03 

"to 2 

TO 3 

^ i 

CD > 



tu 03 

"ro 5 

11 

3 "^ 
O T3 



-- E 

£ 2 |-o 
cu Q..E $ 



~ 03 
03 -Q 

■fo ^ 

$ 3 

03 g 

T3 $ 

03 to 

sz o 

;n Q- 

o E 

-c to 

ro « 

a. 03 

1e 

Id S 
"w " 
c « 



03 -Q 

tu c 
Q ^ 

03 2 
x: . 
■^ to 
>'^ 
■°^ 

03 > 

JE o 

8i| 

to Q- 



3 ro 

it 

I- ro 

3 
03 O- 
E 03 

^ "to 

O 5 
to "O 

03 2 

"to O) 

tu T3 

"to'l 
ro 2 
5 Q- 



ra 
to 
o 

a.-a 
u> c 
T3 ro 

*- T3 

ro 03 

£ S3 

o :g 

to (O 

- c 
to o 



c 
g 

ro 

L_ 

03 
C 
03 
D3 

O 



O 



~ 03 

ro -Q 

Si 

o o 
,y to 

t: C 

o o 

03 U= 
Q. Q. 
to O 



ro 00 

o cL 
to q: 

03 - 

E 

_3 

o 
> 

03 to 
C33.S 
CD Ll- 






3 
O 

LU 

o 

CQ 



03 O 
^ 03 

^ "S 
— ro 

•c 2 
r- 03 ro 

^ E-g 

03 03 d *- 
■D .i= LU " 
3 3 ' .51, 

"o cr:g o 
.E 2^ Q. 



to 



O «^ 03 



to 



c 

03 

E 
•E^2 2 
o < c "5 

S-Q E 2 



ro O 



li 

lU s 

o o 

CQ CQ 

Q. Q. 
Q Q 



b 

03 



ti D3 

ro d 

ro 03 

^ "to 

ro 5 

x: 0) 

B jz 
o .t; 

03 T3 

"ro 03 

.n> CO 
•e"8 

to 
to 
ro 



03 
T3 

ro 
o 

ro 

E 

LU 



c 

^ c 
±i ro 

% '^ B 

iB.O)^ 



?^^ 



03 



c 
ro 



to _„ 
ro ? 



2 ^ 03 



ro 



en 



w -^ 



o 



03 

E -o to 
Q. ro 03 

E -C 03 

— ii x: 

T3 ra -^ 

c 03 jr 

ra -c -I 

O h= ■" 
03 Q- W 

■o «? to 

= 03 C 

i "s 8 ii ^ 



--V ro 

Q. -C 

c 
c ro 

St 



■g ^ 

^ J^ 
§ ro 
> to 

ro o 

03 ro 
ra «= 

to *3 

c 

03 
X3 



— C 



(O 



03 
CO 

^ 03 

ra -a 

en 

c 

T3 
3 
O 



.y o .i= 



ra 
■■= ra 



03 



■D 

c 
ra 

sz 03 
it JT 

ra •*" 

03 0) 

3 

cr 

03 



1- SI ^ 



ro .9 

-^ ra 
to i- 
z: 03 

ra -o 

03 c 

ro 



■g 
£ 

CN 
J2 



E 

ra 
o 
o 

03 
XI 

2 

"to CD ^ 

0) 2? E 

to ^- oi 

^ £^ ■£ 
!_■ tj) "75 



i 



i 



4-* 


T3 


ra 


a> 


Q 


4^ 


"w 


Q 


3 


E 


ra 

4-^ 


o 


CO 


o 



Q. 

"O) 
O 
0) 



T3 OJ 

S CO 

JO ro 

o E 

U_ LU 



a: 

UJ ^ 

O-co f! 



CO <u 
o o 

o ■- 

d) T3 
Q. C 
(O (0 



Q. CD C O 



o 0) E 

goo 
coo 



o 
• .9-S 

^ >> c 

1 -S -2 .9- 
■2:. CO CO cu 
(U E " y 

^ CO ■'t= 

*- _Q CI 



0) 



o 



O. C Q. c 
U- LU (A CO 



o 


a 


Q 


r^ 


(U 


.a 


^ 


'w 


D 

C 


c 
o 
o 


o 




c 


a: 


o 


D 


s 


^C 






5^ O 



x: CO 
o E 

U. LU 



Q. 
Q 



2o 



a: 



o m -^ 



« CQ ^ UJ 

o ii50 



O i^ 

>» 

Q. 
O 
O 



CO U- Dl2 

O Q p (rt 

•- t 

O Q^ TO o 



c 
g 

o 

(/} 

c: 
o 
o 

D) 

c 



a> 



a 

CO 



LU 

O 

m 



CO 



<0 i^ "O 



S E^ 
UL m Q 



o 
>> 

Q. 
O 
O 



-a Oi 

S CO 

0) 5£ 



■g 

•4—' 



c 

oi;o 
•i " 



-^ O I- i= "' (O 



\1 -D 



1- c o c "O c 
O C d o c o 
LL LU CL O CO O 



■o o 

= T3 
S CO 



■g 

JQ 



x: CO *- ^ 
o c: c: o 

LL. lU Q. O 



o 
ro 

< E 

0) CO 

■G 2 

co !> 

o'o 

2-1 

CO o 

&^ 
^ § 

E-^ 



CD 

I- 

TJ 

C 



o 
o 

CO 

ro 'o 

ro 2 

$ li: 

o o 

ro -3 
5£ o 
ro O 

li 

LU ro 
b 



I 



0) 

"5 
o 

c 
_o 

U 

< 



L. 




o 


CMI 


*^- 


c 


> 


o 


■*^ 






'■S 


r^ 


ra 


^ 






c 


'55 


0) 


c 
o 


E 


Q 


0) 


(0 


Q 


0> 


E 





c 




'ro 




k— 


(A 




0) 


(U 


k. 


(U 


3 


>» 


(0 


o 


ra 


Q. 

E 


K* 


<u 


C 




_o 


"co" 


'■5 


o 


re 




c 


'> 


s 


'-4-^ 


1^ 


o 


S 


ro 



ro — CO 

»»_ ro = 

o g (u 

o 0? = 

pi 

Q. CO ro 

E D) C 

— o — 

i5 Q- Q) 

0) c c 

E c i5 

c o .-= 

«? n ? 



CD 
X2 

•o 
o S 

5 CD 



CO o .E 
.E -o 

O 0) 

D. '- 

(D 2 
E? CO 

ro 



ro 



0) 



CO 5 £^ 

(o y 13 

ro 



(O e ^ 
b CO 



1 - 

ro d) 

tl 
Q. 5 



Mi 

-§ £ 
Ks 

£ o 
o£ 

■§£ 
o o 
-E iS 

^ 8 



o 

CO 

ci. 

. q: 
S ^ 

ro CO 

c 
^ c 



< 

111 



CO 

o 

Q 



? S 



< 

X 



2 

3 

o 

LU 
O 



CO 



cu o 
£ 53 
•^^ 
0) ro 

<U (D C *- 
■O .h: tU J^ 

o o-:5 O 

.E a^ s Q- 



CO 



;g 

O 

"^ *" § 

E 
'E^ ^ 2 

CO Q c S: 



(O 

c: 
g 

ro b 



CO --' 

LU S 

o o 

m m 

CL Q_ 

Q Q 



O ^^ 



o ^ 
^ ^£ 

(DOC 

•.;= ro o 

C W =5 

Q. o E 
*-* o 

0) CO o 
-C >- __ 

*- CD en 
ro o 3 



Sen, 



CO 

o 
"o 

ro 

c 
o 
o-^ 

.1= CD 



D5 

C 

TJ 

_g 
o E 



P P)i« ^^ 



~ en OT 
E .E CO 

T- CD E 



2 ^ 
z: x: 
o .ti 
$ 5 



t: CO 
Si o 
ro Q) 

^q: 

£ c 

i_ o 

(D O 
> OL 

o to 
^ c 
S- ra 
ro H 



ro 

o ro 

c: Q. 

.2 >, 

ro "cD 

c ro 

<D CO 

E-o 
Q. ro 
E £ 
-n ra 

^ s^ 

ro -^ 

ro <u 
>- ex 
ra CO 

CD S 
Q-'cO 



Q. 

E 
o 
o 

o 



CO 
-♦— • 

c 

CD 

ro E 
x: CD 

c 'rj 
o cr 

.= CD 
o i- 

2 <. 

w X 
c CO 



ro 



o o 
cx-p 

o CO 

ro 
c:n^ 



'^ o 

>. D- 

(D 






gJ ro 



c/i e? 

r ^ (D ro Uj 



> 

CD Q- 



CD CO 

It 



CD o 

CD ro 
^ P 

w CD C 
^ -O .i= LJJ 

a. o I" ."2 
Q.E £ S 



o 

UJ -55 

o " 

CQ CD 



T3 


T3 


C 


^ 


ro 




LU S 


O O 


CD 


CQ 


ii 


CL 


CL 


Q 


Q 



(D 
■D 

ro 
o 

ro 

X! 

E 

UJ 



8 ra 

tt: (D 

(U o 

"to ro 



c ^ 



0) 


^ 




c 


"o 




Q. 


"ro 


CD 


E 


x: 


CO 


•*~' 


Q) 


<D 








ro 


•~ 


D) 


Z3 









05 


E 


C 


o 


to 


H 


o 

CL 




X 


csi 


(D 



ro 

E 

<o , 

=3 -O 

o -^ 

■p ^ 

ro <D 

N x: 

ra :*^ 

-^ o 



CD ra 



cu 

Q. 

o 

c 



00 



■g 
"E 
csi 



E 
■o 
ro 
^ 
ro 
o 
o 

(U 
(D 



to CD "O 

E 



CT> 



CM 



LJ cn CQ 



0) 

4-« 


T3 


« 


(U 


O 


O 


Irt 


O 


3 


E 


re 

*•> 


o 


V) 


o 



(0 

o 

2 o c 

I'll 

b J? E 



o o 
o o 



< 

O 



Q. 

So: 

0) HI 

q: o 



t: 
o 
a. 

(D 



Q. 

■go: 

OJ LLI 

a: O 



•a 


> 


o 


*^ 


Q 


nz 


a) 


\a 


^ 


'</> 




Q 


o 




'E 


Dl 


o 


o 


S 


_c 



g 
o 

u. 

c 
o 
o 

■o d:: -a o .£ 
3' 111 E ci !=; 



o -^ 




•^ O 


q: 


</) CQ 


^ lU 


ation 
PW/ 


gulai 
too 


O Q 


fU w 



o UJ 
-oO 

2 O 
0*0 



T3 
^ (U HI 

en .m^ 



LU 

o 

Q 



8 £ 



« 

"D 
O 

x: 
o 



c 
CD .2 

il 

c o 
ro o 



0) 

en 

(0 

x: 

Q. 

C 
D) 
'« 


Q 



0) 
(A 

ta 

sz 

Q. 

c 

D5 
'« 
(U 

Q 



4— ' 

I 

JZ 

o 
< E 

o 2 
EO- 

22 



ro o 
^ § 

If 

f^ o 
•a o 

OJ o 

TO 2 
5 UL 

o "J 
2 o 

CO 3 

2 o 
m O 

1? 

CV3 

b 



I 



T3 
0) 

'5 
o 
o 

q: 

c 

u 

< 



L. 




o 


c* 


»•— 


C 


> 


_o 


Jt^ 






^^ 


rz 


re 


;Q 






c 


« 


0> 


c 
o 


E 


Q 


^ 


U) 


Q 


0) 


£ 



2 

■5 2 

ro O 

--• ,y CQ 

<U O < 

'2-2.1 

Q. CO Q 



<U 



c 
cu 

E 

0) 

i_ 



sz 

>«.t:; •— 

2^ o -^ 



(U 

•o 

13 






. C 

>> o 

ro -^ 
5 ro 

SI 

O <D 

cu -5 
"S o- 

O iT 

ro T3 

E o 
UJ 5 



t c P 



•J o 

3 (U 

.E o 
E " 

IS 

<u > 
ja c 
— o 



o 

0) — 

?i 

.2 c: 
•e .2 
Q. ro 



-r; 0) 



o 



? ro 

f a? 



CD o 

"S ^ 
03 -. 
O <U 

^^ 
E -: 
LU <-> 

a. 



c 

13 

o 
o 

o ^ 

.W.2 

CD -" 
Q. O 

^^ 



It 

§^ 

SS 

^ UJ 

01^ — 

c to 



CO 
UJ 

o 
a: 

i> 
o 
w 

lU 

< 

_i 
o 



< 

o 

0) 
"3 
o 

(U 
X 

lU 



to- 

13 O 

O .«} 

O o 

■a 2 

ro u- 

.ti ro 

O c/) 



-CL 

«x 
ra O 
h < 
ro T3 

^ Q- 

X X 
U. if) 



c 

CD 
CD 

C^ 
CD 

E-Q 

CD T3 
CD C 



O 

E 

r3 

T3 

ro 

I.. 

o 

E 



0) CD 

2g 



CD 
X3 

O 
T3 ■ 

LL fO 

^? 

ro Q- 
CO X 

-co 

c 

:3 

o 
O 
•o 

O U. 
CD 



CD 

i_ 
13 

ro 

CD 

E 

en CD 

c £ 
ro *^ 
i= « 
^ <i^ 
ro j3 

o 

C/) 
CD 

■o 

D. 

X 
CD O 
£ < 



CD 
CO 

t_ 

CD 
> 

"O CO 

"5 ^ 
CD -5 

ro iS 

■11 

!i 

o o 

o li: 

^^ 
2i^ 

o 

*" CO 

§"§ 



■D 
Q) 





ro 


■c 


i^ 


-4-» 


> 





ro 

3 


cn 


Ic 


Q. 


'O) 


CJ 

1— 


2 








ro 

CD 





D) 


CD 


u- 


i_. 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


C3) 

c 
LU 


XI 


£2. 


CD 





CD 


tn 


ro 


0. 


CD 



<3) 



lU 

O 

CQ 



Ql 
Q 



"o E 

.2 CD 

B ^ 
"53 o 

xT CD 

co^ "o -^ 
o c: c 
10 ro o 

^^2 
c^ -c 2 

. . fT". CD _ 

0) UJ T3 ro 



ro 

C CD 

SB ro 
o CD — •*- 

c E -2 .g 

o r3 £= 

o -^ o 

<-^ en ,^ 
o .9 o 



^ 2 3 IE 
.E ^ ro ro 



CD X5 5 

ro S -Si 
^ UJ o 
S CL g 
< c 

^Dl ro 



£ 

UJ 



ro 
o "5 

CO 13 

*- O 

O CO 

<D 0) 

CD ^ 

03 b=,i= 
o 0) ^ 



g 

Q. 

O 



CNI 
O 

ro ^ 



o 
o 



o -^ 



CD i= 



ro 



o .aj 



■D 

E CQ 

CD CO 

C ISE CD 

- >- en 

ro (/) 



ro 13 ro CD CL < 



■g 

"E 

"g 

E 
■o 
j5 
!5 
ro 
o 
o 

(D 
CD 
"w CD "9 

</) r^ tsi 
^ C^ S 
LJ CJ3 ra 



0) 

*-> 


"D 


re 


0) 


Q 


0) 


w 


a 


3 


E 


to 


o 


W 


o 



t 
o 


.^ 


Q 


rzi 


0) 


JD 


^ 


"« 


D 

C 


Q 


'£1 

O 

c 


(A 
01 


o 


D 


S 


_C 



E 

(0 

k- 
o 
o 

Q. 



Cd 



(U 

q: O 



T3 

W) 0) UJ 

o so 

S9 o ^ 

Q- §-2 

Q O Q. 



E 
o 



Q. 

So: 

a UJ 

q: o 



C 
(U 

o 

HI 

O 

m 



Q. 

Q 



a UJ 

SO 
^2 



CL 
O 

o 



E 

TO 

D) 
O 



S ro t: 
•F c: o 

o "^ 9- 



S if 

.9- ro o 

0) P O UJ 

q: Q. E O 



T3 


en 


C 


c 


0) 


*k_ 


w 


o 


o 




•is 


E 


UJ 

O 


o 

E 


m 


o 


1 

Q. 


o 


Q 


O 



UJ " o ct: 
o-s-ig 

°3e? 

D)> 13 O 

o n O) Q. 



o c 



° -^ >• 
.9-2:2 



(U <u 



T3 

C 
0) 
w 

o 

UJ 

O 

CD 



Q. 
Q 



O «== 
W CQ 

.11 
■SCL 

>. o of 

S- 3^ UJ 



v_ UJ 
TOO 

g)2 

^ Q. 



o 

Ol 

TO 

c 



Q. 
O 



■a 

c 

m 



UJ 
O 
CQ 



Q. 
Q 



i 



<D 
(O 
(Q 

JZ 
Q. 

C 
O) 

w 
0) 

Q 



Q. 

C 

g> 
"« 

di 
Q 






r- ^ W 

w c CO 
^ o -c 



CD o 

■^-55 w 
« c ca 
^ o -c 



(0 

CD 



c 
o 

o 

13 
^. 

U> 

c 
o 
O 



o 

^ E 



W 



c 



o O 
ra 1 
ro o 

^ § 

IB' 



c 



ra o 
ra 2 

2 o 

ra -3 
2 o 
ro O 

El 
ju ro 



"5 

D 

c 
_o 

'J 

u 

< 



k 




o 


csr 


>^ 


c 


> 


o 


4>rf 




■= 


*3 

re 


jD 






c 


'w 


0) 


c 
o 


E 


Q 


o 


tf) 


a 


0) 


E 



ified 
tto 


> 




ified 
tto 


> 




qual 
logis 


O 

o 

2 




qual 
logis 


o 
o 

2 




tt5 ?, 


Q) 


E 


OJ S 


0) 


E 


en Si 


&— 


ro 


CD 9J 


i— 


ro 


ro ^ 


ro 




ro ro 


ro 


iZ 




Q. 


D) 




D. 


en 


0) 


o 


(U 


o 


i_ 


i_ 


i— 


L 


UJ ro 


Q. 


Q. 


m ro 


Q. 


Q. 



UJ 

O 

CQ 



Q. 
Q 



ra 



c 

(U 

E 

(U 
Q-iS 

E ro 

•— ;5 



g 
ro 

ro 
> 

C 

w 



d 
ro 

0) 

ro 

13 

E 

o 
u_ 



ro 
o 

o 
cu 
ro 

sz 
o 

k. 

ro 

ro 
o 

T3 



•2 (/) 

C CD 

D) O 

O CO 



UJ 

o 

CQ 



Q- 
Q 



0) 

3 

o w ro 

(/) CO i2 

.9 en F 

ra ^ ^ 



to 

CD 
CJ 



13 -C 



'" ^ " 



y - u 

.9 c) 



ro 

t" _ 

3 CL a) 

w o « 

J3 (- <n 

w .y CM 



o- ^ 
o ro - 
2 -9 :5 

iS O g 

■£ ro .<2 

•i -■" 

ro ro 



c 
o 

.9 

■ 3 



2 m 



ro £ y 
> •— o 

03 E 3 

en TO Q) 

■B fe£ 

CO O J- 



O 
.9 J3 

1^ 

51 

cu _^ 

TJ O 

2l . 

^ CU o 

2-SS 
w UJ £ 



T3 
CU 



ro 


D) 

ro 
en 

c 
UJ 



w 
en 
o 
o 
cu 



T3 

c 
ro 

LU S 
O O 
CQ CQ 

Q. Q. 
Q Q 



T3 

cn ro 

€^ 

o cu 



cu 
en XI 



ro 

x: 
o 

k— 

ro 
< 



E 
ro 

_ CD 

ra o 
.9 Q. 
'=^ en 



cu o c: 

_ ti: (U o 

ro ra ro .-ti 

x: D. jr c 

cj cu o o 

i_ i_ i_ X 

ro Q. ro b 



CD © 

T3 CL 
i- C 

■2 -9 
"E o 
o 3 

£^ 
■a c 
c o 
ro o 



c 


ro 




.0 


1— 







v^ 











3 


c 




1— 













(0 


■^-* 




c 


ro 








> 
ro 





en 


X 




_c 


(U 




*k_ 


k- 




3 







T3 


en 




•e? 


c 




Q) 












"c 


d 







x> 


to 


E 


T3 


c: 
p 


cu 


OJ 


ro 



Q. 


ro 


E 


cu 






cu 

■D 

o 



i2 c 
E o 



en 



UJ oj -.^ S ^ .= 

O E ro O ^ o 

5 QJ^ CQ fe 5 

< "5 o < "^ "to 

Q 2 w Q E 8 



UJ 

O 

CQ 



Q. 
Q 



o 



-D CL.b= c: ^ 



73 

C 




















ro 




















UJ 2 












UJ 






























CQ CQ 












CQ 




























H 












1 








Q. Q- 












Q. 








D Q 




_c 








Q 








_ (U 
ro --^ 


c 
g 


T3 
0) 


T3 
(U 

1= 






E 



T3 






^ z 




3 


ro 


To 






*= 


E 






-^ CD 


I— 


-C 


3 






en 








uried cul 
ed durin 


"to 

c: 


i_ 



fU 
XI 

p 

13 




0- 
ro 

Z3 


jO 

to 
to 
(U 
to 
to 
ro 




to 

2 


CNJ 

ro 
E 

j5 






atb 
arth 


en 


5 

k_ 


■0 




to 
en 

c 






x: cu 


T3 





CU 


c: 




T3 


^ 






he event t 
als are un 


ro 

k. 


5 


ro 

CJ 






ro 







en 





"o 


to 




**- 





cu 






CI 

p 
ro 


cu 

k_ 
CL 


c 


en 


cu 
ro 


cu 


c 
ro 




Q. 


XJ 

cu 

k- 

"to 


CD 


T) 


S B 


I— 

ro 

Q. 


CU 

sz 


"0 
■> 




C3. 


2 
< 


tu 
to 


cn 




ro 


Q) 


^— ' 


cu 





3 


CN 


5 


cu E 


Q. 


**— 




£ 


ro 


E 


,^- 


kj 


o5 


fa 



0} 


T3 


(0 


0) 


a 




« 


Q 


3 

4^ 


E 


n 


o 


CO 


o 



HI 

o 

J3 



o 


^ 


Q 


r^ 


0) 


\Q 


^ 


"w 




c 
o 

Q 


o 






a: 


o 


o 


s 


c 



a: 

LU 

O 

o 

-e 
o 

Q. 

CD 

i_ 

75 

c 



1 



o 




ro 












< 


E 


2? 


ro 

L— 


3 


cn 




o 


tj 




:3 


Ol 


I— 




CO 


c 


i_ 


*i_ 


o 


o 




'E 


ro 


o 


Q. 
0) 


2 


03 


c 




o 


"to 


'~ 


c 


03 


E 


O) 


I— 



S 


h- 


o 


•o 


o 


c 


(/I 


ra 


o 


>, 


c 


ro 


2 


$ 


u. 


T3 




(0 


c 


o 


(0 


a: 


CO 






o 


o 


L 




0) 
■D 




(Q 


3 


{£ 


o 


to O 


£i 




E 


•a 

c 


]U 


nj 


■ 


2^ 


2 o 



0) 

*5 

0) 



_« 
















3 








T3 


(U 






0) 


cn 






s: 


ro 






u 


x: 






CO 


Q- 








"O 




O C c 








-C 2 CO 






o 


o is CI 




"to 




Q. CO o 




Z5 


-•-' 


Q) TJ '-i^ 




cr 


c/> 


•- C CO 




CO 


o 


CO CO Jn 




(U 


0) (rt Q. 




cn 


o 

0) 


J= O) CU 
CO r- i- 




CO 


x: 


CL~ Q. 




cn 


o 


CU ^ i_ 




c 


i_ 


*- c: n 




Q) 


CO 



^ 




O 


CNii 


<♦-• 


c 


> 


o 






'■^ 


■J 
re 


n 


■«-< 




c 


'53 


o 


c 
o 


E 


Q 


0) 


(A 


Q 




£ 



o 
cn CO E 

C O CO 

•.S3 ^E w 

13 .9? C 
CJ W CO 





0) 

CO 






w 




c 

CO 


'o 






:o 






w 




•*— ' 


c 










>s 




CO 


g 






o 

TO 

3 


CD 

■o 


0) 


CO 

c 

CD 


</3 

(U 
Q. 

E 


i— 


E 


g 

2 




CO 

> 


13 

o 


CO 


c 
to 


to 


13 
O 


o 
o 


CO 
CL 




■S? 


JZ 


•a 


^ 


"O 


T3 


1— 


Q) 






C/) 


cu 


L_ 


c 
to 

CO 


C 


(U 


i_ 




g 




"E 


o 


CO 
T3 


CO 


Q. 
•e 


3 






■o 


o 


2 


..^ 


O 
CL 


re 

c 




T3 


u 


cu 


to 


(0 


T^ 


<U 


.» 


O 


w 


«= 




Q, 


o 


S: 


to 
'o) 


O 

o 

CL 


■o 

c 

CD 


«4— 

o 

c 


to 


0) 
CX 


0) 


T3 

c 

CO 


'■5 

re 


o 
o 

0) 


cr- 

cu 


■o 

0) 


o 

3 


c 
to 
o 


CU 

■o 


"co 

Q. 


o 




to 

x: 


> 

8 

2 


■q. 

E 
o 


o 

c 
o 


o 


2 

Q. 
CI. 


CO 
(U 
CO 

cu 


2 


CO 


o 


o 


C/5 


C/} 


CO 


S: 



cs 



o 
o 
w 
o 

c 

CO 



£Z 
CO 
CO 



c 

13 

o 

o 

T3 

c 

CO 

>^ 

b 

■ C/) Di 

•^ E 

?l 

1= cn 

c 
UJ 



zi 
CL 



c/) 

c 
o 



13 
CQ 



c 
cu 

E 

■c 

CO > 

'^^^ 

Ol 
.55 Q Q 
> 

cu 



£Z 
0) 

E 
cu 

O) 
CO 

c o 

11 

3 CO 

If 

o-J£ 
O CO 
.*- a. 

O v_ 

3 O 
CO -^ 

2 S 

m -c 

> CO 

CL CU 
Q Q 



JD 



CL 



UU 

o 



I- 
Q. 
Q 



■g 
"E 

"c 

E 
"a 
to 
32 

CO 

o 
o 
cu 

Xl 

cu 

l_ 

q3 S? E 

CO r- csi 

v_ cn ro 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 




Ferry Building 
San Francisco. CA 94111 
Telephone 415 274 0400 
Telex 275940 PSr UR 
Fax 415 274 0523 
Cable SFPORTCOMM 
Writer 

MEMORANDUM 



Octobers, 1996 



TO: MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 

Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. James Herman 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 

FROM: Dennis P. Bouey ii A 

Executive Director r* "^ 

SUBJECT: Resolution approving the DPT Variant with a split roadway design for 

the Mid-Embarcadero Roadway and provision of replacement parking, and authorizing the 
Executive Director to negotiate an agreement with other City departments regarding the review 
and final approval process for the project 

DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached resolution. 

Background 

The City and County of San Francisco proposes to construct a new roadway, freewa}' ramps 
and associated street improvements in place of the elevated Embarcadero Freeway and ramp 
coimection known as the Terminal Separator Structure (TSS), both of which were demolished 
as a result of damage sustained during the Loma Prieta Earthquake of October 1989. The 
transportation improvements are proposed as alternatives to an in-kind replacement of the 
former facilities which constituted State Route 480, and provided access to and from the 
regional freeway system and downtown San Francisco. 



THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. 3 C 



Approval of Mid-Embarcadero Roadway Project 
Agenda Item 3C 
October 8, 1996 
Page Two 

The overall project includes two distinct elements: the Mid-Embarcadero Roadway Project 
(which is proposed to be constructed primarily on property under the jurisdiction of the San 
Francisco Port Commission) and the Terminal Separator Structure, which is not located within 
Port jurisdiction. Because most of the Mid-Embarcadero Roadway Project would be located 
on Port property, the San Francisco Port Commission must approve the project. The approval 
that is before the Commission at the October 8, 1996 meeting is to select a roadway aHgnment. 
The Port Commission will have an opportunity to approve and adopt urban design criteria for 
the roadway in the future. 

The purpose of the project is fourfold: 

1 . Restore local and regional transportation connectivity affected by the 1 989 Loma Prieta 
Earthquake and the loss of the Embarcadero Freeway and TSS; 

2. Provide ramp capacity without building the amount of elevated structures formerly 
occupied by the Embarcadero Freeway and TSS, taking advantage of surface streets and 
transit to accommodate travel demand; 

3. Enhance the integration of different modes of transportation in the project area 
including automobiles, ferries, buses, light rail, trucks, and pedestrians and bicycles; 
and 

4. Improve the appearance of the project area; maximize physical and visual access to the 
waterfront and minimize physical intrusions into commercial and residential areas of 
San Francisco, pursuant to long-standing goals and urban design concepts of the 
Northeastern Waterfront area Plan, an element of the San Francisco General Plan. 

Six project alternatives are under consideration and are analyzed in the EIS/EIR at an equal 
level of detail; they include a "No Build" alternative and five "Build" alternatives. Two of the 
"Build" alternatives include variations in the proposed treatment for the 1-80 eastbound off- 
ramp from the Peninsula. The preferred altemative, which is a modified version of one of the 
"Build" alternatives, is also analyzed at an equal level of detail as the other project alternatives. 

The DPT Variant with a spUt Roadway was endorsed as the Preferred Altemative by the Board 
of Supervisors in January, 1996 and incorporated into the Fuial Environmental Impact Report 
as Statement (FEIS/EIR) as such. 



I'ili 



Approval of Mid-Embarcadero Roadway Project 
Agenda Item 3C 
Octobers, 1996 
Page Three 



Project Description 

The Mid-Embarcadero Project would realign and upgrade the surface roadway section along 
the section of The Embarcadero between Folsom Street and Broadway as a four-to-six lane 
roadway, to match the Embarcadero Roadway to the north and south. A parking garage and 
surface street improvements are also proposed as part of the project. The Mid-Embarcadero 
segment of the F-Line would also be implemented in conjunction with this project, as would 
the Muni Metro Extension/F-Line Connector, contingent upon securing full funding. 

Roadway and Transit Improvements 

The new Embarcadero Roadway would begin at the present intersection of Steuart and Folsom 
Streets, and would curve northeastward (towards the Bay) to meet the existing Embarcadero 
alignment at Howard Street, and continue north along The Embarcadero to Broadway. The 
area east of the realigned roadway between Howard and Harrison Street would become part of 
the planned Rincon Point Park. Steuart Street would be closed to through traffic between 
Folsom and Howard Streets, and a portion of the street would be vacated. The southbound 
roadway between Folsom and Howard Streets would be completed as part of the Muni Metro 
Turnback project in late 1996. A realigned northbound roadway between Folsom and Howard 
Streets and a new pedestrian promenade between Folsom and Harrison Streets would be 
completed as part of this project. 

Between Howard Street and Broadway, the northbound lanes of the new Embarcadero 
Roadway would generally follow the alignment of the existing roadway. The southbound lanes 
of the roadway would curve west to form a central plaza between the north and south bound 
roadways directly in front of the Ferry Building. This realignment of the southbound roadway 
would result in use of the edge of the landscaped transition zone between the roadway and 
Justin Herman Plaza for pedestrian circulation and landscaping. See Exhibit A for an 
illustration of the roadway alignment. 

Between Howard Street and Broadway, the new Embarcadero Roadway would have three 
continuous travel lanes during the peak period. In the off-peak period, parking would be 
allowed in the curbside lane on the entire southbound roadway, and on the northbound roadway 
between Folsom and Howard Streets, and between Piers 1 and 5. During these off-peak 
periods, the number of travel lanes would therefore be reduced to two in each direction. Turn 
lanes would be provided at key intersections: two left turn lanes at Broadway and at 
Washington Street in the northbound direction and one left/U-tum lane at Washington in the 
south bound direction. U-turns would be permitted mid-block between Mission and 
Washington Streets at either end of the new central plaza. 



< 



) 



Approval of Mid-Erabarcadero Roadway Project 
Agenda Item 3 C 
Octobers, 1996 
Page Four 



The roadway would also accommodate an exclusive transit right-of-way and bicycle lanes in 
each direction. The F-Line would be constructed in conjunction with the Mid-Embarcadero 
Roadway Project in an exclusive right-of-way in the roadway median north of Mission Street 
and would run parallel to the northbound roadway along the eastern edge of the central plaza. 
The Muni Metro Extension/F-Line Connector would be constructed in the roadway between 
Mission and Folsom Streets in conjunction with the roadway project, if funding can be secured. 

The outside parking/traffic lane would be 15 feet wide to accommodate motor vehicles and a 
Class Three Bicycle route. During the peak periods, the bicycle lane would operate as a 4 foot 
wide lane adjacent to an 11 foot wide travel lane. During off-peak periods, the bicycle lane 
would operate as a 7 foot wide lane adjacent to an 8 foot wide parking lane. 

Central Plaza 

The realignment of The Embarcadero and the removal of parking in front of the Ferry Building 
will result in the creation of a new central plaza located between the north and southbound 
roadways. At its v^dest, a 131 foot wide central open space would accommodate a central 
plaza (90 feet wide) and the planned Muni F-Line historic streetcar. 

Pedestrian Improvements 

A broad pedestrian promenade would be constructed on the Bay side of the roadway. The 
pedestrian promenade W'ould be 25 feet wide between Folsom and Mission Streets and 35 to 
50 feet wide in front of the Agricultural Building. The current parking lots to the north and 
south of the main Ferry Building entrance would be removed to provide a promenade width 
of 40 to 64 feet. North of the Ferry Building, the promenade would be 27 to 31 feet wide 
between Pier 1 and Pier 5. 

On the west side of The Embarcadero, new 15 foot wide sidewalks would be constructed with 
certain exceptions. Between Mission and Howard Streets, the sidewalk width would vary from 
6 feet (adjacent to Bayside Plaza at the south end of the block) to an average of 40 feet mid- 
block. North of Mission Street, the sidewalk width would be a minimum of 10 feet. 

All intersections of the reconstructed Embarcadero Roadway would be at-grade and signalized, 
including Folsom, Howard, Mission and Washington Streets and Broadway. Market Street 
would remain closed to vehicular traffic at The Embarcadero. Signalized, mid-block pedestrian 
crossings would be provided on The Embarcadero between Mission and Market Streets, 
between Market and Washington Streets and between Washington Street and Broadway. 



Approval of Mid-Embarcadero Roadway Project 
Agenda Item 3C 
Octobers, 1996 
Page Five 



Parking 



There are currently 135 on-street parking spaces and 423 off-street parking spaces in the Mid- 
Embarcadero Project area. The existing median parking and the parking directly in front of 
the Ferry Building would be removed as part of the project. After implementation, there will 
be approximately 219 on-street parking spaces. Off-peak parking would be provided in the 
southbound and northbound curbside lanes, as described above. Passenger loading bays would 
be located in the northbound roadway adjacent to and immediately north and south of the Ferry 
Building. 

If the off-street parking spaces are not replaced, there would be a resulting net loss of 339 
parking spaces. This parking is proposed to be replaced with an underground parking garage 
of up to 3 50 spaces on the soudiem half of Assessor' s Block 202, with access from Clay Street. 
Please refer to Exhibit B for a preliminary parking garage layout. 

On July 9, 1996 the Port Commission adopted Resolution No. 96-74 endorsing the inclusion 
I of the parking garage as part of the preferred alternative for the Mid-Embarcadero Roadway 

Project. Based on a recommendation by the Housing and Land Use Committee, the Board of 
Supervisors has also adopted a resolution endorsing the inclusion of the garage as part of the 
project. The timing of the construction of the garage, however, is linked to the timing of the 
redevelopment of the Ferry Building. 

Surface Street Improvements 

A number of surface street improvements would be included as part of the Mid-Embarcadero 
Roadway Project; a more detailed description of these improvements is included in Exhibit C. 

Previous Port Commission Presentations and Actions 

This project has been presented to the Port Commission on numerous occasions over the past 
. several years, as described and summarized below. 

September 9. 1992 : An informational presentation was made by Port staff on design 
alternatives for the replacement of the Embarcadero Freeway. 

October 11. 1994 : An informational presentation was made by the Waterfront Transportation 
Projects Office regarding the Mid-Embarcadero Roadway and Open Space. 

June 13. 1995 : The Port Commission adopted Resolution 95-44, urging the 



Approval of Mid-Embarcadero Roadway Project 
Agenda Item 3C 
Octobers, 1996 
Page Six 



Public Transportation Commission to provide a connection between the F-Line and the Muni 
Metro Extension and to provide continuous rail service along the northern waterfront. 

October 10. 1995 : The Port Commission adopted Resolution No. 95-85, recommending the 
paired roadway as the preferred alternative for the Mid-Embarcadero Roadway. 

July 9. 1996 : The Port Commission adopted Resolution 96-74, approving the inclusion of an 
underground parking garage on Block 202 as part of the preferred alternative for the Mid- 
Embarcadero Roadway Project. 



Project Review and Approval 

The attached resolution would approve the preferred alternative for the general alignment of 
the Mid-Embarcadero Roadway Project, which includes a split roadway in front of the Ferry 
Building. There are a number of outstanding issues that remain, including the urban design for 
the project, the replacement of lost parking due to the project, the final engineering and design 
review and approval process to be followed, and other construction related issues such as traffic 
routing, access to Port facilities, etc. 

The staff is hereby requesting approval for the Executive Dkector to negotiate an agreement 
with the Department of Public Works and other City departments regarding these and other 
project related issues. In addition, an urban design concept has been prepared for the Mid- 
Embarcadero Roadway Project under the direction of the Waterfront Transportation Projects 
Office. The Port staff is recommending that urban design criteria be developed for the project, 
which would be approved by the Port Commission in conjunction with the above referenced 
agreement. 



Prepared by: Sharon Lee Polledri, 
Director of Planning and Development 



i: AGDWTP.108 



PORT COMMISSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

RESOLUTION NO. 96-103 



WHEREAS, under City Charter Section B3.581 et. seq., the Port has the exclusive power and 
duty to use, conduct, operate, maintain, manage, regulate and control the Port area of San 
Francisco; and 

WHEREAS, the Embarcadero and Terminal Separator freeway segments of 1-480 were 
severely damaged by the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and were subsequently demolished and 
removed by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans); and 

WHEREAS, the San Francisco Port Commission approved a cooperative agreement between 
the Port and Caltrans regarding the demolition of the portions of the Embarcadero Freeway 
within the Port's jurisdiction on December 16, 1992 through Port Commission Resolution No. 
92-131; and 

WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco ("Board of 
Supervisors") adopted Resolution No. 100-96 on January 29, 1996 endorsing the DPT Variant, 
with a Mid-Embarcadero spUt roadway, as the Preferred Altemative for the Replacement of the 
Mid-Embarcadero Roadway and the Terminal Separator Structure; and 

WHEREAS, The Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution 896-96 preliminarily endorsing an 
underground parking garage for the Port of San Francisco as replacement for parking lost due 
to the implementation of the Mid-Embarcadero Roadway Project providing that there be no 
construction on the proposed parking garage until a contract has been executed with a 
developer for a major redevelopment or renovation of the Ferry Building; and 

WHEREAS, the Draft EIS/EIR, "Alternatives to Replacement of The Embarcadero Freeway 
and the Terminal Separator Structure", was published and circulated for pubhc comment on 
August 25, 1995; and 

WHEREAS, the Final EIS/EIR and Section ^(f) evaluation, "Alternatives to Replacement of 
the Embarcadero Freeway and the Terminal Separator Structure", was certified by the Planning 
Commission on September 19, 1996 (File No. 92.202E/94.060E); and 

WHEREAS, the Port Cormnission has read and considered the information contained in the 
Final EIS/EIR; and 

WHEREAS, on October 8, 1996 the Port Commission approved Resolution No. 96-102 
adopting fmdings under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) related to a portion 
of the preferred altemative as set forth in the Final EIS/EIR; and 



RESOLUTION NO. 96-103 (PAGE 2) 

WHEREAS, under the preferred alternative the Mid-Embarcadero Project would realign and 
upgrade the surface roadway along the section of The Embarcadero between Folsom Street and 
Broadway Street as a four-to-six lane roadway, to match the north and south portions of the 
Embarcadero, and would include an underground parking garage on Block 202 and surface 
street improvements, as generally shown on the attached Exhibits A and B; and 

WHEREAS, the preferred alternative is consistent with the Port's public trust obligations in 
that the proposed roadway will maximize roadway access to the waterfront, will maximize 
visual and physical pubhc access to the waterfront, wiU enhance integration of different modes 
of transportation within Port jurisdiction, including maritime-serving truck and ferry traffic and 
public-serving pedestrian, bicycle and automobile traffic, and will create significant public 
open spaces and promenades oriented towards the Bay; and 

WHEREAS, under the direction of the Waterfront Transportation Projects Office an urban 
design concept has been prepared for the Mid-Embarcadero Roadway Project, with 
participation from Port and other City agency staff members; now, therefore be it 

RESOLVED, that the Port Commission does hereby approve the DPT Variant, including the 
split roadway alignment for the Mid-Embarcadero Roadway and replacement of parking 
removed due to the project, as shown on Exhibits A and B ; and, be it 

FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Port Commission does hereby authorize the Executive 
Director to enter into negotiations with the Department of Public Works and other City 
agencies regarding an agreement governing the design, engineering and construction review 
and approval process for the Mid-Embarcadero Roadway Project, including Ae replacement 
of parking removed as a result of the project; and, be it 

FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Port staff is hereby authorized to work with the Waterfi-ont 
Transportation Projects Office to develop recommendations regarding the urban design criteria 
for the Mid-Embarcadero Roadway Project, which shall be presented for approval to the full 
Port Commission along with the above referenced agreement between the Port and other City 
agencies; and, be it 

FURTHER RESOLVED, that Port staff is hereby directed to bring the project agreement and 
the urban design criteria back to the Port Commission for its approval as soon as is practically 
possible. 

/ hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Port Commission at its 
meeting of October 8, 1996. 



Secretary 

I :\agdwtp2.108 



Exhibit A ^ 




0) 

-H 



Page 3 



< 



f 




1 




SB 



' ' , ... -^"i-'i * * » _ * » ^ / -.•jj' 



^. 



'-'•"it- •■*■'• 



<^ 






'ffi:: 









* -H; 



r^ 



V ' ' ^A. * "X. • « » . • ' •.•.•.•••l•■• 



m 






CM 



.V.-- 




.'.■."•N 



I ) 




IB mxvuQ 




Page 



Exhibit B 



^ 



I 



r 




I 



u 
o 
o 



4J 

3 

o 

(U 

m 

(0 

o 



Figure B-2 



^ 



fe 



aiDMiH 



is 



o 

I— 
o 

LJ 
00 

< 

z 

Q 

Z) 

t: 
o 
z 
o 



; 



Vi 



.O-.t-Q 



= -0- 



33 ® C 



.VI 



o 
xo: 




.t'L 



:o-.«Li 



.fri 



< 

to 



UJ 

:2 

UJ 
00 

< 
m 

o 

z 

CM 



O 

o 



< 

en 

Q 



CL 
LiJ 
O 

o 
o 



CM 

o 
o 



D 

o 

(0 

en 

Sj 

(0 
U 



J 3 



a V 



Figure B-3 



Exhibit C: Surface Street Improvements, Mid-Embarcadero Roadway Project 



.1 



NOTE: Some of the improvements described here, while part of the Mid-Embarcadero Roadway 
Project, are outside of the Port's jurisdiction and are described for informational purposes only. 



Restripe Washington Street between Drumm Street and The Embarcadero to add two 

lanes providing two travel lanes in each direction 

Reserve adequate right-of-way on Washington and Clay Streets to accommodate traffic 

flows to and from Chinatown and potential future rail service on Washington Street 

Provide variable message signs south of Portsmouth Square Garage and on the 

Embarcadero at Washington Street to notify motorists when the Portsmouth Square 

Garage is fiill. 

Extend Muni Route #83 to The Embarcadero 

Signalization of the Broadway/Front and Broadway/Davis intersections to facilitate 

traffic flows (for information only) 

Reopen Davis Street between Clay and Washington Streets to vehicular traffic (for 

information only) 

Provide a new left turn pocket on northbound Drumm Street at Washington Street (for 

information only) 



-^ 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 



MEMORANDUM 




Ferry Building 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone 415 274 0400 

Telex 275940 PSFUR 

Fax 41 5 274 0528 

Cable SFPORTCOMM 

Writer 



I 



September 26, 1996 



TO: 



MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 

Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. James Herman 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 



FROM: 



Dennis P. Bouey 
Executive Director 



m 



SUBJECT: Approval of Contract Amendment for Simon, Martin- Vegue Winkelstein, 
Moris, for graphic design and planning commmilcation materials for the 
Waterfront Plan. 



DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: 

AMENDMENT. 



APPROVE THE PROPOSED CONTRACT 



In September 1994, the Port entered into a contract with a graphic design team to design the 
graphics and assist in the preparation of the text for a finished printing of the Draft Waterfront 
Plan and an accompanying poster. The team consists of the architectural and planning firm of 
Simon, Martin- Vegue, Winkelstein, Moris (SMWM), the graphic design firm of Tenazas Design, 
and illustrator C. Tolon. 



THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. 7A 



The Draft Waterfront Plan and Poster were recently printed and circulated to the Conunission, 
City agencies, and numerous interest groups and citizens. To best serve the needs of the Port in 
communicating the land use objectives to the broadest possible audiences, Port staff requested 
presentation materials for public meetings from the Plan, along with changes to the design and 
printing of the plan and poster that are estimated to exceed the approved project budget by $5,200. 
The amount of the contract amendment dedicated to a HRC certified minority and women owned 
firm is approximately 90 percent. 



Sharon Lee PoUedri 

Director, Planning & Development 

f:\wp51\wpani2as 



I 



PORT COMMISSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

RESOLUTION NO. 96^fi 



WHEREAS , The Draft Waterfront Plan is the result of an extensive citizen-based planning effort 
spanning four years and over 75 public meetings; 

WHEREAS, In September 1994, the Port entered into a contract with a graphic design team to 
design the graphics and assist in the preparation of the text for a finished printing 
of the Draft Waterfront Plan and an accompanying poster. The team consists of 
the architectural and planning firm of Simon, Martin-Vegue, Winkelstein, Moris 
(SMWM), the graphic design firm of Tenazas Design, and illusfrator C. Tolon. 

WHEREAS, An Environmental Impact Report is currently being prepared to evaluate the 
potential impacts created by the Draft Waterfront Plan; 

WHEREAS, The pubhc wiU continue to review and comment on the Draft Waterfront Plan prior 
to anticipated adoption in the Summer of 1996; 

WHEREAS, Preparation of a Waterfront Plan and Poster aides in communicating to the public 
the goals and objectives of the Draft Waterfront Plan; 

WHEREAS, Changes in the scope of work to prepare the Waterfront Plan Poster will enable the 
Poster to communicate to a broader audience than originally anticipated; therefore 
be it 

RESOLVED, That the Port Commission approves amending the Waterfront Plan and Poster 
design contract for the team led by Simon, Martin-Vegue, Winkelstein, Moris, for 
an additional $5,200, increasing the total contract amount to $65,046. 



/ hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Port Commission at its meeting 

of October 8, 1996 



Secretary 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 



MEMORANDUM 

October 1, 1996 




TO: 



MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 
Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. James R. Herman 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 



Ferry Building 

San Francisco. CA 94111 

Telephone 41 5 274 0400 

Telex 275940 PSF UR 

Fax415 274C=2S 

Cable SFPOFrrCC'MM 

Writer 



FROM: 



SUBJECT: 



Dennis P. Bouey 
Executive Director 



0) 



Approval of Travel Authorization for One Port Representative to be a Panelist at 
Event Sponsored by the New York Maritime Law Association (New York Cit>-, 
October 17-18) and to Speak at an Event Sponsored by Massport for Travel and 
Maritime Leaders on Domestic Cruise Itineraries (Boston, October 16, 1996), in 
Accordance ^vith the Port's Fiscal Year 1996-1997 Budget. 



DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: 



APPROVE ATTACHED RESOLUTION 



A Port representative has been invited by the Maritime Law Association of New York to speak 
on a panel regarding the future of U.S. Flag vessels. The Port representative's remarks will focus 
on the cruise industry and on the need for changing the Passenger Services Act to open up 
domestic cruises. The Association has invited two other panelists from the Maritime 
Administration to discuss U.S. Flag cargo vessels and the Jones Act. The association has made 
an special effort to highlight the work of women in the maritime industry by inviting all vv^omen 
speakers for this event. 

While on the East Coast, the Port representative has been asked to return to Boston for a special 
event that will be hosted by MASSPORT to brief travel industry leaders regarding the Passenger 
Services Act. The event was recently rescheduled to attract a greater number of tra\el industn." 
and maritime leaders from throughout the New England region. 

Airfare and hotel expenses will be paid by the host of the New York event. The estimated cost for 
the trip is as follows: 

Hotel ( 1 night in Boston) $ 1 90 . 00 

Transportation (airport transfers, cabs in NY & Boston) $200.00 

Meals ($40/day X 4 days) $160.00 

Telephone Calls 50.0.0 

Total $600.00 

These funds are available for expenditure in the Port's FY 96-97 budget. 

Prepared by: Veronica Sanchez, Manager, Governmental Affairs 

THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. 9A 



PORT COMMISSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



WHEREAS, 



RESOLUTION NO. 96JLM 



the Executive Director is requesting travel authorization for one 
Port representative to be a panehst at Event Sponsored by the New 
York Maritime Law Association (New York City, October 17-18) 
and to speak at an event sponsored by Massport for travel and 
maritime leaders on domestic cruise itineraries (Boston, October 16, 
1996), in accordance with the Port's Fiscal Year 1996-1997 Budget. 






WHEREAS, 



Part of the expenses for the trip are being funded by the host of the 
New York event. The remainder of the funds needed are included 
in the Port Commission's Fiscal year 1996-1997 budget: now, 
therefore, be it 



RESOLVED, 



that the Port Commission hereby approves this travel request. 



/ hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the San Francisco Port 
Commission at its meeting of October 8, 1996. 



Secretar}' 



CITY & COUNTY OF;S AN FRANCISCO 



5 ^ORT COMMISSION 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 



'h\. 



^MINUTES OF THE MEETING NOV 1 8 1996 

' ^OCTOB™Ai?96 . SAN FRANCISCO 



PUBLIC LIBRARY 



ROLL CALL 



The meeting was called to order by Commission President Michael Hardeman at 4:06 
p.m. The following Commissioners were present: Michael Hardeman, Frankie Lee, 
Preston Cook, James Herman and Denise McCarthy. 

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - September 24, 1996 

ACTION: Commissioner Cook moved approval; Commissioner McCarthy seconded the 
motion. All of the Commissioners were in favor; the minutes of tlK meeting 
were adopted. 

3. EXECUTIVE 

A. Executive Director's Report: Mr. Bouey reminded the Commission that Reet Week 
will take place this week. Large crowds are expected to attend the event and staff 
hopes that the event will go as smoothly as last year's.. He also reported that Serpac 
made its first call last week. Between SSA and the Longshoremen we were able to 
turn their ship around in six hours, which is half of what it would normally take and 
Serpac indicated that it was their best turnaround in any West Coast port ever. 

B. Resolution adop ting findings under the California Environmental Quality Act (CF.QA) 
related to a portion of the preferred altern ative as set forth in the Einal Environmental 
Impact Report (ETR) entitled " A lternati ve s to the Replacement of the Embarcadero 
Ereeway and the Terminal Sep arator Strucmre," dated August 25, 1QQ6. (Resolution 
No . 96 -1 2) 

Conmiissioner Cook requested that Items B and C be voted on separately. Wiih 
Commissioner Cook's approval, Mr. Bouey responded that the two items will be 
discussed together and votes will be taken separately at the conclusion of speakers' 
comments. 

Mr. Bouey stated that the City proposes to construct a new roadway freeway ramp 
and associated street improvements in place of the elevated Embarcadero Freeway. 
The transportation improvements are proposed as alternatives to an in kind 
replacement of the former facility which constituted Route 480. The City Planning 
Conmiission certified the final EIR/EIS for the proposed new Embarcadero roadway 
on September 19, which includes six project alternatives including a preferred 
alternative. The project described in the EIS/EIR includes two distinct elements: the 
mid-Embarcadero roadway which is within the Port's jurisdiction and the terminal 

M100896.igq -1- 



separator structure which is not located within the Port's jurisdiction. Under CEQA, 
the Port Commission must prepare written finding of facts that explain how it has 
dealt with each significant impact. The findings addressed the following issues: (1) 
project alternatives rejected as infeasible; (2) the mitigation measures adopted and 
rejected and (3) and mitigation monitoring program and significant effects on the 
environment and positive benefits related to the approval of the mid-Embarcadero 
roadway project. He stated that Rebecca Kohlstrand, project manager for the 
Waterfront Transportation project, will describe the preferred alternative and how it 
became the preferred alternative and what it means to the Port and the Port 
Commission. He mentioned that the Commission is voting only on the roadway 
alternative not the design. The design of the Embarcadero roadway and the plaza will 
be brought to the Commission at a later date. 

Ms. Kohlstrand gave an overview of the last seven years of planning on this project. 
In 1990, the City made the decision not to rebuild the Embarcadero freeway and in 
doing so, began an evaluation process of many different alternatives for replacement 
of that elevated freeway. Last fall, this item came to the Port Commission for 
preliminary recommendation for incorporation into the final environmental document. 
At that time, the Port Commission endorsed the paired roadway, which provided for a 
major plaza directly in front of the Ferry Building and had the roadway pushed 
toward the Justin Herman Plaza. There was a debate that occurred at the Art 
Commission about whether the roadway should be split or paired and that carried 
forward to the Board of Supervisors. In January of this year, the Board of 
Supervisors officially endorsed the split roadway concept which is before the 
Commission today. The Board accepted those parameters, incorporated them into the 
draft environmental document and used them in terms of the urban design planning 
they have undertaken m the last several months. It assumes a surface roadway 
treatment in the Embarcadero that would have three lanes of traffic operational on 
each direction during peak hours and during off peak hours, two lanes of traffic. 
There will be passenger bus loading zones directly in front of the Ferry Building. 
Consistent with the rest of Embarcadero, we have maintained a multi modal approach 
in the mid-Embarcadero. They have incorporated an exclusive right of way for the F- 
Line that will provide connecting service from the foot of Market Street around the 
south of Justin Herman plaza area, coming out into the median of the roadway, and 
extending an exclusive right of way north into Fisherman's Wharf along Jefferson 
Street to Jones Street where it would loop coming back to Beach Street. That project 
will become operational once the. mid-Embarcadero project is concluded. It also 
includes the provision for the extension of the Muni Metro to the south. They are 
just completing the Muni Metro Turnback project which tunneled underneath Justin 
Herman Plaza and provide a rail extension to the south connecting into the surface 
tracks at Folsom Street. The mid-Embarcadero project also incorporates the 
opportunity to connect that Muni Metro Extension project with the F-Line by 
establishing a set of tracks between Mission and Folsom Streets, which is known as 
the Muni Metro Extension and F-Line Connector. To date, they have funds obligated 
for the design of the trackway and they are trying to put in place funds to construct 
. the transit project in conjunction with the mid-Embarcadero roadway. It also includes 
a major pedestrian promenade along the waterfront, continuing the promenade that 

Ml 00896. igq -2- 



was established on both the north and south Embarcadero, maintaining the minim um 
25 feet distance and increasing that distance in front of the Ferry Building to 40-60 
feet, creating additional space for pedestrian crossmg and using that area. They have 
also accommodated bicycles in the area by providing a bicycle lane. They are 
proposing a 15-foot bicycle lane and are also considering adding and an additional 
foot of that bicycle lane to respond to some of the concerns bicyclists have raised 
about the safety of the existing bicycle lane. 

The project also includes a parking garage. In September of this year, the Board of 
Supervisors endorsed the incorporation of the replacement of a parking garage for the 
Port in this project with the stipulation that it move ahead in conjunction with the 
rehabilitation of the Ferry Building. It also includes a series of surface street 
improvements to facilitate access into and around Chinatown and facilitate access 
along the Embarcadero. Most of the improvements incorporated in the mid- 
Embarcadero portion are along the Clay /Washington corridor. The Planning 
Commission certified the environmental document in September of this year and they 
are now poised for the Port Commission to endorse the project and forward that 
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. 

The next steps in this project will be to conclude the approval process once they get 
approval through the City process, which they hope to conclude in early November. 
They still have to take the project forward to.BCDC, Metropolitan Transportation 
Conmiission for approval and get the final record of decision from FHWA. They 
hope that process will be concluded by the end of this calendar year. If they meet 
that deadline, they would be able to complete their final design drawings during the . 
first half of 1997, go out to bid mid 1997 with the intent of begiiming construction of 
this project the first of 1998. Their current assessment is that it is a two-year 
duration construction project. They hope to conclude by the end of 1999. They hope 
to have a great New Year's Eve Party for the year 2000. Today ^ they are brining two 
resolutions: (1) for adopting the findings and (2) for endorsing the project. They will 
also be back in two weeks for further discussion on the Urban Design concept 
associated with the Central Plaza in front of the Ferry Building. 

Commissioner Cook mquired if the EIR fully discussed the paired alternative. Ms. 
Kohlstrand responded to the affirmative. 

ACTION: Commissioner Cook moved approval; Commissioner Lee seconded the 
motion. 

Commissioner Hardeman inquired about the difference in tune for the mnnel version 
of the project. Ms. Kohlstrand responded that it will take one year for construction 
and an additional year for the environmental work. 

Ms. Eula Walters representing over 2200 citizens who have signed a petition that no 
building be placed on Ferry Park stated that the open spaces should be designed for 
multiple-purpose uses. She enumerated the committee's concerns: 



Ml(X)896.igq . -3- 



1) A minimum of palms along the open space area. 

2) Ferry Plaza - the square footage should approximate an area which could 
accommodate the Ferry Farmer's Market. 

3) Paving should be a simple dark color like that which exists today in the middle of 
the Embarcadero promenade. The stripes that are shown on the Roma model are 
gaudy, impractical, costly to keep clean. The pavement should be smooth to 
accommodate women's high heels. 

4) No Art Work. Placing any permanent art work would limit the plaza to merely 
an area to walk through or drive through. The F-Line cars should be stationed at 
the comer lot of Stuart and Mission. Stationing the F-Line cars in front of the 
Ferry Building obstructs the view of the Ferry Building. The cable cars should 
remain beside the Hyatt Regency. 

5) Grass means dirt which would clog the rail tracks and it would be costly to 
maintain. Grass would make the plaza dysfunctional for other occasions. 

6) Parking on Ferry Plaza is an ideal place for patrons of the Port Club and other 
restaurants to park. 

7) Special uses for Ferry Plaza: Grandstand seating (removable) for special events 
and parades. 

The Commission Secretary read the following amendments to the resolution: 

Page 9, 1st paragraph: Typographic error (Attachment B now read Attachment A) 

Page 10, 4th paragraph: Planning Commission Resolution No. 14193 

Page 10, last paragraph: Significant effect No. 2 (use of Justin Herman Plaza for 

a roadway edge) has been determined to be not significant, 
due to proposed mitigations involving urban design 
treatment. 
Page 1 1 , throughout: F^inctuation changes 

Changes in Mitigation Monitoring Program - Attachment A - Mitigation Measure 3A 
(pedestrian barriers at Essex Street) has been deleted. 

ACTION: Commissioner Cook moved approval to adopt the substitute resolution; 
Commissioner McCarthy seconded the motion. All of the 
Commissioners were in favor. The resolution, as amended, was 
adopted. 

Resolution approvi ng the Department of Parking & Traffic ( DPT ) Var iant with a split 
roadway design for the Mid-Embarcadero Roadway and provision of replacement 
parking, and authorizing the Executive Director to negotiate an agreement regarding 
the review and final approval process for the p ro ject. (Resolution No. 96-103) 

Vernon De Mars of DeMars & Maletic showed and gave the Commission a copy of a 
drawing of the Ferry Plaza. He gave a brief description of his alternative plan. 

Carl Maletic of DeMars & Maletic stated that the only difference in design that they 
have been promoting over the last five and a half years is the alignment of the 
southbound roadway. In the EIR document, the former general manager of the Rec & 
Park, Mary Bums, stated that Altemative 5 would "adversely affect the forward 



M100896.igq 



resource." They disagree with that statement. They propose to have a land swap 
between the Port and the City on this small parcel of land. They have outlined the 
following procedures for the City to accomplish the land swap. 

(1) Letter of agreement between Rec & Park and the Port and a formal offer made to 
Rec & Park to acquire the square footage. 

(2) Notice of public hearing posted in Justin Herman plaza 45 days prior to meeting. 
The meeting should be held in McLaren Lodge and Ferry Building. 

(3) Rec & Park meeting that would make a determination that offer compensation 
that meets the requirements of the California Park and Preservation Act. 

(4) Meeting of the Port that would pass a resolution to transfer the land between Rec 
&Park. 

(5) The Port request in writing opinion from State Lands Commission regarding 
acceptability. 

(6) Meeting of the State Lands Commission that would make a finding that the 
acquired land is an equal or greater value than exchanged land. 

(7) Port to meet and determine that the swap is in compliance with the Burton Act. 

In conclusion, they feel that this plan can still be accomplished. He and Mr. DeMars - 
were part of the group that initiated the movement of the split roadway along with 
Supervisor Bierman hoping that there will be better access to the waterfront. They 
feel that this is the space required to make a grand plaza in front of the Ferry 
Building. Mr. DeMars added that this decision will be there for the next 50 to 100 
years. He emphasized to make the decision in the right way, to leave it as open as 
possible to get a comfortable plaza as possible. 

Ernestine Weiss lives in the Golden Gateway center, heartily endorses DeMars and 
Maletic's proposal to swap the land for the plaza which will make a world of 
difference in design and beauty and hope that the Commission will consider this 
seriously. The design of the stripes is horrible and hopes that it should be done over. 

Commissioner Cook commented that he is troubled by this resolution. In the first 
"resolved," it does say that the Port Commission hereby approves a split roadway 
alignment. He cannot support a split roadway alignment. He does not think that this 
is the grand plan that should be adopted for the City. He's not sure of the plan but 
there are some great thinkers that have great ideas, including the two architects who 
spoke. He thinks that what will happen is if it this plan goes through, in a few years 
it will be reassessed as a poor plan; a plan that does not work, a plan that is not 
hospitable to people, it does not bring people into the waterfront as a great plaza 
would. This plan is not creative, not dramatic. The space is totally unusable. He 
does not see any function that could be held in this space. It boggles him that this 



M100896.igq 



plan that is not grand, visionary, not deserving of the Port, not deserving of the City 
is being discussed. He would like to see more citizen input. 

Commissioner Hardeman stated that he understands Commissioner' Cook's position 
but this plan has taken seven years and a lot of time and effort have been expended to 
get to this point. Ms. Kohlstrand responded to some of Commissioner Cook's 
concerns. There are two different issues: (1) the alignment of the roadway which is 
the Commission is being asked to vote today; whether a paired or split roadway. 
• They are carrying forward the alternative that was endorsed by the Board of 
Supervisors. (2) There is, however, room for additional input for the design of the 
plaza. They have been meeting with representatives from the Planning Commission 
and looking at ways to soften the plaza. They want to try to get a direction from the 
City collectively by the end of this year so it can be carried forward. 

ACTION: Commissioner Lee moved approval; Commissioner McCarthy seconded 
the motion. Four of the Commissioners were in favor; Commissioner 
Cook cast the. dissenting vote. The resolution was adopted. 

4. SPECIAL ITEM 

A. Request b y Cnrnmissinner James Herman to make a presentation on carg o. • 

Commissioner Herman stated that this issue was scheduled on his motion for a special 
public meeting so as to allow public input. He then corrected the description of this 
item. The genesis of this Port Commission meeting is as a result of an article that 
was written in a public newspaper. The Examiner, by Commissioner Preston Cook 
and distributed to a civic organization, SPUR, advising the citizens of the City and 
County of San Francisco that the Port of San Francisco is out of the cargo business. 
It was ambiguous and a declaration without authority and completely inaccurate. The 
article urges that the vast, unusable acreage now reserved for cargo should be put to 
fiill productive, and sound economic uses such as a university campus, a biotech 
multimedia industrial park. He understood that it is important to have this hearing 
and make a clarification about some of the premises of Commissioner Cook's 
arguments. We owe it to the citizens of San Francisco who have historically 
supported keeping this Port in the container business and shipping business and other 
maritime industries. Most recently, in 1990, the citizens of San Francisco voted 
Proposition H and it was unequivocal in its declaration as to the requirement that 
there be maritime access on the waterfront. This article urges that the vast, unused 
and unusable acreage now reserve for cargo should be put to productive and sound 
economic uses such as the university and the biotech and industrial park use. It 
violates not only Proposition H but it violates the waterfront plan that approximately 
thirty people diligently worked on for three years in order to offer a program in 
keeping with Proposition H. It defies both of those issues and that is a startling 
happenstance. To begin with, it is ridiculous to propose these types of uses next to 
marine terminals because universities and biotech companies don't need work. Why 
have expectations for that the land addressed in the article, hopefully if we do the 
work we should be doing, we will need that land for maritime purposes. That land, 

M100896.igq -6- 



many years ago, would be a land bank and a good part of the southern waterfront 
would be a land bank and that the northern waterfront, while it wouldn't be written 
off, the real estate from the waterfront would provide income for the changes 
scheduled to take place particularly in that area. There already is ample space for 
these types of uses, elsewhere in the City. This hearing is a result of an obligation to 
repudiate this erroneous argument that can only have a dire result of discouraging 
steamship lines, shippers and maritime tenants from even thinking of coming to our 
great City. This hearing is a result of the representation that cargo has no future at 
the Port is completely wrong. There is a danger of having this argument become a 
self-fulfilling prophecy if we don't meet our obligations to concentrate on maritime 
cargo objectives. He happens to believe that real estate is crucial to this Port. It 
should be cared for, it should be developed, maintained. The rent should be 
appropriate. This argument amounts some proposition that real estate and maritime 
cargo are mutually exclusive. Real estate and maritime have lived amicably together 
for a long time. Clarifying the errors of Commissioner Cook's arguments that are the 
basis of his conclusion that cargo has no hope at this Port is owed to three groups of 
people. The first and foremost to the citizens of San Francisco, who have with 
absolute regularity, with unfailing commitment historically supported keeping this 
Port in the container and other cargo business. Most recently, in 1990, the citizens of 
'San Francisco passed Proposition H, which specifically says in its preamble that the 
land must be reserved for maritime purposes and other particular purposes as well. 
Secondly, we owe a clarification to our existing maritime tenants like Parker 
Warehouse, to newsprint terminal operator at Piers 27/29, the pilots and tugboats 
companies. Foreign Trade Zone operator, ship repair yards and stevedoring 
companies. Many of these companies have been doing business here for decades. 
They have invested in this Port and we don't help their business by creating hysteria 
about this Port pulling out of the cargo business. While the article might not 
explicitly deter that, it is inferentially unavoidable. There are also trucking and 
warehousing companies that operate on Port property that are not our tenants but help 
us enormously to maintain industrial jobs in the City. If we were to shut down this 
Port's cargo terminals, the full impact would not be limited to the southern 
waterfront. At risk are other maritime tenants up and down the waterfront and 
businesses throughout the City. We have already seen evidence of this with the 
relocation of coffee warehouse facilities. He made it clear that he is an admirer of the 
skillful work that has been done at the Port of Oakland and other ports and by 
commenting on them is not intended to be a negative observation in any respect. 
Maritime deals of public ports cannot be evaluated on how much dollars per square 
foot they produce. Certainly, the Port must stay in the black. But equally important 
is the contribution that maritime arrangements produce for the diversity of 
employment in the City like San Francisco where the base of blue collar and other 
work has been diminished drastically. There's a limit to how many people can work 
in boutiques and other shops. Maritune facilities give the residents of this City and 
region other types of employment opportunities. In the article. Commissioner Cook 
suggests closing cargo terminals and at a recent Commission hearing, he has spoken 
against future dredging at Piers 27/29. He advocated relocating the newsprint 
operator to the southern waterfront even though our newsprint operator is completely 
satisfied at Piers 27/29 and cannot and will not be shotgunned out of the facility he 



M100896.igq 



has enjoyed. What Commissioner Cook is advocating is getting rid of a long time 
tenant whether they want to be moved or not. By doing this , we risk losing this 
. tenant to another terminal, probably in another port in the Bay Area. That would be 
shameful. These types of arguments and proposals by Commissioner Cook validate 
the claun that he has a real estate obsession. Albeit Commissioner Cook comes from 
a real estate background, but from his years of the shipping business, he knows that 
you cannot measure the success of marine terminals or cargo warehouses as you do 
office buildings or shopping centers. You cannot just count the dollars per square 
. foot that you generate for the marine terminal to measure its success. To do this, you 
ignore counting the amount of money and jobs produced by other businesses on and 
off Port property. We heard the Director compliment the work force we have on this 
waterfront. In this instance, the longshoremen who provided spectacular productivity 
but there are other workers such as teamsters and seafaring people. There are people 
who provide goods and services. The multiplication effect of a marine terminal is 
incredible but if we reduce it to a buck, it may not look much but he intends to 
effectively repudiate that foolishness. The inference made in Commissioner Cook's 
article that universities, multimedia and industrial parks are "more productive" than 
cargo facilities is highly objectionable to workers who for years have earned a good 
living off maritime business on this waterfront. 

Thirdly, we have a proud obligation to give full clarification to our potential 
customers that they are welcome warmly at this Port as they always have been and 
not write articles for public consumption that transmits anything but a welcome that 
tells them if you are thinking of coming to San Francisco, you are impractical and 
you are not living in the real world. While the article did not use those words, they - 
are his and he believes that is the interpretation that must be given to this article. We 
must provide this assurance beyond words with specific actions that transmit clear 
commitment to cargo at this port. We have an unmistakable mandate from Mayor 
Brown to concentrate on what has always been a primary objective and that is to 
secure the maximum amount of shipping available to this Port. 

Our messages are mixed. Port officials are giving newspaper interviews and speeches 
about doing business in San Francisco. In Commissioner's Cook article, for example, 
he lists eight negative reasons as to why San Francisco cannot compete as a cargo 
Port. Is this a new marketing technique where the leadership of the Port or a leader 
of the Port pretends to lure customers by citing all of those things that are negative or 
alleged to be negative. How may CEOs of major companies run around publicly 
touting all of the shortcomings of their products in the real and imaginary while their 
staff hassles business. This type of marketing is like the chairman of a tobacco 
company running around citing cancer statistics. It seems to him that lately there has 
been a lot of double talking that has gone on in the leadership of this Port and in 
Commissioner Cook's article is full of evidence of this. It is representative on the 
one hand that the Port has a cargo future and on the other hand, articles like the one 
written by Commissioner Cook undermine the confidence of the citizens of San 
Francisco in this Port. That confidence is ongoing. You can go to the bank with that 
declaration. There is no confusion among customers that the Mayor and the 
Commission stood behind the work of our experienced cargo staff who were all on 

M100896.igq -8- 



the same page when it came to bringing new shipping customers and make sure they 
stayed at our Port. We have done more than just talk about profits for public 
relations purposes. We went out and tried to close deals to make a profit for the Port 
and worked hard at building cargo facilities, the kind of cargo facilities that the 
citizens of San Francisco are indeed proud of For example, he had the benefit of 
meetmg of Chairman Chang of the large Evergreen Lme at the Fairmont Hotel where 
a fmn promise was issued for the San Francisco shipping industry. The Port 
committed to Chairman Chang that it would fix the tunnels for its double stacked 
cargo. This was a solid deal offered to him which we reneged on. He is not talking 
about contemporary figures. He is giving examples of some grievous errors that were 
made in the past. When Evergreen Line made that commitment to remain at Pier 94, 
it was a commitment based upon their survey and their skill as to the viability of that 
company being here with the one accommodation that was necessary and it was a 
commitment that we did not live with. We relied on the fact that we would meet our 
commitment to give them the infrastructure that they needed. That commitment 
didn't stop with modernizing Pier 94/96 and building the ICTF. Firing senior cargo 
marketing staff in two rounds of layoffs and reorganizing the Port Maritime staff so 
that cargo operations were no longer in one cohesive maritime division. Like at 
every major port in the country, steamship lines and shippers now have a false image 
with the welcome mat for cargo business in San Francisco has been rolled up. 
Potential customers are reluctant to look at this port seriously. Our cargo revenues 
will continue to decline and unless we reaffirm our commitment to the cargo industry 
and pledge all of us to be on the same team in serious pursuit of cargo. If he 
leadership of this port does not send a clear and unequivocal message that we want 
cargo here, it will be a self-fiilfilling prophecy that is on its way to being accepted in - 
the industry by government and by citizens of this magnificent City, who have never 
failed to support this Port. The Port has always been a great source of pride and 
loyalty. While this Port's cargo business volumes won't be in 1996 what they were 
in 1990 or 1980, there is without a doubt lots of cargo out there to be found that can, 
should and he hopes will come to San Francisco. Cargo volumes continue to grow 
rapidly and at least 5% increase per year is expected over the next few years. Let's 
not forget that this Port is in the middle of the four largest economic regions in the 
country. Evidence of the fact that there was still shipping business for this Pon to 
claim is the return of Serpac, a consortium of three South American lines. Through 
the leadership and intervention of Mayor Brown, our Port docks will once again be 
used to unload cargo from Latin American and that includes wines, fruits and other 
cargoes. 

Before discussing some of the specific issues raised in Commissioner Cook's article, 
he reminded everyone about the process of this Port's shipping terminal. 

He personally toured Pier 80, which is a cargo terminal, where today there is not one 
pound of cargo being handled. He has seen the superior facilities that Pier 80 has to 
offer and have confirmed with shipping industry people who know the business that 
Pier 80 is one of the most outstanding terminals anywhere in the Bay Area. This is a 
70-acre pier with four cranes and 225,000 square feet of shed space available for 
cargo storage for weather sensitive cargo such as lumber coffee and other items that 



M100896.igq 



are perishable. The pier has repair shops and five deep water berths. During the 
Agnos administration, this Port spent over $6 million fixing the terminal. Pier 80 has 
refrigerated cargo spaces, state of the art underground utilities, unproved storage 
areas, easy truck access to the freeways, to the Oakland Bay Bridge. The South 
Container Terminal at Piers 94/96 near Hunter's Point has 75 acres of land reserved 
for future cargo uses. The modem electronic improvements to the entrance gate with 
computers that provide fast cargo receipt and delivery are outstanding. There is over 
185,000 feet of covered shed space, three deep water berths. San Francisco is 
currently one of a few ports with on dock or near dock rail service which allows 
container boxes to be transferred to and from ship to rail. The container does not 
have to leave the terminal to be placed at some distant location onto a rail car. It is 
done at the terminal. He does not know of any other place where that service is that 
available. There are other competitive advantages such as shorter steaming time to 
port. San Francisco is the closest port to the Golden Gate Bridge, allowing ships to 
avoid the long steam time and cost of sailing into Stockton or Sacramento. Our 
terminals are multiple use facilities. They conserve both container and breakbulk 
carriers with the highest degree of efficiency. We have flexible terminal use 
agreements that allow a customer to unload, store and assemble cargo at the terminal. 
The Port of San Francisco has as much shorter rail time for processing cargo than 
more congested terminals elsewhere. In fact, most of the terminals elsewhere are 
confronted with the congestion problem. 

He offered a rebuttal to Commissioner Cook's other arguments. Commissioner Cook 
list eight negative reasons why the Port cannot stay in the cargo business. 

Railheads and geography. The alleged problem that our Port has with rail has 
become bigger than the Ferry Building. Commissioner Cook's comment that there is 
only one railroad serving San Francisco and Oakland has three rail lines. This is 
totally inaccurate. Today, Oakland has one railroad serving its port— the Union 
Pacific. The Union Pacific acquired the Southern Pacific, which has been San 
Francisco's traditional railroad. Therefore, it is indisputable that Oakland and San 
Francisco are served by the same number of railroads. It is served by one railroad — 
Union Pacific in Oakland and Union Pacific in San Francisco. Until Oakland holds 
its JIT (the Joint Intermodal Terminal), it has no direct rail access to the Santa Fe 
railhead in Richmond. Like cargo originating in Richmond, that container box would 
also have to be trucked to Santa Fe's yard in Richmond. If there is such concern over 
this railroad problem, why haven't top level marketing efforts been directed at 
working with Union Pacific prior to and after the merger to ensure that efficient rail 
service to our terminal was maintained and if possible increased. He doesn't think 
that the overtures and discussions to UP at a high level like this Commission used to 
do years ago with SP had in fact taken place. These misrepresentations have a cold 
blooded effect of discouraging shippers and others from coming to this Port because 
the Port has been so badly misrepresented by all of these foolish conversations. 

The next big railroad revelation that has recently preoccupied people here is the 
business about San Francisco cargo taking longer to reach the Midwest than Oakland 
cargo. He's sure everyone here has heard about that argument and everyone has been 

M100896.igq -10- 



deceived by that argument because it is not accurate. According to the argument, it 
would take two days for Union Pacific to take our railcars around the bay through 
Wann Springs to. Oakland where it is assembled with Oakland cargo then hauled out 
to the Midwest. When the tunnel project was shelled, he's heard this article 
repeatedly and it was used to justify the shutting down of the tunnel project with a 
consequential loss of ships and cargo. When the tunnel project was shelled, he 
testified against it. He wasn't successful in changing the minds of people but since 
then he has done some research and has talked to a host of people knowledgeable of 
the shipping business because this argument is troubling when you evaluate the 
consequences. He's learned from the industry expert that there has been a 
fundamental flaw in this argument because it overlooks the logistics of handling 
intermodal container boxes at an ICTF. The whole reason for building the ICTF at 
Piers 94/96 was to avoid having to assemble railcars at the Oakland or Warm Spring 
yards. With a large transpacific carrier like Evergreen or Cosco, there would be 
sufficient boxes to make it worth the railroad's time to assemble the car at the ICTF 
and haul directly from our on dock terminal to the Midwest. The notion about two 
days or four days is hogwash. San Francisco cargo could reach the Midwest in equal 
time to Oakland cargo without any delays. Without the tunnel project, the Port places 
itself in a serious disadvantage in competing aggressively for transpacific lines with 
the volumes to assemble fiill unit trains at the ICTF at Piers 94/96. 

There are still transpacific lines that could and will be persuaded to bring intermodal 
cargo dependent on rail to San Francisco. We have to work on it. We cannot make 
negative declarations and expect that suddenly by magic turn around. In the past, rail 
problem has been overcome by offering discounts on port fees, dockage, crane - 

rentals, wharfage to offset the cost of trucking boxes across the bridge to Oakland 
railhead. Transpacific carriers like Evergreen and Cosco took advantage of these 
discounts and grew their business in San Francisco. Cargo not dependent on any type 
of rail service - local cargo, is another type of cargo that moves through Bay Area 
ports. With the cargo rail, geography is not a problem and San Francisco has 
historically competed very favorably in this market. There will always be small 
carriers looking for local markets. 

Cargo origination - it is argued that San Francisco is at a disadvantage because only 
15-20% of goods manufacmred in the Bay Area originate in this side of the bay and 
San Francisco's manufacturing has diminished over the past several decades to now 
almost nonexistent level. At one time, this Port had 15-20% of the whole Bay Area 
cargo market. We were loading up those cargos from this side of the Bay more. 
Why is this all of a sudden a problem when it was not a problem before when this 
Port was not doing $6 million in cargo business that was just five years ago. He is 
not persuaded that in five years, there has been a massive relocation of 
manufacmring, assembling and distributing firms. This argument is weak because 
truckers travel hundreds of miles from the Central Valley with fruits, vegetables, hay' 
to ports in Oakland and even to the Port of Los Angeles. The argument focuses on 
exports but what imports? There is still a big import market between San Francisco 
and San Jose with brokerage houses and distribution centers in the Peninsula and 
close to the airport. He thinks that the methodology of this in-house report that 

M100896.igq -11- 



« 



reached this conclusion needs to be reviewed more carefully. Niche cargo may be a 
1990s word but there is nothing new about it. Niche cargo is the same cargo that has 
been loaded and off loaded in this Port for over 80 years. Now, we can say that 
instead of working coffee at the docks of this Port as years ago, we worked niche 
cargo. Niche cargo is a catch-all phrase encompassing all cargo available to a Port by 
the existence of its marine terminal storage facilities, rail and/or highway access. For 
example, fruits and vegetables are niche market. For ports like Hueneme, San Diego, 
Philadelphia, Baltimore, who have built up cold storage facilities. All those have also 
become a niche for other ports like Boston, even Los Angeles and Piers 94/96. The 
point is that less time is needed to be spent talking about the niche cargo and more 
time spent going after it in a serious way. Let's put the success stories of Oakland, 
L.A., Long Beach and Seattle aside for one moment and look at the success stories of 
smaller ports that are producing impressive cargo tonnage and keeping workers 
employed at their terminals. Our sister port in the Bay Area, Redwood City, recent 
press reports that cover Redwood City's new success in the shipping business. 
Redwood City is now the fourth largest steel exporter in the country. Redwood City 
will report $1.4 million in revenue from their cargo operation. Redwood City relies 
55 % of their business from scrap metal export to Asia. This year in the ranking of 
small Bay Area ports. Redwood City is behind Stockton and Sacramento in tonnage of 
commodities. He's looked at the cargo moving in and out of Richmond. Beside their 
petroleum business, he's discovered that they are brining an impressive volume of 
meat, vegetables, coffee, beverage, wood and equipment. This year Stockton is 
generating the highest volume of tonnage for the Bay Area. In Central and Southern 
California, Hueneme and San Diego have grown their cold storage business, fruits 
and vegetables. These ports don't just sit idly around. They have sales people. They - 
have people hustling cargo. They have people whose commitment is to b ring ships 
along with a variety of cargo to their respective ports. We have one person at this 
port, Jill Simpson who does an outstanding job for this port. She's out all the time, 
visiting as many people as she can visit. One person employed by this Port to solicit 
cargo, encourage steamship companies to come to this port. This is inexplicable. He 
complimented the work that she has done and confident that the work that she has 
done, with some help, will grow. 

This Port of San Francisco does not have a Maritime Department. It does not have a 
Maritime Director. It has one salesperson, where for 80 years, we have had direction 
from skilled and confident Maritime Directors with a staff of competent people 
regularly hustling cargo with unbelievable success. We now have combined the 
Maritime Department with the Real Estate Department. We have a gentleman, who 
has just been hired, but has no maritime experience. If we think that there is 
something that make sense between real estate and maritime, it is a serious error. 
They are indivisible. Real estate properties of this port needs special attention. He's 
sure from this Director that real estate does get and continue to get that special 
attention and those services will grow but you cannot take a real estate manager and 
tell him that he will direct maritime and provide no back up staff, just simply give lip 
. service to cargo and replace that vital department with empty offices. He takes strong 
and powerful exception to that. How can you talk about growing cargo, about being 
where cargo is, about being where the customers are. It will be tough enough after 

M100896.igq -12- 



the article but how can you sell that bill of goods. We don't have a Maritime 
Manager. We have one salesperson. It is outrageous. To add cargo to this Port, it 
takes staff just like it takes staff to perform the other functions at this Port. That is 
the gaping hole in San Francisco and that was the catalyst for this meeting and we 
would get public input commenting on these things where we know of cargo that is 
available in smaller ports. We know of the success of other ports that have never 
shared the success of this port of San Francisco, where they have people who are 
experienced, performing a steady skilled job and we don't have no one at this Port, 
excepting Jill. The only way it can be dealt with is by a motion that reinstates that 
department that employs a highly skilled, tested, competent, maritime/cargo director 
and appropriate staff. If you put people out on the streets, if you give people 
opportunity to adjust this Port to the cargoes that are available, there will be new jobs 
in the City. There will be new business for business enterprises. All sorts of 
businesses are viable. They make money. They support families. It cannot be done 
in this City. His motion is to reinstate that department. There are people who are 
enlisted who have the ability, who will work with you, who want very badly for this 
Port to be revitalized and urged the Director respectfully that this be done. He also 
urged that these negative articles that create a fundamental contradictions among the 
people who live in this community be stopped. This Port has to have a priority, 
dedication to its maritime. We have demonstrated that the cargo is there. We know 
that it takes us hustling the cargo and not using explanations that are not valid. He 
hopes that people support that proposition and he closed by thanking for their time 
and apologizing for taking more time than he should have. 

Commissioner Hardeman stated that is the longest presentation he has ever heard in -. 
any Commission or Board he's sat on. He also conmiented that he has never saw one 
with more passion and more research done by anyone doing a presentation. 

Commissioner Cook applauds Commissioner Herman for making. his remarks. He 
hopes that they would turn out to be constructive. He hopes that this Port does look 
at the entire issue of cargo and what direction it is going in and what should be done, 
what can be done and what is practical. He thinks it is a tough challenge. His article 
expressed those challenges. He looks at it as a realistic view of the conditions of this 
Port. It is very tough and very difficult. It has not been addressed as he had 
addressed it. It has not been addressed as Commissioner Herman has now addressed. 
This is going to allow for some good dialogue. He'd like to see it and it will 
probably better this Port in knowing what direction to go in. He had a great deal of 
admiration for Commissioner Herman over the years. He is proud of his real estate 
background and he also has a maritime background, serving as the consultant to the 
Senate Maritime Committee for the State of California. Bemg appointed to this 
Commission three and a half years ago, he did not have preconceived notions about 
maritime. He felt it was a maritime port and he acted accordingly. He supports 
maritime all the way along until this year. This Commission has voted every vote to 
support maritime. The only negative vote that has been taken by him was not to 
continually subsidize container cargo. Though this Commission and this Port stand in 
the forefront all of the maritune uses up and down this Port. Most of the maritime 
uses, as we all know, are subsidized. He voted for those subsidies and that should 

M100896.igq -13- 



happen because it benefits this Port, the waterfront and San Francisco. It would be 
difficult and time consuming to try to counter some of the arguments that 
Commissioner Herman made about his article. He stands by his article. He thinks 
they are accurate. They are facmal. They are very direct. They bring up a lot of 
emotion, a lot of anger about these issues on maritune. It's an issue that has been 
fought for many years. We have led a gallant battle over the years to try to maintain 
maritime industry and that is cargo in San Francisco. It has unfortunately been a 
losing battle. He recognized that but he also recognized Commissioner Herman's 
determination to try to do something about it. He would certamly be on board if 
there is a plan that would bring cargo back to this Port. Instead of countering all of 
those issues that Commissioner Herman brought up regarding his article, he submitted 
his two articles (one from the SPUR publication and one from the Examiner) for the 
record, instead of going over point by point the notes he's taken concerning 
Commissioner Herman's remarks. He differed with Commissioner Herman's 
statement that he had no authority to write these articles. He disagrees with that. 
Commissioner Herman is a very independent person. He has had opportunities in the 
past to go around this Commission. He feels that he went around this Commission by 
writing this article. He is an individual and like all of us, we all have a right for 
freedom of speech. He has written this article and if he is so inclined, he will write 
another article. He will be forthright as he has been for three and a half years on this 
Commission about his views on what should be done. For that matter, he disagreed 
with Commissioner Herman and he would never tell him not to write an article and 
would never tell him not to speak on issues he feels are important. He will always 
allow him that courtesy and he hopes he would do the same thing for him. 

• Walter Johnson, S.F. Labor Council, agreed with Commissioner Herman's 
remarks. What Commissioner Herman was touching upon is the life of San 
Francisco, not only the Port. He represents 75,000 union members in the City. 
The job, the system and all the things involved, the Port has a golden opportunity 
if it follows Commissioner Herman remarks to begin the change and bring a new 
life not only to the Port but to the City of San Francisco. 

• Christopher Martin, The Cannery, stated that he's been involved with Port 
related matters since the late 1970s when he was president of the Fisherman's 
Wharf Association. He also co-chaired various Port task forces over the years. 
He was an active supporter of the successful passage of the 1994 Revenue Bond 
Measure which provided the Port with $42 million for maritime related 
improvements. He has heard and it disturbed him when he hears that someone 
from the Port authorized soil testing for a Home Depot at Pier 80. Virtually 
every land use document over the past 30 years has reserved Pier 80 for cargo 
shipping and its future expansion. The ink is not yet dry on the waterfront land 
use plan and someone at the Port is rurming counter to the land use policies that it 
establishes. They had a similar manipulation of Commission policy of 
Fisherman's Wharf within the past two years when someone at the Port 
redirected federal funds which were provided for the purpose of analyzing the 
feasibility of a fisheries research center on Pier 45 to instead investigate the 
feasibility of a shopping center. It's important to understand the genesis of 

M100896.igq -14- 



Proposition H which stem from the public mistrust of the Port's land use policies. 
Prop H passed because of the widespread public sentiment that passed policy 
decisions by the Port adversely affected maritime uses. The voters have 
mandated that the Port's land use decisions be consistent with the vision to 
protect and foster maritime as well as recreational activities on the waterfront for 
fumre generations to enjoy. Shutting down the cargo marketing and development 
department, encouraging a home depot at the premier cargo handling facility is 
counter to the intent and spirit of Prop H. If the Port continues to ignore the 
voter mandate, there will be other ballot initiatives to direct policies and 
decisions. Planning by the initiative process is tedious and ctmibersome. If the 
Port continues to run counter to the grain, evading common sense decisions and 
making consistent policy decisions, it would be inevitable. He urged the 
Commission to adopt the actions that Commissioner Herman recommends today 
and reestablish San Francisco's future with cargo. 

• Brian Mc Williams, President ILWU, reiterated the importance of maritime cargo 
and maritime presence at the Port. He too has participated in a number of port 
committees. On the Port's behalf, the Port is an unattainable position because 
they are constantly held accountable for the bottom line of the Ports budget and 
the Port does not have the ability to levy taxes. The impact that industrial jobs 
that this Port can create is incredible. There is no system that allows the Port to 
get credit for the impact they had on the community. It is unfair so many of the 
decisions have made over the years have been to address just that bottom line and 
not the ripple effect that happens to the community based on the actions of the 
Port. He indicated there is no question that the cargo volumes are there and will - 
continue to be there and we can attract those back to San Francisco if we do it the 
right way. The issue of any kind of combination of maritime and real estate 
being represented by the same department is ludicrous. They are juxtaposed in 
their whole missions. The maritime resource has the potential always to create 
jobs and create maritime cargo opportunities. Once it's gone, it's gone forever. 
We have a wonderful resource and we need to maintain it. An independent 
maritime department inside the Port is vital to our ability to build cargo fumres. 

• Jane Morrison, Waterfront Plan Advisory Board and San Francisco Tomorrow, 
stated that everybody wants more shipping, ferryboats, water taxis, boat harbors 
and tugboats; whatever makes the waterfront looks alive and they urgently want 
more open space and more access to the waterfront. She recognizes it's difficult 
but she hopes that the Port continues to make maximum effort to increase the 
shipping and other uses of the water. She thinks it's great of what's happening 
with fishing and hopes that there is the same intensity for cargo and other water 
uses. The City needs a lot of good paying jobs here. She doesn't think that all 
cargoes go to the Midwest. A lot of cargo could come to San Francisco and it 
can be distributed here. We ought to. concentrate on the railroad service and try 
to get better railway service in San Francisco. Let's keep the waterfront open. 

• Sara Anne Towery, a Port Planning consultant with Jordan Woodman Dobson, 

; .. stated that they have recently done the operating plans for all the major container 

M100896.igq -15- 



terminals on the West Coast and many international terminals. They know what 
the steamship lines want because they are their clients along with all the major 
terminal operators and stevedoring companies. They see this as less a marketing 
issue than the fact that the 1990s market has changed. The issue is service and 
cost. The fastest way to get the cargo from the ship to the rail and the truck and 
speed it on its way to the shipper is what is important to their clients. Time is 
money for each of the participant in this cargo chain. The market has changed. 
Now it's containers going to larger areas and being shipped inland. One of their 
clients mentioned that transportation infrastructure is the #1 criteria. She quoted 
her client, "Free and unrestricted access for ships, trucks, rail and all of that 
traffic to the hinterlands and to the region is what is critical. If they designed the 
fastest, most productive container terminal in the whole world, there is a problem 
when that container box leaves the terminal." The vast majority of the cargo 
destinations are east of San Francisco bay. The other impact that needs to be 
addressed is San Francisco's traffic. Even with the double stack tunnel, making 
up a train in San Francisco is slower. Time is money. Location is still important 
with real estate and shipping. San Francisco's location adds time and cost that 
the clients don't want. There are niche markets out there. Niche markets can be 
accessed and marketed. San Francisco was chosen as the number one travel 
destination for tourists in the U.S. and the number 2 favorite travel city in the 
world. The Port of Vancouver has been having tremendous success with cruise 
terminals. She suggested looking at the cruise ship terminals. She congramlated 
the fishing efforts put forth at the Port. 

• Gunnar Lundeberg, Sailors Union of the Pacific, signed up to speak but left. 

• Barry Binsky, IBU-ILWU Member, stated he has seen a lot of changes since the 
1960s. They've heard a lot of talk of losing the fight for the waterfront. He 
doesn't know if the fight was lost or we just threw the towel in on a lot of things. 
The thinking was we could ship all of that to Oakland, they'd get the real work 
and we'd end up the boutiques and the tourists. We could have ended up with 
the boutiques, the tourists and the waterfront, maybe not the world's massive 
container terminal but certainly something that would sustain life and a living to 
the citizens of San Francisco. You see a resource that almost anyone in the 
world would do anything for, in terms of a cargo port. Somehow it has always 
been outside of our grasp. What he's seen happen in San Francisco really started 
at the Port and worked its way inland. He gave his greatest hopes to 
Commissioner Herman that there can be a separate department or a forum where 
we can look at what the market is for the port and what can we do with the port. 

• Mike Comaich, from Diamond Freight System, stated that he's argued a lot of 
points with the Commission and lost them all. He agreed with Commissioner 
Herman's remarks. 

• Edward Lortz, representing self, stated that he's been on the maritime industry 
for over 30 years. He had been involved in ship operation, maintenance, design 
and construction until taking early retirement recently. His remarks were 

M10b896.igq -16- 



directed at container cargo, distinct from niche cargo. He thought that it's best to 
answer by reading a summary of his position in a letter he published in the 
Examiner, March 10, 1995. His letter reads, "My experience prompts me to 
comment on the editorial concerning the enlarging of the Bayview District 
Railroad Tunnels. The Port Commission absolutely made the correct decision in 
canceling plans for the mnnels. The Port of San Francisco should not compete 
with the Port of Oakland as a container port. Any attempt to increase our 
container capability simply ignores the logistics of the bay area. We are a City 
surrounded by water and congested bridges. Oakland is a natoral for container 
handling logistics. Money spent in trying to upgrade container facilities in San 
Francisco is a waste. A port propositioned in the current financial picture. The 
two ports must compete as a team with the rest of the West Coast. Anything else 
is suicidal for the whole bay area as a maritime economic entity. San Francisco 
should concentrate on passenger service, ship repair and fishing. The new 
Waterfront Land Use Plan has many good suggestions." In looking over other 
resources of information, he strongly agrees with the points made by 
Commissioner Cook and backed up by SPUR including railroads, geography, 
cargo origination and high cost of competition. With the natural disadvantages of 
San Francisco as a container port, we shouldn't compete and competition will get 
hotter. Asian trade is shifting from Japan to north Asia, which was 75 % of the 
Asian container cargo five years ago, to Singapore and southeast Asia as a " 
source, which now accounts for 40%, up from 25% in the same five-year time 
frame. Twenty percent of all these southeast Asian trades now go to the East 
Coast because it is faster by as much as two days. The new longshoremen's 
contract does not help either. The new West Coast contract is two years shorter, - 
more expensive and more restrictive than the new East Coast contract. To 
summarize, the greater retom on investment and greater increase from jobs will 
come from niche cargo, passenger ships, fishing boats, ship repair, maritime uses 
and other uses outlined in the Waterfront Plan. He added that he supports 
Commissioner Herman's suggestion to solicit niche and non-container within the 
existing, logistics realities of today. 

• Glen Ramiskey, representative of the ILWU, West Coast Dock Workers, 
applauds Commissioner Herman for raising this issue and bringing it to the 
attention the Commission and the conmiunity. He found the articles and the 
representations by Conunissioner Cook to be bankrupt. What this Commission 
needs to do is provide a vehicle for dialogue to bring this issue to the forefront 
and get the Port of San Francisco back in the maritime industry. 

• Graham Claytor, Senior Vice President for RailAmerica, Inc., a railroad holding 
company and intermodal operating company as well stated that one of the 
questions that has been asked was what happened to all the ships, what happened 
to the Port. It should be very obvious that what has happened is we stopped 
using steam power vessels and we stopped shipping everything on pelletized 
containers, we moved to boxes where tiie cargo can be moved expeditiously. We 
have some 80 piers headed this way and 35 of these piers are designed for 
handling these breakbuUc cargos and so what sorts of maritime use are we going 

M100896.igq -17- 



to put these piers to - we have paper handling in one, passenger tenninal, tugboat 
operators in one and fishing companies. For the rest of these piers, they sit 
empty because we can't fmd the maritime use for them. The Port does have 
excellent maritime facilities and they have done an excellent job in collecting 
customers and using these facilities. But for the rotting piers that we have that 
we need to maintain and the Port has to spend money on, those we need to 
address. Certainly, we give first preference to maritime use where we can find 
it, where we can attract it. But if we can't, we got to have some income, or these 
piers will just simply fall into the ocean. If we don't do something to generate 
some income to support these buildings, there won't be any buildings left to 
argue about. 

• Jennifer Clary, on the Waterfront Committee of San Francisco Tomorrow stated 
that she disagrees with Conmiissioner Cook's article and Op Ed piece in the 
Examiner. The Waterfront Land Use Plan and the EIR that was published in 
May on that plan also voice the same sentiments by Port staff. She suggested 
changing our attitudes and accentuate the positive. 

• Nan Roth, who served on the Waterfront Advisory Board, addressed two issues: 
(1) while she was on the Waterfront Plan Advisory Board, the Port had a 
workshop to study future demand for cargo facility in San Francisco, she didn't ' 
think any of the Port Commissioners were in attendance at the workshop. There 
were similar types of events held for the WFAB, although former Commissioner 
Halsted attend some of those events, rarely did any of the Commissioners 
attended them. At the workshop, everybody representing the cargo handling 
industry said there would be a significant demand for San Francisco's Port 
facilities in the future. The conclusions of that work shop should be made 
available to this Commission. What it boiled down to was there was goins to be 
an incredible increase in shipping in the near future. The Port facilities that open 
would soon prove inadequate and given the disadvantages of the other potential 
port sites in the bay area, the San Francisco Port site was the most desirable, next 
to Oakland, despite the railroad problems which could be ironed out. (2) She 
feels that the critical issue within the Port management is the competition between 
real estate, maritime, fishing and cargo handling functions. If you look back at 
the history of Pier 45 and after a very checkered history, it is today a very 
successful handling facility. The Port and others who worked so hard for that 
facility deserved commendation for finally having achieved that. Nonetheless, 
there were many meetings like this one where there were people testifying there 

is going to be a need for this facility. All of these things go in cycles; they do 
come back. The fish came back, the cargo handlers came back because this is the 
location where they want to be and this is where their market was. She hopes 
that the Port is going to expand that facility and there will be more business. 

• William Hallett, affiliated with the ILWU, stated that the ports of Long Beach 
and Long Angeles are expanding. The cities are building new railroads; they 
have the Alameda corridor. They are tearing down a naval base that is abandoned 
to accommodate a container facility. The work is booming; the City is booming. 

M100896.igq • * -18- 



He was curious of what happened to San Francisco. 

William Underwood, represents the Pacific Islanders Cultural Association, the 
Port's present tenant at Pier 29. They have been asked to move to Pier 26 
because it is going to be retrofitted but now he hears that someone had planned to 
dredge it. He would like a clarification on this matter. He also requested a 
clarification as to why they were told to put up $10,000 to hold an event at Pier 
45. Mr. Bouey suggested that Mr. Underwood meet with Mr. Lewis, Director of 
Tenant and Maritime Services, on these issues. 

• Fred Pecker, with the ILWU, stated that we need to look at what having a 
working waterfront means and to ensure that we maintain this as a viable City for 
all people. He looks forward to the Commission's getting back on track and start 
bringing the tonnage back onto the piers. 

• Marina Secchitano, is a member of Waterfront Advisory Committee and an 
employee at the Golden Gate Ferry, stated that she is in favor of Commissioner 
Herman's motion and thinks that it is important that the Commission rededicate 
itself on a monthly basis to maritime. The Committee spent a long time trying to 
identify the areas they felt should be kept for maritime. She suggested that we do 
everything possible to encourage any kind of maritime activity. She's saddened 
by the Commission's decision to return the funding back to the State on the 
tunnel project. She suggested keeping maritime a priority. 

• N. Teresa Rea, Co-Chair of SPUR Waterfront Committee submitted the 
following written comments for the record: 

1) SPUR strongly supports the Waterfront Plan. 

2) SPUR supports the plan for non-maritime uses north of China Basin 
Channel. 

3) SPUR recognizes there are maritime uses north of the channel now and 
recognizes their right to stay but SPUR believes in the future maritime uses 
should be consolidated south of the channel. 

4) SPUR supports the allocation of land for maritime uses south of the channel. 
If the Port and Waterfront Advisory Committee in then: plan believe that the 
allocated amount of land is needed for San Francisco's shipping future, 
SPUR will support that. 

5) SPUR believes that the Port Director's ongoing efforts and the Waterfront 
Plan represent the appropriate balanced approach to the use of these valuable 
resources. , 

• Dennis Andrade, Bay Merchants Warehouse and Deans Services provided the 
following written comments for the record: "I support Mr. Herman's position. 
Where other ports have blossomed, my business indeed has shrunk due to the 
lack of concern and drive by the Port of San Francisco. I do personally witness 
the aggressiveness of the Southern/Northern based ports. Many companies like 

' mine have closed up or shrunk down to dribbles. Along with the loss of 

M100896.igq -19- • ' 



, t 



businesses in San Francisco that support the port, also go many jobs, facilities 
and a future in this industry for our young." 

Conunissioner McCarthy stated that she has spent the last ten years working on 
various efforts on the northern waterfront and planning issues including the 
Waterfront Plan. The issue of maritime is near and dear to her. She is begmning to 
learn more about the operations of the Port and is concerned about cargo. About a 
month ago, the Commission, except Commissioner Cook, voted to again subsidize 
shippmg in the amount of $750,000, which at the time, is the right thing to do. 
However it seemed it made sense to look at what was happening with cargo before we 
were in that position a year from now. She has spoken with the Executive Director 
and the Marketing department that there is a perception in the City and everybody 
who testified today agrees with that perception or feels that perception exists that this 
Port is no longer in the cargo business. We have to take changes and positive steps to 
change that perception. The Port has always intended and remains in the cargo 
business but this notion of the perception is very important. No matter what you do if 
the perception still remains, you have not in fact done enough. She had hesitations 
and was not certam where this hearing is headed and had spoken to Commissioner 
Herman about it. However, she is pleased that it took the form that it has and it is 
healthy and good that it is out in the open since people are talking about it. She 
believes that at least one step we can take to change this perception is to make certain 
that we do have an aggressive, dedicated cargo/sales marketing staff. She believes 
that we should not continue to subsidize if we are not giving our all to bringing in 
more cargo/maritime business. She is not prepared to support a plan that will move 
people around. She thanked the speakers for coming. This sends a message that 
there is real support from all sides. 

Commissioner Lee stated that this is the most mteresting Commission meeting he has 
ever attended in his two and a half year term. He thinks this is a very healthy 
discussion. He is saddened that there is a public perception that Port is not doing 
enough in maritime and cargo as well as everything else. This is a tough position to 
be in because the Port tries to juggle public demands while, at the same time, the Port 
only has limited resource. He agreed with Commissioner Herman that 
cargo/maritime, real estate leasing are not mutually exclusive. He is disturbed that 
there is a public perception that staff is not doing anything. Whatever staff does, the 
public does not seem to appreciate it. 

To give credit to staff. Commissioner Lee then gave a presentation on the Port's 
history since he joined the Port Commission two and a half years ago. In one year, 
the Port lost $3.5 million; the following year, the Port gained back $1.9 million. The 
first year he joined the Port, the Port's income has gone up. In 1990, cargo revenue 
was $10 million; however, it declined every year since. Around the time he became a 
Commissioner, Cosco and Evergreen decided to leave San Francisco for Oakland. 
Under Dennis Bouey's direction, he combined the maritime and the leasing 
department which, in the past, the two departments were going after the same 
business or ignoring the same business. . By combining the two departments, the 
commercial leases have gone up. Because the staff was more aggressive with leasing, 

M100896.igq -20- 



there was a perception that staff forgot about cargo but in reality there was no cargo 
coming to San Francisco. The commercial leasing revenues made up for the cargo 
revenue we lost, which put the Port in the black. Maritime refers to all activities 
happening in the waterfront related to water. All activities in the maritime are up 
except cargo. Ferry service is up. Commissioner Herman inquired about the 
significance of ferry passenger service to the Port. Commissioner Lee responded that 
we provide a service to the region. Commissioner Herman argued that the income 
from ferry service does not come to the Port. Commissioner Lee countered that we 
charge them rent. Mr. Bouey interjected that the chart depicts the increase in the 
number of ferry service passengers, not income. Mr. Bouey clarified that the Port is 
supports and encourages ferry service and encourages that type of mode of 
transportation. It's a business we run on a break-even basis and we're in the process 
of designing a whole new facility to accommodate even more traffic. If anything 
happens to Treasure Island, the Port of San Francisco would already have its part in 
place so that the City can benefit from the transition of that property to the City and 
County of San Francisco. Commissioner Lee added that one of the Port's mission is . 
to provide waterfront services to the people using the Port. Commissioner Herman 
again raised his concern about cargo and stated that the issue on ferry service is 
irrelevant. Commissioner Lee disagreed with Commissioner Herman's assertion that 
ferry service is irrelevant. Commissioner Lee pointed out that the Port supports aU 
maritime. 

Commissioner Lee stated that the fishing industry is booming with the newly 
renovated Pier 45 facility and cruise business is up, with approximately 50 cruise ship 
calls at the Port of San Francisco. In 1994, we cut staff and trimmed our expenses. - 
The total revenue divided by Port staff is $160,000 per person, reflective of a more 
efficient department. Commissioner Herman argued to the contrary. Commissioner 
Lee then talked about the Port's debt coverage ratio. Commissioner Lee summarized 
that it was difficult to juggle all the different demands. He added that the Port is very 
healthy, it's on the right track. A lot of people worked hard for many years on the 
Waterfront Land Use Plan. He then quoted a paragraph on the Plan, "In addition, 
marketing will be directed to what smaller shipping line would serve the regional 
market and do not necessary carry ships to rail intermodal cargo." The Port is 
pursuing niche cargo. 

Commissioner Lee concluded that he grew up in a maritime family. He supports 
maritime, especially cargo. He also supports a sensible development along the 
waterfront, guided by a recommendation by the Waterfront Plan Advisory Board. 
Before a decision is made, he suggested consulting the Waterfront Plan to see what 
the people and the Advisory Board recommend. Commissioner Lee commended Jill 
Simpson for all her efforts in bringing Serpac to the Port of San Francisco. 

Commissioner Herman reiterated his desire to reinstate the maritime department, hire 
a skilled, experienced, competent maritime director and hire staff as appropriate. The 
Port has combined real estate and maritime; while they are not mumally exclusive, 
they are not compatible. 



M100896.igq -21- 



Executive Director Bouey stated that he and Commissioner Herman had a number of 
conversations in the last few weeks. They both agree on the goal but differ on the 
process. He has been committed to cargo since his arrival at the Port. The Port at 
that time was on the brink of bankruptcy and a number of actions had to be taken to 
turn it around. In answer to Commissioner Herman's question, the Port used to have 
a maritime manager and three salesmen for cargo. The Port now has one and a half 
and have defmed the target niarket. There have been a great number of changes since 
1980. In 1984, the Shipping Act passed which allowed among other things, for 
consortiums to form. Where ports normally have 15 customers, they might only have 
three or four now because three or four lines have formed a consortium. As a result 
of that, in the past, when a shipper miss putting cargo on a ship, he may have to wait 
a week to catch the next ship. But with a consortium, you might miss one on Monday 
but you can get another member of the consortium on Tuesday or Wednesday and 
ship your cargo here. The outfall is that the industry became more effective and there 
has been a decline in the number of shipping lines calling on the West Coast. In fact, 
since 1988 to 1995, there are 25 fewer shipping lines calling on the West Coast. 

In answer Commissioner Herman's question on why real estate and maritime are in 
the same department, Mr. Bouey indicated that there was conflict between them when 
separate and, as a result, the Port lost a number of prospects. By merging and having 
them under one person, we were able to get rid of that conflict and were able to 
increase revenue; revenue that we now plow back into our infrastrucmre and to 
subsidize maritime. The Port is subsidizing cargo in the amount of $750,000, ship 
repair ($500,000) as well as cruise ships and the fishing industry. As Commissioner 
Herman knows, he is supportive of hiring a maritime manager. At the same time, he 
echoed Commissioner Herman's sentiments that Jill Simpson and Peter Dailey have 
done a terrific job. When he started at the Port in 1994, the Port has already lost 
Cosco and Evergreen, in his first week here, advised that they were not going to 
renew their contract. 

He responded to Conmiissioner Herman's comment on CEO's touting the Port's 
shortcomings. He pointed out that we do not touting our shortcomings. However, 
when people ask why are we not like Oakland, we explain the obstacles that we face. 
About ten months ago, the Port changed cargo strategy. Jill Simpson has just brought 
the first dividend of that strategy through Serpac. Staff is again working on a few 
other shipping lines and he hopes to report that we will have more in the near future. 
We try to accentuate the positive. We have never said we have bad maritime 
facilities, in fact, we advertise the opposite. The Port is selling a first class operation 
in conjunction with SSA as evidenced by last weekend's Serpac mmaround. We 
refocused our targets, instead of going after transpacific intermodal shippers, we have 
now pursue lines that we can better serve, which will ironically make more money for 
the Port and create more jobs. 

He also addressed Commissioner Herman's comment that the commitment to the 
tunnel was withdrawn. He stressed that was absolutely, unequivocally wrong. Port 
staff has made several commitments to Evergreen to create the capability for double 
stacked the tunnels. When Evergreen indicated that they would not be renewing the 

M 100896. igq -22- 



contract, he probed as to why, they indicated the rail service took so long to move 
cargo to the other side; and most of the cargo is ahready located on the other side of 
the Bay. They did mention the failed commitment. In an effort to try to keep them, 
the Port moved ahead and designed the mnnel project. He spent over $700,000 at a 
time when the Port was on the brink of bankruptcy to demonstrate to Evergreen the 
Port's commitment to them that we could deliver. They said, "Don't build it for us." 
When they served us notice that they would be leaving San Francisco, then and only 
then did he not build the mnnel project. The reason the mnnel project was not built 
was that it did not solve the fundamental problem of the length of time it takes our 
cargo to get to the other side of the bay. Staff has also offered trucking equalization 
rates. Staff has offered shippers subsidies to equalize trucking costs between San 
Francisco and Oakland. 

In response to Commissioner Herman's comment on the cargo market ten years ago, 
he stated that despite the downtrend of cargo over the last five or six years, even ten 
years ago, we only held two percent of the West Coast's market share. Today, we 
hold about one percent. We hope to build it back up but we weren't a power ten 
years ago. What we've tried to do with the refocused marketing strategy is to bring 
more business to the Port of San Francisco and provide a basis of creating not only 
jobs in the longshore and those industries directly associated with cargo but all 
support businesses as well. 

In response to Commissioner Herman's comment on no effort being made to hold 
discussions with Union Pacific, staff, the day after the merger, sent a letter and 
followed up with phone conversations asking for those meetings he speaks of. Staff 
would like to improve rail service at the Port. Staff is not sitting around waiting for 
things to happen. Staff is out there trying. As Commissioner Lee indicated, all of 
our maritime businesses are up except cargo and staff is working as hard as it can. 
The Land Use Plan reserves 66 and two thirds for maritime. Staff will meet that 
commitment. With regard to Jane Morrison's comment on open space, staff is 
already in a dialog with BCDC and Save the Bay to develop a public access plan, and 
created a technical advisory committee to develop a design guideline. He concluded 
that if the Port wants to play in the big leagues in the cargo game it takes a lot of 
money. As one of the speakers mentioned, Long Beach and L.A. are spending 
billions of dollars for the Alameda corridor to make freight movements easier in 
Southern California. Oakland, even though its cargo is growing, it's West Coast 
market share has gone down each of the last four years. While those ports are 
investing in this market billions of dollars, this Port's annual budget is only $33 
million. It is tough to compete which is yet again another reason for our refocused 
maritime strategy. 

He stated that Christopher Martin's commients about Home Depot and a shopping 
center at Pier 45 were wrong. A consultant performing a study on Pier 45, analyze 
different alternatives. One of the alternatives included 40,000 square feet of retail 
• space as part of a larger fishing oriented project. Port staff rejected that alternative. 
It was never our intent to open a shopping mall and it is disingenuous for Mr. Martin 
to raise it as an issue. Port staff over the last two and a half years, have done a 

M100896.igq -23- 



wonderful job, they pitched in under the most of difficult circumstances. 

Commissioner Herman stated that it's the first time he's heard that Mr. Bouey 
canceled the maritime department because there was in-house fighting. Because 
people could not agree, the two departments were collapsed into one another, neither 
of which was compatible. Mr. Bouey replied that Commissioner Herman was at the 
Commission when the reorganization was done. Conmiissioner Herman believed that 
he was not on the Commission at the time. 

Commissioner Herman stated that the niche cargo that exists in every port has always 
been a fact of life. The fact of the matter is the port never went after it. Mr. Bouey 
replied that the Port's refocused strategy is now to go after niche cargo and 
intermodal container cargo. 

Commissioner Herman reiterated his motion to reinstate the maritime department with 
a maritime director. If there is no maritime department that is a declaration that we 
are giving lip service to cargo. 

Commissioner Lee made a suggestion that a committee be formed to work with staff 
and the Executive Director and report back to the Conmiission with a plan. A 
discussion between the two Commissioners ensued. Commissioner Hardeman 
interjected and reiterated Commissioner Lee's recommendation of having two 
Commissioners do research on the feasibility of Commissioner Herman's desire to 
have a maritime director. With Commissioner Herman's approval. Commissioner 
Hardeman appointed Commissioner McCarthy and himself to work with staff to 
work out a resolution to be presented at the next Conmiission meeting. 

5. TENANT & MARITIME SERVICES 

6. FACILITIES & OPERATIONS 

7. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 

A. A pproval of contract amendment for Simon, Martin-Vegi ie, Winkle stein, Mnri<; for 
graphic design and planning commu nication materi als for the Waterfrnnt Plan. 
(Resolution No. 96-96) 

ACTION: Commissioner Cook moved approval; Commissioner McCarthy 

seconded the motion. All of the Commissioners were in favor; the 
resolution was adopted. 

8. ADMINISTRATION 

9. CONSENT CALENDAR 

A. Approval of travel anthnri7;^t^o n for one Port rep resentative to he a panelist at an 
event sponsored by the New York Maritime I^w Associat ion (New York City, 

Ml(X)896.igq -24- 



nrtnher 17-18 1QQ6) and tn s peak at an e vent sponsored by MASSPORT for travel 
and maritiTTie leaders on dnmesti c cruise iti nerari es rBosto n. Oc t ober 1 6 . 1 996) . i n 
arrnrdanr.e with the Port's Fiscal Yea r 1996-97 bu dgL et . (R esol ution No. 104) 

ACTION: Commissioner Cook moved approval; Commissioner McCarthy 

seconded the motion. All of the Commissioners were in favor; the 
resolution was adopted, 

10. NEW BUSINESS / PUBLIC COMMENT 

Jacob Shin from Asian, Inc. read a letter from Aileen Hernandez which states "The 
Coalition for Economic Equity hereby requests the Port Commission to schedule a fall 
discussion of its leasing policy and its application to the utilization of MAVBEs as soon as 
possible. Members of the Coalition would like to be present for that discussion to indicate 
our concerns about the failure of the Port staff to implement a program that would result 
in the participation of MAVBEs in Port leases and in renovation work related to existing 
leaseholds. Please notify us when the meeting is scheduled." 

Mr. Bouey replied that according to the City Attorney Section 12D does not apply to 
leases but he agreed to meet with representatives of the coalition to listen and address their 
concerns. 

Commissioner McCarthy commented that she, too, has questions regarding the Grand 
Jury Report. She requested the Executive Director to report back after his meeting with 
the Coalition and she'll follow up with her concerns at that time. 

Mr. Romulus Asenlod, Business Director of Asian Inc. spoke on behalf of Harold Yee, 
President of Asian, Inc. He read a letter from Mr. Yee concerning the Port of San 
Francisco Waterfront Land Use Plan and Affirmative Action Policies which states, "We 
are all aware of the differences in opinion between the Grand Jury (in its findings 
regarding the Port of San Francisco's performance in (i) working with the Human Rights 
Conmiission and (ii) its contracting practices with respect to the City's Affirmative Action 
Requirements) and the statement issued by the former Human Rights Director, Mr. Ed 
Lee, in support of the Port in his response to the Grand Jury's findings. 

These conflicting verbal statements are non-constructive and will not lead to a 
comprehensive solution of providing access for MBEs to the many businesses (i.e. 
leasing) and public contract oppominities that the Port has to offer. 

What is needed in order to move forward is quantitative data on the Port's performance in 
specific busmess industries. This would allow the Port to make management decisions on 
exactly how it intends to insure inclusion of MBEs in the respective bidding processes, 
and provide the Commission with concrete evidence of progress and monitoring. 

In order to provide a tracking system through which Port management would be in a 
better position to document the need for better minority participation and narrowly tailor 
efforts in providing better access for MBEs to participate in the Port's economy. 

M100896.igq -25- 



More importantly, in accordance to the 12D Ordinance, the Port of San Francisco must 
take responsibility for attainment of goals, with HRC monitoring and assisting for the 
City." 

Commissioner Lee stated that he belongs to Asian Architect and Engineers, a sister group 
of Asian, Inc, He stated that the Port actually made a conscious decision earlier last year. 
The Commission approved a resolution for MBEAVBEs participation in leasing in Port 
property. At the time, Mr. Bouey was going to implement it but the Board of Supervisors 
halted the process in implementing this plan because a study has not been done. The Port 
identified and approved a firm to perform the study and went to Civil Service for 
processing and it was at that point, the Board of Supervisors stepped in and requested 
HRC to perform a City wide project and the Port agreed to participate financially. HRC, 
thus far, has not implemented it. 

Commissioner McCarthy suggested looking at both areas, leases as well as construction. 
Commissioner reiterated that the Port is in compliance with Sections 12C and 12D. 

Jane Morrison commented that the Waterfront Plan Advisory Board unanimously agreed 
that an affirmative action is implemented and that the Port includes and reaches out to the 
City's diverse minority groups. Mr. Bouey replied that the Port's overall goals exceed all 
the City goals. 

11. EXECUTIVE SESSION 

At 7:45 p.m., the Commission Secretary announced that the Commission will withdraw to' 
executive session to discuss the following: 

A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTL\TOR - This session is 
closed to any non-City /Port representative. * 

1) Property: Port property located at Berry Street and Second Street (China Basin). 
Person Negotiating: Port representative: Dennis P. Bouey, Executive Director 
*San Fr ancisco Giant s Representative: Larry Baer, Executive Vice President 

Under Negotiation: Price Terms of Payment /_ Both 

An executive session has been calendared to discuss real property negotiations 
between the Port and San Francisco Giants, regarding the proposed ballpark. 
This is specifically authorized under California Government Code Section 
54956.8. 

At 8:25 p.m., Commissioners Hardeman, Lee, Cook, Herman and McCarthy returned 
from executive session and convened in public session. 

ACTION: Commissioner Lee moved approval to not disclose any information discussed 
in the executive session; Commissioner Cook seconded the motion. All of 
the Commissioners were in favor. 
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. 

M100896.igq -26- 



JSAN FRANCISCO 
y PORT COMMISSION 



4:00 P.M., TUESDAY ^OCTOBER 22, 1990 
gS' FERRY BUILDING, SUITE 3100 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 

1. ROLL CALL 



AGENDA 



DOCUMENTS DE!^*^. 



OCT 1 1996 

SAN FRAMCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 8, 1996 

3. EXECUTIVE 

. A. Executive Director's Report 

B. Presentation and review of Urban Design Concepts for the Mid-Embarcadero 
Roadway Project (Information Only). 

4. LEGISLATIVE 

5. TENANT & MARITIME SERVICES 

A. Approval of Marine Terminal Agreement for Madrigal-Wan Hai Lines for use of Pier 
94/96. (Resolution No. 96-111) 

6. FACILITIES & OPERATIONS 

A. Fisherman's Wharf Lighting, informational presentation and authorization to advertise 
for bids for Construction Contract No. 2631, "Fisherman's Wharf Lighting 
Improvements, Phase I." (Resolution No. 96-106) 

B. Authorization to award Contract No. 2632 "Pier 68 Shipyard Cranes Improvements" 
to Sheedy Drayage Company. (Resolution No. 96-108) 

7. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 

A. Approval of final concepmal design for Pier 52 Public Boat Launch, Cafe, Bait and 
Tackle Shop and endorsement of preparation of construction documents. (Resolution 
No. 96-107) 

8. ADMINISTRATION 



A102296.igq 



I 



I 



9. SPECIAL ITEM 

A. Port Commission Subcommittee's Recommendation on Cargo and Marine Terminals 
Organization. (Resolution No. 96-105) 

10. CONSENT CALENDAR 

A. Approval for one Port representative to travel to the 10th Annual International 
Awards Program of the Waterfront Center in Boston Mass. in accordance with the 
Port's Fiscal Year 1996-97 budget. (Resolution No. 96-109) 

B. Approval of Ground Lease Attornment and Nondisturbance Agreement between Port, 
Clip Clop ni Partners, Ltd. and proposed tenant of Francisco Bay Office Park (SWL 
315,316,317). (Resolution No. 96-110) 

11. NEW BUSINESS / PUBLIC COMMENT 

12. EXECUTIVE SESSION 

A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - This session is 
closed to any non-City /Port representative. * 

1) Property: Port property located at Berry Street and Second Street (China Basin). 
Person Negotiating: Port representative: Dennis P. Bouey, Executive Director 
*San Fra ncisco Giants Representative : Larry Baer, Executive Vice President 

Under Negotiation: Price Terms of Payment / Both 

An executive session has been calendared to discuss real property negotiations 
between the Port and San Francisco Giants, regarding the proposed ballpark. 
This is specifically authorized under California Government Code Section 
54956.8. 

B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION 

1) Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of California Government Code 
Section 54956.9 (1 case). 

C. Vote in open session on whether to disclose Executive Session discussions (S.F. 
Admin. Code Sec. 67.14) 

13. ADJOURNMENT 

Public comment is permitted on any matter within Port jurisdiction, and is not limited tn agenda 
items. Public comment on non-agenda items may bejais£djluiiiigJ^_wJB.usiness/Public 
Comment. Please fill out a sp eaker card and hand it to the Commission Secretary . 



A102296.igq 



4 



I 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 



MEMORANDUM 



October 22, 1996 




Ferry Building 

San Francisco. CA 94111 

Telephone 415 274 0400 

Telex 275940 PSFUR 

Fax 415 274 0528 

Cable SFPORTCOMM 

Writer 



TO: 



FROM: 



MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 
Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. James Herman 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 

Dennis P. Bouey AM- 
Executive Director ^ 



SUBJECT: Presentation and review of urban design concepts for the Mid-Embarcadero 
Roadway Project 

DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: No action requested; information only 



I 



I 



The Mid-Embarcadero Roadway Project would realign and upgrade the surface roadway along 
The Embarcadero between Folsom Street and Broadway. The roadway would accommodate 
an exclusive transit right-of-way and bicycle lanes in each direction, as well as pedestrian 
promenades, sidewalks and a large central plaza located between the north and south bound 
roadway lanes directly in front of the Ferry Building. In addition, an underground parking 
garage of up to 350 spaces is proposed to replace parking that would be lost as a result of the 
project. 



THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM N0._3B 



(k 



Review of Urban Design, Mid-Embarcadero Roadway Project 
Agenda Item 3B 
October 22, 1996 



Page Two 



On October 8, 1996 the Port Commission adopted Resolution No. 96-103 approving the 
alignment of the Mid-Embarcadero Roadway Project. The resolution also authorized Port staff 
to work with the Waterfront Transportation Projects Office to develop urban design criteria for 
the project, as well as to negotiate an agreement regarding the design, engineering and 
construction review and approval process for the projects. 

An urban design concept for the Mid-Embarcadero Roadway Project has been prepared under 
the direction of the Waterfront Transportation Projects Office by a consultant team led by 
ROMA Design Group. A copy of a report titled "Mid-Embarcadero Roadway and Open Space 
Design Concept, August, 1996" was distributed to the Port Commission along with the 
EIS/EIR documents for this project prior to the September 24, 1996 Port Commission meeting. 

The purpose of today's presentation is to allow the Commission the opportunity to view the 
model that has been prepared for the project, as well as to ask questions and receive 
information from the Waterfront Transportation Projects Office staff, the design consultant and 
Port staff. As provided for in Port Commission Resolution No. 96-103, the Port staff will work 
with the Waterfront Transportation Projects Office in developing urban design principles and 
specifications for the project, which will be brought back to the Port Commission for its formal 
review and approval. 



No action is required on this item at this time. 



Prepared by: Sharon Lee Polledri. 
Director of Planning and Development 



PO/f:AGDWTP.I08 



c 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 



MEMORANDUM 



October 17, 1996 




Ferr/ Building 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Teieohone 415 274 0400 

Teiex 275940 PSF UR 

Fax 4" 5 274 0523 

Cacie SrPORTCOMM 

Writer 



TO: 



FROM: 



MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 
Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. James Herman 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 

Dennis P. Bouey lO/jL 
Executive Director'^ 



SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF THE MADRIGAL- WAN HAI LINTS MARINE 
TERMINAL AGREEMENT 

DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE THE 5-YEAR MARINE 
TERMINAL AGREEMENT WITH MADRIGAL-WAN HAI LINES AT PIER 94/96 
AND AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO SEEK APPROVAL BY THE 
SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO AMEND THE AGREEMENT TO 
INCLUDE A MUTUAL INDEMNITY CLAUSE. 

The Port has concluded negotiations for a Five-year Marine Terminal Agreement with 
Madrigal-Wan Hai Lines for use of Pier 94/96. Madrigal-Wan Hai Lines offers service to 
and from the Far East with calls in Busan, Manila, Hong Kong, Xiamen. Their vessels 
are expected to make bi-weekly calls. Their first vessel call is expected on November 8, 
1996. 

Material provisions of the agreement include the following: (i) five year term, 
commencing on November 1, 1996, with the ability of either party to terminate as of each 
June 30th; (ii) reduced wharfage and dockage rates based on the total annual volume; (iii) 
nomination of Pier 94/96 as their regular published Bay Area port of call. 

If SSA ceases operations at Pier 94/96, the Agreement also allows termination by either 
Port or Carrier if they are unable to reach agreement with a new management contractor. 



THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. 5A 



MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 
Page 2 



The Agreement contains an indemnity whereby Madrigal- Wan Hai agrees to indemnify 
Port and City for claims resulting from its acts or omissions at the facility. The Ron's 
standard exculpation clause, under which the Carrier waives all claims against Ron and 
City including claims due to Port on City's negligence, has been deleted from this 
Agreement pursuant to Madrigal-Wan Hai's request. In addition, Madrigal-Wan Hai has 
requested an indemnity from Port and City against claims caused by Port or City's 
negligence. The City's charter requires any indemnities by the City or Port to be 
approved by the Board of Supervisors. The Agreement provides that upon approval by 
the Board, parties will sign an amendment to the Agreement to include the Port's and 
City's indemnity. If the Board disapproves the indemnity, Madrigal-Wan Hai may 
terminate the Agreement upon 30-day s' prior written notice. 

Estimated annual revenue for the agreements is approximately S250,000 from wharfage, 
dockage, and crane rental. A copy of the agreement is attached hei.^to. 



Prepared by: Lewis Wiseman, Director Tenant and Maritime Services 



n 



PORT COMMISSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



I 



RESOLUTION NO. 9_6JJL1 



WHEREAS, Madrigal-Wan Hai Lines desire to enter into a Marine Terminal 

Agreement with the Port, for use of Port's marine terminal facilities: and 

WHEREAS, said Agreement grants Madrigal-Wan Hai Lines reduced dockage 

and wharfage charges for the utilization of the Carrier of Pier 94/96 as 
their regularly scheduled Northern California port of call; and 

WHEREAS, the Agreement requires the parties to enter into an amendment to include 
an indemnit\' clause by Port and City in favor of Madrigal- Wan Hai 
Lines, upon the approval of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors; 
now, therefore, be it 



RESOLVED, 



that the San Francisco Port Commission approves the Marine Terminal 
Agreement with Madrigal-Wan Hai Lines, in substantially the form of 
which is on file with the Secretary of the Port Commission for this 



agenda item; and be it further 



RESOLVED, 



that the Port Commission authorizes the Executive Director (i) to enter 
into the Agreement, (ii) to make any necessary refinements to the 
Agreement as are approved by the City Attorney; (iii) to obtain approval 
from the Board of Supervisors to amend the Agreement to include a 
Mumal Indemnity clause and to execute such amendment; (iv) to file the 
Agreement with the Federal Maritime Commission; and (v) to take all 
such funher actions as are necessary to put the Agreement into effect. 



I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Port Commission at its 
meeting of October 22, 1996. 



Secretary 



c 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 



TO: 



MEMORANDUM 



October 16, 1996 



MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 

Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. James Herman 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 




Ferry Building 

San Francisco. CA 94 m' 

Telephone 415 274 04CC 

Telex 275940 FSF UR 

Fax415 274C528 

Cable SFPORTCOMM 

Writer 



FROM: Dennis P. Bouey 

Executive Director 




SUBJECT: Fisherman's Wharf Lighting presentation and approval to advertise for 
Phase I construction 

DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: AUTHORIZE STAFF TO ADVERTISE FOR 
BIDS FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT NO. 2631, "FISHERMAN'S WHARF 
LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS, PHASE I." AN INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION 
WILL BE MADE TO THE COMMISSION. 

The Commission approved the award of a professional services contract to F.W. 
Associates, Inc. for the design of the Fisherman's Wharf Lighting Improvements at the 
regular meeting of March 26, 1996. The design contract is divided into three parts as 
follows: 

Part 1 : The consultant shall develop a cost effective conceptual lighting design proposal 
for the Fisherman's Wharf area including the inner and outer lagoon, the Embarcadero 
from Powell to Pier 45, Jefferson Street from Jones to Hyde, and the Ferry Arch at Pier 
43. In developing this conceptual design, the consultant shall make presentations to the 
Fisherman's Wharf representatives and the Port Commission to obtain broad base input 
and approval. 

2aiL2i The consultant shall prepare and furnish the Port with the necessary plans, 
technical specifications and a cost estimate for lighting at the inner and outer lagoons and 
Pier 45 Sheds 'A' and 'B.' At this time, there is only sufficient funding for the 
construction of these improvements. The consultant shall also prepare plans, 
specifications and a cost estimate for the other components of the Fisherman's Wharf 
lighting and when funds become available, this phase of the project will be implemented. 



THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. 6A 



l:\wp51\agd-2777.cj 



Page 2 



P_art_3_: The consultant shall provide bid and construction support services during the 
bidding phase, prepare the necessary addenda, respond to contractor's Request for 
Information ("RFIs"), review shop drawings, attend construction meetings and perform 
job site observations during the course of construction. 

In accordance with the requirements of Part 1 , the consultant has developed a cost 
effective concepmal lighting design for those locations identified and made presentations 
to the Port Design Advisors, the Fisherman's Wharf Association and the Fisherman's 
Wharf merchants. All of these groups have given a favorable response to the concept. 
The consultant is here at this meeting to present the concept to the Commission for input. 

If the concepmal lighting design meets the approval of the Commission, the Port and its 
consultant will proceed to finalize the construction and bid documents. The Pon will then 
advertise for bids for construction of Phase I which includes the lighting improvements to 
the inner and outer lagoons and Pier 45, Sheds 'A' and 'B.' Construction of Phase I of the 
lighting improvements is scheduled for completion in May, 1997. 



Prepared by: Cliff Jarrard 

Chief Harbor Engineer 



I:\wp51\agd-2777.cj 



( 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

RESOLUTION NO. 96-106 

WHEREAS, the Port consultant for the Fisherman's Wharf Lighting Improvement 

project, has developed a cost effective conceptual lighting design for those 
locations identified in the overall project; and 

WHEREAS, the consultant made presentations of the design to the Port Design 

Advisors, the Fisherman's Wharf Association and the Fisherman's Wharf 
merchants; and 

WHEREAS, all of those representatives and groups have given a favorable respome to 
the concept; and 

WHEREAS, staff and the consultant are at the Commission meeting today to present the 
concept to the Commission; and 

WHEREAS, the next step is for the Commission to give approval to the concept and 
authorize staff to advertise for bids for the construction of Phase I, 
therefore be it 

RESOLVED, that the Commission authorizes staff to advertise for bids for the 

construction of the Phase I Fisherman's Wharf Lighting Improvements 
which includes the lighting improvements to the inner and outer lagoons 
and Pier 45 Sheds "A' and 'B,' at an estimated cost of $300,000. 



/ hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted at the Port Commission at its 
meeting of October 22, 1996. 



Secretary 



I:\wp51\agd-2777.cj 



( 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 



MEMORANDUM 




TO: 



FROM: 



SUBJECT: 



October 16, 1996 

MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 
Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. James Herman 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 



Dennis P. Bouey 
Executive Director 



IK* 



Ferry Building 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone 415 274 0400 

Telex 275940 PSF UR 

Fax 41 5 274 0528 

Cable SFPORTCOMM 

Writer 



Contract 2632, "Pier 68 Shipyard Cranes Improvements Rebid," 
authorization to award 



DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: AWARD CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST 
RESPONSIVE BIDDER, SHEEDY DRAYAGE COMPANY, IN THE AMOUNT OF 
$1,717,505.00, AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO APPROVE UP TO 
ANOTHER 10% FOR CONTINGENCIES, AND AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTIVE 
DIRECTOR TO ACCEPT THE WORK UPON COMPLETION. 

Resolution No. 96-86, approved by the Port Commission on August 27, 1996, authorized 
staff to re-advertise for bids for improvements to Cranes No. 33 and No. 34 at Pier 68. 
Cranes No. 33 and No. 34 serve drydock No. 2 which is the drydock on which most ship 
repair work is conducted. The bid documents were modified to allow the Port to select 
and award any combination of bid items it deemed appropriate. On October 4, 1996, two 
bids were received. Because the total price of all forty-two bid items for both bids 
received exceeded the available funding, staff determined the priority items to award. 
Staff recommends that all items be awarded with the exception of Bid Items Nos. 25 and 
26. Based on the items to be awarded, Sheedy Drayage Company submitted the lowest 
responsive bid of $1,717,505.00. The bid summary is attached. 

The items to be excluded are for Crane No. 34 and are Bid Items No. 25 "Clean exterior" 
and No. 26 "Prime and coat exterior." With Crane No. 34 scheduled for work in January 
during the rainy season, it is doubtful that there will be proper weather conditions for the 
contractor to perform Bid Item No. 26 which is to prime and coat the repaired, replaced 
and cleaned areas before the contract completion date of March, 1997. Similarly, Bid 
Item No. 25 which requires cleaning the rusted exterior surface areas is only necessary if 
done in conjunction with and prior to Bid Item No. 26. The tenant has also assigned a 
low priority to these two items. 

THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. 6B 



I:wp51\agd-2610.reb 



J 



Page 2 



*& 



This contract is being financed by a grant of $1,500,000 from the United States 
Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration, portions of the 
remaining funds of $250,000 from the California Trade and Commerce Agency, and 
$250,000 in Port funds. 

Sheedy Dray age Company exceeded the recommended 6% MBE and 2% WBE 
subcontracting goals for this contract. 

Staff recommends the Commission award the contract to Sheedy Drayage Company as 
specified, authorize the Executive Director to approve up to another 10% for 
contingencies, and authorize the Executive Director to accept the work upon completion. 



Prepared by: Cliff Jarrard 

Chief Harbor Engineer 



) 



I:wp51\agd-2610.reb 



i 



PORT COMMISSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

RESOLUTION NO. 96-108 

WHEREAS, Resolution No. 96-86, approved by the Port Commission on August 27, 1996. 
authorized staff to re-advertise for bids for improvements to Cranes No. 33 and 
No. 34 at Pier 68; and 

WHEREAS, these cranes serve Drydock No. 2 which is the drydock on which most ship repair 
work is conducted; and 

WHEREAS, the bid documents were structured to allow the Port to select and award any 
combination of bid items it deemed appropriate; and 

WHEREAS, on October 4, 1996, two bids were received; and 

WHEREAS, because the total price of all forty-two bid items for both bids received exceeded 
the available funding, staff determined the priority items to award, recommending 
that all items be awarded except for Bid Items No. 25 and 26; and 

WHEREAS, with Crane No. 34 scheduled for work in January during the rainy season, it is 

doubtful that there will be proper weather conditions for the contractor to perform 
Bid Item No. 26 which is to prime and coat the repaired, replaced and cleaned 
areas before the contract completion date of March, 1997; and 

WHEREAS, Bid item 25 which requires cleaning the rusted exterior surface areas is only 
necessary if done in conjunction with and prior to Bid Item No. 26; and 

WHEREAS, based on the items recommended for award, Sheedy, Drayage Company submitted 
the lowest responsive bid of $1,717,505.00; and 

WHEREAS, sufficient funding for this contract will be provided by grants from the United 

States Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration and ihe 
California Trade and Commerce Agency, and Port matching funds; therefore be it 

RESOLVED, that the San Francisco Port Commission hereby approves the contract award. 
Contract No. 2632 (formerly known as Contract No. 2610 Rebid), "Pier 68 
Shipyard Cranes Improvements," to Sheedy Drayage Company for 
$1,717,505.00, authorizes a contingency amount equal to 10% of this bid to fond 
possible Type 1 contract modifications during the contract, and authorizes the 
Executive Director to accept the work upon completion. 

/ hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Port Commission at its mteting 
o/October22, 1996. 



Secretary 



I:wp51\agd-2610.reb 



N Z 

« U «, 

ffl (B ^ *^ 

"2 "o 5 o 

Q. U O 0. 



oiooooiooioooooooooo 
o|o oo oip pjO o o o o p p p|p p 
olcri cito oD'i^ odio cdr^ ri i»-^ a o >ri!c> to 

CDO iniO (O CN 'TCM CN CD O C4 r*-CO CD'^ tO 

col(D cvjr^ coiCM ^CN CO r^ to (or»-o o (O co 



(N'T- "^'- 1- \n coitD Oi iO *- ■»- o^^ cor- 
CO f^ "^ (^ »-iCN T- t/> toir- T- T~ trt -w- v^itD 

V*' *A r- tA Vt- V* V* iA tA V* cn V* " 



iiooo o o oo OIOOOOOOOOOO 
]0 o o o o o o 0]0 oo OOOOOOO 



TO 0) ■^ "T I 

, c 3 p cm; 



s r-- 



16 < 



!o: S 



- "- E 0. 

II; 



o 
o 

CO 

>• o 
Z) < 



m 



6 (D a> 

O S < 

m w U 

" I 8 

Q ■§ '^ 

■g-5 S 

2 ■" "- 

? r; <= 



oco (ji CO co-'r coin co r^cor-ooio'cn co 

i£j Oi incD tOCN "TICNJ CNO O CJ f»* CD KD ^ tO 

cocD CNf^ co;CN Tr|cN CO r-* CO CO i^'O oco CD 

CN T-' "^" 1-" ^' in co'i id' en cd" *- '- o t-" co" i^ m" 

CO i^rrr-T-cN T-r*/>(Ar— t-t— cOt-*»c£>€9 

t« t^ ■»- *«» */»:*« f> I «« W» «» CO V> 



ooiooooooioooooooooo 

O O'O O O OIO OjO o o o o o o o o o 

o <N I d d r^ did csi j d d . o d d cd d d d 
oocO|Ocoo)oococolcocDeocDcDa>a3cococo 
CO nl(D r- cocDi'^ cnit- coco lo co *£> cd t-co oi 
T-" ^'! CN to' o co'' in co'i co" T-" cm" ^-^ cnT CO CN co" o' 

T-CM.CNCDCN*/*'^W»l*/>'^COCO«>^T«»ti'>CM«« 



CO 
C3) 


CO 

m 


CO 


CO 



O O O O O O O O O OOOOOOOO OiO O 

o oo o o o o o o OOOOOOOO olo O 

dcNJd d r^dd cN;d d d d d :6 d <d d did d 

COCD'OCOOJCOcOcOCOCOCOOOOCOCOCOCO'COCO 

I CO CO CD r- CD to 'O" cvj ' ^— cOfomco^ocO'»-co oicj) m 

! T-* T-"' cm" to" o' co" in co'i co' ■^' cm' ■^' c** co' cm' co' o* to' 

>;^ CNCM to CM V* T- tfi V* T- to CO **^3- V»V»CMtA 

> \v^ V*: v* tA t- ,*A y* *A *A -^ *A 



o ojo oio o 

O Oi o o o o 

(D c J CO di\aS co 

t~ CD I C3> in I CD CD 
CM COl CD CM] r- CD 

TT" (N ! -r^ ■«? 



O OIO O] o o 
O Oi o o| o o 



i CO o 

IcO CM 



o o o o 

O OjO o 

in CO ' h-' CO 



to cni to ■»- 



o o 
o o 



O OI o o 

O O j o o 
d c\i d d 



CO r- 

1 cm' (D" 
CN to 



0,00 

O 0| o o 

iri 00' 1^ CO 

CM CM, CJJ O 

CM COi h- CO 

to' OJ": to" T~ T-' 

- - r-^ x- ■<- 

^ «/» tf» CO 



T- O 

T- CO 

«> CO 



h- OI O CM 



o o o o 

O O: O O 

d d'-<D d 



CO ^ CM T- 
«/> T- to CO 



|0 O O O O OiO OIO O O O'O O 



O OIO OIO o 

O O O OIO o 

d iht o> tdi cd r*^ 

to CO ■^ to CO a> 

o o I 00 to lO h- 

^' co"i r-* m'i ■^' ■^* 

T- «>l to «>1 CO «/> 



o oi o o o o 

o o, o o, o o 

d in i d tb ccj r^ 

to tD' TT tD CO o> 

o o ; 00 00. m h- 

«-" co"' h-" in" ▼-' .' , 

^ V» I to tf> : CD v> (/> 

*A I v> 



^j 



o oio oo OIOIO 

O OtO oo OiO;0 



O OI O O 
CO CO ' CO 00 
00 »— ■ CO o> 



o o 1 ^! *o 



Oi CO in, r- 



o o o o o o| o 



:; i o- 



S si 



e Ei E £ E £ 
3 33 n: D 3 



E E 



(O U) , CO CO ' w to CO to 
a.CLQ.crc3.cic^o. 
E £: E E E E E E 

D3D33333 



EEEEEE'EEEE 

UIID333-3D3IJ 

to to CO CO CO CO CO CO to CO 

Q.CLC^Q.C3.a.Q.Q.C^Cl 

EE.EEEEEEEE 



3 3 3 



3 3 3 3 3 3 



Oil C3) 

C\ CD 

2|-g 



id J3 , xf 
I O CD 13 



r-\ ^ B 



o 5 



OI (0 o 



gig-s 

zip: o 



Q- to 



■*- CM CO TT 1 in tD 




tn to. h- oo 



E £ 

3 3 
to CO 
CL Q. 

E E 



tD ^ 

t- o 

0} 00 



TO -O -^ 

Q. CO CL 

a> o <» 

t£ Jj q: 



o oo OiO o|o 0|0 oo 0|0 0|0 oo o o o,o 
Id cMd dr^ did CNild d d d>: d tod d d d d d -^ 

ICO CO O CO'O CO'CO CO'CO CO CO CD'tO CT)|C0 CO COCO CO CO CM 

!cocotDr^cotDi'^cM-'T-cocoin(COin|00'^coa>cnino> 
! T-' T-' CN d. o' co'' in co'! co' v-' cm ■^'' cm co'i cm' to" o' to' en oo' in" 

It- cm CN to i CM t»l ■•- kA\*A r- tO CO ' t* ^ \V* t^ CN tf» CO fc* i TT ' 



D 3 3 33 3 

CO CO 03 cojco CO 

Q. Q.' a. ex' Q. Q_ 

E e E E; E E 

3 3D 3i 3 3 



5 5 



EEEEEEEE 

3 3 3 3. 3 3' 3 3 

CO c/jco COCO cOjCO CO 
a.Q.cxa-'c3.cxQ.Qja.CLa.a-a.Q.ia-' 

E E E E E E! e e; e e^ E E E E' e 

3 3i3 33 33 313 3; 3 3 3 313 



E E E E E E E 

3 3' 3 3 3 3 3 

CO CO CO CO CO CO to 



O O " 3- 
O O O o 



g > a 

■S o S 

" 2 §- 



ra E 



ct 2'q: oIq. CO 



« 3, 

O OI 

5 < 

s S 



c 
i en 



, E m OJ ^, 



® SI o- S 

\ '^ <D (D o 
l(N Z CC Jji 








Ul UJ 


UJ 




« 


« T 


in 


"O 


F 


^, ,^ 


•V 


o 


« 
s 


1 





^1 

5 > 



I 



a> 

z 



a> 



z 



-^6 «, 

m (n «> CM 

>- _2 '■ '^ 

S. y » ® 

CB * -S O) 

£ ^ CO CD 

a. u a a. 



h 

> o 
a: z 
< < 



(O to 

o 

a. 



c 
O 






2 o" 



> 



tf) 


to 




(O 


00 




<o 




CI) 





a. 


z 









o" 





0. 






i 


z 



z 
















1 
! 

i 
1 

1 

1 


^ i 








1 

i 
1 


1 , 


Bidder Name 
Address 
City, Stale, Zip 
Phone # 


CO 

cu 

>- 






1 

1 

i 




i , 








1 
j 




Z 



z 








I 


t 
1 i 








i 
i 


1 


Bidder Name 
Address 
City, State, Zip 
Phone # 


> 

CO 

0) 

>- 


1 

1 

1 

1 












i 
1 
1 
i 
i 




Z 



z 




' 


: 1 
i 1 

i 1 

1 


, 1 








1 
1 




Bidder Name 
Address 
City, State, Zip 
Phone # 


> 

1/1 

cu 

> 




i 




1 


1 i ' 
1 ■ ■ ' 








1 





— 

CD cu T- -tr 

C 3 CM 


z 



z 


• 








i 

1 

1 


j 1 
1 










1 

> 

ij 


Rigging Internatio 
965 Atlantic Aven 
Alameda, CA 945 
Phone (510) 865- 


CO 

CD 

> 


> 


>- > 

1 

1 
1 

1 


> 


1 
1 

i 
1 




> 


>- 


>- 


>- 


Sheedy.Drayage Co. 

1215 Michigan street 
san Francisco, CA 94107 
Phone (415) 648-7171 


z 



z 




: i 1 ■ ' 

1 : 

: ■ ' j 

! 

; 1 i 






i 

! 


1 

i 
; i 


CO 

cu 

>- 


j ; [ 1 ■ , i 

> >->;>>■>-!>-> > 2 2 ^ >" ^ 

' 1 j ^ 1 i 


>■ 


>- 


1 


i 1 




c 
cu 

E 

Q 


0: 

CO; 


i 


eg 


CO 





s 

CO 










eg 
•q- 




1 

0' X- ' ! 

CO 00 i C3) 

00 
00 ; 

i ; ! 






CN 





CO 

■<]- 








i 

c^ 

Z, 

1 ^ 



ce 

X 

03 
■I 

5| 
>j 

cu 
> 
'co 

c 

a 

CO 

E 
cu 




CO 



u. 
■a 

0) 

■5 

C3" 
CU 




a. 
g 


1 

C3) 

■a 

1 

CD 

T3 

C 

1 CU 

■0 

1< 


CO 

1 
Q. 

m 

cu 

•a 


CO 

.§ 

c 

=) 

cu 

T3 
CU 

x: 

W 


■0 

c 

m 

T3 

lin 


cA 

c 



I 

CD 

3 

o 

75 

CJ 

c 

CD 

C 

Li. 
oa 

8 

c 
cu 

X 

LU 


: 

1 
1 

to 

1 

TO 

c 



Si 

3 

w 

« 


i 

ll 

i (0 

' 

't 
1 cu 

10 

' c 

; 

! = 



c: 


Z 







HRC Schedule A (as appllc, by 5pm) 
HRC Schedule L (as appllc, by 5pm) 

HRC Form 2A__ 

HRC Form 2B^ - 


E 

CD 

a. 
a. 

!c 

CO 

I 

c 
a> 

Q. 

0. 

< 


c 


ro 

CD 

Q 

O) 

cu 

cc 

X 

CD 
h- 
co 

CO 

cu 

.c; 
'co 

3 

m 


CU 

C3) 
i 

c 

1 
0) 

a 
cu 

c 
cu 



w 
cu 

-c 

C3 

X 


Q 

_l 

CO 

8 

■G 
i5 

CL 

CO 

3 

m 
ea 

Q. 

E 

LU 

a 
0. 


CD 

3 

a 
lU 


CO 

cu 

Q. 



a. 
cu 
•a 

•c 

m 


CD 

2 









tf^ tf^ is S? 

5 o « 55 



_ca_ 

W UJ LU uj s., s., ^ 

UJ m m m > > > 

o 2 > 3 -^ ^ ^ 

z =^ 

lU 

Of 

lU 

u. 

LU 

a: 
a. 



i 



t 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 



MEMORANDUM 

October 15, 1996 




Ferry Building 

San Francisco. CA 94--" 

Telephone -115 274 O-iCC 

Teiex 275940 PSFUR 

Fax 415 274 0523 

Cable SFFORTCCM.M 

Writer 



TO: 



FROM: 



MEMBERS. PORT COMMISSION 

Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie Lee, Vice President 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. James Herman 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 



Dennis P. Bouey 
Executive Director 




SUBJECT: Approval of Concepmal Design of Pier 52 Public Boat Ramp, Bait Shop 
and Cafe and endorsement to proceed with preparation of construction 
documents 

DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 



Since the informational briefmg on the project before the Commission on August 13, 
1996, the design team, ARCUS Architecture and Planning, has refined the project design 
in response to comments by the Commission and the public. The final conceptual design 
has been reviewed and recommended for approval by the Port's Design Advisors. Pon 
staff has held two informational briefings on the project for the general public on October 
1st. The final conceptual design for the project includes the following key project 
elements: 

• A double boat ramp and maneuvering area, designed to meet State of California, 
Boating and Waterways Design standards. 

• Accessible gangway with guest dock to tie up boats and launch kayaks. 

• A small support strucmre, adjacent to the boating facilities that will provide for a 
small cafe and a bait and tackle sales area, public restrooms and indoor/outdoor eating 
areas. 



THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. 7A 



i 



< 



^ 



Page 2 



• Public access and landscape improvements throughout the site. 

• A parking lot on the west side of Terry A. Francois Blvd. for 20 vehicle/trailer 
parking spaces. 

Staff has reviewed the additional features that were desired through the community 
planning process and analyzed the costs of providing these in light of available funds. 
Based on the cost estimates at this stage of conceptual design, the above improvements can 
be funded within the project budget. Other features identified in the community planning 
process may be incorporated in the project at a later date, based on available funds. A 
major variable to the construction cost at this time is the utility relocation cost. Staff is 
currently investigating several avenues to decrease the cost of this work. 

Cost Breakdown: 

Double boat ramp with boarding float 5375,000 

Accessible gangway 160,000 

Bait & Tackle, cafe and restrooms 423,000 

New shoreline protection & removal of old dock & derelict boat ramp 168,000 

Public access and landscape improvements 255,000 

Parking lot for 20 vehicle/trailer parking spaces* 212,000 

Tenant improvements 30,000 

Architectural, engineering and geotechnical consulting fees URDDD 

TOTAL $1,893,000 
*Utility relocation costs to be confirmed 

Funding Sources: 

Port of San Francisco Capital Plan $1,400,000 

California Boating & Waterways grant to repair original boat ramp 295.000 

Pending Grant from California Boating & Waterways for parking lot 158.000 

TOTAL $1,893,000 

Staff seeks the Commission's approval of the conceptual design and endorsement for 
proceeding with the preparation of construction documents. Staff anticipates returning to 
the Commission in November, to seek authorization to advertise for construction bids and 
in a separate action, to seek authorization to advertise for request for proposals for an 
operator of the facility. The Planning & Development Division is coordinating these 
efforts closely with the Facilities & Operations and Tenant & Maritime Divisions to meet a 
target opening date of mid-summer 1997. 



Prepared by: Sharon Lee Polledri 
Director of Planning & Development 



i 



i 



PORT COMMISSION 
CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

RESOLUTION NO. 96A01 



WHEREAS, the Port Commission previously adopted Resolution No. 95-7 accepting 
the responsibility for the management of grant funds from the State of 
California. Department of Boating and Waterways (Cal Boating) and 
authorizing staff to issue a Request for Proposal for architectural and 
engineering services for a public boat ramp, bait shop and cafe, and open 
space at Pier 52; and 

WHEREAS, the Port Commission convened the seven member Pier 52 Advisory 
Group in August 1996, with expertise and experience in recreational 
boating, food service operations and waterfront design, to provide 
professional and community input in refining the project concept; and 

WHEREAS, the Port Commission previously adopted Resolution 95-94 authorizing the 
award of the consultant contract to Arcus Architecmre; and 

WHEREAS, the Port Commission previously adopted Resolution 96-87 to accept 
responsibility for managing any new Cal Boating funds that may be 
awarded for the Pier 52 project; and 

WHEREAS, the Port Commission held an rnformational presentation on the concepmal 
design of the project at its August 13, 1996 meeting and received public 
comment; and 



WHEREAS. 



WHEREAS, 



RESOLVED, 



Port staff held two public presentations of the conceptual design of the 
project on October 1, 1996 to receive public comment; and 

the Port's Design Advisors have reviewed the conceptual design and 
recommend proceeding with detailed construction documents; now, 
therefore, be it 

the Port Commission hereby approves the conceptual design of the Pier 
52 Public Boat Ramp, Bait shop and Cafe and endorses proceeding with 
the preparation of construction documents. 



/ hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Port Commission at its 
meeting of October 22, 1996. 



Secretary 



I 



i 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 




7 bu' - "J 



MEMORANDUM 












::vM 



October 22, 1996 



TO: 



FROM: 



MEMBERS. PORT COMMISSION 
Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. James Herman 
Hon. Preston Cock 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 



Dennis P. Bouey 
Executive Director 




SUBJECT: Port Commission Sub-Committee Recommendation on Cargo & Marine 
Terminals Organization 

DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE ATTACHED RESOLUTION 



At the Commission Meeting of October 8, 1996, a public hearing was held, at the request 
of Commissioner James R. Herman, to discuss cargo marketing. The Commissicn agreed 
to form a sub-committee consisting of Commissioners Hardeman and McCarthy lo ^e^"ie\v 
the Port's policy and organization of cargo marketing. Under the current organizaiicn. 
marketing resources are located in the Marketing Division and operations are locaied in 
the Tenant & Maritime Services Division. 

After reviewing the issues with the Executive Director, the Sub-Committee and the 
Executive Director recommend the following: 



) 



THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. 9A 



i 



i 



Page 2 



*& 



• The Tenant & Maritime Services Division be organized into two separate 
departments within the division, as follows: 

- Cargo & Marine Terminals Department 

- Commercial Department 

• The Cargo & Marine Terminals Department be headed up with a position of 
"Maritime Manager"" 

• That two Sections be organized within this department, as follows: 

- Operations 

- Marketing 

Jill Simpson will be reassigned from the Marketing Division to the Cargo & Marij.e 
Terminals Department of the Tenant & Maritime Services Division. 

The Executive Director will fill the Maritime Manager position as soon as possible. A 
detailed job description will be developed and the position advertised in the next few- 
weeks. 

A proposed organization chart is attached that further delineates the suggested changes. 



Prepared by: Benjamin A. Kutnick 



4 



") 



c 
_o 

"w 

■ MM 

G 

CO 

o 
o 

.■■IB 

t 

o 

CO 

o 

E 

■ ■H 

■ ■^ 

CO 

c 

CO 

c 
o 



s¥?r 


'■f!<'. 


<«?« 








- 




^ 


i 


I' 






3 


■? 


1 


^ 


oa 


« 


■p 






s 




Il 



;i 



i 



PORT COMMISSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



RESOLUTION NO. 96AM 



WHEREAS, 



concerns were expressed at the Commission meeting of Ocicber 8, 
1996. regarding the policy of the Pon concerning cargo marketing, 
and 



WHEREAS, 
WHEREAS, 

WHEREAS, 



it is the intent of the Port to maximize its cargo business, and 

a sub-committee of the Commission was formed to review this 
issue, and 

the sub-committee, including Commissioners Hardeman and 
McCarthy reviewed the issues with the Executive Director, and 
therefore be it 




RESOLVED 



the Commission Sub-Conmiittee and the Executive Director 
recommend that a separate Cargo & Marine Terminals Depanment 
be created within the Tenant & Maritime Services Division, and be 
it further 



RESOLVED 



RESOLVED 



that the Cargo & Marine Terminals Department include separate 
.sections for. Operations and for Marketmg, and be it further 

that a position of Maritime Manager be hired to manage the Cargo 
& Marine Terminals Department. 



/ hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Port Commission at its 
meeting of October 22, 1996. 



Secretary 



c 



i 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 



MEMORANDUM 



October 15. 1996 




Ferry Buiicing 

San F'arcisco. CA dd'- 

Telecncre -15 27'i C-iCC 

Telex 2755^0 PSF UP. 

Fax -il 5 27^ 0523 

Cabie SF=CRTCCMM 

Wntsr 



TO: 



MEMBERS. PORT COMMISSION 

Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 
Hon. James Herman 



FROM: 



Dennis P. Bouey fij \ 
Executive Director 



SUBJECT: 



Approval for one representative to travel to the 10th annual International 
Awards Pro2ram of the Waterfront Center in Boston Mass. in accordance 



with the Pon's Fiscal Year 1996-97 budget. 



DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE THE TRAVEL AS BL*DGETED. 

The successful renovation of Pier 45 in Fisherman's Wharf and the corresponding 
revitalization of San Francisco's commercial fishing industry is one of the Port's major 
accomplishments. This multi-million dollar renovation has received accolades from the 
fishing industry and government officials as being one of the finest commercial rlshing 
and fish processing facilities in the United States. 

The Waterfront Center is a non-profit educational organization based in Washington. D.C. 
which strives through its conferences, publications and workshops to assist cities on how- 
to make the wisest use of their urban waterfront resources. The Waterfront Center 
launched an awards program in 1987 to recognize high quality waterfront work of \aried 
kinds from around the world. 

The Port of San Francisco along with Moffatt & Nichol Engineers. AGS Inc. Consulting 
Engineers and Kwan Henmi Architecture/Planning, Inc. submitted the Fisherman's Wharf 
Commercial Fishing Center at Pier 45 for the Waterfront Center's 1996 E.xcellence on the 
Waterfront Honor Awards competition. 

We recently received word that the Pier 45 project has been selected by the Waterfront 
Center jury to receive the 1996 Honor Award. 



THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. lOA 



i 



f 



Page 2 



The award will be given to the Port at the Waterfront Awards Presentation awards 
ceremony in Boston on November 15, 1996. We have budgeted the following amounts 
from our current fiscal year to cover this activity. 



Airfare $ 1,000.00 

Hotel 300.00 

Meals 100.00 

Car rental 100.00 

TOTAL $ 1,500.00 



Prepareo by: Peter Dailey 



Senior Marketing Executive 






J 



J 



PORT COMMISSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Resolution No. 96AM 



WHEREAS, the Executive Director is requesting authorization for one representative 
to travel to the "Excellence on The Waterfront" awards presentation of 
the Waterfront Center in Boston Massachusetts; and 

WHEREAS, the Waterfront Center is a well renowned non-profit educational 

organization that strives to help cities make the wisest use of their urban 
waterfront resources; and 

WHEREAS, the Waterfront Center holds an annual awards program to recognize 
high qualit\' waterfront work from around the world; and 

WHEREAS, the Port submitted for this competition the recent renovation of the 
Fisherman's Wharf Commercial Fishing Center at Pier 45; and 

WHEREAS, the Pon has recently been notified by the Waterfront Center that the 
project has been judged to win the 1996 Honor award; and 
that it has the costs of this trip have been included in the Pon 
Commission's Fiscal 1995-96 budget; be it 

RESOLVED, that the Pon Commission hereby approves this travel request. 



/ hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Port Commission at its 
meeting of October 22, 1996. 



J 



Secretary 



% 



4 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 




MEMORANDUM 



October 16, 1996 



retry Bi,:»crc 

San F-a-c:s:c I ^ 34111 

Telecncre -" z ~- 3^00 

Telex 27£9^: =S=UR 

Fax^lc 1~- :£2E 

Cable Zr~Z-~ZZ'^M 

Writer 



TO: 



MEMBERS. PORT COMMISSION 

Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. James Herman 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 



FROM: Dennis P. Bouey 

Executive Director t 

SUBJECT: Approval of Ground Lease Attornment and Nondisturbance Agreement 
between Port, Clip Clop III Partners, Ltd. and proposed tenant of 
' Francisco Bay Office Park (SWL 315, 316, 317) 

A portion of the lands comprising of Francisco Bay Office Park (SWL 315, 316 ind 317) 
is leased by Clip Clop m Partners, Ltd. ("Clip Clop"") from the Port pursuant tc "iie terms 
and provisions of a Lease Agreement dated June 28, 1974, originally entered inic berween 
the Port and Francisco Bay Office Park, a limited pannership. The lease was ameixied by 
the terms and provisions of a First Amendment to Lease dated December 8. 19"6. 
between the Port and Francisco Bay Office Park, and by the terms and provisicns :: a 
Second Amendment to Lease dated June 21, 1995, between the Port and HHC 
Investments, Ltd. (collectively, the "'Master Lease"). 

Houston's Restaurants, Inc. (''Houston's") plans to enter into a lease with Clip C'cp III 
Partners, Ltd. ("Clip Clop") to demolish the existing restaurant located at Franc :ic: Bay 
Office Park, and to construct a new restaurant. Houston's would like to have an 
Attornment and Nondismrbance Agreement ("Agreement") with the Port so thai ji 'jie 
event that the Master Lease terminates early, Houston's will still be able to mainiiin its 
lease. 

Houston's proposes a twenty-year lease beginning no later than June 1, 1997. wiii :\vo 
ten-year options to extend. Material provisions of the Agreement include the follouing: 

• The Port will recognize Houston's under the terms of the lease between Houston's 

and Clip Clop if the Master Lease ends before its scheduled termination in 2040: 



THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. lOB 



i 



r 



^ 



:> 



Page 2 

• Houston's will recognize the Port as its Landlord under the terms of the lease 
between Houston's and Clip Clop if the Master Lease to Clip Clop ends before its 
scheduled termination in 2040; 

• Should the Port become the Landlord of Houston's, the Landlord shall not 
interfere or otherwise interrupt Tenant in its use and quiet enjoyment of the 
Premises pursuant to the lease as long as Tenant is current in the payment of all 
rentals and charges required under the lease and is not otherwise in default; 

• The Port shall not be liable for (i) any security or cleaning deposits paid to Clip 
Clop under the lease, (ii) any rent or additional rent that may have been paid in 
advance to Clip Clop for a period in excess of one (1) month, or (iii) any act or 
omission of any prior landlord. 

A copy of the proposed Agreement is attached hereto and is on file with the Port 
Commission Secretary. Port staff believes that approval of this Agreement is necessary 
for Houston's to enter into the lease with Clip Clop. The Port has entered into similar 
agreements for the benefit of tenants of Francisco Bay Office Park, most recently with 
Levi Strauss and Catholic Healthcare West. 

The Lease does not require Port Commission consent for subleasing. However, the Lea.se 
does require Port Commission consent for demolition of the existing improvements. Port 
staff anticipates bringing a separate item to the Commission in the near future, requesting 
the Commission's consent for the demolition. 



Prepared by: Lewis Wiseman, Director, Tenant & Maritime Services 



i| 



3 



I 



i 



d 



PORT COMMISSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



RESOLUTION NO. 9_dJLlQ 



WHEREAS, 



Chaner Section B 3.581 empowers the Port Commission with the 
power and duty to use, conduct, operate, maintain, regulate and 
control the Port area of San Francisco; and 



WHEREAS, 



WHEREAS, 



The Port entered into a lease with Francisco Bay Office Park, a 
limited partnership, in 1974; said lease was subsequently assigned to 
Clip Clop m Partners, Ltd. ("Clip Clop"); and 

Houston's Restaurants, Inc. ("Houston's") would like to enter a 
lease with Clip Clop for a new restaurant located at Francisco Bay 
Office Park; and 



:> 



WHEREAS, 



WHEREAS, 



WHEREAS, 



RESOLVED 



Houston's has requested assurances that if the Master Lease to Clip 
Clop ends before its scheduled termination in 2040 that the Pon will 
honor Houston's lease; and 

The proposed Attornment and Nondismrbance Agreement will 
provide the necessary assurances to Houston's and Houston's will 
recognize the Port as its landlord, and 

It is in the Port's interest to help Clip Clop attract a new operator 
for its restaurant parcel and to encourage the construction of a new- 
restaurant facility on the premises; now, therefore, be it 

That the Port Commission approves the Attornment and 
Nondismrbance Agreement substantially in the form on file with the 
Pon Commission Secretary and authorizes the Executive Director or 
his designee to sign the Agreement in such final form as is approved 
by the City Attorney. 



/ hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Port Commission at its 
meeting of October 22, 1996. 



) 



Secretary 



I:\FBAy.MEM 



I 



btm BT-uT;T;en jonnson RODinson. lu^iti^gd .ii-ouMm -. uunisn 



Itecording requested by 
and when recorded return to: 

\V. Glenn Viers, Esq. 
E[ouston's Restaurants, Inc. 
8 Piedmont Center, Suite 720 
AtUntsi, Georgia 30305 



TOU 



0? X)2 j-oazD-' 



1*1 i 7T* U^^OJ* t» i. 



A rr^r.^ GROUND LEASE 

ATTORNMENT AND NONDISTURBANCE AGREEMENT 

Ail^ENrZ-A^r^^rO^eL^^^ ^ NONDISTURBANCE 

HOUSTON'S RESTAulAm'S INC TdI^II ^' — ^^ °^ October, 1996, among 
in PARTNERS, LTD. a Cobial lilvH ''T^^^^^^"^^^^ 

Port Commission ("Undlord"). ' '^"^"P^ ^^^o^^on, opeiatmg through the San Fnacisco 



1996 

is 

Clob 

the 

Exljib 



RECITALS 

, (Which .oX^'&'<Ki]^XTrd''™'.""^^^^ 
fened to as the "Project L^) HZt J" .T^'"'' '^"'° ^"^ "^^ «. time 
o:p cenain p„mises (thi "ft^sVc^Si.^ Tp^ o^^^p^^' '^ ^^^^ ^- Clip 
• Oty and County of San RancUco Sute of r»wf the Fiancsco Bay Office Park ii 

Ibit A attached hereto. ' °^ CaWoma. The Premises are described on 



limited paitnership, a shoit fom nf ^h^Jk^ "^°" and Francisco Bay Office Pari: a 

f:!!if: °^*» o^'-'^^ai -S :f rc\:iT?r.^^- ^^1 ^' A«oo^ B^^^^ 



1557 of the official lecoriT o ZciZSr °°/"°= '^' ^''^' *" Boole B-904 
amet^dedbythetennsandproviJonlofaS^'t^endm'"^,"?'^ ^™"^^°' ^aMonua, a 
between landlord and Francisco Bay Sf^cVSrfZtv?^ t^''' ^'"^ ^^^^^^ 8- 1^76, 
Amendment to Uase dated June 2^ 1995 te^t^ ^„h^ 'T' ^If'^^^'"''^ °^ ^ Second 
(conicnvely, the "Ground Lease"). ' *" ^'""'' ^<' HHC Investments, Ltd. 

Tenant ^ereunSlteS'Sutd'^e^^:?,' "^^ ^ ">' "«»" <>' ^« 
rpson. ^ '^™"'"^ ^^e sball expire or be terminated for 



Proj( 
any 



ect 



i72WT,4 PJlia/l*Wg,,g, 



c 



i 



,T^^ 



(1 JUI1II5U11 nuui II5UII 1 I u 



^^^^^^^^^^^? 



niT f iJtrr\T»rv 



^^^^/ 



crt J ^J J Lir ■ 



•♦ r J c r ■♦ 0"fa^rw o 



:) 



J 



ipceipt 
follows 



r*.t or other cLges te uSJ^S i?" " ' ^^' ^''"^' '^' *" '« "^ -' P^y 



Ixiase 

expiration 

tejtnination 



AGREEMENT 

and ,„ffi?^' ^^T^?^' f°^ g°od and valuable consideration received by them the 
and sufficiency of which axe hereby acknowledged, the parties covenant ^^^ 



.nH . aJ''^ . ^^^^ ^^"^^ '^^ ^^ ^°^°^ to Landloni under all of the terms 
ly upon Undlord succeeding ,o the L^st oTLlt^^^'j^'''' 



covenants 

foice 

heieby 

from 

execution 

immediately 



in i.k use and quiet eniS.enSl^,eT;«~°;hfC^T"'^'"^' ^^"^ ~''^^ 
Ten^t is current in the payment of L^firh, ^■''^' ^'* '° '°"S as Project 

is ni; otherwise i. dafaul" 1 pS i^tef ''' "^""^ ""'" '"^ ^j^« ^ ^"^ 



paid 

Leas^ 

(ii) 



5JF;»5:^?w?5tr^3i^ 






Clip 
indeninifications 



undertaicenbyCHpaSinS^°n.2^'^J~„£/«"^ ^- *= inden^ca.ons 



iO^ffSWrTjTrrrmrnirTT- 



(g) Landlord shall not be responsible for the obligations or undeitaldngs 
oif Clip Gop with respect to the Garage (as defined in the Lease) or with respect to parking 
generally, including without limitation the obligations and undertaldngs set forth in Sections 9.5, 
17.3 and 19.5 of the Project Lease, unless and until Landlord exercises its option under the 
Ground Lease to acquire the real property on which the Garage is located (it being agreed, 
however, that unless and until the Port exercises its option, Clip Clop shall continue to be 
n sponsible for such obligations and undertakings notwithstanding the expiration or termination 
0^ the Ground Lease); and 

(h) Section 20.24 of the Project Lease shall be of no further effect, and 
all disputes and other matters that would have been resolved by arbitration under the Project 
Ldase shall be resolved by proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction. 

3. Amendments to Ground Lease . Notwithstanding the provisions of 
Section 2 of this Agreement, Landlord shall not be bound by any amendment to the Project 
Lejase, except and unless such amendment has been -approved in writing by Landlord. 

4. Notices . All notices, demands or other communications required or 
peijmitted to be given hereunder shall be in writing and any and aU S'lch items shall be deemed 
to !iave been duly delivered upon personal delivery; upon actual receipt, in the case of notices 
forsvarded by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed as follows; or 
as of 12:00 noon on the immediately following business day after deposit with Federal Express 
or ;l similar overnight courier service, addressed as follows; or as of the third business hour (a 
business hour being one of the hours from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on business days) after 
transmitting by telecopier to the telecopy number set forth below: 



If to Project Tenant, to: 



with a copy to: 



Houston's Restaurants, Inc. 
8 Piedmont Center, Suite 720 
Atlanta, Georgia 30305 
Attn: Mr. W. Glenn Vien 
Telephone No.: (404) 231-0161 
Telecopy No.: (404) 231-4974 

Alston & Bird 

One Atlantic Center 

1201 West Peachu-ee Street 

Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3424 

Attn: Mr. H. Sandler Poe 

Telephone No.: (404) 881-7000 

Telecopy No.: (404) 881-7777 



-3- 



^';^^'!l^''!iteift^^^3iifi:^3f.?lw*-* 1^ li(,-^^!^f itri^M' 



r^nrTTT 



If to C]ip Clop, to: 



If to Landlord, to: 



be 



C]^ Clop m Partners, Ltd. 

252 Clayton Street 

Fourth Floor 

Denver, Colorado 80206 

Attn: Robert J. Jacobs 

Telephone No.: (303) 393-0033 

Telecopy No.: (303) 393-8636 

The San Francisco Port Commission 

3100 Feny Building 

San Francisco, CaHfbmia 94111 

Attn: Neil H. Sekhii, Deputy City Ancmey 

Telephone No.: (415) 274-0486 

Telecopy No.: (415) 274-0494 



5. Successon and Assig ns. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and 
binding upon each of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. 

6. Governing Law . This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in 
accordance with the laws of the State of California. 

7. Coumeipaits . This Agreement may be executed in two or more 
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall constimie 
and be construed as one and the same instrument. 

8. Attorneys' Fees . Each party shall be separately responsible for any 
attoijneys' fees and costs it may incur in connection with the negotiation, preparation and 
recordation of this Agreement. If there is any legal action or proceeding between or among 
Project Tenant, Clip Clop and/or Landlord to enforce any provision of this Agreement, or to 
protect or establish any right or remedy of any party hereunder, then the prevailing party shall 
be entitled to all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and exp-eit 
witness' fees, incurred in connection with such action and any appeal arising therefrom, and ihe 
enforcement of any judgment(s) rendered in connection therewith. 

9. Project Ten ant Not a Party. Project Tenant shall not be joined as a party 
in anjr action or proceeding which may be instituted or taken by reason of any alleged default 

idlord or Clip Clop in the performance of theijr respective obligations under the Ground 



J 




f^fiilrin?'5^n^<vifi. 



rrr> 






« 



I 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Agreement have executed this 
.greement as of the day and year first above written. 

PROJECT TENANT: 



HOUSTON'S RESTAURA^rrS, INC., 
a Delaware corporation 



By: 



Title: 



CUP CLOP: 

CLIP CLOP m PARTNERS, LTD., a 
Colorado limited partnership 

By: Clip Clop Acquisitions Coip. , a Cobrado 
corporation, its sole general partner 



By:_ 



Title: 



LANDLORD: 

QTY AND COUNTY OF SAN FR^ANQSCO, 
a mimicipal coiporadon operating by and through 
TEIE SAN FRANaSCO PORT COMMISSION 



By:. 
Title: 



APPROVED AS TO FORM: 



LOUISE H. RENNE 



City 



momey 



By: 



Neil H. Sekhxi 
Deputy City Attorney 



-5- 



V'i "'^^¥ik ..-•'-^.•^mIi.-^ ..^.^.V-atw-V^^W.^-'^^-^^^^'^^^^^^ 



CITY AND COUNTY OF S AN FRANCISCO 

PORT COilMISSION documents dep- 

^ MINUTES OF THEJUEEnNG NOV 1 8 1996 

•^ .OCTOBER 22, 1996V o„k, „„.>, 

V^— i. '——^ SAN FRANCISCO 



^^ 



^j 9.2^1 q\o 



PUBLIC LIBRARY 



1. ROLL CALL 



The meeting was called to order by Commission President Michael Hardeman at 4:04 
p.m. The following Commissioners were present: Michael Hardeman, Frankie Lee, 
Preston Cook, James Herman and Denise McCarthy. 

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - the Commission Secretary announced that the minutes of 
the October 8, 1996 meeting will be presented for approval at the next meeting. 

3. EXECUTIVE 

A. Executive Director's Report: Mr. Bouey reported the following: 

1) Festa Italiana was held last weekend; it was a profitable event. 

2) Fleet Week was a rousing success. 

3) Brews by the Bay to held at Pier 45 on October 26 from 2 to 6 p.m. 

4) Madrigal-Wan Hai Lines will be calling at the Port of San Francisco. They 
handle container cargo and breakbulk. They call on the West Coast, Korea, 
Hongkong, China and the Philippines. He commended Jill Simpson for all her 
efforts. 

5) The Department of Transportation awarded the Port $2.4 million for the 
breakwater grant. It's a $15 million project; the Port has approximately $13 
million in grant money. The design will be completed by the end of December. 
Construction will commence early spring. The estimated project completion date 
is late 1998 or early 1999. He commended Veronica Sanchez for her efforts in 
obtaining the grant money. 

6) The Fish Processmg center at Pier 45 has been selected by the Waterfront Center 
jury to receive the 1996 Honor Award. The award will be presented on 
November 15 in Boston. He commended Port staff and the consultants for all 
their efforts. 

7) Carolyn Macmillan gave a brief presentation on the Port's web site. She stated 
that the web site is a combined effort of the Marketing, MIS and the Planning 
departments. This is the first phase and it can be updated anytime as necessary. 
The following six components were incorporated into the web site - General 
Overview, Port Commission, the Maritime Activities, Visitor Information, 
Leasmg and the Waterfront Plan. There's also a "What's New"section which 
describes upcoming events at the Port. The General Overview gives a 
description of the Port as to its history, mission statement, the structure and 
geography of the Port. The Port Commission section gives the bios of the 

MI02296.igq -1- 



Commissioners and the most recent agenda. The Visitor Information includes a 
section on Alcatraz, Herb Caen Way, parks, Pier 39, restaurants, the Jeremiah 
O'Brien, transportation and The Pampanito. The Leasing section provides 
available property at the Port, film locations available and special event sites. 
The Waterfront Plan provides the goals, the urban design guidelines, public 
access and enumerates the different special areas such as Fisherman's Wharf, 
northeast waterfront, the Ferry Building, South Beach, China Basin, Southern 
Waterfront and the waterfront planning process. The cargo services of the 
maritime section provides a description of our facilities and the services available 
at the Port. The web site's address is WWW.SFP0RT.COM. She thanked 
Vincent Topaldo, a pro-bono consultant to the Port, for his help in putting the 
web site together. 

Roadway Project (Information Only). 

Mr. Bouey stated that the mid-Embarcadero Roadway Project would realign and 
upgrade the surface roadway along the Embarcadero between Folsom Street and 
Broadway. On October 8, 1996 the Port Commission adopted Resolution No. 96-103 
approving the realignment of the mid-Embarcadero Roadway Project. The resolution 
also authorized Port staff to work with the Waterfront Transportation Projects office 
to develop urban design criteria for the project, as well as to negotiate an agreement 
regarding the design, engineering and construction and the approval process for the 
projects. The purpose of today's presentation is to allow the Commission the 
opportunity to view the model that has been prepared for the project, as well as to ask 
questions and receive information from staff. Port staff will work with the 
Waterfront Transportation Projects Office in developing urban design principles and 
specifications for the project. A handout was provided to the Commission which 
contains the draft design parameters. Over the next couple of weeks, staff will 
contact the Commissioners individually for their comments. As well, staff will hold a 
public workshop to which Commissioners will be invited to gamer more public input 
before this item is brought back to the Commission for its formal review and 
approval. 

Dan Hodapp, with the Planning & Development Division, stated that at the last 
meeting, the Commission selected a roadway alternative for the mid-Embarcadero 
project and approved findings for the final EIR of this project. He enumerated the 
following design parameters which outline the basic design concepts: (1) They are to 
continue the general urban design vocabulary expressed by the Embarcadero Roadway 
in the north and south which includes palm trees, lighting and art ribbon. The art 
ribbon will be flush with the pavement. (2) The central plaza would be 
predominantly a hard scape space with bold granite paving. (3) A reconstructed 
transition zone between the plaza area and the central park area should be designed as 
a tiered feature to create greater accessibility. (4) The southern portion of Block 202 
should be the site of underground parking garage. 

Per Commissioner Cook's request, the Commission examined the model prior to further 

M102296.igq -2- 



presentation. 

Rebecca Kohlstrand, Project Manager for the Waterfront Transportation Project, gave the 
Commission an update of the process since it was brought to the Commission two weeks 
ago. The Recreation & Park Commission and the Parking & Traffic Commission have 
voted to endorse the DPT Variant. On Thursday, this item will be brought to the Housing 
and Land Use Committee of the Board of Supervisors for their endorsement and then onto 
the full board which will conclude the City decision making process for the roadway 
project. They are going forward with the split roadway alternative endorsed by this 
Commission and the Board of Supervisors. They would like to get the Commission's 
comments on the urban design concepts assuming that they are not going further into the 
park which is not endorsed or adopted by the Recreation and Parks Commission and also 
with the understanding that the underground parking garage was endorsed as part of the 
roadway concept. They are trying to get a sense of the urban design elements and how it 
will look. At this point, they are fairly certain that the roadway project will move ahead 
and within the next few weeks, approval from the Board of Supervisors will be sought and 
move ahead on the design and implementation of the project. She encouraged the 
Commission to give specific feedback on the urban design proposal as well as the concept 
so they can bring those concepts to the Board of Supervisors and other agencies for their 
review and approval. 

Per Al Baccari's inquiry. Commissioner Herman inquired about the maintenance of the 
area. Mr. Bouey responded that under the MOU signed between the City and the Port 
Commission, the Department of Public Works will be responsible for the maintenance of 
the mid-Embarcadero roadway project. Ms. Kohlstrand concurred with Mr. Bouey and 
added that it is their intent to ensure that it gets proper maintenance. 

Mr. Boris Dramov, consultant for the project, showed a slide presentation. He stated that 
the Loma Prieta earthquake gave us a second chance to look at connections to reinstate the 
linkage between Market Street, the waterfront and the Ferry Building and to create the 
continuity on the Embarcadero. Not only did the freeway obstruct the linkage at the 
Market Street but it also interfered with the continuous corridor along the waterfront. The 
City found that there were constraints about the idea of a fully depressed underground 
roadway and reconsidered all of the ramps that were related to the terminal separator. Not 
only could connections be made but the whole transbay terminal area was part of the idea 
of bringing the waterfront and the City closer together. After a period of time, they 
looked at a surface alternative. The Board of Supervisors came up with the alternative to 
put the roadway in the middle. 

He then talked about the character of the split roadway alternative and what the basic 
value choice of where to put the additional space. The character that was most desirable 
and what the Board stated as a preference was to reinstate the crossroads of the 
Embarcadero and Market Street. The meeting point of pedestrians coming across the area 
and trolley cars or vehicles crossing is the character that was most looked at as 
appropriate for the center of the area. They also looked at the number of passengers that 
crossed the roadway. They also looked at the increase in ferry service and the 
enhancement of the ferry terminal. One of the major criteria is tiie meeting of pedestrians 



M102296.igq 



that go back and forth through the area with the transit surface and the F-Line, which will 
come through the area. The second criteria that was discussed is the extent and the kind of 
civic events that occur on the waterfront. Major gatherings of people on the waterfront 
area is one of the considerations of how the area should be used in the future. The 
Farmer's Market has been a very important addition in terms of bringing people to the 
waterfront. New ideas of how the market could become a more permanent establishment 
on the waterfront is being discussed. During the construction period, there's discussion of 
relocating the market to the ferry terminal plaza. There's also a desire from the market to 
continue in a more significant role in the Ferry Building area. They are creating a linkage 
through the central area of the project that has begun to the north and the south. A very 
important consideration is how the linkage is made. The completion of the roadway will 
create a mix mode facility. They need to look at the goal of bringing the waterfront and 
the City closer together. The development of the ferry terminal is a very important step in 
reinstating the importance of this area to the community as a whole. The revitalization of 
the Ferry Building is another important step in bringing the two sides together. There are 
also a number of improvements to the existing recreational open space at Justin Herman 
Plaza and the two and half acres that were added to the inventory from the previous 
Washington, Clay ramps and transferred from CalTrans to the City of San Francisco. The 
overall program includes a whole number of improvements to create the open space on the 
City side to be attractive. These actions and improvements of the central section will 
create the kind of connection to the waterfront. Most specifically, one of the first things 
they have to deal with is the edge which was originally designed to buffer and divide the 
City from the freeway. They feel that it is critical that the wave wall be reinstated to 
" bring the two sides together. One way to do that is to take the vocabulary of the roadway 
into shifted inland so it can be defmed the new central space and at the same time 
announce the important meeting point of Market Street and Embarcadero. They are also 
looking at space that allows for major gatherings and pedestrian crossings while at the 
same time feels comfortable and have a human scale on those days when it isn't full of 
people and also the space itself create a shape which is more appropriate for the central 
location. They added the high branching trees to help redefine the space and give a human 
scale to the area. They have looked at paving, a very strong color that characterizes the 
Justin Herman Plaza area. They have a established vocabulary that reflects the working 
character of the waterfront and the robust nature of the San Francisco edge to the bay. 
They have proposed the use of bollards to protect the pedestrians from traffic. Some 
other aspects that could happen within the central space - the news kiosks, coffee carts, 
flower vendors. There is an extensive program of lighting the face of the entire Ferry 
Building and the surrounding areas and the opportunity for special events lighting. The 
implementation and ongoing maintenance and management of this area is critical and a 
part of the consideration of the overall project. 

Commissioner Cook inquired if there will be a defined bicycle path along the roadway. 
Ms. Kohlstrand replied to the affirmative and added that it would be similar to what's 
being done at the north and south Embarcadero where we have 15 feet outside lanes, 11 
feet for movement of traffic and 4 feet for the bicycles. However, they are considering a 
slight modification in the mid-section. The general layout of the mid-section will be 
different in that the third lane will be used for travel during the peak period but on off- 
peak period, it will be used as parking. When it is being used as parking it will function 

M 102296. igq -4- 



as an 8 feet parking lane and 7 feet bicycle lane. They are also considering the concern 
expressed by the bicycle community that the 4 feet lane is not wide enough. They are 
working with the Department of Parking and Traffic to consider expanding to a 5 feet lane 
which would be carried through the mid-Embarcadero. They are trying to make 
additional provisions on the roadway to accommodate bicyclists. 

Ernestine Weiss, tenant of Golden Gateway Center, addressed the Commission regarding 
the garage. She stated that the garage is at the wrong location and building it would be 
too expensive. It should be accessible on the Embarcadero instead of congesting all the 
streets around it. She opposed cutting up the park to make the roadway wider. She stated 
that making room for the F-line going to Chinatown is not necessary because a dry run 
with a mobilized cable car can be done. Cutting up Davis Street to make the roadway 
wider is also unnecessary. She opposes any development on, under or in the park. They 
love the idea of the plaza and the trees but they object to the black stripes on the 
pavement. She suggested having the City & County San Francisco seal or a maritime 
symbol in place of the black stripes. 

Lee Gotshall Maxon, attorney representing the owners of One Maritime Plaza, and also 
working with the owners of the Golden Gateway complex, the Embarcadero Center, One 
Market Plaza and Hyatt Hotels stated that the owners have all agreed that : (1) the Muni 
layover should be moved; if it cannot be moved, the owners feel that it should be treated 
architecturally; (2) the paired curve roadway is a better alternative; however, given the 
Board of Supervisors and the Port Commission's endorsement of the split roadway 
alternative, the owners felt that this plan should go forward as a treatment for the urban 
design concept; (3) if there's going to be a use for Blocks 202 and 203, it should be low 
density, high quality development, no more than 40 ft. height. The owners of the Hyatt 
Hotels, Embarcadero Center, One Market Plaza, Golden Gateway, One Maritime Plaza all 
endorse this plan. 

Mario Ciampi, Architect, showed his proposal that is opposite of the scheme that the City 
is considering. It is a unified plaza with a paired freeway going underneath an elevated 
plaza. It is a split level development because Market Street is higher than the Ferry 
Building and to give emphasis to a grand fountain. In domg this, the cut of the freeway 
that goes in front of the Ferry Building is lessen and at the same time broadening the 
approach with gardens on either side. One of the most beautiful plaza in the world can be 
borne here. 

Vernon De Mars, Architect & Planner, stated that he has been working on this plan for a 
long time. He gave a brief presentation and invited the Commission to take a look at their 
proposal/drawing. He concluded that it would be a better plan if the roadway is moved a 
little further west. 

Carl Maletic, Architect, complimented Boris Dramov's group and also gave a brief 
presentation of their proposal. He provided the Commission and the Executive Director a 
copy of their booklet outlining their proposal. 

Mr. Bouey reiterated that this item is for information only. Mr. Hodapp will be in contact 



M102296.igq 



with the Commissioners to solicit their comments and provide further briefings. Staff 
intends to provide a public workshop and this item will be brought back to the 
Commission for action in November or December. 

Commissioner McCarthy inquired about the process of approval. She wondered if the 
Commission is approving exactly what is laid out today, e.g. the type of tree, or is it a 
general approach. Ms. Kohlstrand replied that it would be approving the general 
approach towards the design. The level of detail they are looking at is, for example, 
supporting a major central plaza with a high quality paving materials in a bold pattern 
with deciduous trees so it does not get down to the specificity but the approach they 
recommend. Commissioner McCarthy stated that it is important to know the detail of 
specificity when it comes down to voting on this item. Rebecca Kohlstrand replied that 
what they are trying to get in the next month or two is an endorsement from the City that 
this is the direction they want to move in so they can proceed with the more specific 
design so they can continue to put together a certain approach. The roadway project will 
start final design in January and conclude mid- 1997. If we don't come to closure on the 
design aspects, design treatment of the roadway, we may be faced with the situation that 
we are left with those amenities. They would like to include the central plaza area, the 
promenade area and the transition zone as part of the transportation project. 

Mr. Hodapp explained that the design parameters are very general in nature but also 
express certain concepts such as the bold stripes in the paving pattern. Although this may 
not be the same paving pattern specifically, they also express a strong edge from the far 
side of the plaza that divides the City side from the waterside. Those are the types of 
design parameters with the approval of the details at a later time. 

Mr. Dramov stated that this project has been ongoing for seven years; five years of initial 
debate of what should happen in the central area and an additional year and a half of 
continued discussion of what further should happen. There had been numerous public 
hearings, public workshops, individual sessions, as well as small and large focus groups. 
By June 1997, the construction documents have to be completed. It is important at this 
point to have an agreement on the scope of the project. 

4. LEGISLATIVE 

5. TENANT & MARITIME SERVICES 

A. Approva l of Marine Terminal Ag reement for Madrigal-Wan Hai Lines for use of Pier 
94/96. (Resolution No. 96-111) 

Mr. Bouey announced that the Port has concluded negotiations for a Five-year Marine 
Terminal Agreement with Madrigal-Wan Hai Lines for use of Pier 94/96. Madrigal- 
Wan Hai Lines offers service to and from the Far East with calls in Busan, Manila, 
Hong Kong, Xiamen. Their vessels are expected to make bi-weekly calls. In 
yesterday's conference, the agent for Madrigal- Wan Hai indicated that they are going 
to acquire two more ships and expect very shortly to call once-a-week. Madrigal- 
Wan Hai is a growing shipping line and it's a shipping line that fits well with our 

M 102296. igq -6- 



I 



marketing strategy as our facility can handle their containers and their breakbulk. 
The terms of the contract are the same as Serpac with one exception - the Port's 
Standard Exculpation clause has been deleted. Madrigal-Wan Hai has also requested 
an indemnity from the Port and City caused by the City or the Port's negligence. 
Since only the Board of Supervisors can provide that authority, it is written in the 
contract as such that the current language remains in place; however, Port staff have 
agreed to immediately ask the Board for a waiver of our standard clause and for the 
insertion of the clause that Madrigal- Wan Hai has requested. If the board should 
disapprove that indemnity, Madrigal-Wan Hai has 30 days to cancel the agreement. It 
is the Director's expectation, however, that the Board of Supervisors would not deny 
Madrigal- Wan Hai's request. 

Commissioner Herman complknented all individuals involved in this effort. He hopes 
that it become a part of a new era when we have more shipping than we've enjoyed. 
It is good for the Port and the City as a whole. 

ACTION: Commissioner Herman moved approval; Commissioner McCarthy 
seconded the motion. All of the Commissioners were in favor; the 
resolution was adopted. 

6. FACILITIES & OPERATIONS 

A. Fisherman's Wharf righting, informational presentation and authorization to advertise 
for bids for Construction Contr act No. 2631 , "Fisherman's W harf Lighting 
Im provements, Phase I." (Resolution No. 96-106) 

Mr. Bouey stated that the Commission approved the award of a professional services 
contract to F.W. Associates, Inc. for the design of the Fisherman's Wharf Lighting 
Improvements at its March 26, 1996 meeting. The design contract is divided into 
three parts: (1) Part 1 - the consultant shall develop a cost effective conceptual 
lighting design proposal for all of Fisherman's Wharf. (2) Part 2 - the consultant 
shall prepare and furnish the Port with the necessary plans, technical specifications 
and a cost estimate for lighting at the inner and outer lagoons and Pier 45 Sheds "A" 
and "B." We only have sufficient funding for the construction of these improvements 
at this time. The consultant will prepare plans, specifications and a cost estimate for 
the remamder of the Fisherman's Wharf project and when funds become available, 
this phase of the project will be implemented. (3) Part 3 - the consultant will provide 
bid and construction support services during the bidding phase and during 
construction. Today, there will be a presentation on the concepts and staff hopes that 
there will be favorable response. If so, the Port will then advertise for bids for the 
construction of Phase 1 . The construction of this phase is due to be completed by 
spring of 1997. 

Mr. Cliff Jarrard introduced Sam Kwoong, the consultant for the project. Mr. 
Kwoong stated that he is part of the project team of F.W. Associates. Over the past 
few months, the project team has completed the concept plan for the Fisherman's 
Wharf Lighting project. As part of the initial study, the team looked at the ferry 

M102296.igq -7- . 



arch, the facade of Pier 45, the inner and outer lagoons, the triangular parking lot and 
the adjacent streets next to Fisherman's Wharf. As part of the design process, the 
team met with the Fisherman's Wharf Tenant Association, the Port design advisors 
and the Fisherman's Wharf Board of Directors. Throughout the many meetmgs, they 
have obtained support from all the members of the associations and would like to see 
this project move forward. He briefly summarized the development of the design 
process and what the next phase will encompass. The study area of the Fisherman's 
Wharf consists of a variety of pictures. One of the problems they have identified is 
the glare caused by the light fixtures. The lighting design they came up with is a 
unifying theme to deal with the lighting and to also tie in to some of the lighting 
fixtures established along the Embarcadero roadway. The overall concept plan 
includes a ferry arch, which is the focal point at the end of the pier, the inner and 
outer lagoon, the facade treatment of Pier 45 , and an electrical service upgrade to 
handle the new load that is anticipated for the special function. The other treatment 
they have looked at is creating a low level lighting where it's not glary. Along 
Jefferson Street, the rhythm of light will be treated similarly to how the Embarcadero 
roadway is treated and different fixtures are being considered for that portion. The 
acorn fixmres will be along the roadway. They are taking the theme back to a 
historical element that they have seen in historical photographs of how the 
Fisherman's Wharf used to be lit. The Fisherman's Wharf associations have 
expressed their support on this project. 

Commissioner McCarthy wanted to ensure that this contract will go through all the 
HRC requirements and the extensive outreach. Mr. Bouey replied that all of Port's 
contract will go through HRC and would not bring one to the Commission for award 
without having received HRC approval. As indicated at the last meeting, 44% of 
Port contracts were awarded to MBEAVBE firms last year. 

ACTION: Commissioner Cook moved approval; Commissioner Lee seconded the 
motion. All of the Commissioners were in favor; the resolution was 
adopted. 

B . Authorization to award Contract No. 26:^2 "Pier 68 Shipyard Cranes Improvements" 

Mr. Bouey stated that this project was originally before the Commission wherein the 
staff recommended rejection of bids over a mixed up of the priority of which issue 
should be addressed with the limited funding available.. The project was reviewed by 
outside consultants and by San Francisco Drydock, who uses these cranes. The 
project was rebid and bids were received. The lowest responsive bidder is Sheedy 
Drayage in the amount of $1.7 million. This contract is being financed by a grant of 
$1.5 million from the Economic Development Administration, $250,000 from the CA 
Trade and Commerce Agency and $250,000 in Port funds. Sheedy Drayage 
Company exceeds the recommended 6% MBE and 2% WBE subcontracting goals for 
this contract. Since there is a small portion of money available from funding sources, 
staff requests approval to modify the contract for up to 10% for contingencies. 



M102296.igq 



Commissioner Herman inquired about the criteria for measuring the validity of the 
10% overrun. Mr. Bouey replied that a request for 5% contingency for modifications 
is typically brought to the Commission for approval. In this case a 10% contingency 
is requested because of the complexity of the project, the uncertainty given the age of 
these cranes and the limited money available. Staff is only requesting for approval 
for modifications that are within the scope of the contract. If the modifications were 
to exceed the scope of the contract, staff will return to the Commission for approval. 

Commissioner Herman inquired about the status of Ms. Aileen Hernandez' request at 
the last meeting to meet with the Executive Director regarding alleged grievances. 
Mr. Bouey responded that the two representatives from Asian Inc. requested the 
meeting and that meeting is scheduled for Friday, October 25, at 11 a.m. 
Commissioner Hardeman indicated that Commissioner Herman and Commissioner 
Lee will attend the meeting and will report back at the next Commission meeting. 

ACTION: Commissioner McCarthy moved approval; Commissioner Cook 

seconded the motion. All of the Commissioners were in favor; the 
resolution was adopted. 

7. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 

A. Approval of final concepmal design for Pier 52 Public Boat Launch, Cafe, Rait and 
Tackle Shop and endorsement of preparation of construction documents. (Resolution 
No. 96-107) 

Mr. Bouey stated that the conceptual design was brought to the Commission for 
review. The suggestions made were incorporated into the final conceptual design. 
The biggest issue raised by the Commission was the inclusion of a double boat ramp, 
which has been incorporated into the design. In addition to the public boat launch, 
there is a provision for vehicles and trailers parking as well as a small cafe and bait & 
tackle shop. The budget is under $1.9 million. Upon the Commission's endorsement 
of the fmal design, the actual construction documents will be prepared and this item 
will be brought back to the Commission for approval of bid advertisement. 

Sam Kwoong, Architect, stated that they have incorporated the Commissioners 
request of a double lane boat ramp and a larger maneuvering area into the design 
concept. They have met with Dept. of Public Works to ensure accessibility of this 
facility. They have also presented the revised design to the Citizens Advisory 
Committee and received their support. Part of the program in enlarging the boat 
ramp and the maneuvering area require additional fill to the bay, which is of a 
concern to BCDC. Their initial meeting, however, with BCDC seems to indicate that 
because this is a water related activity, the additional fill application may be accepted. 

Commissioner Cook inquired about the size of the cafe. Mr. Kwoong responded that 
the footprint of the building is approxunately 2300 sq. ft., including the public 
restroom facility. They also worked with the Port's Leasing Department to discuss 
the interior of the shell building and the consensus was to keep it as open as possible 

M102296.igq -9- 



for the tenant to decide how to best use the space. Commissioner Cook inquired if 
there's a criteria for the size of the cafe versus the size of the boaters' needs. Mr. 
Kwoong replied that the Port's Leasing Department will be formulating the RFP and 
that information will be included in the package. Commissioner Cook wanted to 
ensure that there is a balance between the cafe and the intended purpose of the users 
of the boat ramp, a facility where they can purchase supplies. 

ACTION: Commissioner Cook moved approval; Commissioner Herman seconded 
the motion. All of the Commissioners were in favor; the resolution was 
adopted. 

8. ADMINISTRATION 

9. SPECIAL ITEM 

A. Port Commission Sub cnmmittee's R ecnmmendation on Cargo and Marine Ter minals 
Organi/ation. (Resolution No. 96-105) 

Commissioner Herman requested that this item be held over to the next meeting or as 
soon as he has completed his review. Commissioner McCarthy, as member of the 
subcommittee, agreed to put this item over to the next meeting. Commissioner 
McCarthy apologized to the intended speakers of this item for having to put this item 
over to the next meeting. 

ACTION: Commissioner Herman moved approval to put this item over to the next 
meeting; Commissioner McCarthy seconded the motion. All of the 
Commissioners were in favor. 

10. CONSENT CALENDAR 

epresentative to travel to the 1 0th Annual International 
)f the Waterfront Center in Boston Mass. in accordance with the 
dget. (Resolution No. 96- IQ^) 

B. Approval of GroimdJLease Attomment_andJfondis,turbance^gre.ement between Port, 
Clip Clop III Partners, Ltd. and proposedlenant of Francisco Bay Office Park (SWL 
315, 316, 317). (Resolution No. 96-110) 

ACTION: Commissioner Cook moved approval; Commissioner Lee seconded the 
motion. All of the Commissioners were in favor; items on the consent 
calendar were adopted. 

11. NEW BUSINESS / PUBLIC COMMENT 

Mr. Ben Kutnick introduced Mrs. Kathy Mallegni, the Port's Personnel Officer. The 
Commission welcomed Mrs. Mallegni to the Port. 



M102296.igq -10- 




12. EXECUTIVE SESSION 

At 5:45 p.m., the Commission Secretary announced that the Commission will withdraw to 
executive session to discuss the following: 

A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - Thin sefsdon k cloned 
to any non-City /Port rpprexentative. * 

1) Property: Port property located at Berry Street and Second Street (China Basin). 
Person Negotiating: Port representative: Dennis P. Bouey, Executive Director 
*San Francisco Giants Representative: Larry Baer, Executive Vice President 

Under Negotiation: Price Terms of Payment / Both 

An executive session has been calendared to discuss real property negotiations 
between the Port and San Francisco Giants, regarding the proposed ballpark. 
This is specifically authorized under California Government Code Section . 
54956.8. 

B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION 

1) Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of California Government Code 
Section 54956.9 (1 case). 

C. Vote in open session on whether to disclose Executive Session discussions (S.F. 
Admin. Code Sec. 67.14) 

At 7:20 p.m., Commissioners Hardeman, Lee, Cook, Herman and McCarthy returned 
from executive session and convened in public session. 

ACTION: Commissioner Lee moved approval to not disclose any information discussed 
in the executive session. Commissioner Cook seconded the motion. All of 
the Commissioners were in favor. 

The meeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m. 



M102296.igq -11- 



PORT OFMN FRANCISCO 



5 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
OCT 3 1 1996 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 




Ferry Building 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone 415 274 0400 

Telex 275940 PSF UR 

Fax 415 274 0528 

Cable SFPORTCOMM 

Writer 



\V\ 



NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING 



REVIEW OF THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR THE 



MID-EMBARCADERO ROADWAY PROJECT 



THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1996, 4:00 PM 
PORT COMMISSION ROOM, SUITE 3100, FERRY BUILDING 



Port and City staff will be on hand to present the conceptual design of the Mid-Embarcadero 
Roadway Project and receive input and comments from the public regarding the design. 
Comments received at the meeting will be conveyed to the Port Commission for their 
consideration in adopting design parameters for the project, which is scheduled for the November 
12, 1996 Port Commission meeting. 



Contact Paul Osmundson (274-0546) or Dan Hodapp (274-0625) of the Port staff for additional 
information. 



DISABILITY ACCESS 



The Port Commission office is located on the third floor of the Ferry Building, Suite 3100. 
The Port office is wheelchair accessible. Accessible seating for persons with disabilities 
(including those using wheelchairs) will be available. The closest accessible BART station is 
Embarcadero Station located at Market and Steuart Streets. The closest accessible MUNI 
Metro station is Embarcadero station located at Market and Spear Streets. Accessible MUNI 
lines serving the Ferry Building are the 9, 31, 32 and 71. For more information about MUNI 
accessible services, call 923-6142. 

There is accessible parking at the Ferry Building and at the public lot in the Embarcadero 
median in front of the Ferry Building. Assistive listening devices are available for use in the 
Port Commission Meeting. 

The following services are available on request 72 hours prior to the meeting. Please contact 
Kevin Jensen at (415) 274-0555. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

• American Sign Language Interpreters • The use of a reader during the meeting 

• A Sound Enhancement System • Minutes of the Meeting in Alternative 

• Large Print of the Agenda Formats 

In order to assist the City's efforts to accommodate persons with severe allergies, 
environmental illnesses, multiple chemical sensitivity or related disabilities, attendees at public 
meetings are reminded that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical-based 
products. Please help the City accommodate these individuals. 

Know Your RightsJUndexJhe SunshineJDxdinance 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in fiill view of the public. 
Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the 
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people 
and that City operations are open to the people's review. For more information on your rights 
under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code) or to 
report a violation of the ordinance, contact the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force at 554-6075. 



A111296.igq " -3- 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PORT COMMISSION 



REGULAR MEETING 



4:00 P.M., TUESDAY, (gOTEMBERi2JJ26-^ 
^ FERRY BUILDING, SUITE 3 100 
y SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 



DOCU^/E^4T3 DEPT. 
r^OV0 3i996 

SAN FRANCISCO " 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



>GENDA 



Jic 



1. ROLL CALL 



2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 8, 1996 and October 22, 1996 

3. EXECUTIVE 

A. Executive Director's Report , 

B. Approval of Design Parameters for the Mid-Embarcadero Roadway and Plaza project. 
(Resolution No. 96-113) 

C. Approval of Harbor Traffic Code Amendment regarding restrictions on outdoor signs. 
(Resolution No. 96-112) 

4. LEGISLATIVE 

5. TENANT & MARITEVIE SERVICES 

A. Approval of lease with Flicka McGurrin, dba Pier 23 Cafe, at Pier 23, and approval 
of amendment to BCDC Permit No. M78-106 for the creation and dedication of 
public access adjacent to the Pier 23 Cafe. (Resolution No. 96-121) 

B. Approval of month-to-month lease with Joshua Pryor, dba China Basin Charter/Ruby 
Sailmg, atPier23. (Resolution No. 96-122) 

6. FACILITIES & OPERATIONS 

A. Public Hearing on the intention to issue permits to relocate and install J.C. Decaux 
Public Service/ Advertising Kiosks on the south side of Jefferson Street between Hyde 
and Leavenworth Streets, and on the north side of Jefferson Street between Mason 
and Powell Streets. (Resolution No. 96-114) 

B. Authorization to issue Request For Proposals (RFP) for design services for the 
berthmg facilities and dredging for the Hyde Street Fishing Harbor. (Resolution No. 
96-120) 



A111296.igq 



I 



1 



(% 



C. Authorization to accept the work for Construction Contract No. 2593, "Pier 45 
Earthquake Repair Project, Pier and Buildings Repair." (Resolution No. 96-118) 

7. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 

A. Presentation on Wireless Telecommunications Services Facilities Siting Guidelines. 
(Information Only) 

B. Resolution authorizing the Executive Director to execute BCDC Permit No. 5-96 
(Pier 38 Maritime Recreation Center, Inc.) including the creation and dedication of 
public access areas. (Resolution No. 96-115) 

8. ADMINISTRATION 

9. SPECIAL ITEM 

A. Port Commission Subcommittee's Recommendation on Maritime Services 
Organization. (Resolution No. 96-105) 

10. CONSENT CALENDAR 

A. Approval of travel for one Port representative to attend the International Trade Data 
and Information Conference in Seattle, WA, in accordance with the Port's 1996-97 
budget. (Resolution No. 96-116) 

B. Acceptance of Quitclaim Deed from Catellus Development Corporation of easement 
over approximately 4.417 acres of real property located at 6th and Channel Street 
(leased to Mission Creek Harbor Association). (Resolution No. 96-119) 

C. Approval of Second Amendment to Lease and Consent to Encumbrance with Bundox 
Restaurant, Inc. , dba the Waterfront Restaurant, at Pier IVi . (Resolution No. 96-1 17) 

11. NEW BUSINESS / PUBLIC COMMENT 

12. EXECUTIVE SESSION 

A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - T][m_^i 



cloned to any non-City /Port representative. * 

1) Property: Port property located at Berry Street and Second Street (China Basin). 
Person Neg otiating: Port representative: Dennis P. Bouey, Executive Director 
*San Francisco Giants Rep resentative: Larry Baer, Executive Vice President 

Under Negotiation: Price Terms of Payment /_ Both 

An executive session has been calendared to discuss real property negotiations 
between the Port and San Francisco Giants, regarding the proposed ballpark. 



A111296.igq 



4 



<3 



r 



I 



This is specifically authorized under California Government Code Section 
54956.8. 

B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDDTG EXISTING 
LITIGATION MATTER: 

1) Neudecker v. CCSF, et. al., Superior Court No. 964-862 and 974-043; pursuant to 
subdivision (a) of California Government Code Section 54956.9 

C. Vote in open session on whether to disclose Executive Session discussions (S.F.' 
Admin. Code Sec. 67.14) 

13. ADJOURNMENT 

Public comment is permitted on a ny matter within Port jurisdiction, and is not limrrefl rn agenda 
items. Pu blic comment on non-agenda items may be raised during New Rusine'^s/Public 
Comment. Please fill out a speaker card and hand it to the Commission Secretary, 



A111296.igq -3- 



i 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 



MEMORANDUM 




Ferry Building 

San Francisco. CA 94111 

Teiephone4i5 274 0400 

Telex 275940 PSF UR 

Fax 415 274 0528 

Cable SFPORTCOMM 

Writer 



TO: 



FROM: 



November 5, 1996 



MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 
Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. James Herman 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 



Dennis P. Bouey 
Executive Director 




SUBJECT: Design Parameters for the Mid-Embarcadero Roadway Project. 



DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION OF 
DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR THE MID-EMBARCADERO ROADWAY PROJECT 



The Mid-Embarcadero Roadway project includes realignment of the surface roadway, construction 
of the Embarcadero Promenade, and construction of a plaza on the City-side of the Ferry 
Building. The project extends from Folsom Street in the south to Broadway Street at the north. 
An urban design concept for the Mid-Embarcadero was prepared under the direction of the 
Waterfront Transportation Projects Office by a consultant team led by ROMA Design Group. A 
copy of a report titled "Mid-Embarcadero Roadway and Open Space Design Concept, August, 
1996" was distributed to the Port Commission in September. 



THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1:6 



i 



I 



On October 8, 1996 the Port Commission adopted a resolution approving the aligmnent of the 
Mid-Embarcadero Roadway. The resolution also authorized Port staff to work with the 
Waterfront Transportation Project Office to develop urban design criteria for the project. On 
October 24, The Waterfront Transportation Project's Office presented the urban design plan and 
proposed design parameters for the project to the Port Commission, and the Commission held a 
public hearing. 

To ensure adequate public comment opportunities on the Mid-Embarcadero Roadway project, Port 
staff will hold a publicly noticed meeting on November 7, to elicit further comments on the urban 
design concept. Results from the November 7 public meeting will be relayed to Commissioner's 
at the Port Commission meeting on November 12. 

The design parameters referenced in the attached resolution provide direction to the design team 
on acceptance of the arrangement of major spaces such as the central plaza and transition areas, 
major features within spaces, and general direction on use and quality of materials. Following 
approval of the design parameters, the Waterfront Transportation Projects Office and consultant 
team will refme the design, develop detailed cost estimates, and select materials. The refmed 
design will be returned to the Port Commission for approval in early 1997. 



Sharon Lee Polledri 

Director, Planning & Development 

f:\wp51\imdrdwya 



i 



P5 



PORT COMMISSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

RESOLUTION NO. 96-113 



WHEREAS, Removal of the freeway in the Ferry Building area has provided a unique 
opportunity to improve vehicle and pedestrian circulation to and from the 
waterfront and provide an appropriate and grand setting for the Ferry Building; and 

WHEREAS, The Waterfront Transportation Projects Office has led the preparation of an 
EIR/EIS for the Mid-Embarcadero Roadway project to assess environmental 
impacts in the area; and 

WHEREAS, The Waterfront Transportation Projects Office and consultant team led by the 
ROMA Design Group has prepared a report titled "Mid-Embarcadero Roadway 
and Open Space Design Concept, August, 1996" that was distributed to the Port 
Commission; and 

WHEREAS, The design parameters attached at Appendix 'A' provide direction to the design 
team on acceptance of the arrangement of major spaces such as the central plaza 
and transition areas, major features within spaces, and general direction on use and 
quality of materials; and, now, therefore, be it 

RESOLVED, That the Port Commission approves the Design Parameters for the Mid- 
Embarcadero Roadway attached at Appendix 'A'. 

I hereby certify that the foregoing resohition was adopted by the Port Commission at its meeting 

of November 12, 1996 



Secretary 



Appendix A 

Mid-Embarcadero Roadway Project 
Design Parameters 



November 12, 1996 



1 . The design vocabulary, including art elements, lighting, and landscaping, established for the 
North and South Embarcadero should be extended north from Harrison Street to Mission 
Street and south from Broadway to Washington Street as part of the Mid-Embarcadero 
Roadway Project. 

• The Art Ribbon should be incorporated into the seat wall of the promenade 
south of the Agriculture Building and the railing replaced. 

• The Art Ribbon shall be flush v^th the promenade between Pier 5 and the 
southern end of the Agriculture Building. 



The central plaza should be predominantly a hardscape with high quality materials allowing 
flexibility for a variety of uses, including large scale gatherings and day to day human 
interaction. 

• The central plaza should be paved in a strong, bold, contrasting granite 
paving pattern to establish a strong east/west connection between the Ferry 
Building and the central plaza. 

• The plaza paving should be substantial enough to accommodate vehicular 
traffic during special events. 

• The trackway and plaza should be paved in the same material to give visual 
continuity. The trackway will be depressed three inches and a railing or seat 
wall installed for safety of pedestrians. 

• Deciduous trees should be used to define the plaza, while still maintaining a 
strong ground plane. 

• The central plaza design should incorporate two water or architectural 
features located on either side of the Ferry Building portico. 



-1- 



i 



The central plaza should incorporate street furniture such as news or flower 
kiosks, benches, potted plants and/or public art which add to the comfort of 
the user and add human interest and scale. 



The transition zone between the park and the roadway, from the wave wall on the north end 
and the top of the berm on the south end east to the roadway, should be improved in 
conjunction with the roadway project. It should be designed as a tiered feature to create 
greater accessibility and yet maintain the function of buffering traffic noise. 

• The continuity of the double row of palm trees should be maintained in the 

mid-section of The Embarcadero, shifting to the land side between Mission 
and Washington Street. 



The southern portion of Block 202 should be the site of replacement underground parking 
garage, and should be re-landscaped in conjunction with the development of the garage. 



5. An implementation program should be devised for the open space improvements that 
responds to the following priorities: 

• The central plaza and transition zone should be completed as part of the 
roadway project. 

• A maintenance/management entity should be assigned the responsibility of 
maintaining and programing these public spaces at a level commensurate 
with the investment. 



H:\dsgnparamtr.wpd.fi -2- 



i 



i 




N = '^ 

;=<=A<-'iAT = !5 AND- 
5lIC access FIES 



■VA'tClftCO B 



I 



Mid-Embarcadero Roadway and Open Space 
DESIGN CONCEPT 

Prepared Jor the City ani County of San Francisco by Roma Design Group with associated consultants and artists 



c 



i 

i 



( 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 




MEMORANDUM 



November 12, 1996 



Ferry Building 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone 415 274 0400 

Telex 275940 PSF UR 

Fax 415 274 0528 

Cable SFPORTCOMM 

Writer 



) 



TO: 



MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 

Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. James Herman 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 



FROM: Dennis P. Bouey ,^/^ 

Executive Director ^ 

SUBJECT: Approval of Harbor Traffic Code Amendment Regarding Restrictions on 
Outdoor Signs 

DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE RESOLUTION. 



I 



The Port Commission has the authority to amend the Harbor Traffic Code ("Code") to 
regulate outdoor signs and advertisements on Bay waters within the Port's jurisdiction. 
Recently, a tug and barge was employed for the purpose of displaying a very large 
advertisement on the Bay. I've been concerned, along with the San Francisco Board of 
Supervisors, various other agencies, the media and private individuals about this use. 
Issues that arise from this activity include visual pollution caused by such signs and the 
threat posed to the safety of vehicular and pedestrian traffic which may distracted by the 
signs which are visible from adjacent roadways and highways. 

The City currently prohibits vehicles to be used exclusively for advertising on City streets, 
including streets within Port jurisdiction. In 1992 the City amended Section 680 of the 
Police Code to ban trucks that towed billboards around the City. To address this activity 
on Port waters, a similar amendment to the Code is now proposed whose fundamental 
provisions include the following: 

1 . Language extending the area covered by the Code to include all lands and waters 
within the Port's jurisdiction, and 



THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. iC 



Agenda Item No._3C 
November 12, 1996 
Page 2 



Language banning outdoor signs and advertisements on all waterbome vessels, 
including but not limited to motorized, towed or sailing vessels of any kind, such 
as ships, boats, tugboats, barges and sailboats, unless the waterbome vessel is 
being used primarily to transport passengers or goods. By exempting vessels used 
primarily for the transportation of passengers or goods, this exemption ^iil not 
prohibit advertising on ferry boats, excursion boats, passenger ships, cargo ships 
and similar vessels. Further, all vessels will continue to be able to display their 
names and logos since these do not propose a commercial transaction. 



Prepared by: Dennis P. Bouey, Executive Director 



I:\WP51\AGENDA-I.DOC 



i 



i 



i 



»• 



r 



I 



PORT COMMISSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



RESOLUTION NO. 96-112 






WHEREAS, 



Section B 3.581 of the City Charter empowers the Port Commission of 
San Francisco (the "Commission") with the power and duty to use, 
conduct, operate, maintain, manage, regulate and control the Port area 
of San Francisco; and 



WHEREAS, 



WHEREAS, 



WHEREAS, 



WHEREAS, 



recently, a tug and barge was employed for the purpose of displaying a 
very large advertisement on the bay. The Port Director, along with the 
San Francisco Board of Supervisors, various other agencies, the media 
and private individuals expressed concern about this use. Issues that 
arise from this activity include visual pollution caused by such signs and 
the threat posed to the safety of vehicular and pedestrian traffic which 
may be distracted by the signs which are visible from adjacent roadways 
and highways; and 

the City currently prohibits vehicles to be used exclusively for 
advertising on City streets, including streets within the Port's 
jurisdiction; In 1992 the City amended Section 680 of the Police Code to 
ban trucks that towed billboards around the City; and 

to address this activity on Port waters, the Commission has determined 
that it should prohibit outdoor signs and advertisements on all 
waterbome vessels, including, but not limited to motorized, towed or 
sailing vessels of any kind, such as ships, boats, tugboats, barges and 
sailboats, unless the waterbome vessel is being used primarily to 
transport passengers or goods; and 

this prohibition will be similar to Section 680 of the San Francisco 
Police Code; and, now therefore, be it 



Resolution No. 96-112 
I Page 2 y^ 

RESOLVED, that the Harbor Traffic Code is hereby amended as follows: 

Article 1, Section 3 is hereby amended as follows: 

3. Area covered by this Code. The provisions of this code shall 
be in force upon all lands and waters, including any street, 
wharf, bulkhead wharf, pier, quay, storage area, waterway, or 
navigable waters, within the control and jurisdiction of the 
Commission, as defined in the Burton Act, Stamte<; of 1968, 

Article 13, is hereby added as follows: 

Article 13. Advertismg Vessels Prohibited on Port Waters 



I 



100. No person may exhibit, post or carry any banner, placard, 
poster, card, picture, sign or advertising display that proposes a 
commercial transaction on or by means of a waterbome vessel of 
any kind, including but not limited to motorized, towed or sailing 
vessels such as ships, boats, mgboats, barges, and sailboats, on 
any waters within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Port 
Commission, unless the vessel is being used primarily to 
transport passengers or goods. 



/ hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Port Commission at its 
meeting of November 12, 1996. 



Secretary 



I 



I:\WP51\RES0LU-I.DOC 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 



TO: 



MEMORANDUM 



November 12, 1996 



MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 

Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. James R. Herman 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 




Ferry Building 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telepiione415 274 0iCO 

Telex 275940 PSFUR 

Fax 41 5 274 0528 

Cable SFPORTCOMW 

Wrrter 



FROM: 



SUBJECT: 




Dermis P. Bouey 
Executive Director 



Approval of Lease with Fiicka McGurrin, dba Pier 23 Cafe, at Pier 23, and 
approval of amendment to BCDC Permit No. M78-106 for the creation and 
dedication of permanent public access adjacent to the Pier 23 Cafe 



DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE LEASE WITH FLICKA MCGURRIN, 
dba PIER 23 CAFE, AND AMENDMENT TO BCDC PERMIT NO. M78-106 

BACK GROUND 

Pier 23 Cafe 

Fiicka McGurrm has operated the Pier 23 Cafe since she purchased the business m August 1987. 
Her tenancy was on a month-to-month basis until the Port granted her a 3-year lease in 1994. 
pursuant to its Policy for Leasing Retail Business Sites (discussed below). The current lease 
expires April 30, 1997. While the existing premises contain 4,385 square feet, only 1,440 square 
feet are located inside the restaurant building. The current monthly base rent is $5,600.00, versus 
percentage rent calculated at 7% of gross receipts. During the 1995/96 Fiscal Year, the Pier 23 
Cafe generated gross sales of $2,301,410 ($525 per sq. ft.) and paid $162,618 ($37.09 per sq. ft.) 
of rent to the Port. 



I 



Pursuant to the Port's Policy for Leasmg Retail Busmess Sites, Ms. McGurrin has now requested 
a new long term lease following the expu-ation of her existing 3-year lease. She has submined a 
business plan for redevelopmg the restaurant, which includes a significant investment. Pursuant 

THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. 5 A 



I 



I 



Agenda Item No. 5 A 
November 12, 1996 
Page 2 



to the Policy for Leasing Retail Business Sites, Port staff has reviewed the Tenant's compliance 
with the criteria for direct negotiation of a long term restaurant lease, and staff has negotiated a 
renewal lease for the Pier 23 Cafe. 

Policy for Leasing RetaU Business Sites 

On April 28, 1993, the Port Commission approved the Policy for Leasing Retail Business Sites 
(Resolution No. 93-52). This policy reaffirms the Port's commitment to foster and encourage fall 
and equitable opportunities for leasing retail sites on the waterfront through an outreach and 
competitive bid or request for proposal process (in accordance with Section 23.24 of the 
Administrative Code). However, the policy also allows for the direct negotiation of a lease with 
an existing retail tenant if the benefits of direct negotiation exceed the benefits of a public offering. 
The policy offered a one time oppormnity for an existing month-to-month tenant to receive a short- 
term 3-year lease, provided the tenant was in good standing and was in compliance with 
affirmative action requirements. This short term lease opportunity was granted to provide time 
for the tenant to develop a business plan and strategy for capital investment. 

For a longer lease to then be awarded to an existing retail tenant through direct negotiation, the 
Commission must determine that: 

1 . The tenant is in good standing : 

2. The tenant is commdtted to making a significant capital investment supponed by a sound 
business plan which will benefit the Port; 

3. The tenancy is m the best economic interest of the Port, and the tenant is the best economic 
tenant available based upon sales and revenue to the Port, rent comparables. and a stable 
growth pattern; and 

4. The tenant has a good record of affirmative action and nondiscrimination and is committed 
to future compliance. 

As discussed below, Port staff believes that Flicka McGurrin, dba the Pier 23 Cafe, and her 
proposed busmess plan satisfy the criteria for dkect negofiation pursuant to the Polic>- for Leasing 
Retail Business Sites. 

1. Good Standing 

Flicka McGurrin has a consistent history of compliance with all of the obligations of her 
existing lease. Moreover, she has consistently demonstrated good business practices, 



y_ 



Agenda Item No. 5 A 
November 12, 1996 
Page 3 



provided a dependable level of goods and service, and provided a welcoming atmosphere 
to customers of diverse background and ethnicity. 

2. Sound Business Plan 

The proposed premises are comprised of the existing freestanding restaurant building and 
portions of the adjacent wharf. The business plan proposes expansion of the restaurant 
operation and redevelopment of the premises through a three-phased project. It will also 
include development of an adjacent public access area required by BCDC. (A layout of 
the planned improvements are shown on the attached site plan.) The planned 
improvements, which are estimated to cost a total of approximately $202,935, will be made 
at the sole cost and expense of the Tenant. The improvements, which will be fiinded from 
the cash flow of the restaurant, will be undertaken in the following three phases: 

a. Phase I will involve: Replacement and up-grade of sewer and wastelines; addition 
of a covered garbage and operational support area; construction of a new fence; and the 
development of the public access area required by BCDC. The cost for the Phase I 
improvements is estimated at $72,875. 

b. Phase n wiU involve: The construction of partial cover over the existing exterior 
dining area; construction of two handicap restrooms including all required plumbing; 
complete remodel of interior dining area; and construction of new patio fence. The cost 
for the Phase n improvements is estimated at $90,060. 

c. Phase III will involve: The complete remodel of the kitchen and bar areas. The 
cost for the Phase m improvements is estimated at $40,000. 

The entire improvement project is scheduled to be completed by May 1, 1999. 

3. Best Economic Tenant 

The fatality rate for restaurants, especially so called "white tablecloth" restaurants, is very 
high. Yet, for nine years, the Pier 23 Cafe has been a stable tenant with a very positive 
growth trend, succeeding in a very competitive market despite the disruptions caused by 
the Loma Prieta Earthquake and by the construction of the nearby Waterfront 
Transportation Project. It has in fact established itself as one of the best and most 
consistently performing restaurants, not only on Port property, but also in San Francisco. 



I 



I 



I 



Agenda Item No. 5 A 
November 12, 1996 
Page 4 



*o^ 



I 



I 



The excellent growth in sales of the Pier 23 Cafe since it was acquired by Ms. McGurrin 
in 1987 is demonstrated on the accompanying chart. Its sales grew by 8659^, from 
$238,453 in Fiscal Year 1986/87 (before its purchase by Ms. McGurrm) to $2,301,410 
in Fiscal Year 1995/96. This compares to growth of only 114% for all Port Restaurants 
during the same period. 

In Fiscal Year 1995/96, Port restaurant tenants at Fisherman's Wharf generated average 
annual sales of $540 per square foot, and those on the Central and Northeastern Waterfront 
generated average annual sales of $502 per square feet. By comparison, the Pier 23 Cafe 
generated sales of $1,598 per square foot based on its interior area, and $525 per square 
feet based upon its entire premises (including the outside area). Its sales per square foot 
based upon the interior space make it the most productive restaurant on Port Property. 
The total rental of $37.09 per sq. ft. paid in Fiscal Year 1997/96 (based upon the entire 
premises area) is in the range of the minimum rent typically paid by competitive 
restaurants on the Northern and Central Waterfront that are not on Port property^ 

Implementation of this proposed busmess plan is expected to significantly increase the sales 
of the Pier 23 Cafe. After the proposed redevelopment and expansion is completed, the 
Pier 23 Cafe is projected to generate annual gross sales of $3,695,000. Based on these 
sales projections, the Port would realize annual rent of approximately $258,700, or $59.00 
per sq. ft. 

4. Affirmative Action 

Port staff has determined that Flicka McGurrin has a good affirmative action record in 
employment, purchasing and contracting. In addition. Port staff has reviewed and 
approved the Affirmative Action and Nondiscrimination Plan prepared in conjunction with 
the lease negotiation, which would be enforceable by the lease. It should be further noted 
that Flicka McGurrin is a Certified WBE. 

BCDC Permit 

The improvements proposed by Ricka McGurrin requke BCDC approval, and BCDC has agreed 
to approve these improvements through an amendment to BCDC Permit No. M78-106. One of 
the conditions imposed by BCDC in this amendment is the creation and dedication of an area of 
permanent public access adjacent to the Pier 23 Cafe, as shown on the attached site plan. The 
proposed amendment also establishes a maintenance obligation for the public access area. All 
responsibility for the public access area under this amendment will be assigned to the tenant under 
the proposed lease. 



Agenda Item No. 5 A 
November 12, 1996 
Page 5 



PROPOSED LEASE 

1. Premises 

a. Building and Outdoor Dining Area: 4,385 sq. ft. 

b. Public Access Area: 3,750 sq. ft. 

2. Term 

a. 10- Year term. 

b. Term and rent will commence upon occurrence of all of the following: (1) 
Obtaining BCDC permit; (2) issuance of the building permit for the Phase I 
unprovements; and (3) completion of the Phase I improvements. 

c . Termination Rights of Port : The Port shall have the right to terminate the lease in 
the event that: 

(1) The Phase I improvements are not completed by May 1, 1997; 

(2) The Phase U improvements are not completed by the First Anniversary 
Date of the Lease; or 

(3) The Phase in improvements are not completed by the Second Anniversary 
Date of the Lease. 

3. Use: Restaurant and banquet operation, plus dancing and live entertainment. 

4. Base Rent 

a. Initial Base Rent: 510,962.50 per month. This equates to $2.50 per sq. ft., based 
on the entire Premises area, which is in line with competitive restaurants on the 
Northern and Central Waterfront that are not on Port property. 

b. Adjustments to Base Rent: Annual cost of living increases. 



Agenda Item No. 5 A 
November 12, 1996 
Page 6 



5. Percentage Rent : 7% of all gross receipts (offset by monthly base rent). 

6. Maintenance : Tenant responsible for all maintenance to the Premises, including the 
public access area, except for the pier substrucmre. 



Prepared by: Lewis Wiseman, Duector, Tenant and Maritime Services 



o 

u 

o 

u 




o 
o 
o 

o 

o 



o 
o 

o" 
o 
o 



O 

o 
o 

o 
o 
in 



o 
o 
o 

o 
o 
o 



o 
o 
o 

rv 

o 
o 
in 



o 



I 



PORT COMMISSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



RESOLUTION NO. 96-121 



WHEREAS, 



WHEREAS, 



Chaner Section B3.581 empowers the Port Commission with the power and 
duty to use, conduct, operate, maintain, manage, regulate and control the 
Port area of San Francisco; and 

under Charter Section B3.581 leases granted or made by the Port 
Commi s sion shall be admmistered exclusively by the operating forces of the 
Port Commission: and 



WHEREAS, 



the San Francisco Administrative Code, Section 23.24, provides that retail 
sites should generally be offered to the public through competitive bidding; 
and 



I 



WHEREAS, 
WHEREAS, 



WHEREAS, 



WHEREAS, 



I 
I 



the Pon remains committed to fostering and encouraging ftiU and equitable 
opportunities for leasing of retail sites on the waterfront; and 

in order to balance the benefits of competitive bidding with the benefits of 
direct negotiation with existing tenants, the Port Commission adopted the 
Policy for Leasing Retail Business Sites on April 28, 1993 through 
Resolution No. 93-52; and 

Flicka McGurrin. an existing Port tenant, has requested a renewal lease for 
the Pier 23 Cafe site at Pier 23, pursuant to the Policy for Leasing Retail 
Business Sites; and 

the Policy for Leasing Retail Business Sites provides that a retail lease may 
be directly negotiated when: 

1. The tenant is in good standing; 

2. The tenant is committed to making a significant capital investment 
supported by a sound business plan which will benefit the Port; 

3. The tenancy is in the best economic interest of the Port, and the 
tenant is the best economic tenant available based upon sales and 
revenue to the Port, rent comparables, and a stable growth pattern; 
and 



Resolution No. 96-121 
Page 2 



WHEREAS, 



4. The tenant has a good record of affirmative action and 
nondiscrimination and is committed to future compliance. 

the Policy for Leasing Retail Business Sites further requires that, prior to 
granting a lease pursuant to said policy, the Port Commission must make 
findings that the tenant satisfies the criteria for direct negotiation and that 
the benefits of direct negotiation outweigh the benefits of competitive 
biddins: and 



WHEREAS, 



WHEREAS, 



I 



Port Commission approval is bemg sought for Lease L- 12275 between the 
Port and Flicka McGurrin, the terms of which are set forth in the 
Memorandimi of Agenda Item 5A for the Port Commission Meeting on 
November 12, 1996; and 

BCDC has required as a condition of approval of the new improvements, 
a proposed amendment to BCDC Permit No. M78-106 that would provide 
for the creation, dedication and maintenance of a permanent public access 
area adjacent to the Pier 23 Cafe, the responsibility for which has been 
assigned to the tenant under the terms of the proposed Lease; now, 
therefore, be it 



RESOLVED, 



RESOLVED, 






that the Pon Commission finds that Ms. McGurrm, dba Pier 23 Cafe, 
satisfies the criteria for direct negotiation, qualifying her to directly 
negotiate ^^ith the Port for a long term lease pursuant to the Policy for 
Leasing Retail Busmess Sites, and finds that the benefits to the Port of 
directly negotiating a lease with Ms. McGurrin outweigh the benefits of 
competitive biddmg; and be it further 

that the Pon Commission hereby approves Lease L- 12275 between the Port 
and nicka McGurrin, dba Pier 23 Cafe, which incorporates the business 
terms set forth in the Memorandum for Agenda Item 5A for the Port 
Commission meeting on November 12,1996 and which is substantially in 
the form on file with the Secretary of the Port Commission for said agenda 
item; and that the Executive Director, or his designee, is hereby authorized 
to execute the Lease L- 12275 on behalf of the Port in such final form as is 
approved by the City Attorney; and it further 






Resolution No. 96-121 
^ Page 3 

RESOLVED that the Executive Director is hereby authorized to execute Amendment No. 

Five to BCDC Permit No. M78-106, which in part provides for the 
creation, dedication and maintenance of a permanent public access area 
adjacent to the Pier 23 Cafe, as shown on the attached Site Plan. 



I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Port Commission at its meeting 
of November 12, 1996. 



Secretary 

G:\WP51\AGENDAS\P23.MEM\KB\jef\11^96 



i 



I 




PIER 23 CAFE 
CHINA BASIN CHARTER/RUBY SAILING 



I 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 




MEMORANDUM 



November 12, 1996 



Ferry Building 

San Franciscz. C A 94111 

Telephone ^' z 2^-i 0400 

Telex 27594C ^'SF UR 

Fax 41 5 274 :e2E 

Cable SFP0FTC2MM 

Writer 



TO: 



FROM: 



MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 

Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. James R. Herman 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 

Dennis P. Bouey (\i/S 
Executive Director V » 



SUBJECT: Approval of Month to Month Lease with Joshaa Pry or, dba China Basin 
Charter/Ruby Sailing, at Pier 23 

DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE MONTH TO MONTH LEASE WITH 
JOSHUA PRYOR, DBA CHINA BASIN CHARTER/RUBY SAILING 

BACKGROUND 

Joshua Pry or, dba China Basin Charter/Ruby Sailing, is the owner of the 60 foot sailing yacht 
Ruby ("Ruby"), which he has operated as a sailing excursion yacht on San Francisco Bay for the 
past sixteen years. He currently berths the Ruby at Ramp Restaurant, which is operated by Saint 
Francis Marine Center under Port Lease No. L-11211. 

Mr. Pryor now desires to operate the Ruby from his own layberth and landing facilit}' located at 
Pier 23, under a lease directly with the Port. This proposed facility, which would be constructed 
by Mr. Pryor at his sole cost and expense, would include a 60 ft. long float with a handicap 
accessible ramp. It would be developed in conjunction with the redevelopment of the Pier 23 
Cafe, and it would be covered by the same amendment to BCDC Permit No. M78-1.06. 



THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. 5B 



Agenda Item No. 5B 
Page 2 



Port staff has negotiated a month to month lease with Pry or for the proposed layberth and landing 
facility at Pier 23. Port Commission approval is required because this use is not included in the 
Leasing Parameters preapproved by the Port Commission. 

At the direction of the Port Commission, Port staff in 1991 conducted an extensive study of the 
excursion vessel market. This study determined that there appeared to be market demand for 
additional excursion landing facilities on Port property, and it identified the general market rental 
parameters for excursion vessel leases. On October 28, 1992, the Port Commission approved the 
Policy for Accommodating Additional Excursion Boats at the Port of San Francisco (Resolution 
No. 92-112). This established rental guidelines for Port staff to negotiate excursion vessel leases, 
which mcluded: (1) percentage rents equal to 5% to 7% of gross receipts; (2) minimum rent equal 
to 75% of annual percentage rent payments; (3) 5-year lease terms; and (4) possible rent credits. 
This policy also identified Piers 3 and 9 as suitable mterim locations for accommodating excursion 
vessel facilities. Finally, the policy directed Port staff to announce the availability of leases for 
basing and operating excursion vessels. This announcement was made, including extensive 
outreach to potential tenants, but no leases were consummated. Since that time, the draft 
Waterfront Plan has identified many additional locations on Port property, including Pier 23, that 
would be suitable for excursion vessel facilities. 



PROPOSED LEASE 

1. Premises: Approximately 1,692 square feet of water space, and approximately 84 square 
feet of open wharf space. 

2. Term; Month to Month, commencing June 1, 1996. 

3. Use: Layberth and excursion vessel landing. 

4. Base Rent: 

a. Initial Base Rent of $400.00 per month. (Due to the very seasonal namre of the 
business for sailing excursions, this monthly rent would approximate, and may 
actually exceed, the percentage rent during winter months.) 

b. Adjustments to Base Rent: Annual cost of living increases. 

5. Percentage Rent: 6% of all gross receipts (offset by monthly minimum rent). 

6. Maintenance: Tenant responsible for all mamtenance to the Premises, except for the pier 
substrucmre. 



I 



Agenda Item No. 5B 
Page 3 



7. Tenant Improvements : Tenant will install at Tenant's sole cost and expense all tenant 
improvements which shall include: a handicap accessible ramp; fence and securit}' gate to 
ramp; and a 60 foot long float. The planned tenant improvements are estimated to cost a 
total of approxunately S75,000. The removable improvements, such as the float, will 
remain the personal property of the Tenant. 



Prepared by: Lewis H. Wiseman, Director, Tenant and Maritime Services 



G :\WP5 1 \AGENDAS\PRYOR. MEMVNovember 4. 1996 



ii 



I 



PORT COMMISSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

RESOLUTION NO. 96-122 



WHEREAS, 



Charter Section B3.581 empowers the Port Commission with the power and 
duty to use, conduct, operate, maintain, manage, regulate and control the 
Port area of San Francisco; and 



WHEREAS, 



WHEREAS, 



RESOLVED, 



under Charter Section B3.581 leases granted or made by the Port 
Commission shall be administered exclusively by the operating forces of the 
Port Commission; and 

Port Commission approval is being sought for Lease L- 12294 between the 
Port and Joshua Pry or, dba China Basin Charter/Ruby Sailing, the terms of 
which are set forth in the Memorandum of Agenda Item 5B for the Port 
Commission Meeting on November 12, 1996; and 

that the Port Commission hereby approves Lease L- 12294 between the Port 
and Joshua Pry or, dba China Basin Charter/Ruby Sailing, which 
incorporates the business terms set forth in the Memorandum for Agenda 
Item 5B for the Port Commission meeting on November 12,1996, and 
which is substantially in the form on file with the Secretary of the Port 
Commission for said agenda item; and that the Executive Director, or his 
designee, is hereby dkected to execute the Lease L- 12294 on behalf of the 
Port in such final form as is approved by the City Attorney. 



/ hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Port Commission at its meeting 
of November 12, 1996. 



Secretary 



i. 

I 



G:\WP51\AGENDAS\PRYOR.MEM\November 4, 1996 



i 




•\_\--\ iiiini 



PIER 23 CAFE 

SI 

CHINA BASIN CHARTER/RUBY SAILING 





PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Ferry Building 
San Francisco. CA 9^111 
Telephone 415 274 C-iOO 
Telex 275940 PSF L? 
Fax 415 274 0528 
„ Cable SFPORTCO!/M 

MEMORANDUM wter 

November 12, 1996 

TO: MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 

Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. James Herman 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 

FROM: Dennis P. Bouey 

Executive Director 

SUBJECT: Public hearing on the intention to issue permits to relocate and install 

J.C. Decaux Public Service/Advertising Kiosks on the south side of Jefferson Street between 
Hyde and Leavenworth Streets, and on the north side of Jefferson Street between Mason and 
Powell Streets 

DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: Amend Port Conmiission Resolution No. 95-38 

Background 

The Port Commission, the City and County of San Francisco and the J.C. Decaux Company 
entered into a contract in April, 1994 to install four self-cleaning public toilets and eight public 
service kiosks within the Port's jurisdiction. The originally intended locations of the toilets and 
kiosks were identified in Resolution No. 95-38, which is attached for reference. The purpose 
of today's item is to request an amendment to Resolution No. 95-38 to allow the relocation of 
two kiosks. 

In meetings with representatives of the Fisherman's Wharf community, two of the approved 
locations (Jefferson and Mason Streets, and Jefferson and Hyde Streets), were identified as 
posing potential traffic conflicts with the proposed F-Line Historic Streetcar and with 
pedestrian traffic. The Port, the Mayor's Office and the J.C. Decaux Company identified new 
locations for these kiosks, which were identified and discussed at the September 24, 1 996 Port 
Commission meeting. 

THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. 6A 



\ 



Approval of J.C. Decaux Kiosk locations 
November 12, 1996 
Page Two 

A proposed amendment to Port Commission Resolution No. 95-38 was introduced at the 
September 24, 1996 meeting (Port Commission Resolution No. 96-97) which would have 
approved the new locations. However, the revised locations were also problematic for some 
of the merchants in the Fisherman's Wharf community. With the affected merchant's 
concurrence. Resolution No. 96-97 was adopted on September 24, 1 996 with the provision that 
the actual installation of the kiosks at their new locations would not commence without the 
approval of the affected parties. 

Another series of meetings were held to identify mutually acceptable locations for the two 
kiosks. New locations have been identified for the kiosks, as shown in the attached drawings. 
They are described as follows: 

Original Location Proposed New Location 

Mason and Jefferson North side of Jefferson Street, east of the Mason 

Street intersection, at the back of the sidewalk 

Jefferson and Hyde South side of Jefferson Street, between Hyde 

and Leavenworth Streets, in front of the entrance 
to the Cannery courtyard, next to the curb 

Due to the shift in location from those identified in the September 24, 1996 meeting, the 
decision was made to reissue the public notices and hold another public hearing. Public 
Notices were sent out and posted in compliance with Department of Ihiblic Works Order No. 
169,739 to all property owners within a 150 foot radius of the proposed new locations. 
Additionally, notices were provided to all Port tenants immediately adjacent to the new 
locations and within the 150 foot radius. 

There have been a number of technical and cost problems that have hindered finding an 
acceptable location at the Port for the fourth toilet, including load capacity of the seawall, 
availability and cost of utihty connections and potential conflicts with other Port construction 
projects, including the Mid-Embarcadero Roadway Project. Accordingly, staff proposes 
transferring its right to this toilet to the City in exchange for assurances from the Mayor's 
Office that if the program is expanded in the future, the Port will have the right to locate 
another toilet on its property. The contract with Decaux does not need to be amended to effect 
this transfer, although the agreement will nevertheless be appropriately documented. 



Prepared by: 

Cliff Jarrard, Chief Harbor Engineer 

lAGD.Ul 



I 



PORT COMMISSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

RESOLUTION NO. 96-1 14 



WHEREAS, 



WHEREAS, 



in April, 1994 the Port Commission, the City and County of San 
Francisco, and the J.C. Decaux Company entered into a contract to 
install self-cleaning public toilets and public service kiosks on Port 
property; and 

the contract provides that a total of 4 public toilets and 

8 public service kiosks will be located on Port property, and that all 

locations should be reviewed and approved by the Port Commission; 

and 



WHEREAS, 



WHEREAS, 



RESOLVED, 



pursuant to the contract, the J.C. Decaux Company vdll install and 
maintain, at no cost to the Port, the public toilets and public service 
kiosks on Port property; and - 

pursuant to the contract, the J.C. Decaux Company will submit 
engineering drawings to secure all necessary permits from the Chief 
Harbor Engineer and other regulatory agencies, with jurisdiction over 
the proposed facilities; now therefore be it 

the Port Commission amends Resolution 95-38 as follows to approve 
the installation of public services kiosks in the two specified 
locations: 



Public Service Kiosks 



*** 



5. Mason and Jefferson. North side of Jefferson Street, 
between Mason and Powell Streets. 



*** 



8. Jefferson & Ilydc; South side of Jefferson Street, between 
Hyde and Leavenworth Streets in front of the entrance to the 
Cannery courtyard; 



and be it 



PORT COMMISSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

RESOLUTION NO. 96-1 14 (CONTINUED) 



FURTHER 
RESOLVED, 



that the above mentioned locations are approximate and, if upon further 
technical investigations and discussions between the Executive Director 
and J.C. Decaux any of the sites prove vmfeasible, the Executive 
Director is hereby authorized to modify the locations to accommodate 
the placement of the Decaux facilities; and be it 



FURTHER 
RESOLVED, 



that the Port Commission hereby amends Resolution No. 95-38 to 
reduce the number of toilets on Port property from four to three and 
directs the Executive Director to appropriately document the transfer of 
this toilet to the City, including assurances from the Mayor's OfBce that 
if the program is expanded the Port will have the right to locate another 
toilet on Port property. 



/ hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Port Commission at its 
meeting of November 12, 1996. 



Secretary 



1 

I 



« 



II" 



PORT COMMISSION 
CriY A2<nD COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



RESOLUnON NO. 95-38 



WHEREAS, 



WHEREAS, 



the Port Commission, the City and County of San 
Frandsco, and the J.C. Decaux Company have £nt£ 
(April 1994) into a contract to install self<leanir.e z 
toilets and public service kiosks on Port propeir/; = 

the contract provides that a total package of 4 publ 
and 8 public service kiosks wiU be located on Pert 
property. All locations should be reviewed and api 
bv the Port Commission; and 



WFIERR^, 



WHERRY, 



WHEREAS, 



pursuant to the contract, the J.C. Decaux Compan)^ wiH 
install and maintain, at no cost to the Port, tlie public 
toilets and public service kiosks on Port property; and 

pursuant to the contract (Sec. 4.03, B) the Exeoitive 
Director will review and approve aU non-cominerdal 
advertising materials to be placed on wdtrLer the public 
toilets or the public service kiosks. As part of the Executive 
Director's approval under the contract, he will re v-iew and 
approve a map of the Port of San Francisco; and 

pursuant to the contract, the J.C. Decaux Company "siH 
submit engineering drawings to secure all neczsszr/ 
rerrnits frorn the Chief Harbor Ensineer and otr.er 
regulatory agencies, with jurisdiction over the rrcccsed 
facilities; now therefore be it 



RESOLVED, 



the Port Commission approves the installaticn c: cu: 
toUets and public service kiosks in the following Icca 

Public Toilets 

1. Pedestrian Promenade, near the Fire Station, 
Embarcadero and Folsom. 

2. Marginal Wharf at Pier 7. 

3 & 4. Powell, Jefferson and the Embarcadero, Fiihen 
Wharf Triangle Parking Lot. 



r.an s 



RESOLUTION 1. 
PAGE 2 



--38 



F'ablic Service Kiosks 

1. Market Street crosswalk. East side of Central Island 

along the Embarcadero, Ferry Building. 

ZFier7. 

5. Pier 35, Western end of the BiiLkhead Building. 

4- Powell and the Embarcadero, Pier 39 Garage. 

5. Mason and Jefferson. 

6. Pier 41. 

7. Taylor and Jefferson, Octagon building. 

8. Jefferson and Hyde; 
b-e it further 



RESOLVED, 



triat the above locations are approximates and the J.C 
Decaux Company is not in complete agreement with 
several kiosk locations and, if upon further technical 
investigations and discussions between the Executive 
Director and J.C. Decaux any of the site proves 
improbable, the Executive Director is hereby authorized to 
modify the locations to accommodate the placem.ent of me 
Decaux facilities. 



I hereby certify that the foTzgoing resolution zuas adopted by the Port 
Commission at its rr.eetir.g of May 23, 1995. 



s/>;lc (ci-i^Lu^ccnk 



Secretary 



PUBLIC HEARING 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 
PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 



PUBLIC HEARING ON THE INTENTION OF THE PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO TO ISSUE 
PERMITS TO RELOCATE AND INSTALL J.C. DECAUX PUBLIC SERVICE/ADVERTISING 
KIOSKS AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS: 

Action intersection Corner 

Relocate From Mid-Block Jefferson Southeast 

between Hyde and Leavenworth 

approximately 50 feet east ward 

Relocate From North side, Mid-Block Jefferson Southwest 

between Mason and Taylor to North 
side, Mid-Block Jefferson between 
Mason and Powell 



The Port of San Francisco will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on this matter in Commission 
Room at the Ferry Building, Suite 3100, San Francisco, California on Tuesday, 
November 12, 1996 at 4:00 p.m. 

Attached for your information is a drawing showing the area/intersection of the 
proposed installation, and a drawing of the proposed kiosk. 

If you have any concerns about this proposal, you may testify at the November 1 2th 
hearing or you may write to Paul Osmundson, Manager of Waterfront Development 
Projects, Port of San Francisco, Ferry Building, Suite 3100, San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 . 
Written concerns must be received by Paul Osmundson at least one business day, (by 
Monday, November 1 1th) prior to the hearing date. 

Further information on this matter may be obtained prior to the hearing at Commission 
Room, Ferry Building, Suite 3100, or by calling Paul Osmundson of the Port of San 
Francisco at (415) 274-0546. 



DENNIS P. BOUEY 
Executive Director 
Port of San Francisco 

:\DECAUX.NOT 



I 

< 



I 



» 



^ 

fr 





j 


1 










- 


o~l' [ HZ ■ 

r' -^ S 
i ' ' £ 


"3 
il 

z 


1 

1 




1 

i 






a 

5 


z 

o 


t 




1 




i 2 

— 1 '^j 




bJ ' 




i 


] 


— ii ^ 




LL. 1 

1— 

00 




1 
\ 


^ 1 






z: 

O 1 

UJ 






^ :- 


' o „ 










^ ( 


ijr? ; i H 




"3 1 






V- 


I'll 2 
■ ' s 




1 




1 


15- 

vj3 [ 


1 I 

3 J: -L 
1 1 


- 


1 
1 


5 

o 


•^ 


< 




l' 




5 










r 






1 i 

E 1 










! 


\£ \ 


' 1. 










I 

! 

L 


J \ 


1 ■ ' 

1 

' 1 i' 


v/ \0^? 1 J 


. 






1 




^1 : 5 ..... 
1 1 






o 


1 

1 


C\ 


M I i 










Ul ! < 1 i"' li 5 J^ 


— 








r 


M IlioM 


LJ 
< 










|.s-,r.r.c' 1 


§ i: I !! ^ 


- 


















1^^, i 












! \ i| j 




















1 

1 






-- 










1 1^' 








' 




- i r^l! 






1 




--"^//% - 


^ I (; 

I 


n 
1 

1 

1- 






V 




. °-ii' 1 


1 






\ 




o ^\C. 


^! 


1 


-- 










"! ! 
i " " 














1 

|l o 

1 ?■ 


13 


1 

3yis 


NOSVVN 






1 f 
1 1 

j <■ 

i! 1 


1 
|i 

1 

1 

i 


CM 

.' ^ c 
+ ^ 




( 


\ 
\ 
t 
1 

•1 
i 

! 



i 



€ 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 



MEMORANDUM 



NOVEMBER 6, 1996 




Ferry Building 

San Francisco. CA ?-i111 

Teieplione 415 27 -i C-iOO 

Telex 275940 PSFUR 

Fax 41 5 274 0523 

Cable SFPORTCOMM 

Writer 



TO: 



MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 
Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. James Herman 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 



FROM: 



SUBJECT: 



Dennis P. Bouey 
Executive Director 



Hyde Street Fishing Harbor, authorization to issue a Request for Proposals 
("RFP") for design services for the berthing facilities and dredging 




DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: AUTHORIZE STAFF TO ADVERTISE A 
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS ("RFP") FOR DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE "HYDE 
STREET FISHING HARBOR" PROJECT BERTHING FACILITIES AND DREDGING 

The Port has obtained a $3,500,000 loan from the State of California's Department of 
Boating and Waterways for design and construction of the Hyde Street Fishing Harbor 
project. In September, 1994, the Commission approved a professional services contract 
for the preparation of an EIR for the Hyde Street Fishing Harbor project. Work began on 
that EIR on January, 1995 and is anticipated to be certified in December, 1996 and no 
action on the project will be taken until after the EIR is certified. 

The Hyde Street Fishing Harbor project consists of the following three (3) main 
components: construction of landside improvements, dredging, and construction of sixty 
(60) berthing facilities. The primary vessels to be docked will be commercial fishing 
boats. The Port engineering staff with assistance from the City and County of San 
Francisco Department of Public Works architectural staff, will design the Hyde Steet 
Harbor Pier and other landside component. The proposed RFP will solicit proposals for 
outside professional design services for the berthing facilities and dredging components. 



THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. 6B 



I:\wp51\agd-rfp.cj 



m 



Port Commission 
Page 2 



The professional services shall include the design of the following items: a disability 
accessible gangway, ramps, support float, sixty (60) berthing facilities, floating debris 
barrier, and reconfiguration of the existing rock breakwater. 

The project budget is as follows: 

Hyde Street Harbor Pier and other landside improvements: $2,400,000 

Dredging: 250,000 

Berthing Facilites 1,850,000 

Total: $4,500,000 

The MBE goal for the RFP is 23 . 1 % and the WBE goal is 5 % . 



Prepared by: Cliff Jarrard 

Chief Harbor Engineer 



I:\wp51\agd-rip.cj 



PORT COMMISSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

RESOLUTION NO. 96-120 



WHEREAS, the Port has obtained a $3.5 million loan from the State of California's 

Department of Boating and Waterways for design and construction of the 
Hyde Street Fishing Harbor project; and 

WHEREAS, the EIR for this project is anticipated to be certified in December, 1996 and 
no action on the project will be taken until after the EIR has been certified; 
and 

WHEREAS, the Hyde Street Fishing Harbor Project consists of three main components: 
Hyde Street Harbor Pier and other landside improvements, dredging, and 
berthing facilities; and 

WHEREAS, Port staff with the assistance of DPW staff can design the Hyde Street 
Harbor Pier and other landside improvements; and 

WHEREAS, outside professional services are needed for the design of the berthing 
facilities and dredging component; and 

WHEREAS, a Request for Proposals ("RFP") must be issued to obtain the required 
outside professional services; and 

WHEREAS, the estimated cost of the berthing facilities is $1,850,000 including design 
fees and financing costs; and 

WHEREAS, the MBE goal for the RFP is 23 . 1 % and the WBE goal is 5 % ; now, 
therefore, be it 

RESOLVED, that the San Francisco Port Commission authorizes Staff to issue a Request 
for Proposals for design services for the berthing facilities and the dredging 
components of the "Hyde Street Fishing Harbor" project. 



/ hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted at the Port Commission at its 
meeting of November 12, 1996. 



Secretary 

I:\wp51\agd-rip.cj 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 



TO: 



FROM: 



MEMORANDUM 

November 5, 1996 

MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 
Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. James Herman 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 



Dennis P. Bouey 
Executive Director 



# 




Ferry Building 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone 415 274 0400 

Telex 275940 PSF UR 

Fax 415 274 0528 

Cable SFPORTCOMM 

Writer 



SUBJECT: Construction Contract No. 2593, "Pier 45 Earthquake Repair Project, Pier 
and Buildings Repair," authorization to accept the work, make payment to 
contractor to the amount of $9,929,488.47, and settle an outstanding claim. 

DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTR^E DIRECTOR 
TO ACCEPT WORK ON CONTRACT NO. 2593, MAKE HNAL PAYMENT TO DAN 
CAPUTO COMPANY FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $9,929,488.47, 
AND SETTLE AN OUTSTANDING CLAIM 



On March 4, 1994, the Port Commission authorized the award of Contract No. 2593 to 
Dan Caputo Co. for $9,398,205 and authorized a contingency of 3% or $281,946 for 
possible contract changes. This contract included the pier and building earthquake 
damage repair and construction of fish processing facilities in Sheds B and D on Pier 45. 
Staff received previous Commission approval for a Type 1 contract modification in the 
amount of $265,468 to increase the total authorized contact amount to $9,945,151. 
Although the work was substantially completed by August 18, 1995, a "punch list" 
remained to be completed. All work has now been completed and inspected by Port Staff. 
Port Staff agrees to the contract amount of $9,929,488.47. The Port has received a signed 
"Agreement and Release of Any and All Claims" document from the Contractor which 
excludes one outstanding claim in the amount of $33,891.95. 



Prepared by: Cliff Jarrard 



THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. 6C 



I:\agd-2593.cjl 



PORT COMMISSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



RESOLUTION NO. 96-118 



WHEREAS, on March 4, 1994, the Port Commission authorized the award of Contract ' 
No. 2593 to Dan Caputo Company at a contract price of $9,398,205 and 
authorized a contingency of 3% or $281,946 for possible contract changes; 
and 

WHEREAS, staff previously received Commission approval for a Type I Contract 

Modification in the amount of $265,468 to increase the total contact amount 
to $9,945,151, which included the contingency amount; and 

WHEREAS, although the work was substantially completed by August 18, 1995, a 
"punch list" remained to be completed; and 

WHEREAS, all work is now complete and has been inspected by Port Staff; and 

WHEREAS, Port has received a signed "Agreement and Release of Any and All 

Claims" document from the Contractor which excludes one outstanding 
claim in the amount of $33,891 .95; therefore be it 

RESOLVED, that the San Francisco Port Commission hereby authorizes the Executive 
Director to accept the work of Contract No. 2593, "Pier 45 Earthquake 
Repair Project, Pier and Buildings Repair," make final payment to Dan 
Caputo Company for a total contract amount of $9,929,488.47, and settle 
an outstanding claim. 



/ hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Port Commission at its 
meeting of November 12, 1996. 



Secretary 



I:\agd-2593.cjl 



I 

4 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 




TO: 



MEMORANDUM 

November 12, 1996 

MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 
Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. James Herman 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 



Ferry Building 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone 415 274 0400 

Telex 275940 PSF UR 

Fax 415 274 0528 

Cable SFPORTCOMM 

Writer 




FROM: Dennis P. Bouey 

Executive Director 



SUBJECT: Presentation on Wireless Telecommunications Services Facilities Siting Guidelines 

DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: Information only; no action required 

Background 

The changes in the telecommunications industry that have occurred in the last several years have 
raised concerns in the public about the siting of Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) 
facilities. WTS include Personal Communications Services, Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio 
and other similar wireless communication systems needed to support this rapidly growing industry. 

The Department of City Planning has prepared a comprehensive report on this topic entitled 
"Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines" which has been 
attached for your reference and review. The City Planning Commission has adopted a resolution 
(which is included in the report) urging the Port Commission to utilize these guidelines in planning, 
evaluating and permitting WTS facilities within Port jurisdiction. 



THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. 7A 



h:wiieless.wpd.fj 



Presentation on Wireless Telecommunications Guidelines 
November 12, 1996 
Page Two 



The Department of City Planning report is a comprehensive summary of the entire wireless 
telecommunications industry, and provides a sound basis on which to base Cits' Planning 
Commission and Port Commission policies regarding these facilities. The report is summarized 
below. 

The Port is currently in the process of developing an Urban Design and Public Access Plan (in 
conjunction with the Waterfront Plan) which will provide general design criteria for fiiture use and 
development of Port property. Any guidelines for wireless telecommunications facilities adopted 
or developed by the Port will be coordinated and integrated v/ith the Urban Design and Public 
Access Plan. 

Summary of Wireless Telecommunications Services Facilities Siting Guidelines 

(Prepared by the Department of City Planning) 

Section 1 provides same background on the WTS industry, including a summary of the existing 
WTS facilities currently in operation in San Francisco. 

Sections 2 and 6 summarizes public concerns that have been expressed about WTS, including health 
and safety, visual/aesthetics, costs and benefits. 

Section 3 provides a description of v^eless technologies, and the specific issues raised in an area 
such as San Francisco. 

Section 4 summaries federal, state and local regulations affecting the WTS industry. The FCC is 
the primary federal agency regulating WTS operations. At the local level, the Planning Code has 
provided for the approval of communications towers for some time, but as mentioned above the 
rapid change in wireless technology is raising concerns in the public about the number of facilities 
required to accommodate the growth in the industry. 

Section 5 summarizes the elements of the City's General Plan that affect WTS. 

Section 7 includes proposed WTS facihties siting policies which are general statements about how 
the City and Port should approach the accommodation of these facilities. 

Section 8 identifies location preferences for WTS facilities. (Note: Public use structures are 
identified as the top priority locations for these facilities). 

h:wireless.\vpd.Q 



Presentation on Wireless Telecommunications Guidelines 
November 12, 1996 
Page Three 



Section 9 provides building siting criteria (i.e. methods for reducing the visual impact of WTS 
facilities). 

Section 10 lists information required by the Department of City Planning for all WTS applications. 
(The Port may or may not require the same type and level of information identified in this report). 

Section 1 1 identifies sample conditions of approval proposed by the Department of City Planning. 
Again, the Port may or may not require that all of these conditions be met for WTS fecilities on Port 
property. 

The Port and City Attorney's OfBce staff will be preparing a report and recommendation on 
Wireless Telecommunications Guidelines for the Port Commission's consideration. The intent is 
to bring this item to the Port Commission at the December 10, 1996 Commission meeting. 

This is an uiformational item only; no action is required at this time. 



Prepared by: Sharon Lee Polledii, 
Director of Planning and Development 



hrwireless.wpd.fj 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 




Ferry Building 
San Francisco, CA 94111 
Telephone 41 5 274 0400 
Telex 275940 PSF UR 
Fax 415 274 0528 

MEMORANDUM cabie sfportcomm 

Writer 

November 12, 1996 

TO: MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 

Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. James Herman 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 

FROM: Dennis P. Bouey 

Executive Director 

SUBJECT: Resolution authorizing the Executive Director to execute BCDC Permit No. 5-96 
(Pier 38 Maritime Recreation Center, Inc.) including the creation and dedication of permanent 
public access areas 

DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached resolution 

Background 

The Port was approached in 1995 by Mr. Carl Ernst and Pier 38 Maritime Recreation Center, 
Inc. ("MRC") regarding the development of a maritime recreation center at Pier 38. On August 
29, 1995 the Port Commission adopted Resolution No. 95-70 approving an exclusive 
negotiating agreement with MRC. At the Port Commission meeting on February 13, 1996 the 
Port Commission adopted Resolution No. 96-20, which authorized a lease between the Port and 
MRC for a full service maritime recreation center at Pier 38. The lease was subsequently 
approved by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors pursuant to City Charter Section 7.402-1. 

The Pier 38 Maritime Recreation Center will offer dry boat storage and boat launching, small 
boat rental, transient berthing, new and used boat sales, a maritime chandlery, a casual dining 
snack bar and full service restaurant, related customer parking, administrative offices and 
public facilities and public access. 

THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. 7B 



Pier 38 Maritime Recreation Center BCDC Permit 
November 12, 1996 
Page Two 



On October 17, 1996 the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, by 
a vote of 16 affirmative, negative, and abstentions, approved a permit for the Pier 38 
Maritime Recreation Center project. Since the Port Commission has the power and duty to use, 
conduct, operate, maintain, manage, regulate and control the Port area of San Francisco, the 
Port of San Francisco is required to be "co-permittee" for the BCDC permit. 

The BCDC permit addresses the following issues: 

• Authorizes and permits work within the Bay and with the 1 00-foot shoreline band 

• EstabUshes special conditions of the development, including conformity with specific 
plans, public access, pubUc restrooms, garbage storage and handling, marina conditions 
and other construction related items 

• Presents the Bay Commission's findings and declarations regarding uses, fill, public 
access, design and other issues 

• Establishes standard conditions of the development 

The attached site plan shows the location of the public access areas required as part of the 
project, which include approximately 22, 859 square feet of public access around the perimeter 
of the pier. The public access improvements are to be constructed in phases between the 
commencement of the permit and December 31, 2001 and include a pedestrian pathway wdth 
handrails and lighting, benches, trash receptacles and signage. 

Resolution No. 96-1 1 5 would authorize the Executive Director to enter into BCDC Permit No. 
5-96 which includes special conditions requiring the creation, dedication and maintenance of 
permanent public access areas. The lease between the Port and MRC assigns all of the 
responsibility for the public access areas to MRC. A public access dedication instrument will 
be recorded that creates legal rights for the public to use the public access areas for the term of 
the project. 



Prepared by: Sharon Lee Polledri, 
Director of Plarming and Development 



H: Agd2.nov 



PORT COMMISSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



RESOLUTION NO. 96-115 



WHEREAS, 

WHEREAS, 

WHEREAS, 
WHEREAS, 

WHEREAS, 
WHEREAS, 

WHEREAS, 
WHEREAS, 
RESOLVED, 



under City Charter Section B3.581 the Port Commission has the 
power and duty to use, conduct, operate, maintain, manage, regulate 
and control the Port area of San Francisco; and 

on February 13, 1991 the Port Commission adopted Resolution No. 
96-20 which approved a lease with Carl Ernst, Jr. and Pier 38 
Maritime Recreation Center, Inc. ("MRC") for Pier 38; and 

the San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved the MRC lease 
pursuant to City Charter Section 7.402-1; and 

MRC and the Port submitted a permit application to the San Francisco 
Bay Conservation and Development Commission ("BCDC") for the 
Pier 38 Maritime Recreation Center Project on July 19, 1996; and 

on October 17, 1996 the BCDC, by a vote of 16-0, approved a permit 
for the Pier 38 Maritime Recreation Center Project; and 

since the Port of San Francisco has the power to use, control, etc. 
Port property (including Pier 38) the Port is required to be a "co- 
permittee" for the BCDC permit; and 

the BCDC permit includes requirements for the creation, dedication 
and maintenance of public access areas; and 

the responsibility for these public access areas has been assigned to 
MRC under lease L-12120; now, therefore be it 

that the Port Commission authorizes the Executive Director to execute 
BCDC Permit No. 5-96 for the Pier 38 Maritime Recreation Center 
Project, which permit includes requirements for the creation, 
dedication and maintenance of permanent public access areas; and be 
it further 



PORT COMMISSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

RESOLUTION NO. 96-115 (Page Two) 



RESOLVED, that the Executive Director is authorized to enter into any other 

agreements necessary to implement BCDC Permit No. 5-96, including 
amendments thereto. 



/ hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Port Commission at its 
meeting of November 12, 1996. 



Secretary 



i 






sjron s^^ui'^^g 



Svijjnp '^]^^Yyt^'i "s^^V - IJPM? 




CO 

o 

< 

I- 

5 

< 
a. 

< 
> 



Si 

< 



« 

< 

o 

s 



9 

< 



1M 



< 
Gi 



< 



< 
O 

a 



< 
a. 



HI n 



M n ^ e 
M en M M 



CD 
< 

o 



» 



CO 



e j: 



CO 

< 
oc 



f 5 



< 



< 
o 

CD 



u 

I- 
< 



u 
eS 

s 

o 
o 



< 
c 

m 
O 

< 
c 
o 

co 

< 

o 

m 



t 52 



CO 
CO 

111 
O 
o 

< 

o 

s 



» 
O 



< 

> 

UJ 

ffi 

< 

8 

o 

u. 



(0 



< 



< 
O 
o 






I- 
< 

o 

CO 
lU 

< 

X 

o 



< 

UJ 

c 
u 

UJ 



00 

z 



< 

s 

a. 
o 



I 

00 

< 
oc 



T- CM CO 



a 

z 

Ul 

O 

UJ 



II 



< 

Q. 

Ill 

CO 



00 
CO 

DC 

m 

ID. 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 




MEMORANDUM 



November 12, 1996 



Ferry Building 

San Francisco. CA 94111 

Telephone 415 274 0400 

Telex 275940 PSF UR 

Fax 415 274 0523 

Cable SFPORTCOMM 

Writer 



TO: 



MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 
Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. James Herman 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 



FROM: Dennis P. Bouey 

Executive Director 

SUBJECT: Commission Sub-Committee Recommendation Regarding Cargo 
Marketing 

DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE ATTACHED RESOLUTION 

At the Commission Meeting of October 8, 1996, a public hearing was held, at the request 
of Commissioner James R. Herman, to discuss cargo marketing. Commissioner Herman 
expressed his concerns regarding the adequacy and organization of cargo marketing. 

The Commission agreed to form a sub-committee consisting of Commissioners Hardeman 
and McCarthy to review the Port's policy and organization of cargo marketing. 

Under the current organization, marketing resources are located in the Marketing Division 
and operations are located in the Tenant & Maritime Services Division. 

After reviewing the issues, the Sub-Committee recommends a new Cargo Division to 
include sections for Operations and Marketing. 

A position of AA90 Maritime Manager will head the Cargo Division. Jill Simpson will 
be reassigned from the Marketing Division and head the Marketing Section of the new 
division. The Chief Wharfmger will head the Operations Section. 

A proposed organization chart is attached that further delineates the suggested changes. 

Prepared by: Benjamin Kutnick 



THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. 9A 



PORT COMMISSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



RESOLUTION NO. 96AQS 



WHEREAS, 



concerns were expressed at the Commission Meeting of October 8, 
1996, regarding the policy of the Port concerning cargo marketing, 
and 



WHEREAS, 
WHEREAS, 



it is the intent of the Port to maximize its cargo business, and 

a sub-committee of the Commission was formed to review this 
issue, and 



WHEREAS, 



RESOLVED 



the sub-committee, including Commissioners Hardeman and 
McCarthy reviewed the issues, and therefore be it 

the Commission Sub-Committee recommends that a separate Cargo 
Division including sections for Operations and Marketing. 



/ hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Port Commission at its 
meeting of November 12, 1996. 



Secretary 





^ 




Cm 


o 


C« 


o 

xn 


c;/:^ 






CJ 


"^^ 


d 


fi 


2 




u^ 




S 


o 


^ 


^ 


u 


;n 


o 


o 


• p^ 


^ 


s 




C/D 





o 



1 



} 



o 

> 

■ ■■■ 

o 

o 
o 

»E 

CO 

c 

c 




s « 



ffi 



» 



f 



g 



ill i 

III i 

5 s w i- 



< a £" 



3 

CO 



f I 

! I 
>• *j 

li! 

o " w 



M 



(O 



O a O 



S 

lis 



So 
III 



€ 2r 

s o S 

J ? S 

m ^ CO 



E 



F ? w 




U- Z 



I 



w 



c 



t 1 



b£ 0> (0 



!S 



c 
« 



c 3 

n o 

|S IS 

a. a> < 



.8 
c 



1^1 
(L.a> < 



«= S -i 

2-5 
-> « * 



E 
»» o 
o <e — 



Z 

J -.i w 



51 




o 

Q. 

a 

S 



58 



E 
& 

Z a> 



I 
a: 



s 9 






I 



I I 



IS 



si - 

-) '- 10 



s 



) 



O' 
M 
< 






c 







I 



(0 





o 

a. 



CO 

>« 
o 



(O 

o s 



^ <o *j 



o 

■o 

c 

< 

.^ o> ^ 

3 OO "5 

o CO p 
_i O) Q. 



< 

o 







a. 












V 












q: 












O) 






^j 






2 

S 






c 

CO 

"5) 






00 






(A 









^ 




^ 


Q 




CO 


o 




•i 


CO 


CO 

o 


3 
(0 

it: 


-* 


E 


0) 


CO 


CD 


0) 


00 


!_: 


Q. 


O) 


u 


-3 




W 



f 



> 



I 3 

> 

o 
U 











60 














•5 


& 












^ 


»; 




















i- 


M> 












CS 
















S 


2 

s 

^ 




























d w 
















o O 
















M TS 
















■5 o 
















M m ea 
















— o^ !3 
















••4 (T) C8 
















;^ ON U 








J- 
















<u 


















CD 


















fO 














































s: 












«^ 














> 


o 

CD 

s- 


















o 










. 




o 
















<y\ 
















< 
















■sC 






















09 






















C 














o 














-% 




















I 


Zj ^ 












^ s 


O j^ 


h 








•- li 


e i; 








s i 


t^ & 


1 

s 








J f 










I- t^ 60 


^ "O s 


._ vo 








« W) w 


O W^ J= 


1 - 

Q ON 












U o 


\ OS 


z S ^ 



CO 

c 
ix: 



I 

I 
I 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 




MEMORANDUM 



November 5, 1996 



Ferry Builcirc 






San Franc'Si^t 


" 2. 


54111 


Telephone -'z 


"- 


S400 


Telex 275S-: '■ 


-S- 


UR 


Fax 41 5 27- : 


zl.1 




Cable SFPC- 


"JZ 


MM 


Writer 







TO: 



FROM: 



MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 

Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie Lee, Vice President 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. James Herman 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 



Dennis P. Bouey 
Executive Director 




SUBJECT: Approval of travel for one Port representative to attend the 

International Trade Data and Information Conference in Seattle. WA, 
in accordance with the Port's Fiscal Year 1996-97 budget. 

DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE THE TRAVEL AS 
BUDGETED 



The Port uses trade information to identify market trends, assist in sales effons and 
make revenue and volume projections. Attendance at the conference will allow the 
Port to stay abreast of recent developments in trade information and online 
availability of private and government sources. 

The Executive Director seeks approval of travel for one Port representative to 
represent the Port of San Francisco at the conference. 

This request is in accordance with the Port Commission's Fiscal Year 1996/97 
budget. 



Prepared by: 



Carolyn Macmillan 
Marketing Manager 



THIS ITEM COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. 10 A 



PORT COMMISSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

RESOLUTION NO. 96AU 



WHEREAS, 



the Executive Director is seeking authorization for one Port 
representative to attend the International Trade Data and 
Information Conference in Seattle, Washington, on December 3 
and 4, 1996; and 



WHEREAS, 



attendance at the convention will allow the Port to learn about 
recent developments in trade information and on-line availability of 
private and government sources; and 



WHEREAS, 



this request is in accordance with the Port Commission's Fiscal 
Year 1996/97 budget; now, therefore, be it 



RESOLVED, that the Port Commission hereby approves this travel request. 



/ hereby request that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Port 
Commission at its meeting of November 12, 1996. 



Secretary 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 



TO: 



MEMORANDUM 

November 5, 1996 

MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 

Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. James Herman 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 




Ferry Building 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Teleohone 415 274 0400 

Telex 275940 PSF UR 

Fax 415 274 0528 

Cable SFPORTCOMM 

Writer 



t 



FROM: 



SUBJECT: 




Dennis P. Bouey 
Executive Director 



Acceptance of Quitclaim Deed from Catellus Development Corporation of 
easement over approximately 4.417 acres of real property located at 6th and 
Channel Street (leased to Mission Creek Harbor Association) 



DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: ACCEPT QUITCLAIM DEED 



I. 



RACKGROIJND 



Catellus Development Corporation owns a forty-foot wide easement for access and utilities, 
a portion of which encumbers approximately 4.417 acres of Port property located near 6th 
Street and Channel Street leased by Mission Creek Harbor Association ("MCH.A."). Under 
its Lease with MCHA, Port agreed to obtain a waiver, consent or other agreement from 
Catellus to allow MCHA to use the leasehold property as though the easement did not exist. 
MCHA needs the easement property as part of its leasehold to comply with a BCDC Order 
requiring the construction of certain public access improvements. 

In furtherance of its Lease commitment, on August 18, 1992, the Port entered into an 
agreement with Catellus, whereby Catellus agreed to deliver a quitclaim deed to the Port for 
the easement. The Port and MCHA entered into a Second Amendment to Lease, dated 
August 18, 1992, whereby the parties agreed that the Port's actions had satisfied its 
obligation to extinguish the easement. The Second Amendment to Lease was approved by 
the Port Commission by Resolution No. 92-62, and by the San Francisco Board of 
Supervisors Ordinance No. 241-92. 

The Quitclaim Deed was not to be recorded until certain conditions occurred, including the 
recordation of a public access dedication and the full execution of an agreement between 



THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. lOB 



Port Commission 
Page 2 



Port, City Planning, MCHA and Catellus. The Quitclaim Deed has been executed and 
delivered to the Port by Catellus and is now ready for recordation. A copy of the Quitclaim 
Deed is attached hereto. 

Under Government Code Section 27281, deeds conveying any easement in real estate to a 
governmental agency must be accompanied by a resolution of acceptance attached to or 
printed on the deed. Although the Commission and Board has already agreed to the transfer 
of the easement to the Port, the Recorder's Office has requested that a formal certificate of 
acceptance be attached. The attached resolution authorizes the Port's Executive Director to 
execute a certificate of acceptance in the form attached, so that the Quitclaim Deed can be 
recorded. 



Prepared by: Neil Sekhri, Assistant Port General Counsel 



I 



I 



J 



RECORDING REQUESTED BY 

AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: 

Port of San Francisco 

3100 Ferry Building 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Attn: Manager, Leasing and Commercial Property Management 



OUITCIiAIM DEED 



) 



FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt and adequacy of which 
are hereby acknowledged, Catellus Development Corporation, a 
Delaware corporation, hereby RELEASES, REMISES AND QUITCLAIMS to 
the City and County of San Francisco, a municipal corporation, 
its successors and assigns, any and all right, title and interest 
Catellus may have in and to the real property located in the City 
and County of San Francisco, State of California, described on 
Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. 



Executed as of this 



X^_diy of IVi^a/j^K 



CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 
a DelaVare Cornpration 



Attest 





DONALD PARKER 

Vice President 

Bay Area Development 



MAUREEN SULJ^ 
Secretary / 



EXHIBIT A 



Commencing at the intersection of the northeasterly line of Sixth 

Street [NE6St] and the southeasterly line of Port Jurisdiction of 

Channel Street [SEPortJChSt] (POC); THENCE northwesterly 15 feet 

along said NE6St to the True Point of Beginning (POB) of this 

description; 

THENCE, continuing northwesterly along said NE6St a distance of 85 

feet; 

THENCE, southwesterly along a line that is parallel to and 100 

feet distant from said aforementioned SEPortJChSt a distance of 

82.5 feet; 

THENCE, southeasterly along the southwesterly line of Sixth 

Street, a distance of 85 feet; 

THENCE, southwesterly along a line that is parallel to and 15 feet 

distant from said aforementioned SEPortJChSt a distance of 200 

feet; 

THENCE, northwesterly along a line parallel to said aforementioned 

NE6St a distance of 180 feet; 

THENCE, northeasterly along a line parallel to and 195 feet 

distant from said aforementioned SEPortJCHSt a distance of 

1,107.79 feet, to the southwest line of Fifth Street extended; 

THENCE, southeasterly along said extended southwest line of Fifth 

Street, a distance of 180 feet; 

THENCE, southwesterly along the line that is parallel to and 15 

feet distant from said aforementioned SEPortJChSt a distance of 

825.29 feet to the True Point of Beginning. 

Being a parcel wholly within the jurisdiction of the Port of the 
City and County of San Francisco, containing 4.417 acres, more or 
less. 



4 



i 



state of California 



County of 



Jm) Q/jyiisc/) 



) ss 

) 



on l)^f^^Q C fi m f 
mally appeared 'DONAL: 



ally known to me O? 



, before me, 

personally appeared 'DONALD PARKER, personally known to rte OR 
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the 
person (s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within 
instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the 
same in his/her/their authorized capacity (ies) , and that by 
his/her/their signature (s) on the instrument the person (s), or 
the entity upon behalf of which the person (s) acted, executed the 
instrument . 

WITNESS my hand and official seal. 




BARBARA G. ZEYEN 
I l^^i^l^l COMM. * 975922 2 

SAN FRANC5CO COO.NTY I 
My Cofnm . Exptfes OCT 22. 1996 f 

State of California 




^ML 



Signature/pf Not 




County of 



Sm ^M}Mo 



) ss 



rsonally known t« 



On ^/^>fe^, IK Ff}^ . before me. ^^ 
personally "appeared MaUF-IEN SULLIVAN, personally known t6 me OR 
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the 
person (s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within 
instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the 
same in his/her/their authorized capacity (ies) , and that by 
his/her/their signature (s) on the instrument the person (s), or 
the entity upon behalf of which the person (s) acted, executed the 
instrument . 

WITNESS my hand and official seal. 




l^^l^^^^^rife^Ml^' 



\ 



BARBARA G. ZEYEN 
COMM. * f>7S922 z 

Notory Pubic - California > 
SAN Fi?ANCISCO COUNTY v 
My Comm. Exp^es OCT 22. 1996 




[ 



i 



i 



) 



CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE 

This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the deed 
or grant dated December 8, 1995 from Catellus Development Corporation to City 
and County of San Francisco, a political corporation and/or governmental agency is 
hereby accepted by order of the City and County of San Francisco by the 
undersigned officer or agent on behalf of the City and County of San Frandsco by 
and through its Port Commission pursuant to authority conferred by resolutior. of the 
City and County of San Francisco by and through its Port Commission adopted on 
November 12, 1996, and the grantee consents to recordation thereof by its duly 
authorized officer. 

Dated: Bv: 



i 



J 



PORT COMMISSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

RESOLUTION NO. 96=113 



WHEREAS, Charter Section B3.581 empowers the Port Commission with power and duty to 
use, conduct, operate, maintain, manage, regulate and control the Pon area of 
San Francisco; and 

WHEREAS, Catellus Development Corporation owns a forty-foot wide easement for access and 
utilities, a portion of which encumbers Port property located near 6th Street and 
Channel Street leased to Mission Creek Harbor Association ("MCHA") under 
Lease No. L- 1 1 45 1 ; and 

WHEREAS, under the MCHA Lease, Port agreed to obtain a waiver, consent or oiher 

agreement from Catellus to allow MCHA to use the leasehold properrv" as though 
the easement did not exist; and 



\ 



WHEREAS, on Augu.st 18, 1992, the Port entered into an agreement with Catellus. vviiereby 
Catellus agreed to deliver a quitclaim deed to the Port for the easement: and 

WHEREAS, on August 19, 1992, the Port and MCHA entered into a Second Amendment to 
Lease, whereby the parties agreed that the Port's actions had satisfied its 
obligation to extinguish the easement, which Second Amendment was approved by 
Port Commission Resolution No. 92-62, and by the Board of Supervisors 
Ordinance No. 241-92; and 

WHEREAS, Catellus has delivered to Port a fully executed Quitclaim Deed, a copy of which 
is on file with the Secretary of the Port Commission for this item, for recordation 
by the City and Coimty of San Francisco's Recorder; and 

WHEREAS, Government Code Section 27281 requires deeds conveying any easement in real 
estate to a governmental agency to be accompanied by a resolution of acceptance 
attached to or printed on the deed, and the Recorder has requested such a 
document: now, therefore be it 

RESOLVED, that the Port Commission hereby authorizes the Executive Director to execute a 
Certificate of Acceptance, in substantially the form on file with the Secretary of 
the Pon Commission for this item, accepting from Catellus the easement 
described in the Quitclaim Deed on file with the Secretary of the Pon 
Commission for this item, and to take such further action as may be necessary 
and proper to accomplish the acceptance of the easement and recordation of the 
Quitclaim Deed. 



/ hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Port Commission at its meeting 
of November 12, 1996. 



Secretary 



I 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 



TO: 




Ferry Building 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone 415 274 0400 

Telex 275940 PSF UR 

Fax 41 5 274 0528 

Cable SFPORTCOMM 

Writer 



FROM: 



SUBJECT: 



MEMORANDUM 

November 5, 1996 

MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 

Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. James Herman 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 



Dennis P. Bouey 
Executive Director 



Approval of Second Amendment to Lease and Consent to Encumbrance 
with Bundox Restaurant, Inc., dba the Waterfront Restaurant, at Pier IV2 




DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE SECOND AMENDMENT TO 
LEASE AND CONSENT TO ENCUMBRANCE WITH BUNDOX RESTAURANT, 
INC. dba THE WATERFRONT RESTAURANT, AT PIER 7 V2 



I. 



RArKGROITNT) 



On October 25, 1994, by Resolution No. 94-133, the Port Commission approved Lease 
No. L- 11 859, a new twenty-year lease with Bundox for the Waterfront Restaurant and 
adjacent premises ("Lease"). Lease L-11859, was approved by the Board of Supervisors 
on December 19, 1994, by Ordinance No. 412-94. 

Section 2 of the Lease provides that the Lease shall commence and be effective on the 
"Commencement Date" which shall be the date on which, among other things, Bundox 
procures financing for Phase I of the Tenant Improvements at commercially reasonable 
terms. Section 2 of the Lease further provided that if Bundox fails to receive a financing 
commitment on or before July 30, 1995, the Lease shall become null and void. Bundox 
was unable to obtain financing at commercially reasonable terms by June 30, 1995. As a 
result, the Lease became null and void. 

In early 1996, Bundox entered into negotiations for financing with Bank of America and 
the Small Business Administration. In response to certain requests from those lenders, 
Bundox and Port negotiated a Reaffirmation and Amendment to Lease and Consent to 



THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. laC 



MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 
Page 2 



Encumbrance ("Reaffirmation"). Under the Reaffirmation, the parties agreed to extend 
the condition precedent period for Bundox's financing until June 30, 1996. The parties 
also amended the Lease to accommodate certain requests by Bundox's lenders, and to 
clarify certain provisions of the Lease. The Reaffirmation was approved by the Port 
Commission and the Board of Supervisors. The Port's resolution and Board Ordinance 
authorized the Executive Director to enter into such additional agreement as necessary to 
effect the financing. 

In June, 1996, Bundox's negotiations with Bank of America and SBA stalled, and Bundox 
entered into negotiations with Heller First Capital. The Reaffirmation was modified to 
replace BofA and SBA with Heller, and was signed by the Port and Bundox on June 28, 
1996. On June 28, 1996, Heller provided the Port with satisfactory proof of a loan 
commitment to satisfy the Lease condition precedent, and the Lease went into effect on 
July 1, 1996. 

Although Heller had conditionally agreed to provide financing for the project, Bimdox 
was able to obtain more favorable financing terms from the City and County of San 
Francisco through the Mayor's Office of Conununity Development (City"). As a condition 
to the financing. City has requested the Port to consent to the encumbrance of the Lease. 
In addition. Port and Tenant desire to modify the Reaffirmation to delete provisions that 
had been negotiated to suit the requirements of the prior potential lenders. A copy of the 
proposed Second Amendment is attached hereto, and is on file with the Secretary of the 
Port Commission. The Second Amendment does not add any new provisions that had not 
been previously approved by the Port Commission and Board of Supervisors. Its purpose 
is to consent to the City as a lender, and to make non-substantial clerical corrections to the 
previous Reaffirmation and Amendment. 



Prepared by: Neil H. Sekhri, Assistant Port General Counsel 



I 



PORT COlVENnSSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

RESOLUTION NO. 96-117 



WHEREAS, Charter Section B3.581 empowers the Port Commission with power and 
duty to use, conduct, operate, maintain, manage, regulate and control the 
Port area of San Francisco; and 

WHEREAS, under Charter Section B3. 581(g) leases granted or made by the Port 

Commission shall be administered exclusively by the operating forces of 
the Port Commission; and 

WHEREAS, on October 25, 1994, by Resolution No. 94-133, the Port Commission 

approved Lease No. L-11859 (the "Lease") with Bundox Restaurant, Inc., 
an existing Port tenant, and on December 19, 1994, by Ordinance No. 
412-94, the Board of Supervisors approved the Lease; and 

WHEREAS, on February 20, 1996, by Resolution 96-15, the Port Commission 

approved the Reaffirmation and Amendment to Lease and Consent to 
Encumbrance, which was also approved by the Board of Supervisors by 
Ordmance No. 261-96; and 

WHEREAS, under the Reaffirmation, the parties agreed to extend the condition 

precedent period for Bundox 's financing until June 30, 1996, amended the 
Lease to accommodate certain requests by Bundox 's lenders (Bank of 
America and SB A), clarified certain provisions of the Lease, and 
authorized the Executive Director to enter into such additional agreement 
as necessary to effect the financing; and 

WHEREAS, the Reaffirmation was modified to replace BofA and SB A with Heller 

Financial, and was signed by the Port and Bundox on June 28, 1996. On 
June 28, 1996, Heller provided the Port with satisfactory proof of a loan 
commitment to satisfy the Lease condition precedent, and the Lease went 
into effect on July 1, 1996; and 

WHEREAS, Bundox has been able to obtain more favorable financing terms from the 
City and Comity of San Francisco through the Mayor's Office of 
Community Development (City"), and as a condition to the financing, 
City has requested the Port to consent to the encumbrance of the Lease. 
In addition, the parties desire to modify the Lease to delete provisions that 
had been negotiated to suit the requirements of the prior potential lenders, 
and to delete references to Heller Financial. A copy of the proposed 
Second Amendment is on file with the Secretary of the Port Commission; 
now, therefore, be it 



J 



^ 



€ 

i 

I 



Resolution No. 96-117 
Page 2 



RESOLVED, that the Port Commission hereby approves the Second Amendment to 
Lease and Consent to Encumbrance between the Port and Bundox 
Restaurant, Inc. ("Reaffirmation"), substantially in the form on file with 
the Secretary of the Port Commission, and that the Executive Director or 
his designee is hereby directed to execute the same; and be it further 

RESOLVED, that the Executive Director or his designee is hereby authorized to execute 
such additional documents as requested by lender necessary to effect the 
financing for the tenant improvements, in such form as approved by the 
City Attorney. 



I 



/ hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Port Commission at its 
meeting of November 12, 1996. 



Secretary 

i:\waterfr2.agd 



Recording Requested For Recorder's Use Only: 

By and When Recorded 
Return To: 



SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE 
AND CONSENT TO ENCUMBRANCE 



This SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE AND CONSENT TO ENCUMBRANCE 

("Amendment") is entered into as of , 1996, by and between BUNDOX 

RESTAURANT INC., a California corporation, its successors and assigns ("Tenant"), 
and tine CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation, 
operating by and through the SAN FRANCISCO PORT COMMISSION ("Port"), as 
Landlord, with reference to the following facts: 

RECITALS 

A. Port and Tenant entered into Lease L-1 1859, dated as of December 
20, 1994 (the "Lease"), for the lease by Tenant of that certain real property, 
together with all improvements then located thereon, or to be constructed by 
Tenant thereon during the term of the Lease located at Pier 7, the Embarcadero at 
the foot of Broadway, City and County of San Francisco, State of California, all as 
more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto. Said real property and all 
improvements and additions thereto and alterations thereof are hereinafter referred 
to as the "Premises." 

B. Section 2 of the Lease provides that the Lease shall commence and 
be effective on the "Commencement Date" which shall be the date on which the 
following, among other things, shall have occurred: (i) the procurement by Tenant 
of financing for Phase I of the Tenant Improvements at commercially reasonable 
terms. Section 2 of the Lease further provided that if the aforementioned 
requirements are not satisfied on or before July 30, 1995, the Lease shall become 
null and void. 



C. Tenant was unable to obtain financing at connnnercially reasonable 
terms by June 30, 1995. As a result, the Lease becanne null and void. In early 
1996, Tenant entered into negotiations for financing with Bank of Annerica and the 
Small Business Administration. In response to certain requests from those lenders, 
Tenant and Port negotiated a Reaffirmation and Amendment to Lease and Consent 
to Encumbrance ("Reaffirmation"). Under the Reaffirmation, the parties agreed to 
extend the condition precedent period for Tenant's financing until June 30, 1996. 
The parties also amended the Lease to accommodate certain requests by Tenant's 
lenders, and to clarify certain provisions of the Lease. The Reaffirmation was 
approved by the Port Commission and the Board of Supervisors. 

D. In June, 1996, Tenant's negotiations with Bank of America and SBA 
stalled, and Tenant entered into negotiations with Heller First Capital. The 
Reaffirmation was modified to replace BofA and SBA with Heller, and was signed 
by the Port and Tenant on June 28, 1996. On June 28, 1996, Heller provided the 
Port with satisfactory proof of a loan commitment to satisfy the Lease condition 
precedent, and the Lease went into effect on July 1, 1996. 

E. Although Heller had conditionally agreed to provide financing for the 
project. Tenant was able to obtain more favorable financing terms from the City 
and County of San Francisco through the Mayor's Office of Community 
Development (City"). As a condition to the financing. City has requested the Port 
to consent to the encumbrance of the Lease. In addition. Port and Tenant desire 
to modify the Reaffirmation to delete provisions that had been negotiated to suit 
the requirements of the prior potential lenders, which provisions had not been 
acknowledged and agreed to by Heller in the Reaffirmation. 

F. If not defined herein, all capitalized terms in this Amendment shall 
have the same meaning as in the Lease. 

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual 
covenants hereinafter contained, and for other good and valuable consideration, 
the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto 
agree as follows: 

AGREEMENT 

1. Consent to Encumbrance . Port and Tenant affirm for' the benefit of 
City that (i) City is an approved "Lender" for purposes of Section 20 of the Lease 
regarding Security Interests, (ii) Port and Tenant's obligations thereunder shall be 
for the benefit of City, and its respective successors and assigns, and (iii) City and 
its respective successors and assigns each shall have all of the rights of the 
"Lender" provided thereunder. Port and its respective successors and assigns 



J 



consent to the following encumbrance of the Lease by City: 

(a) Tenant's encumbrance of Tenant's Leasehold by a Deed 
of Trust With Assignment of Rents, and a Security 
Agreement (collectively "City Deed of Trust") in favor of 
City to secure a note in the principal sum not to exceed 
$3,250,000 made by Tenant, and other obligations set 
forth in City Deed of Trust which will be recorded in the 
Official Records of San Francisco County; and 

(b) The terms and purposes of the City note and any extensions or 
renewals thereof, and any other obligations secured by the City 
Deed of Trust. 

2. Assignment and Subletting . Sections 19.10 and 19.1 1 are hereby 
deleted from the Lease in their entirety. 

3. Security Interests . 

a. Sections 20 (o) of the Lease is hereby deleted in its entirety, and 
I is replaced by the following: 

. Port's approval of a sublease or assignment from City to 

y a third party pursuant to Section 20(d) hereof is subject 

to the reasonableness criteria set forth in Section 19.4 of 
this Lease. 

b. Section 20(p) of the Lease is hereby deleted from the Lease in its 
entirety and is replaced by the following: 

(p) New Lease. If the Lease shall terminate for any reason or be 
rejected or disaffirmed pursuant to bankruptcy or other laws 
affecting creditors' rights. City shall have the right to enter into 
a lease ("New Lease") of the Premises, exercisable by written 
notice to Port within sixty (60) days after the effective date of 
such termination. The term of such New Lease shall begin on 
the date the Lease terminates and shall continue for the 
remainder of the existing Lease term. Such New Lease shall 
otherwise contain the same terms and conditions as those set 
forth in the Lease, as amended by this Lease Amendment, 
except for requirements which are no longer applicable or have 
already been performed, provided that City shall have remedied 
all defaults on the part of Tenant which are susceptible of being 



i 



t 



* 



remedied by the payment of money, and provided further that 
such New Lease shall require the tenant thereunder promptly to 
commence, and expeditiously to continue, to remedy all other 
defaults on the part of Tenant to the extent susceptible of 
being remedied. It is the intention of the parties to this Lease 
Amendment that such New Lease shall have the same priority 
as the Lease, relative to other rights or interests to or in the fee 
estate in the Lease Property, and Port covenants to discharge 
or cause to be subordinated to such New Lease any lien or 
encumbrance which is subject to the Lease. The provisions of 
this Section shall survive the termination of the Lease and shall 
continue in full force and effect to the same extent as if this 
Section were a separate and independent contract among Port, 
Tenant and City. From the date on which City shall serve upon 
Port notice of the exercise of its right to a New Lease, City may 
use and enjoy the Leased Property without interference by 
Port. 

4. Deletion of References to Heller . Sections 20 (q), (r), (s), (t), (u) and 
(v) are hereby amended to delete all references to Heller and the Heller Deed of 
Trust, and those sections will be for the sole benefit of the City. 

5. General Provisions . 

5.1 Further Assurances. Port and Tenant each agree to execute 
any and all documents and agreements reasonably requested by the other party to 
further evidence or effectuate this Amendment. 

5.2 Successors and Assigns. This Amendment shall be binding 
upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their successors and 
assigns. 

5.3 Reaffirmation. Except as amended hereby, all of the terms and 
conditions of the Prior Lease and the Lease shall remain in full force and effect and 
unchanged. 

5.4. Conflicts. In case of any conflict between any term or 
provision of this Amendment and the Lease, the terms or provision of this 
Amendment shall govern. 

5.5 Construction. In this Amendment, the singular number includes 
the plural whenever the context so requires. 



I 



I 



5.6 Notices. Port shall send to City all notices of default required 
to be sent under Section 21 of the Lease at the same time the notice is sent to 
Tenant; however, failure to do so shall have no effect on the validity of the notice 
to Tenant. The address of City for such notices is the following: 

Mayor's Office of Economic Development 
25 Van Ness Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn: Director 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed at San 
Francisco, California as of the date first set forth above. 

PORT TENANT 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN BUNDOX RESTAURANT, INC., a 

FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation, California Corporation 

operating by and through the SAN 
FRANCISCO PORT COMMISSION 

By: By: 



LEWIS WISEMAN AL FALCHI 

Director, Tenant and Maritime President 

Services 

Port Commission Resolution No. 



APPROVED AS TO FORM: 

LOUISE H. RENNE 
City Attorney 

By: 



NEIL H. SEKHRI 
Deputy City Attorney 



Acknowledged and Agreed 

"CITY" 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO 



THROUGH THE MAYOR'S OFFICE OF 
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 



By: 



I 



Title: 



G:\NHS\WATERFRO\LSEAMEN2.V2 



3F 



>jf5 ^jjY & COUNTY OF:^ AN FRANCISCO 



PORT COMMISSION 



'/ / ^/^ ^ ^MINUTES OF THE MEETING 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 



^ NOVEMBER 12, 1996 q^q i^ g ^ggg 



1. ROLL CALL 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



The meeting was called to order by Commission President Michael Hardeman at 4:12 
p.m. The following Commissioners were present: Michael Hardeman, Frankie Lee, 
Preston Cook, James Herman and Denise McCarthy. 

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 8, 1996 and October 22, 1996 

ACTION: Commissioner Cook moved approval; Commissioner Lee seconded the 

motion. All of the Commissioners were in favor; the minutes of the October 
8, 1996 meeting were adopted. 

ACTION: Commissioner Lee moved approval; Commissioner Cook seconded the 

motion. All of the Commissioners were in favor; the minutes of the October 
22, 1996 meeting were adopted. 

3. EXECUTIVE 

A. Executive Director's Report - Mr. Bouey reported the following: 

1) On October 28, there was an oil spill at Pier 70 which resulted in a significant 
amount of oil reaching the bay. San Francisco Dry dock notified the Port and 
other appropriate agencies expeditiously. Port staff responded that night and 
thereafter. There was, however, a press release by Save the Bay which indicated 
that the Port had not closed its fishing piers, thereby exposing fishermen to 
potential problems with fish that were caught. Port staff met with appropriate 
authorities including the Department of Public Health and Fish and Game. After 
their survey of the area, they indicated there was no health threat and, therefore, 
it was not necessary to close the fishing piers. The Port is an integral part of the 
Unified Command consisting of, among others, the Coast Guard, Fish & Game 
and Dept. of Public Health. Also, Port staff has hired a consultant to assess any 
damage that may have occurred to our waterfront or our facilities. 

2) On November 11, there was another oil spill. This was a result of an operation 
by B&C. The Port has had other problems with B&C, for example, they 
extended their operation beyond their leasehold on more than one occasion and 
they engage in activities which are not provided for in their lease. Staff will 
continue its investigation and may terminate their lease. 



M111296.igq 



Commissioner Cook stated that it was his understanding that the Department of 
Fish and Game is responsible for the health of the fish and asked Mr. Bouey if 
his interpretation is accurate. Mr. Bouey responded that the Port has the 
responsibility as a landlord to ensure that our tenants do not do anything to 
endanger the fish or the quality of the water or soil. The Department of Fish and 
Game, however, has the direct responsibility. Commissioner Cook indicated that 
Save the Bay should understand that the Port does not have the facility to test 
water, to determine the health of the fish. A policy should be directed and made 
very clear that the Port has the authority to close fishing facilities but Fish and 
Game can make the analysis that the Port is unable to make. Mr. Bouey stated 
that the points the Port makes are (1) we were asking the right questions at the 
right time and (2) based on an analysis by those competent a decision was made 
that it was not necessary to close these facilities thereby decreasing the amount of 
inconvenience that had otherwise had occurred to those people who use the 
facility. 

Commissioner McCarthy inquired about the location of the second oil spill. Mr. 
Bouey responded that the tenancy is adjacent to San Francisco Drydock. 

B . ApproA^aLof Design Parameters for the Mid-Fmharcadern Roadway and Plaza project. 
(Resolution No. 96-113) 

Mr. Bouey stated that this item was before the Commission on two previous 
occasions. It is now back to the Commission for adoption. At the last meeting, it 
was discussed that staff would work at providing a synopsis to the Commission for its 
approval. To ensure maximum public input, a November 7th hearing was scheduled. 
More than 350 notices were sent out and only 10 members of the public came to the 
meeting. There were no major recommendations made at the meeting that would in 
any way change the recommendations. The design parameters are enumerated in the 
attached resolution. He then introduced Dan Hodapp who made a brief presentation. 

Mr. Hodapp indicated that the purpose of this item is to approve the general design 
parameters for the project. At the October 24 Commission meeting, the Waterfront 
Transportation Project office and the consultant presented the design to the 
Commission. On November 7, a public hearing to elicit further comments was held 
at the Port. He mentioned that some of the comments were very positive. They were 
looking at how to handle many of the detailed design items of the project such as the 
trees, the size and the spacing of the trees, items that the consultant is now evaluating. 
The design parameters referenced in the attached resolution confirm the direction 
provided by other City departments and provide direction to the design team on 
acceptance of the major spaces such as the central plaza and the transition areas. It 
also mentioned that there is to be a strong bold paving pattern of granite to be used in 
the granite but it does not specifically say which pattern. One of the comments at the 
public meeting was people like the idea of the trees but they are very concerned of the 
views. 

Commissioner Herman inquired about public comments regarding trees. Mr. Hodapp 



M111296.igq 



replied that there was support for trees in the plaza area. There was concern about 
viewing of the Ferry Building, either above, below, or through the trees. There seem 
to be a general consensus for the two objectives of having trees and being able to see. 
The project designers and City staff believe that those two goals can be accomplished 
within the present design. 

Commissioner Herman raised a constructive disagreement with trees in front of the 
Ferry Building. He stated that this is a major arterial area and that there are all kinds 
of vehicles diverging all hours of day and night. The Ferry Building has a rare and 
unique beauty. The trees, in his judgement, create confusion. He thinks the plaza 
should be wide open. The number of trees, the placement and the size of trees should 
be rethought so there is a clean drive-through area. Mr. Hodapp indicated that the 
final decision of the size and placement of trees has not been suggested by the 
consultant at this time. He showed the Commission a photo of the proposed plaza 
with and without the trees. The first design of the plaza by the consultant did not 
include the trees in the central plaza. Commissioner McCarthy reiterated that the tree 
situation is yet to be approved. Mr. Hodapp stated that we are looking at the general 
parameters. The general parameters do state, which the general public has expressed 
with consensus, that trees should be used in the plaza to soften the area. Mr. Bouey 
interjected that there will be an opportunity for the Commission to see the plan before 
it is effectuated. Mr. Hodapp stated that this will be brought back to the Commission 
after the first of the year when many of the design details can be worked out and there 
will be opportunities for the Commission to visit the model. 

Commissioner Cook requested for a clarification of the seat wall and replacement of 
the railing as indicated in Appendix A. Mr. Hodapp responded that this project 
extends from Broadway in the north, all the way down to Folsom in the south. 
Between the Agricultural Building and Folsom Street, there is an existing promenade 
with a seat wall and a galvanized railing. The proposal is to replace that railing with 
a railing consistent with what is being designed as part of the Ferry Terminal 
improvements and not to have two types of seat wall. North of the Agricultural 
Building, the art ribbon shall be flushed with the pavement. The current design 
includes removing the concrete wall and replacing it with a railing. Commissioner 
Cook then inquired about how the ribbon will fit into the railing. Mr. Hodapp 
responded that the ribbon sits in front of the railing. The exact location of those raised 
elements has not been finalized by the design team. Mr. Hodapp stated that they have 
asked the design team to look at ways to minimize the type of impact caused by 
skateboarders. Commissioner Cook recommended taking a hard look if we want a 
raised ribbon in the area and have it flushed with the sidewalk. Mr. Hodapp stated 
that based on directions from this Commission in the past, they have told the design 
team that if they have raised section it should also include elements to it that prevents 
it from becoming a public nuisance but will pass onto them Commissioner Cook's 
recommendation. 

Commissioner Hardeman commented that during special events, he envisions people 
on trees which would cause potential liability problems to the Port. He also 
concurred with Commissioner Herman's comment about open area in front of the 



M111296.igq 



Ferry Building. 

Lee Gotshall Maxon, representing the owners of One Maritime Plaza building and 
also work closely with the owners of the Embarcadero Center and two Hyatt Hotels in 
the area, One Market Plaza and Golden Gate Center, stated that those owners 
enthusiastically support this design concept and hope that the Commission adopts this 
item today. 

Carl Maletic stated that, at the last meeting, they passed out an extensive brochure 
that outline an alternative design for this area. He too concurred with Commissioner 
Herman about the trees. There was a comment at the public meeting against the 
trees, blocking the elevation of the Ferry Building. Regarding the public meeting 
held November 7, there were only ten attendees, 5 of which were Port staff. He 
believed that there is inadequate public input into the design parameters. He 
requested the Commission to table this item and put another public notice for input on 
the design parameters. 

Mr. Bouey stated that after having sent out 350 notices, and given the fact that this 
item has gone through 12 public hearings, people perhaps had said what they had to 
say and it's time to move on. 

ACTION: Commissioner McCarthy moved approval; Commissioner Herman 
seconded the motion. All of the Commissioners were in favor; the 
resolution was adopted. 

C. Approval of Harbor Traffic Code AmenHment regarding restrictions on outdoor signs. 
(Resolution No. 96-112) 

Mr. Bouey stated that for some time now, it's been common knowledge that there is a 
tug and barge that have been employed for the purposes of displaying large 
advertisements on the bay. A number of agencies have looked into whether they 
could regulate them and concluded they do not have the capability. Port staff, 
requested the City Attorney to do an analysis of the Port's authority and found that 
the Port has the authority to amend the Harbor Traffic Code to regulate outdoor signs 
and advertisements on bay waters. Current City policy prohibits vehicles to be used 
exclusively for advertising on City streets including streets within Port jurisdiction. 
In 1992, the City amended Section 680 of Police Code to ban trucks that put 
billboards around the City. Staff requests that the Commission adopt this concept for 
the waters on the bay. Mr. Bouey stated that the Commission was given a substitute 
second page of the memorandum and second page of the resolution and he then 
enumerated the changes. 

Commissioner Cook inquired if the advertisement on vessels transporting passengers 
is permitted. He wondered if the concept of an advertisement such as in Muni is 
covered in this resolution. Mr. Bouey replied that the City vehicles are exempt but 
that there is a move to incorporate them. Mr. John Rakow, Legal Counsel, replied 
that this language is to permit San Francisco ferry passenger ships to continue to 



.M111296.igq 



-4- 



advertise on board. For example, on the Golden Gate ferry, there is an advertisement 
for a particular product in the bar. That type of advertisement is permitted; the 
advertising affixed to the sides of the vessels is prohibited. In the resolution, 
advertising that occurs on board the vessels is exempted. Mr. Rakow stated that our 
provision is more restrictive than Muni. The Port is trying to avoid any constitutional 
limitations on free speech. The Port is trying to be content neutral, and not interfere 
with ongoing business relationships. Mr. Bouey stated that if there is a problem, staff 
can bring it back to the Commission and amend the Harbor Code. Commissioner 
Cook stated that he prefers the resolution to state advertising inside the passenger 
vessel is permissible. The way the current resolution is written it connotes that 
advertisement on the exterior is allowed. If the intent of the resolution is to allow 
advertising on the inside of passenger boats but not on the outside, he is satisfied with 
the resolution. 

Corinne Woods pointed out that most of the big boats that race on S.F. Bay, 
including the America's Cup, have a lot of advertising on them. A lot of boats have 
advertising on their sails as well. She does not think that it is the intent of the Port to 
eliminate the possibility of having America's Cup boat here or nor it's the intent of 
the Port to eliminate the East Navy banners that go up during Fleet Week. 

ACTION: Commissioner Lee moved approval; Commissioner Cook seconded the 
motion. All of the Commissioners were in favor; the resolution was 
adopted. 

9. SPECIAL ITEM 

A. Port Commissinn Siihrnrnmittee's Recommendation on Maritime Services 
Organization. ( Resolution No. 96-105) 

Commissioner Herman requested that Item 9A be heard first and offered a substimte 
"resolved" for the resolution to read as follows, "Resolved that the Commission's 
subcommittee recommends that a separate Maritime Services Division be created to 
include cargo and ship repair industries. The new division shall be headed by a 
Director of Maritime Services and will include marketing and operations staff. " He 
indicated that he is displeased with the proposal that is before the Commission. He 
believes that the Commission should have the oppormnity to vote on this proposal and 
urged the Commission to adopt this as a substitute for Item 9A. 

Commissioner Cook stated that this is not a substimte motion but rather a major staff 
reorganization. The resolution from two weeks ago is different. This substimte 
resolution is different from what is scheduled to be heard today. He feels it is 
inappropriate to discuss a major staff reorganization at the last minute. He requested 
this item be heard at the next meeting so staff can have the oppormnity to investigate 
and analyze the reorganization and allocation of resources at the Port. 

Commissioner Herman indicated that this substimte resolution is the exact proposition 
that was offered originally. It carried with it a long verbal argument. It is a 

M111296.igq -5- 



substitute for what is in Item 9A. He urged the Commission to vote on this proposal. 
He indicated that there is nothing wrong, damaging or inappropriate of this proposal 
since it was what's originally offered. 

Commissioner Cook countered that this is not the original resolution. This is the 
third change in two Commission meetings. He is not prepared at this time to vote on 
it. He believes that a delay is appropriate at this time because this is a major change 
from the resolution that is before the Commission. The substimte resolution is a 
major change in reorganization of staff. It is inappropriate without due notice to the 
public and the Commission. He requested a delay on this item and hear this at the 
December meeting. 

Commissioner McCarthy indicated that she is unsure if this is a matter of semantics 
or a major reorganization. The major difference between the proposed resolution and 
the proposal that was on the agenda was this position would report directly to the 
Executive Director. The position before was under Tenant and Maritime Services and 
reported directly to the Tenant and Maritime Services Director. She asked for 
clarification. 

Commissioner Herman stated that his proposal is for a Maritime Division. He 
mentioned that what the Executive Director offered was cargo manager rather than 
maritime director. Mr. Bouey clarified that when he met with the subcommittee, they 
indicated that they would like to have a separate division and wanted a director. Mr. 
Bouey indicated that the position of Director would have to be approved by Civil 
Service. Traditionally, at the Airport, Port, DPW, there are four deputy directors. 
The Port would be adding a fifth which would mean Civil Service approval. The Port 
might have to eliminate another position which will then have an impact on the 
organization. He suggested to the subcommittee that he would contact Civil Service 
to get a fifth deputy director position. Subsequent to that conversation, the 
subcommittee came back and indicated that they decided to have a manager, reporting 
directly to the executive director and head up the cargo division. Mr. Bouey 
concluded that staff will support whatever the Commission wants to do. 

After further discussion, Mr. Bouey suggested thai first thing in the morning, staff 
will contact Civil Service and bring back to the Commission its findings. 

Commissioner Lee commented that he respects and appreciates Commissioners 
Hardeman and McCarthy for chairing the subcommittee. However, since Mr. Bouey 
is leaving, he commented that the Commission should wait until the new executive 
director is on board. He suggested meeting with the new executive director to 
express what the Commission wants. He stated that the Director manages the Port, 
not the Commission. Commissioner Herman disagreed. 

In response to Commissioner Lee's inquiry of the Commission's role, Legal Counsel 
Julie Van Nostern stated that the role of the Commission is to set policies. The role 
of the Commission is not to direct the day-to-day functions of the Port or to set up 
administration. It's the Commission's job to set policy; it's the Commission's job to 

M111296.igq -6- 



tell the Director what its goals are. If the Commission is not happy with how it is 
being administered, the Commission has recourse. However, there are provisions in 
the Charter that provide for repercussions to Commissioners interfering with the 
charges of the Director. She added that what is happening here is a little unique 
because there is an issue whether or not the Commission is going over the line in 
terms of actually running the day-to-day functions of the Port. The Burton Act, 
which is implemented under the Charter, sets out the management responsibilities of 
the Director and the responsibilities of the Commission. The fact that the Director 
was willing to sit down and consider what the reorganization would be and how it 
would be implemented is his prerogative. Ms. Van Nostem indicated that if she was 
asked if it is the Commission's responsibility to manage the Port, she would 
respectfully say no. That would be considered interference. She added that it does 
not mean that the Commission does not have a role; it does not mean that the 
Commission does not have authority and that it cannot oversee the Director. If the 
Commission is not happy with the Director, it can choose to remove the Director. 

Commissioner Herman requested a copy of the Charter covering the rules, duties and 
obligations of the Director. Ms. Van Nostem replied that a copy will be provided to 
the Commission. 

Commissioner Lee urged the Commission to take this reorganization seriously. He is 
all for maritime, all for cargo but, according to the Charter, the Commission is not to 
micro manage the day-to-day business of the Port. He suggested delaying this item 
until the new executive director is on board. 

Commissioner McCarthy commented that she is concerned that the process of finding 
another Port Director may take a great deal of time. 

Mr. Bouey commented that he respects the institution of the Commission, its 
relationship to the Mayor and the citizens of San Francisco. In deference to the 
Commission, he will assist the Commission in what they want to achieve. 

ACTION: Commissioner McCarthy moved approval to put this item over to the 
next meeting; Commissioner Cook seconded the motion. Four of the 
Commissioners were in favor; Commissioner Herman cast the dissenting 
vote. 

4. LEGISLATIVE 

5. TENANT & MARITIME SERVICES 

A. Approval of lease w ith F lickaJMcGurrin,_dbaJgier 23 Cafe, at JPier 23 , and approval 
of amendment to BCDCJPermitj^,a_M28JJQNifQrJhe creatiQJi_and dedication of 
public access adjaceiit_tQJhe^eiL21,Cafe^_(ResolutioiiJSkL_96J.21) 

Mr. Bouey stated that this proposed lease is a result of a new policy put in place by 
this Commission a few years ago to allow a great many of our retail tenants who have 

M111296.igq -7- 



been operating on a month-to-month to get some permanence so that they could run 
their businesses in a more businesslike way. In 1994, the Port granted Pier 23 a lease 
which expires in April 1997. The existing premises are about 4300 sq. ft. 1400 of 
which are inside the restaurant. The current monthly base rent is $5600 versus a 7% 
percentage rent. Last year. Pier 23 grossed sales of $2.3 million. Through all the 
problems of the Embarcadero and the roadway work, Ms. McGurrin's increased her 
business ten fold. The policy for retail businesses reaffirms the Port's commitment to 
foster and encourage ftill and equitable opportunities for leasing retail sites on the 
waterfront. The policy does allow for the direct negotiation of a lease with an 
existing tenant provided they meet the following criteria: (1) tenant is in good 
standing; (2) tenant has a sound business plan; (3) the tenancy is in the best economic 
interest of the Port; (4) the tenant has a good record of affirmative action. With 
regard to these four criteria, Flicka McGurrin has a consistent history of compliance 
with all obligations of its lease. With regard to sound business plan, she increased 
her business ten fold, an indication of her ability and sound assessment as a 
businesswoman and as well, she plans to invest a total of $200,000 into the premises. 
With regard to the Port's best economic interest, Pier 23 is one of the best and most 
consistently performing restaurants not only on Port property but in San Francisco. 
With regard to affirmative action, Ms. McGurrin has a wonderful affirmative action 
record and is also a certified WBE. There are certain required improvements which 
require a BCDC permit which the Port will co-sign. With regard to the terms of the 
proposed lease, the building and the outdoor dining area is 4385 feet. The term will 
be ten years. There are three phases of improvements and if they are not concluded 
in the allotted time, the Port has the right to terminate the lease. The initial base rent 
is almost $11,000 a month. As well, she's agreed to pay 7% of all gross receipts and 
agreed to maintain the premises including the public access area. 

ACTION: Commissioner McCarthy moved approval; Commissioner Lee seconded 
the motion. All of the Commissioners were in favor; the resolution was 
adopted. 

B . Appro vaLQfjnQntlttOjjnQnthlea&ejwithIoshuaJPjyor,^dba China^asin Charter/Ruby 
Sailing, at_PierJ23._^esolutiQnJ^Ii3_9ji-.122) 

Mr. Bouey stated that adjacent to the Pier 23 lease is another lease for the Ruby 
Sailing, which currently berths at the Ramp Restaurant. Mr. Pryor desires to operate 
the Ruby at Pier 23. The proposed facility will be constructed at Mr. Pryor's sole 
cost and expense. It includes a 60 ft. float and a handicap accessible ramp. It will 
require a BCDC permit. Port Commission is required because this use is not 
included in the leasing parameters. On October 28, 1992, the Commission approved 
the policy for accommodating additional excursion boats at the Port. However, that 
policy identified Piers 3 and 9 as the suitable interim location for accommodating 
excursion vessel facility. This lease includes 1692 sq. ft. of water space and 84 sq. 
ft. of wharf space. The term is month-to-month. The use will be for excursion 
landing. The initial base rent is for $400. The percentage rent is 6% and the tenant 
is responsible for maintenance to the premises. The tenant improvement is estimated 
at $75,000. The removable improvements such as the float will remain the personal 

M111296.igq -8- 



property of the tenant if the Port should tenninate its month-to-month lease. 

ACTION: Commissioner Cook moved approval; Commissioner Lee seconded the 
motion. All of the Commissioners were in favor; the resolution was 
adopted. 

6. FACILITIES & OPERATIONS 

A. Public Hearing on the intention to issue permits to relo cate and install .T.C. D ecaux 
Public wService/Advertising Kiosks o n the south side of Jefferson Street betwe en Hyde 
and T^aven worth Streets, and on Ihe north side of Jefferson Street between Mason 

tionJNo. 

Mr. Bouey stated that at the September 24 Commission meeting, two locations for the 
kiosks were identified and discussed. After listening to numerous speakers, staff 
agreed to find alternative locations. Staff proposes that the Mason and Jefferson 
Streets location be moved to north side of Jefferson Street, east of Mason and the 
Jefferson and Hyde Street location be moved to the south side of Jefferson Street, 
between Hyde and Leavenworth Streets, in front of the entrance to the Cannery 
courtyard. Notices were provided to all Port tenants immediately adjacent to the new 
locations and within the 150-foot radius. 

ACTION: Commissioner Cook moved approval; Commissioner Lee seconded the 
motion. All of the Commissioners were in favor; the resolution was 
adopted. 

B. Authorization to issue Request For Proposals (RFP) for design services for the 
berthing facilities and dredgingJbiLthe Hyde Street Fishing Harbor ._ (Resolution No. 
96-120) 

Mr. Bouey stated that the Commission approved a professional services contract for 
the preparation of an EIR for the Hyde Street Fishing Harbor project in September 
1994. Work began on the EIR on January 1995, and is anticipated to be certified in 
December 1996 and no action on the project will be taken until after the EIR is 
certified. However, staff would like to move ahead with the project which consists of 
three main improvements: (1) construction of landside improvements, (2) dredging, 
(3) and the construction of sixty berthing facilities. The primary vessels to be docked 
will be commercial fishing boats. The proposed RFP will solicit proposals for 
outside professional design services for the berthing facilities and dredging 
components. 

In response to Commissioner McCarthy's inquiry about the responsibility of 
overseeing the landside improvements, Mr. Bouey replied that the Port will assign a 
project manager to work with DPW. The Port will purchase design services from 
DPW for those portions of the project. 

ACTION: Commissioner Cook moved approval; Commissioner McCarthy 

M111296.igq -9- 




seconded the motion. All of the Commissioners were in favor; the 
resolution was adopted. 

C. Authorizati on to accept the work for Construction Contract No. 259: 
Farthquake Repair Project, Pier and Buildings Repair" (Resolutii 

Mr. Bouey stated that the work at Pier 45 is completed. The original contract amount 
was $9.4 million and provided for contingency of approximately $281,000. 
Approximately a year later, staff requested that the Commission approved an 
additional $265,468, which increased the contract amount to $9,945,151. Staff is 
requesting Commission to accept the work for the price of $9,929,000 (about $17,000 
less than anticipated). At the same time, the contractor has agreed to release all 
claims, except one in which he believes he is entitled to $34,000; staff requests the 
authority to settle that claim. 

Commissioner Herman wondered why the Port is paying the contractor $34,000, if he 
is not entitled to it. Mr. Bouey clarified that the Port will not give him $34,000. The 
contractor put in a claim for $34,000, staff believes he is entitled to something but not 
that entire amount. 

ACTION: Commissioner Cook moved approval; Commissioner Lee seconded the 
motion. Four of the Commissioners were in favor; Commissioner 
Herman cast the dissenting vote. The resolution was adopted. 

7. FLAPPING & DEVELOPMENT 

A . Presentation on Wireless Telecommunications Services Facilities Siting Guidelines. 
(Information Only) 

Mr. Bouey stated that the City's Planning Department has spent some time analyzing 
wireless telecommunications services. The Port would like to mirror, where 
appropriate, the City's policy on this issue. A wireless telecommunications policy 
will be presented to the Commission in December or January for its adoption. He 
then introduced Susanna Montanri from the Planning Department. 

Ms. Montana presented the Planning Department's recommended guidelines. She 
stated that the Planning Department has had zoning regulations which regulated 
wireless telecommunication facilities since they adopted their first zoning regulations. 
The Planning Commission developed siting criteria, facilities guidelines and 
conditions of approval. The zoning rules require a conditional use application for 
each carrier's set of antennas for each location. The Port issues its own permit as well 
as the Redevelopment Agency but do not have a conditional use process. The 
Planning Commission requested staff to present its guidelines to the Port Commission 
and Redevelopment Commission for their consideration and adoption of the conditions 
of approval. They believe that a monitoring process for the radio frequency and the 
electro magnetic radiation needs to be established. The Planning Commission 
requests that each Commission establish as a condition of permit approval that there 



M111296.igq 



-10- 



be a pre-installation reading report. The report will then go to the Health Department 
to make sure it meets FCC Health & Safety standards. Once the installation is 
installed and operational, the Planning Commission requires another report and every 
two years thereafter to ensure they are meeting the FCC Standards. The Planning 
Commission and the Board of Supervisors have requested that the highest preference 
for siting of these facilities be on public buildings. When the Port Commission issues 
permits, the Planning Commission also requests the address, name of the carriers and 
number of antennas of the carriers so they could map them on their map info system, 
a city wide inventory, because the public wants a report every year to find out how 
many antennas are going up. 

In response to Commissioner McCarthy's inquiry about the appearance and size of the 
antennas, Ms. Montana responded that in suburban areas, they are usually towers or 
flag poles. In San Francisco, it is a panel antenna which is about 4 feet by 6 inches 
by 4 inches that looks like a fluorescent light ballast that is attached to the buildings, 
painted the same color of the building. In some cases, they are on a little pole (7 feet 
tall on top of a roof). 

Commissioner Lee inquired about the equipment when installing the antennas. Ms. 
Montana replied that there is a base transceiver unit which is usually located in the 
basement or the garage area. 

Ms. Montana added that they encourage all City departments to develop a streamline 
permit process because they would like to have the installations be placed on City 
properties. The market rent for each of these installations is about $1500 a month, 30 
year lease. City-owned buildings appear to be less obtrusive. 

Lynn Bunim, from Pacific Telesis, stated that she is pleased with the guidelines that 
have been developed. For almost a year, there has been a lot of community 
discussion in the development of these guidelines. It is their hope and intention to 
return in December to propose two sites they would like to obtain leases and move 
forward. She offered the Commission an opportunity to view the sites of their 
antennas. It is their objective to make it as unobtrusive as possible. One of the issues 
they've looked at very carefully is there is an economic benefit to San Francisco for 
having this technology. 

John Newman, counsel for Pacific Bell mobile services, reiterated Ms. Bunim 's 
comments that they welcome the opportunity the Commissioners, staff and counsel 
the proposed locations. They are working with Port staff regarding the two locations 
(Pier 39 and Pier 22-1/2) under consideration. 

In response to Commissioner McCarthy's inquiry about rent generated from the Pier 
39 location, Mr. Bouey replied that staff will have to negotiate rent because the site is 
within their leasehold but is not a permitted use under their current lease. Since this 
is a new use, staff will negotiate a new rent structure. 

Ms. Montana added that with the permit, the Port can establish a fee system whereby 

M111296.igq -H" 



time and materials can be charged, which the carriers pay, for the work that the 
Health Department does for the Port. 

B. Resnlution authorizing the Rxecutive Director to execute BCDC Permit No. 5-96 
(Pier 3 S Maritime Recreation Tenter Tnr ) inrlnding the creation and dedication of 
public access areas. (Resolution No Q6-1 15) 

Mr. Bouey stated that the Commission previously approved a lease for the Maritime 
Recreation Center which offers dry boat storage, public boat launching, etc. The lease 
was also approved by the Board of Supervisors. A month ago, BCDC voted 
unanimously to issue a permit which includes public access area. Because the Port 
controls these properties, we are designated as a co-permittee. The site plan shows 
the location of the public access areas required as part of the project, which include 
approximately 22,859 square feet of public access around the perimeter of the pier. 
Resolution No. 96-115 would authorize the Executive Director to enter into BCDC 
Permit No. 5-96 which includes special conditions requiring the creation, dedication 
and maintenance of permanent public access areas. 

ACTION: Commissioner Cook moved approval; Conmiissioner Lee seconded the 
motion. All of the Commissioners were in favor; the resolution was 
adopted. 

8. ADMINISTRATION 

10. CONSENT CALENDAR 

A. Approval of travel for one Port representative to attend the International Trade Data 
and Information ConfexenceinSeattle , WA, in accordance with the Port's 1996-97 
budget. (Resolution No. 96-11 6) 

B . Acceplmice jaLQjjitclainLlleed.frQm_Catellus_Jlevelopment Corp^oxationjoLeasemenL 
Qyer_approximatelyJL417_acresjQ£jreaLpropeil)dkicatedatj6th^aiidJZ^^ 

(leased to Mission Creek Harbor Association). (Resolution No. 96-11 9) 

C . Appr ova l of Second^AmendmentJQJLease^andJIlQiiseiiLtQ Encumbrance with Bundox 
Restaurant. Inc.. dba the Waterfront Restaurant, at Pier IVi. XRes.QlutiQiiJS[Q._96-117) 

ACTION: Commissioner Cook moved approval; Commissioner Lee seconded the 
motion. All of the Commissioners were in favor; the items on the 
Consent Calendar were adopted. 

11. NEW BUSINESS / PUBLIC COMMENT 

Patsy Love, stated that she has been a Port employee 23 years. Fifteen of those years, she 
has received harassment from Mr. Kutnick because she refused to tell a lie for him and 
advised another employee to tell the truth. This harassment has become more severe since 
Mr. Kutnick became Director of the department. She has informed the Human Resources 

Mlli:96.igq -12- 



department and the deputy director about this harassment but it has continued to the point 
that she is now under the doctor's care and making her life very difficult. She requested 
the Commission to conduct an investigation regarding this matter. Mr. Bouey indicated 
that he will have the Personnel Director look into these issues. 

Theresa Koller, Street Artists, asked for the Commission's assistance. About 15 months 
ago, the Art Commission directed Kathy Hallinan and herself to represent the Street 
Artists to regain the use of J8 and J9. Over the last 15 months, she has written numerous 
letters to the Port but has only gotten a few replies. She'd like to get this matter resolved. 
Mr. Bouey replied that most of Ms. Roller's correspondence did not warrant a response. 
He had asked Mr. Bennett to set up a meeting with Mr. Lazar two and a half weeks ago. 
Mr. Bouey has looked at the J8 & J9 issue for a couple of months and will discuss it at the 
meeting with Mr. Lazar and Ms. Koller. Commissioner McCarthy requested a 
clarification of the matter. Mr. Bouey replied that the Commission previously approved a 
number of locations for the street artists but did not approve J8 and J9 because there is a 
provision that allows the Commission to exempt certain locations with doors. However, 
the Commission can waive this provision and locate street artists on those locations. The 
Commission requested staff to look at J8 & J9 and return to the Commission with a 
recommendation. 

Mr. Edward Lortz stated that he's lived in San Francisco 20 years, not affiliated with any 
organized group, has been in the maritime industry over 30 years and involved in the 
operation, maintenance, design and construction. He stated that San Francisco is never 
going to be a major container Port. We can go after niche cargo, passenger and cruise 
lines, fishing, ship repair, ferries and commercial. The Commission is working on a 
proposal to create a cargo department and will also be looking for a new director. In the 
1950's and 1940's, cargo was 80% of this port. In the ftiture, with that container cargo, 
cargo and ship repair are never going to be more than 20 or 30% of this Port. To set up a 
cargo department does not make any sense. 

12. EXECUTIVE SESSION 

At 6:30 p.m., the Commission Secretary announced that the Commission will withdraw to 
executive session to discuss the following: 

A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - This session is 
closed to any non-City /Port rpp res£ntativ£^ * 

1) Property: Port property located at Berry Street and Second Street (China Basin). 
Person Negotiating: Port representative: Dennis P. Bouey, Executive Director 
*San Francisco Giants^eprcs^entative: Larry Baer, Executive Vice President 

Under Negotiation: Price Terms of Payment / Both 

An executive session has been calendared to discuss real property negotiations 
between the Port and San Francisco Giants, regarding the proposed ballpark. 

This is specifically authorized under California Government Code Section 

M111296.igq -13- 



54956.8. 

B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING EXISTING 
LITIGATION MATTER: 

I) Neudecker v. CCSF, et. al., Superior Court No. 964-862 and 974-043; pursuant to 
subdivision (a) of California Government Code Section 54956.9 

C. Vote in open session on whether to disclose Executive Session discussions (S.F. 
Admin. Code Sec. 67.14) 

At 7:10 p.m, Commissioners Hardeman, Lee, Cook, Herman and McCarthy returned 
from executive session and convened in public session. 

ACTION: Commissioner Lee moved approval to not disclose any information discussed 
in the executive session; Commissioner McCarthy seconded the motion. All 
of the Commissioners were in favor. 

The meeting was adjourned at 7:12 p.m. 



Mlli:96.igq -14- 



;SAN FRANCISCO 
PORT COMMISSION 



<r 



REGULAR MEETING 

4:00 P.M., TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1996 
FERRY BUILDING, SUITE 3100 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
DEC 5 1996 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



^In 



AGENDA 



<> 



1. ROLL CALL 

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 12, 1996 

3. EXECUTIVE 

A. Executive Director's Report 

B. Approval of Annual Payment Agreement between the Port Commission and the City 
& County of San Francisco regarding payment of Parking Violation Fine Revenues by 
City to Port. (Resolution No. 96-127) 

C. Approval of Revision of Resolution No. 96-112, Harbor Traffic Code Amendment 
regarding Restrictions on Outdoor Signs (Revised Resolution 96-112) 

4. LEGISLATIVE 

5. TENANT & MARITIME SERVICES 

A. Approval of relocation of two street artist spaces on Port property along the south 
side of Jefferson Street between Jones and Hyde Streets (Resolution No. 96-125) 

6. FACILITIES & OPERATIONS 

A. Informational briefing on Fisherman's Wharf Environmental Quality Advisory 
Committee. 

B. Authorization to award a Professional Services Contract for the "Pier 48 New 
Maintenance Facility" to Kendall Young Associates/Beverly Prior Architects, a Joint 
Venmre. (Resolution No. 96-128) 

7. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 

8. ADMINISTRATION 

9. SPECIAL ITEM 



A121096.igq 



-1- 



10. CONSENT CALENDAR 

A. Approval of a declaration of emergency to obtain assistance in damage assessment 
resulting from the oil spill at Pier 70. (Resolution No. 96-126) 

B. Approval of a declaration of emergency for repairs to Pier 43-V2 Franciscan 
Restaurant parking deck failure. (Resolution No. 96-129) 

11. NEW BUSINESS / PUBLIC COMMENT 

12. EXECUTIVE SESSION 

A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - Thifi sesxinn is 
closed to any non-City /Port representative. * 

1) Property: Port property located at Berry Street and Second Street (China Basin). 
Person Negotiating: Port representative: Dennis P. Bouey, Executive Director 
*San Francisco Giants Representative: Larry Baer, Executive Vice President 

Under Negotiation: Price Terms of Payment /_ Both 

An executive session has been calendared to discuss real property negotiations 
between the Port and San Francisco Giants, regarding the proposed ballpark. 

This is specifically authorized under California Government Code Section 
54956.8. 

B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING ANTICIPATED AND 
PENDING LITIGATION: 

1) Discuss significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of California 
Government Code Section 54956.9 (1 case). 

2) Joseph Peters v. CCSF; CCSF (cross-complainant) v. Somerset Insurance 
Services, et.al. 

San Francisco Superior Court No. 963-495 

3) Republic Insurance Company et.al. v. CCSF 
U.S. District Court C94-2627-FMS 

C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING PERSONNEL MATTER 

1) Discuss personnel matter pursuant to California Government Code Section 
54957. 

D. Vote in open session on whether to disclose Executive Session discussions (S.F. 
Admin. Code Sec. 67.14) 



A121096.igq 



I 



i 



13. ADJOURNMENT 



Piihlic comment is permitted on any matter within Port jiirisdktion. and is not limited to agenda 
items Public comment on non-agend a items may he ra ised during New Business/Public 
Comment Please fill out a speaker card an d hand it to th e Commission Secretary . 



DISABILITY ACCESS 



The Port Commission office is located on the third floor of the Ferry Building, Suite 3100. 
The Port office is wheelchair accessible. Accessible seating for persons with disabilities 
(including those using wheelchairs) will be available. The closest accessible BART station is 
Embarcadero Station located at Market and Steuart Streets. The closest accessible MUNI 
Metro station is Embarcadero station located at Market and Spear Streets. Accessible MUNI 
lines serving the Ferry Building are the 9, 31, 32 and 71. For more information about MUNI 
accessible services, call 923-6142, 

There is accessible parking at the Ferry Building and at the public lot in the Embarcadero 
median in fi-ont of the Ferry Building. Assistive listening devices are available for use in the 
Port Commission Meeting. 

The following services are available on request 72 hours prior to the meeting. Please contact 
Kevin Jensen at (415) 274-0555. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

• American Sign Language Interpreters • The use of a reader during the meeting 

• A Sound Enhancement System • Minutes of the Meeting in Alternative 

• 



Large Print of the Agenda Formats 

In order to assist the City's efforts to accommodate persons with severe allergies, 
environmental illnesses, multiple chemical sensitivity or related disabilities, attendees at public 
meetings are reminded that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical-based 
products. Please help the City accommodate these individuals. 

Know Your Rights Under the Sunshine Ordinance 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. 
Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the 
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people 
and that City operations are open to the people's review. For more information on your rights 
under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code) or to 
report a violation of the ordinance, contact the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force at 554-6075. 



A121096.igq 



c 



I 



( 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 



MEMORANDUM 



December 4, 1996 




Ferry Building 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone 415 274 0400 

Telex 275940 PSF UR 

Fax 415 274 0528 

Cable SFPORTCOMM 

Writer 



TO: 



FROM: 



MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 
Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. James Herman 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 



Dennis P. Bouey 
Executive Director 



f/fp> 



SUBJECT: Approval of Annual Payment Agreement Between the Port 
Commission and the City and County of San Francisco, Regarding Payment of 
Parking Violation Fine Revenues by City to Port 



DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: AUTHORIZE APPROVAL OF THE 

ANNUAL PAYMENT AGREEMENT 



BACKGROUND 

The Port currently has approximately 1 ,000 parking meters on its property from which it 
charges and collects parking meter revenues. Between the time that the Port acquired 
jurisdiction over the Port property and around 1975, the Port's police officers enforced 
parking violations on Port property and the Port also received revenue from fines issued for 
parking violations. 

Pursuant to the Burton Act and the Transfer Agreement, the Port is allowed to retain the City 
to perform services on its behalf. Around 1975, the City took over parking enforcement 
functions on Port property, with the Port's consent. Since that time, all fine revenues 
generated by parking violations on Port property have been administered, collected and 
retained solely by the City. 

Between 1975 and December 31, 1993, the Port did not reimburse the City for providing its 
parking enforcement acfivities on Port property and the City retained all revenues paid by 



THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. 3B 



i 



i 



Page 2 

parking violators on Port property. Beginning January 1, 1994, the Port has paid the City an 
annual administrative fee of approximately $250,000 for performing this service. However, 
the City and the Port acknowledge that the charges incurred by the City in performing 
parking enforcement services on Port property are less than the total amount of parking fine 
revenues received by the City since 1975 and that some portion of the revenues previously 
collected is owed to the Port pursuant to the Burton Act and the Transfer Agreement. 

However, the City does not retain data regarding the number of parking citations issued or 
the amount of parking fine revenues collected on Port property. Consequently, neither the 
Port nor the City have an accurate measure of the amount of parking fine revenues generated 
by violators on Port property and retained by the City. Both the City and the Port agree that 
it would be extremely difficult or even impossible to calculate the actual amount. 

PROPOSED ANNUAL PAYMENT AGREEMENT 

The Port and the City intend to enter into an Annual Payment Agreement to resolve the 
issues regarding (1) amounts owed to the Port fi-om parking fine revenues collected and 
retained by the City and (2) amounts owed to the City for previously unreimbursed City 
services. As part of such resolution, the Aimual Payment Agreement will set forth a 
payment arrangement for both past and future amounts. The term of the Aimual Payment 
Agreement will commence with its execution by the Commission and the Board of 
Supervisors and will expire on June 30, 2017. 

Reimbursement for Past Parking Fine Revenues 

Within 30 days following approval of the Annual Payment Agreement by the Port's 
Commission and the City's Board of Supervisors, which ever is later, the City shall pay the 
Port $1,200,000 (the "Reimbursement Amount") for a portion of the Port's share of past 
parking fine revenues. 

Guaranteed Annual Pay ment Amount 

As part of the resolution of past parking fine revenues, and in payment of the Port's share of 
ongoing collections, the Annual Payment Agreement will provide that the City pay the Port 
$1,200,000 annually through June 30, 2017 (the "Guaranteed Annual Payment"). 

The Guaranteed Annual Payment is payable in monthly installments due on the first day of 
each month commencing on July 1, 1997. Upon termination of the Annual Payment 
Agreement (either upon expiration of the term or at the Port's discretion), the City's 
responsibility for the Guaranteed Annual Payment will cease and revenues fi"om parking 
citations attributable to parking spaces on Port property will be received by the Port in 
amounts equal to actual ticket collections or as otherwise required by law. To the extent that 
the City continues to provide enforcement services on the Port's behalf, the Port will 
continue to reimburse the City for its actual administrative costs. 

Prepared by: Dennis P. Bouey, Executive Director 



y 



PORT COMMISSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



RESOLUTION NO. 96-127 



WHEREAS, Charter Section B3 . 58 1 empowers the Port Commission with power and duty 

to use, conduct, operate, maintain, manage, regulate and control the Port area 
of San Francisco; and 

WHEREAS, Under the Burton Act and Transfer Agreement, the State transferred its 

interest in San Francisco's tidelands to the City and County of San Francisco 
to be held in trust for navigation, commerce and fisheries; and, 

WHEREAS, Section 4 of the Burton Act and Section V of the Transfer Agreement require 

all revenues generated on trust property to be deposited into a trust fund for 
the Port's benefit, which include revenues fi'om parking citations attributable to 
parking spaces on Port property belonging to the Port; and, 

WHEREAS, Section VI of the Transfer Agreement allows the City to undertake all or part 

of the services performed by the Port if economies will result therefi^om and 
further provides that the Port is not required to contribute to City services to 
the extent such contribution will result in expenditures greater than those 
required; and, 

WHEREAS, Around 1975, the City took over parking enforcement functions on Port 

property, with the Port's consent, consistent with the Transfer Agreement, and 
has collected and retained all revenues derived from parking fines from use of 
Port property; and, 

WHEREAS, Between 1975 and January 1, 1994, the Port did not reimburse the City for the 

parking enforcement activities on Port property, and although since January 1, 
1994, the Port has paid the City an annual administrative fee of approximately 
$250,000 for this service; and. 



t 



Resolution No. 96-127 
Page 2 



WHEREAS, 



WHEREAS, 
WHEREAS, 



RESOLVED, 



RESOLVED, 



The parties have negotiated an Annual Payment Agreement to resolve the 
issues regarding the parking fine revenues and unreimbursed City services in 
the past, and, as part of such resolution, to set forth a payment arrangement for 
both past and future revenues, subject to the terms of the Agreement which is 
on file with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors in File No. ; and. 

Such Agreement provides for releases of claims in accordance with the terms 
and conditions of the Agreement; and. 

That upon termination of the Agreement, City's payment of the guaranteed 
annual payment will cease and revenues fi'om parking citations attributable to 
parking spaces on Port property will be received by the Port in amounts equal 
to actual ticket collections or as otherwise required by law; now, therefore be it 

That the Port Commission hereby approves the Annual Payment Agreement in 
substantially the form attached hereto and approves receipt of the payments 
fi'om the City to the Port required pursuant to the Agreement; and be it fiirther 

That, upon approval of the Agreement by the Board of Supervisors, the Port 
Commission hereby authorizes the Executive Director to enter into the Annual 
Payment Agreement and to execute any required documents or actions 
necessary to fiilfill the terms of the Agreement in such form as approved by the 
City Attorney. 



I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Port Commission at its meeting 
of December 10, 1996. 



Secretary 



i 



-««g 



ANNUAL PAYMENT AGREEMENT 

TfflS ANNUAL PAYMENT AGREEMENT is entered into as of 
, 1996, by and between the City and County of San Francisco ("City"), 



acting by and through the Board of Supervisors, and the San Francisco Port Commission 
("Port"). 

RECITALS 

A. The Port was established by the City pursuant to the Burton Act (Stats. 1968, ch. 1333) 
and Transfer Agreement, dated January 24, 1969. Under the Burton Act and Transfer 
Agreement, the State transferred its interest in San Francisco's tidelands to the City and County 
of San Francisco. The Port holds the property as trustee of the public trust for navigation, 
commerce and fisheries. 

B. Section 4 of the Burton Act and Section V of the Transfer Agreement require all 
revenues generated on trust property to be deposited into a trust fund for the Port's benefit. 
Revenues fi'om parking citations attributable to parking spaces on Port property belong to the 
Port. 

C. Section VI of the Transfer Agreement allows the City to undertake all or part of the 
services performed by the Port if economies will result therefi-om. The Transfer Agreement also 
provides that the Port is not required to contribute to City services to the extent such contribution 
will result in expenditures greater than those required. 

D. The Port currently has approximately 1000 parking meters on its property. Between 
the time that the Port acquired jurisdiction over the Port property and around 1975, the Port's 
police officers enforced parking violations on Port property, and the Port received the revenues 
fi'om parking fines. Around 1975, the City took over parking enforcement fiinctions on Port 
property, with the Port's consent, consistent with the Transfer Agreement. Since that time, all 
revenues derived fi'om parking fines fi'om use of Port property have been collected and retained 
by the City. 

E. Between 1975 and January 1, 1994, the Port did not reimburse the City for the parking 
enforcement activities on Port property. Since January 1, 1994, the Port has paid the City an 
annual administrative fee of approximately $250,000 for this service. The City and Port 
acknowledge that the charges incurred by the City in performing parking enforcement services on 
Port property are less than the total amount of parking fine revenues received by the City since 
1975. 

F. The City has not retained data regarding the number of parking citations issued or 
parking fine revenues collected on Port property. Consequently, the parties do not have an 
accurate measure of the amount of parking revenues received by the City attributable to Port 
property over the years. It would be extremely difficult or impossible to calculate the actual 
amount. 



G. The parties intend to enter into this Agreement to resolve the issues regarding the 
parking fine revenues and unreimbursed City services in the past, and, as part of such resolution, 
to set forth a payment arrangement for both past and future revenues, subject to the terms of this | 

Agreement. Upon termination of this Agreement and pursuant to the Burton Act and the Transfer j ^ 

Agreement, or as governed by applicable law then in effect, the Port will retain the use and 
control of all revenues fi-om parking citations attributable to parkmg spaces on Port property for 
the benefit of the public trust subject to the reimbursement of the City for its actual administrative 
costs if the City elects to provide such services. 

AGREEMENT 

1. Effective Date . The Effective Date of this Agreement is . 



2. Term . The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall 
terminate on June 30, 2017, unless earlier terminated in accordance with Section 5 of this 
Agreement. 

3. Reimbursement for Past Parking Fine Revenues. Within 30 days following approval of 
this Agreement by the Port's Commission and the City's Board of Supervisors, which ever is 
later, the City shall pay the Port $1,200,000 (the "Reimbursement Amount") for past parking fine 
revenues. The parties agree that this amount, together with the City's commitment to make 
Guaranteed Annual Payments (as defined in Section 4) for the term hereof, regardless of whether 
actual ticket collections are less than such sum, represents payment in fiiU for the City's obligation 
to pay the Port parking fine revenues that accrued prior to the Effective Date, less those 
unreimbursed costs previously incurred by the City in administering the parking violation ticketing 
and fines on Port property. 

4. Pavment of Future Parking Fine Revenues. 

a. Guaranteed Annual Payment Amount . As part of the resolution of past parking 
fine revenues, the parties have agreed that the City shall pay to the Port a specified amount 
annually for the term of this agreement (the "Guaranteed Annual Payment") as payment for 
parking meter fine revenues collected by the City. 



Based on a survey by the Department of Parking and Traffic, the parties have agreed that 
approximately $1,200,000 in parking meter fines are collected on Port property annually. The 
parties acknowledge that this sum has been agreed upon as the parties' estimate of parking 
revenues that would be collected by the City annually during the term hereof 

The Guaranteed Annual Payment is payable in monthly installments due on the first day of each 
month. Subject to Section 5 hereof, payment of the Guaranteed Annual Payment will commence 
on July 1, 1997, and continue for the term of this Agreement. Upon termination of this 



Agreement, City's responsibility for the Guaranteed Annual Payment will cease and revenues from 
parking citations attributable to parking spaces on Port property will be (i) received by the Port in 
amounts equal to actual ticket collections less actual admmistrative costs if the Burton Act and 
Transfer Agreement then require or (ii) governed by applicable law then in effect. 

b. Records. The City will attempt to implement a reasonable record keeping 
mechanism and make such records available to Port. 

c. Annual Administrative Fee . During the term of this Agreement, the Port will 
have an annual obligation to pay the City's actual administrative fees for the City's enforcement 
and processing of parking violations on Port property subject to the Port's reasonable approval 
and verification of such costs. 

d. Payment of Future Undedicated Park ing Fine Increases. If on or after the 
Effective Date the City increases the parking fines above the amounts existing as of the Effective 
Date (as shown on Exhibit 1 attached hereto), then to the extent that such increase is not 
dedicated to the State for State purposes or any other purpose mandated by the State, the 
Guaranteed Annual Payment to the Port shall be increased by the incremental increase in parking 
fines actually collected on Port property as of the effective date of the increase. 

5. Performance of Services by Port . Port, at any time, may, upon 180 days prior written 
notice to City, undertake ticketing and enforcement of parking violations on Port property. If 
Port discontinues using City's services and collects parking fine revenues itself. City's Guaranteed 
Annual Payment obligations under Section 4 above and Port's reimbursement obligation for 
services will cease as of the date the Port assumes such function. Any sums paid shall be prorated 
as of the date that Port assumes such function. 

6. City Policy to Support Public Transit. In 1993, the City adopted a policy (Section 
18. 103 of the Charter) to support public transit, and to set aside parking related revenue for 
public transportation purposes. City and Port hereby acknowledge that such policy is not 
intended to apply to revenues realized from those fines, forfeited bail, or penalties that are 
generated from parking violations on Port property, and that the disposition of those revenues 
from Port property will be governed by applicable law then in effect. 

7. Purpose and Effect. The parties intend to hereby resolve a dispute arising out of 
the City's collection of parking fine revenues from Port property before the Effective Date. 
Accordingly, the parties hereby fully release and discharge the other from any and all claims, 
obligations, costs, losses, and expenses of every description, known or unknown, as of or prior to 
the Effective Date of this Agreement, relating to parking fine revenues collected by the City from 
Port property and parking violation services provided by the City; provided, however, that the 
resolution of this dispute is conditioned upon receipt of the Reimbursement Payment and 
Guaranteed Annual Payment for the term and in accordance with all provisions of this Agreement. 



4 

i 



8. Miscellaneous Provisions . 

a. Time is of the Essence . Time is of the essence as to each and every provision 
of this Agreement. 

b. Governing Law . This Agreement will be construed and interpreted m 
accordance with the Laws of the State of California and City's Charter. 

c. Controller's Certification of Funds. The City's obligation hereunder shall not at 
any time exceed the amount certified by the Controller for the purposes and period stated in such 
certification. 

d. Entire Agreement . This Agreement, including the recitals, contains the entire 
agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof Any prior 
correspondence, memoranda, or other extrinsic documents relating to such subject matter are 
superseded in total by this Agreement. 

e. Amendments and Modifications . No amendment of this Agreement or any part 
thereof will be valid unless it is in writing and signed by all of the parties hereto. 

f Waiver . No failure by any party to insist upon the strict performance of any 
obligation of the other under this Agreement or to exercise any right, power or remedy arising out 
of a breach thereof, irrespective of the length of time for which such failure continues will 
constitute a waiver of such breach or of the party's rights to demand strict compliance with the 
party's obligations under this Agreement. 

g. Successors and Assig ns. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure 
to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors and assigns. 



\ 



I 



4 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY and PORT execute this Agreement at San 
Francisco, California, as of the last date set forth above. 



M 



PORT: 



CITY: 



By. 



Dennis P. Bouey 
Executive Director 



By_ 



Mayor Willie Lewis Brown, Jr. 



Port Commission Resolution No. 



APPROVED AS TO FORM: 

LOUISE H. RENNE, City Attorney 



By_ 



Julie Van Nostem 
Deputy City Attorney 

RECOMMENDED: 



Ed Harrington, Controller 



Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 



John Newlin, Director of Parking and Traffic 



RLE NO RESOLUTION NO. 



APPROVING ANNUAL PAYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN SAN FRANCISCO PORT 
COMMISSION AND CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, BY AND THROUGH ITS 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, REGARDING PAYMENT OF PARKING FINE REVENUES 
FROM PORT PROPERTY 

WHEREAS, Under the Burton Act and Transfer Agreement, the State transferred its 
interest in San Francisco's tidelands to the City and County of San Francisco to be hdd in trust 
for navigation, commerce and fisheries; and, 

WHEREAS, Section 4 of the Burton Act and Section V of the Transfer Agreement. 
require all revenues generated on trust property to be deposited into a trust fund for the Port's 
benefit, which include revenues fi-om parking citations attributable to parking spaces on P(»t 
property belonging to the Port; and, 

WHEREAS, Section VI of the Transfer Agreement allows the City to undertake all or 
part of the services performed by the Port if economies will result therefi"om and further provides 
that the Port is not required to contribute to City services to the extent such contribution will 
result in expenditures greater than those required; and, 

WHEREAS, Around 1975, the City took over parking enforcement functions on Port 
property, with the Port's consent, consistent with the Transfer Agreement, and has collected and 
retained all revenues derived fi-om parking fines fi^om use of Port property; and, 

WHEREAS, Between 1975 and January 1, 1994, the Port did not reimburse the City for 
the parking enforcement activities on Port property, and although since January 1, 1994, the Port 
has paid the City an annual administrative fee of approximately $250,000 for this service; and, 
WHEREAS, The parties have negotiated an Annual Payment Agreement to resoN^ the 
issues regarding the parking fine revenues and unreimbursed City services in the past, and, as part 
of such resolution, to set forth a payment arrangement for both past and future revenues, subject 
to the terms of the Agreement which is on file with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors in File 

No. ; and, 

WHEREAS, The City's policy pursuant to Section 18.103 of the Charter is to support 
public transit, and to set aside parking related revenue for public transportation purposes, such 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



policy will not apply to revenues from parking citations attributable to parking spaces on Port 
property belonging to the Port; and, 

WHEREAS, Such Agreement provides for releases of claims in accordance with the terms 
and conditions of the Agreement; and, 

WHEREAS, The Port and Board of Supervisors intend that upon termination of this 
Agreement, City's payment of the guaranteed annual payment will cease and revenues from 
parking citations attributable to parking spaces on Port property will be received by the Port in 
amounts equal to actual ticket collections or as otherwise required by law; and, 

WHEREAS, On December 10, 1996, pursuant to Port Commission Resolution 96-127, 
the San Francisco Port Commission authorized the Executive Director to enter into the Annual 
Payment Agreement and to execute any required documents or actions necessary to fulfill the 
terms of the Agreement; a copy of said Port Commission Resolution 96-127 is on file with the 
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors in FDe No. ; now, therefore be it 

RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors hereby approves the Annual Payment 
Agreement in substantially the form on file with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors in File No. 

, and approves the payments to the Port required pursuant to the Agreement; 

and be it 

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors hereby authorizes the Mayor to 
to enter into the Annual Payment Agreement and to execute any required documents or actions 
necessary to fiilfill the terms of the Agreement. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



I 



i 



i 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 




TO: 



FROM: 



MEMORANDUM 

December 3, 1996 

MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 
Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. James Herman 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 



Dennis P. Bouey 
Executive Director 




Ferry Building 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone 415 274 0400 

Telex 275940 PSF UR 

Fax 415 274 0528 

Cable SFPORTCOMM 

Writer 



SUBJECT: Revision of Resolution 96-112, Harbor Traffic Code Amendment 
Regarding Restrictions on Outdoor Signs 

DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE RESOLUTION. 



On November 12, 1996 the Port Commission passed Resolution 96-112 amending the 
Harbor Traffic Code ("Code") to regulate outdoor signs and advertisements on Bay waters 
within the Port's jurisdiction. 

At the Commission meeting various commissioners expressed concern with the exemption 
of waterbome vessels being used primarily to transport passengers or goods. The intent 
in exempting vessels used primarily for the transportation of passengers or goods was to 
permit advertising on ferry boats, excursion boats, passenger ships, cargo ships and 
similar vessels where such advertising is common. However, upon further review it was 
found that this advertising is usually located in the interior spaces of the vessel. 
Moreover, advertising on the outside of these vessels is not distinguishable from 
objectionable outdoor signs on barges and other vessels. Accordingly, banning all 
outdoor signs and advertising will not limit this unobjectionable interior activity. Second, 
a concern was expressed that racing sailboats be able to continue to display names and 
logos on their sails. Names and logos are frequently used on racing sails to help fund the 
activity. Accordingly, it is appropriate to exempt signs on sails of racing sailboats. 

To address these concerns staff recommends revising the prohibition to delete the 
exemption for vessels used primarily for the transportation of passengers or goods and to 
exempt signs on sails of racing sailboats. 

Prepared by: Dennis P. Bouey, Executive Director 

THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. 3C 



i 



i 



PORT COMMISSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

REVISED RESOLUTION NO. 96-112 



WHEREAS, Section B 3.581 of the City Charter empowers the Port Commission of San Francisco 
(the "Commission") with the power and duty to use, conduct, operate, maintain, 
manage, regulate and control the Port area of San Francisco; and 

WHEREAS, recently, a tug and barge was employed for the purpose of displaying a very large 
advertisement on the bay. The Port Director, along with the San Francisco Board of 
Supervisors, various other agencies, the media and private individuals expressed 
concern about this use. Issues that arise from this activity include visual pollution 
caused by such signs and the threat posed to the safety of vehicular and pedestrian 
traffic which may be distracted by the signs which are visible from adjacent roadways 
and highways; and 

WHEREAS, to address this activity on Port waters, the Commission on November 12, 1996 

amended the Port Harbor Code to prohibit outdoor signs and advertisements on all 
waterbome vessels, including, but not limited to motorized, towed or sailing vessels of 
any kind, such as ships, boats, tugboats, barges and sailboats, unless the waterbome 
vessel is being used primarily to transport passengers or goods; and 

WHEREAS, at the November 12, 1996 hearing concerns were raised about (I) the exemption for 
vessels used primarily to transport passengers or goods, and (2) adversely impacting 
sailboat racing by banning signs and logos on sails of racing sailboats and, 

WHEREAS, the Commission wants to address these two concerns and, now, therefore, be it 

RESOLVED, that the Harbor Traffic Code is hereby amended as follows: 

Article 13, is hereby revised as follows: 

Article 13. Outdoor Signs and Advertising on Vessels Prohibited on Port 
Waters 

100. No person may exhibit, post or carry any banner, placard, poster, card, 
picture, sign or advertising display, except for (1) permanently affixed logos 
and names on vessel hulls, or (2) logos and names on sails of racing sailboats 
actually engaged in competition sponsored by a recognized yacht club, on the 
outside of any waterbome vessel of any kind, including but not limited to 
motorized, towed or sailing vessels such as ships, boats, tugboats, barges, and 
sailboats of any size, on any waters within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco 
Port Commission. 

/ hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Port Commission at its meeting of 
December 10, 1996. 



Secretary 



< 



i 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 



TO: 



FROM: 



MEMORANDUM 



November 26, 1996 



MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 

Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. James R. Herman 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 



Dennis P. Bouey 
Executive Director 








Ferry Building 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone 415 274 0400 

Telex 275940 PSF UR 

Fax 415 274 0528 

Cable SFPORTCOMM 

Writer 



SUBJECT: Approval of relocation of two street artist spaces on Port property along the south 
side of Jefferson Street between Jones and Hyde Streets 

DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE RELOCATION OF STREET ARTIST 

SPACES 



In 1975 the San Francisco voters approved Proposition L which allows certified street artists to 
sell arts and crafts in designated spaces on public sidewalks, and pursuant to this proposition, the 
Board of Supervisors adopted a comprehensive Street Artist Ordinance ("Ordinance") in 1983, 
as Article 24 of the San Francisco Police Code. Among its provisions, this Ordinance provides 
that the designation of any street artist spaces in public places under the jurisdiction of a 
commission, such as the Port Commission, is subject to the approval of that commission. As a 
part of its approval of street artist spaces diroughout the City, the Board of Supervisors designated 
15 street artist spaces on Port property along Jefferson Street at Fisherman's Wharf (which were 
identified as spaces J-1 through J- 15). However, the Port Commission did not at that time 
approve these street artist spaces on Port property. 

One of the regulations of the Ordinance is that street artist spaces shall not be located within 12 
feet of an outer edge of an entrance to a building. In 1994 a tenant of the Cannery installed a 
second door in its store front which was located within 12 feet of two existing street artist spaces 
~ J-8 and J-9. The Street Artists Program was therefore requested to abandon these two spaces 
because they violated Section 2405(c)(6) of the Ordinance, and the Street Artists Program 

THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. 5 A 



i 



i 



Agenda Item No. 5 A 
November 26, 1996 
Page 2 



complied with this request. However, according to the Street Artist Liaison Committee, spaces 
J-8 and J-9 were among the most desirable in the Street Artists Program, and the Street Artist 
Liaison Committee petitioned the Port to permit the use of these two spaces. 

In 1995 Port staff reviewed the Ordinance and the street artist spaces on Port property and 
recommended to the Port Commission that it adopt the provisions of the Ordinance, conditioned 
upon some additional restrictions. Port staff also recommended that the Port Commission approve 
the existing street artist spaces on Port property, but that it not approve spaces J-8 and J-9. Port 
staff recommended that the Port Commission instead approve two new street artist spaces, J-IA 
and J-IB, located further west on Jefferson Street from spaces J-8 and J-9. On June 27, 1995 (by 
Resolution No. 95-56), the Port Commission approved Port staff's recommendation. However, 
the Port Commission also directed staff to restudy spaces J-8 and J-9 and to make 
recommendations to the Commission in the future as to these spaces or possible alternative 
locations. 

Since that approval, the Street Artist Liaison Committee has repeatedly requested that the Port 
Commission reinstate street artist spaces J-8 and J-9, maintaining that spaces J-IA and J- IB are 
inferior to spaces J-8 and J-9. Port staff has reviewed this request, and has determined that the 
reinstatement of spaces J-8 and J-9 would not interfere with the ingress and egress from the new 
door to the retail store in the Cannery. It is a secondary door for this retail store, and it is unused 
much of the time. Likewise, Port staff has determined that spaces J-5, J-6 and J-7, which were 
approved by the Port Commission in 1995, do not restrict ingress and egress mto the large entry 
to the courtyard of the Cannery. Port staff therefore recommends that the Port Commission 
exempt street artist spaces J-5, J-6, J-7, J-8 and J-9 from the restrictions of Section 2405(c)(6) of 
the Ordinance. Port staff further recommends that the Port Commission reinstate spaces J-7 and 
J-8 and eliminate spaces J-IA and J- IB. 



Prepared by: Lewis Wiseman, Director, Tenant and Maritime Services 



G:\WP51\AGENDAS\ARTISTS.KB\Noveraber 26, 1996 



I 



WHEREAS, 



WHEREAS, 



WHEREAS, 
WHEREAS, 

WHEREAS, 
WHEREAS, 

RESOLVED, 



RESOLVED, 



RESOLVED, 



PORT COMMISSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

RESOLUTION NO. 96-125 

Charter Section B3.581 empowers the Port Commission with the power and 
duty to use, conduct, operate, maintain, manage, regulate and control the Port 
area of San Francisco; and 

in 1983 the San Francisco Board of Supervisors adopted a comprehensive 
Street Artist Ordinance as Article 24 of the San Francisco Police Code (the 
"Ordinance"), which established a self-supporting Street Artists Program for 
certified street artists; and 

the Board of Supervisors approved street artist spaces J-1 through J- 15 on Port 
property along Jefferson Street at Fisherman's Wharf; and 

street artist spaces J-8 and J-9 are located within 12 feet of the outer edge of 
a new secondary doorway installed by one of the tenants of the Cannery, and 
are therefore in violation of Section 2405(c)(6) of the Ordinance; and 

street artist spaces J-5, J-6, and J-7 could be construed to conflict with the 
restrictions of Section 2405(c)(6) of the Ordinance; and 

the Port Commission by Resolution 95-56 adopted the Ordinance, subject to 
certain further restrictions, and approved certain street artists spaces on Port 
property, but not spaces J-8 and J-9; now, therefore, be it 

that the Port Commission hereby exempts spaces J-5, J-6, J-7, J-8 and J-9 from 
Section 2405(c)(6) of the Ordinance, and finds that such exemptions are not 
inconsistent with or interfere with the purpose of the regulation from which 
these areas are exempted; and be it further 

that the Port Commission hereby approves the location of street artist spaces 
J-8 and J-9 on Port property, as shown on Exhibit 1 attached hereto, and be it 
further 

that the Port Commission hereby approves elimination of street artist spaces J- 
lA and J- IB, as shown on Exhibit 1 attached hereto. 



/ hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Port Commission at its meeting 
of December 10, 1996. 



I:\ARTISTS.KB\ibn\November 26, 1996 



Secretary 



i 
i 



\ 



Hyde 



I 



I ^^ «^ *^ 



31 



^?> 






— o 



«i 



f 



o 



m 



U> 



>9 

if 

r 

r 




L£AVE\VDR:yH 6t 



EXHIBIT 1 



I 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 



TO: 



FROM: 



MEMORANDUM 

Decembers, 1996 

MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 

Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. James Herman 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 

Dennis P. Bouey idjfl^ 
Executive Director 1/ ' 




Ferry Building 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone 415 274 0400 

Telex 275940 PSF UR 

Fax 415 274 0528 

Cable SFPORTCOMM 

Writer 



SUBJECT: Informational briefing on the Fisherman's Wharf Environmental Quality 
Advisory Committee 

DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: No action requested; information only 

Background: The Fisherman's Wharf Environmental Quality Advisory Committee 
(Committee) was formed in July of 1996 to address the longstanding environmental 
problems which impact the Fisherman's Wharf/Aquatic Park area such as the oily film 
frequently found on the water, garbage in the water, improper disposal offish carcasses, and 
odor problems. 

In recognition of the fact that environmental problems do not stop at jurisdictional lines, the 
Committee, which includes representatives fi"om the fishing industry, area merchants, the 
swimming and boating community, and resource agencies, will consider the effects of 
pollution sources outside of Fisherman's Wharf, such as the Presidio, nearby marinas and 
sewer outfalls, in addition to practices within Fisherman's Wharf The Committee will then 
develop recommendations for improving environmental and water quality for the 
Fisherman's Wharf area and present those recommendations to the Port Commission and 
other relevant agencies. 

The members of the Committee represent diverse interests, but they share similar concerns 
about the quality of the environment in this area and wish to work toward enhancing it. The 
Committee is looking for enduring solutions to the environmental concerns at Fisherman's 
Wharf At the same time, the Committee recognizes the importance of sustaining the 
historic maritime, fisheries, cultural, business, recreational and community interests of the 
area. The formation of this Committee is not directly related to the Hyde Street Harbor 
Project, and is contemplated as an ongoing process and not a one-time event. 



THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. 6A 



i 



i 



J 



) 



I 

I 



PORT COMMISSION 

Page 2 



Roberta Jones, the Port's Environmental Health and Safety Manager, chairs the Committee. 
We anticipate that the Committee will need technical assistance. Therefore, the Port has 
agreed to provide the Committee with an independent technical advisor(s) in addition to a 
not-to-exceed $50,000 budget for this year to be used in the development of an 
environmental quality plan or set of recommendations. 

The purpose of today's presentation is to familiarize the Commission with the mission of 
this important Committee, and to update the Commission on the current status of the 
Committee's work. No action is required on this item at this time. 



Prepared by: Roberta L. Jones 

Environmental Health and Safety Manager 



I 



i 



i 



i 



i 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 



TO: 



FROM: 



MEMORANDUM 

December 3, 1996 

MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 

Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie Lee, Vice President 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. James Herman 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 




Ferry Building 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone 415 274 0400 

Telex 275940 PSF UR 

Fax 415 274 0528 

Cable SFPORTCOMM 

Writer 



Dennis P. Bouey 
Executive Director 






SUBJECT: Authorization to Award Professional Services Contract for Pier 48 New 
Maintenance Facility to Kendall Young Associates/Beverly Prior 
Architects. 

DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: AUTHORIZE STAFF TO AWARD THE 
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT FOR THE "PIER 48 NEW 
MAINTENANCE FACILITY" TO KENDALL YOUNG ASSOCIATES/BEVERLY 
PRIOR ARCHITECTS ("KYA/BPA"), A JOINT VENTURE 

The Commission previously authorized Port staff to issue a Request For Proposals 
("RFP") for the design of the New Maintenance Facility at Pier 48. On October 9, 1996, 
the Port issued the RFP for architectural/engineering services for this project. On 
November 6, 1996, the Port received proposals from 11 consultant teams. 

On November 19, 1996, a Port selection panel interviewed and evaluated seven teams. 
KYA/BPA received the highest score following completion of the evaluations. All seven 
prime firms were either certified MBEs, WBEs, or M/WBE joint venmres, and therefore 
all received HRC scoring adjustments. KYA and BPA are certified MBE and WBE firms, 
respectively. 

Subsequently, the Port met with KYA/BPA to negotiate the fee. The Port and KYA/BPA 
agreed to a fee of $765,065.00 to provide the required architectural and engineering 
services. This fee includes all services necessary to provide programming, design 
development, bid and construction documents, and construction management support. 



Prepared by: Cliff Jarrard, Chief Harbor Engineer 
THIS ITEM COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. 6B 



i 



i 



I 



PORT COMMISSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



RESOLUTION NO. 96-128 



WHEREAS, 
WHEREAS, 
WHEREAS, 
WHEREAS, 

WHEREAS, 

WHEREAS, 



RESOLVED, 



the Commission previously authorized staff to issue an RFP for the 
design of the New Maintenance Facility at Pier 48; and 

on November 6, 1996, the Port received proposals for this professional 
services work; and 

a Port selection panel reviewed all proposals and interviewed seven 
proposers to select the best qualified consultant team; and 

the selection panel selected the team of Kendall Young 
Associates/Beverly Prior Architects, a Joint Venture, certified MBE and 
WBE firms, respectively; and 

the contract will provide for services that include programming, design 
development, bid and construction document preparation, and 
construction management support; and 

the Human Rights Commission has confirmed that this joint venture 
complies with all the requirements to receive a preference as a 
MBE/WBE team, all in accordance with Section 12D of the San 
Francisco Administrative Code; now, therefore, be it 

that the San Francisco Port Commission hereby approves the 
authorization to award the subject professional services contract for the 
"New Maintenance Facility," to Kendall Young Associates/Beverly 
Prior Architects, a Joint Venture, at a cost not-to-exceed $765,065.00. 



/ hereby certifthat the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Port Commission at its 
meeting of December 10, 1996. 



Secretary 



i 



i 



I 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 




TO: 



FROM: 



MEMORANDUM 

Decembers, 1996 

MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 

Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. James Herman 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 

Dennis P. Bouey ((jt)']] 
Executive Director 1/ 



Ferry Building 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone 415 274 0400 

Telex 275940 PSF UR 

Fax 415 274 0528 

Cable SFPORTCOMM 

Writer 



SUBJECT: Approving a Declaration of Emergency for Contractual Assistance in 
Assessing Damages from the Cape Mohican Oil Spill Incident 

DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE THE DECLARATION OF AN 
EMERGENCY TO ALLOW PORT TO RETAIN CONTRACTUAL ASSISTANCE IN 
ASSESSING DAMAGES FROM THE CAPE MOHICAN OIL SPILL INCIDENT 

On Monday, October 28, 1996, a ship in drydock No. 2 at the San Francisco Drydock 
released approximately 80,000 gallons of a mixture of heavy bunker oil and diesel into the 
drydock. An undetermined amount of the oil flowed off of the drydock and into San 
Francisco Bay. San Francisco's shoreline received the most damage, with damage 
concentrated in the areas nearest the drydock. 

The Port assisted the U.S. Coast Guard and the California Department of Fish and Game 
Unified Command in assessing impacts of the oil spill on Port and City assets and sensitive 
ecological areas. The Port is also documenting the impact of the oil on its facilities and 
ecologically sensitive areas. 

The Port requires assistance from an outside consultant to respond to this emergency 
because neither the Port nor the City currently employs staff with the expertise required to 
assess the damages caused by the oil spill. Funds for the emergency contract, estimated to 
cost approximately $35,000, are available from the Port Operating Fund. 



Prepared by: Roberta L. Jones, 
Environmental Health and Safety Manager 



THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. lOA 



i.oilemere 



i 



I 



i 



i 



PORT COMMISSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

RESOLUTION NO. 96-126 



WHEREAS, 

WHEREAS, 
WHEREAS, 
WHEREAS, 

WHEREAS, 
WHEREAS, 



WHEREAS, 
RESOLVED, 

RESOLVED, 



on Monday, October 28, 1996, a ship in drydock No. 2 at the San 
Francisco Drydock released approximately 80,000 gallons of a mixture of 
heavy bunker oil and diesel into the drydock, and 

an undetermined amount of the oil flowed off of the drydock and into San 
Francisco Bay, and 

San Francisco's shoreline received the most damage, with damage 
concentrated in the areas nearest the drydock, and 

the Port assisted the U.S. Coast Guard and the California Department of 
Fish and Game Unified Command in assessing impacts of the oil spill on 
Port and City assets and sensitive ecological areas, and 

the Port is also documenting the impact of the oil on its facilities and 
ecologically sensitive areas, and 

the Port requires assistance from an outside consultant to respond to this 
emergency because neither the Port nor the City currently employs staff 
with the expertise required to assess the damages caused by the oil spill, 
and 

funds for the emergency contract, estimated to cost approximately 
$35,000, are available from the Port Operating Fund, and 

that the San Francisco Port Commission hereby ratify the action of the 
Port's Executive Director contained in the letter to the Controller dated 
November 5, 1996; and be it further 

that the San Francisco Port Commission hereby authorizes staff to issue an 
emergency contract for environmental assessment services to assess and 
document the damages caused by the Cape Mohican oil spill. 



/ hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Port Commission at its 
meeting of December 10, 1996. 



Secretary 



i:oiiemerg 



i 



i 



i 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 



TO: 



FROM: 



MEMORANDUM 



December 3, 1996 



MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 

Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. James Herman 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 



Dennis P. Bouey 
Executive Director 





Ferry Building 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone 415 274 0400 

Telex 275940 PSF UR 

Fax 41 5 274 0528 

Cable SFPORTCOMM 

Writer 



SUBJECT: Pier 43-1/2 Franciscan Restaurant parking lot, approving a Declaration of 
Emergency for consulting assistance to design a parking deck repair scheme 

DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: AUTHORIZE STAFF TO ISSUE AN 
EMERGENCY CONTRACT FOR ENGINEERING CONSULTANT TO DEVELOP 
CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR THE REPAIR OF A FAILED SECTION OF THE PIER 
43-1/2 FRANCISCAN RESTAURANT PARKING DECK 

Recently a section of the wood-framed Pier 43-1/2 Franciscan Restaurant parking lot, 
approximately 2800 square feet in plan, settled substantially. To ensure life safety, the area 
was immediately barricaded, an emergency was declared, and a subsequent inspection of the 
substructure was conducted. The inspection revealed that piles supporting this area of deck 
were afflicted with severe dry-rot and had failed, resulting in the large downward movement. 
It is imperative that this deck be repaired as soon as possible, to ensure life safety and to 
provide a fully functioning parking lot for the Franciscan Restaurant. Port Staff did not have 
the resources to perform the design work at the time of the emergency. Therefore the Port 
requested that GKO Engineers, a certified San Francisco MBE engineering firm, prepare 
design contract documents for the strucmral repau". GKO has submitted the final construction 
documents to the Port and the cost of their design services is $12,955.00. Funds for this 
emergency design work are available in the Port's Operating Budget. 



Prepared by: Cliff Jarrard 

Chief Harbor Engineer 

THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM lOB 



AGD-EMER,P43 



i 



PORT COMMISSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

RESOLUTION NO. 96-129 



WHEREAS, 

WHEREAS, 
WHEREAS, 

WHEREAS, 



WHEREAS, 



RESOLVED, 



a section of the Pier 43-1/2 Franciscan Restaurant parking lot 
deck failed; and 

the deck failure poses a significant life safety hazard; and 

Port Staff did not have the resources to perform the required 
design work at the time of the emergency; and 

staff proceeded with retaining GKO Engineers, a certified San 
Francisco MBE engineering firm, to prepare the repair contract 
documents at a cost of $12,955.00; and 

funds for this emergency design work are available in the Port's 
Operating Budget; now therefore be it 

the San Francisco Port Commission hereby authorizes staff to 
issue an emergency contract for GKO Engineers to develop 
contract documents for the repair of the failed section of the Pier 
43-1/2 Franciscan Restaurant parking deck, at a cost of 
$12,955.00. 



/ hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Port Commission at its 
meeting of December 10, 1996. 



Secretary 



AGD-EMER.P43 



1 



^fc 



CITY & COUNTY OF S AN FRANCISCO 

PORT COMMISSION DOCUMENTS DEPT, 

MINUTES OF THE MEETING DEC 3 1999 

'' ^DECEMBER 10, 1996 Q a ni cr. « 

SAN FRANCISCO 

1. ROLL CALL '^^BLIC LIBRARY 

The meeting was called to order by Commission President Michael Hardeman at 4:06 
p.m. The following Commissioners were present: Michael Hardeman, Frankie Lee, 
Preston Cook, James Herman and Denise McCarthy. 

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 12, 1996 

ACTION: Commissioner Lee moved approval; Commissioner Herman seconded the 

motion. All of the Commissioners were in favor; the minutes of the meeting 
were adopted. 

' 3. EXECUTIVE 

A. Executive Director's Report: Mr. Bouey reported the following: 

1) Waterfront Advisory Board Meeting this Thursday, December 12 at 4:30 p.m. in 
the Port Commission Room. Of particular note will be the status of the BCDC 
discussions. 

2) Status of Pier 48 fire - the Fire Department has indicated that the fire is not a 
result of arson but rather accidental. They have concluded that the fire was a 
result of illegal auto repair work. This type of activity is not a permitted 

f use according to the terms of their lease. The current estimated damage is 

between $2-$3 million. The Port is covered by its insurance policy with a 
$100,000 deductible. The tenant's insurance will cover the Port's deductible and 
other damage. With available insurance monies, the relocation of the 
maintenance facility to this facility should decrease the amount of capital 
necessary to renovate the facility. 



3) Christmas Lighting Ceremony at Fisherman's Wharf - Mr. Bouey thanked 
Commissioner Michael Hardeman who pitched in for him at the Christmas 
Lighting Ceremony at Fisherman's Wharf. The event was well attended and well 
put on. This represents yet another marriage between the Port and the 
Fisherman's Wharf 

4) New Year's Eve - For the third year in a row, the New Year's Eve party will be 
held at the waterfront. The party has been highly successftil in the last two years. 

5) Hyde Street EIR Hearing - December 12 at 1:30 p.m. at the Planning 



A121295.igq/1 



Commission. The certification of the Final EIR is expected. 

6) The Port's Financial Statement has now been audited. He informed the 
Commission that the preluninary numbers submitted, most notably, that the Port 
finished the year with a surplus of a little over $4 million was sustained by the 
audit. 

7) The Annual Report will be out December 20. 

8) Special Commission Meeting will be held late next week. A public notice will be 
sent out. Major items will be the informational presentation on next year's 
budget and to conclude current business before he leaves. 

B. Approval of Annual Payment Agreement between the Port Commission and the City 
& County of San Francisco regarding payment of Parking Violation Fine Revenues by 
City to Port. (Resolution No. 96-127) 

Mr. Bouey stated that the Burton Act provides that all revenue should remain at the 
Port. When the transition was made from the State to the City, the Port collected the 
fees from the fine levied for Parking and Traffic violations but in 1975, that changed. 

The City took over not only the enforcement but kept the parking fine revenue. The 
amount spent for enforcement is less than the amount of revenue collected. The 
matter was brought to the current administration's attention. Through a series of 
negotiations, a conclusion was reached, which will be placed before the Budget 
Committee tomorrow. The essence of the agreement is the Port will receive a $1 .2 
million one-time payment. In addition, the Port will receive a guaranteed payment of 
$1 .2 million a year for the next twenty years. It's important to note two things: (1) if 
the City should increase traffic fmes, the Port will receive a proportional increase; (2) 
there's an element in the agreement that states if the Port elects, in the future, it takes 
over enforcement and then would be entitled to all the revenue. Staff feels that the 
agreement is fair as written and has no plans to enforce that portion of the agreement. 

This is a fair agreement for the City and the Port. 

ACTION: Commissioner Cook moved approval; Commissioner McCarthy 

seconded the motion. All of the Commissioners were in favor; the 
resolution was adopted. 

C. Approval of Revision of Resolution No. 96-112, Harbor Traffic Code Amendment 
regarding Restrictions on Chitdoor Signs (Revised Resolution 96-112) 

Mr. Bouey stated that at the previous Commission meeting, two of the commissioners 
expressed concern, with regard to the new Chitdoor Sign Policy, to the exemption of 
waterborne vessels being used primarily to transport passengers or goods. The intent 
in exempting vessels used primarily for the transportation of passengers or goods was 
to permit advertising on ferry boats, excursion boats, passenger ships, cargo ships 
and similar vessels where such advertising is common. Upon further review, it was 
found that advertising is usually located in the interior spaces of the vessel. As well, 

A121096.igq . 2 - 



I 



* 



a concern was expressed that racing sailboats be able to continue to display names and 
logos on their sails. Staff recommends revising the prohibition to delete the 
exemption for vessels used primarily for the transportation of passengers or goods and 
to exempt signs on sails of racing sailboats. 

ACTION: Commissioner Cook moved approval; Conmiissioner Lee seconded the 
motion. All of the Commissioners were in favor; the resolution was 
adopted. 

4. LEGISLATIVE 

5. TENANT & MARITIME SERVICES 

A. Approval of relocation of two street artist spaces on Port property along the south 
side of Jefferson Street between Jones and Hyde Streets (Resolution No. 96-125) 

Mr. Bouey stated that in 1995, staff brought a resolution to the Conrniission for 
adoption with regard to the designation of street artists spaces. At contention at that 
time were the spaces known as J8 and J9, located directly across from the Cannery. 
The street artists felt that these spaces were highly desirable, if not the most desirable 
locations on Jefferson Street. A tenant of the Cannery at that time had a door 
installed and in accordance with the Board of Supervisors Ordinance the spaces 
opposite should not be utilized as street artists locations. After great debate, the 
Conamission adopted staff 's recommendation, which did not include J8 and J9. The 
Commission, however, directed staff to reevaluate spaces J8 and J9. Staff has 
looked at these two locations and met with representatives of the Art Commission and 
the Street Artists and concluded that not only are sites J8 and J9 desirable but at the 
same time don't believe that they will interfere with the operations of the Cannery. 
Staff has gone by this location several times and found that the door is not open and 
there is a sign on it directing people to enter the store via another door. This is not 
the main entrance nor even the second entrance. After listening to the street artists 
requests and looking at how often the door was used staff concluded that it was an 
equity and fairness issue. Staff recommends to the Commission to allow the street 
artists to use sites J8 and J9 and to ensure that we stay within the 15 spaces allowed. 
Staff would delete spaces JIA and JIB. Mr, Bouey recommended that this be tried 
for a one year basis and if there is a problem, the Commission could reexamine it at a 
future point in time. 

ACTION: Conmiissioner Lee moved approval; No one seconded the motion. The 
item died for lack of a second. 

6. FACILITIES & OPERATIONS 

A. Informational briefing on Fisherman's Wharf Environmental Quality Advisory 
Committee. 

Mr. Bouey stated that about the time of the preliminary hearing on the Hyde Street 

A121096.igq . 3 _ 



Harbor, a number of speakers, expressed some concerns about this new project. 
Accordingly, they appealed to the Port and staff felt their concerns justified. At the 
same time, staff feU that those concerns extended beyond Fisherman's Wharf and 
decided that if we were to find a solution we shouldn't be looking simply to solve the 
Hyde Street Harbor problem but to solve the real concerns of those who use the 
water. Accordingly, an advisory committee has been formed. Representatives from 
the Dolphin Club, South End Rowing Club, Fishing Industry, Merchant Associations, 
governmental entities and environmental groups comprise the committee. The Port 
agreed to staff the committee and fund appropriate projects as they arise. Staff has 
already taken steps to hire a wharfinger to have coverage at night, seven days a week. 

Ms. Roberta Jones, Environmental Health & Safety Manager, stated that the 
conmiittee represents a diverse group of people. Although the group is very diverse, 
they have come together in a spirit of cooperation and motivation and worked 
together very well to work on the problems at Fisherman's Wharf. They've looked at 
things such as sea lions to sewage outfall. They will be looking carefully at some of 
the more technical issues and will retain a consultant to help the committee. They 
will also look at potential sources of pollution outside of the Fisherman's Wharf area. 
It is their hope to bring before the Commission a set of recommendations for 
improving environmental quality at the wharf. Legal Counsel Neil Sekhri has begun 
to revise the vessel lease agreement and add stricter environmental protection 
language. A new wharfinger will be hired to assist the current wharfinger. 

Mr. Bob Miller, Crab Boat Owners Association, commented that this committee has 
created a forum to bring the leaders of the various user groups of the wharf area 
together to understand each other's problems. Mr. Miller thanked Mr. Bouey for 
everything that he has done to bring the fishing community out into the 20th century 
onto the 21st century. His leadership, which trickled down to staff, has allowed them 
to create positive things in the wharf area not only for the fishing industry but to fish 
processors, restauranteurs, merchants and for the people who enjoy the wharf. They 
appreciate what he has done and his pro-active stance. 

Mr. Aaron Peskin, South End Rowing Club, commented that the group all shared the 
same concern about water and environmental quality. He's hopeful that working 
together they can make the fisherman's wharf, aquatic park area an outstanding 
showcase for the country to see. On behalf of the swimming clubs, he thanked Mr. 
Bouey for taking the mitiative for domg something that has been long overdue. 

Mr. Tom Creedon, President of Scoma's Restaurant, stated that Mr. Bouey has been 
the first Executive Director that recognized there is a fisherman's wharf. He's 
grateful that when Mr. Bouey committed himself to creating the committee that he 
put in qualified people. Ms. Jones follows through to the letter. He noted that it is 
important to have someone on Port staff that has access of all the history. He looks 
forward to having Fisherman's Wharf, like the fishing industry, an icon for the coast. 
He hopes that the water quality at Fisherman's Wharf would be attractive to the coast 
too. 



A121096.igq 



ft> 



i 



Commissioner Lee, on behalf of the Commission, thanked the committee for their 
work. 

B. Authorization to award a Professional Services Contract for the "Pier 48 New 

Mamtenance Facility" to Kendall Young Associates/Beverly Prior Architects, a Joint 
Venhire. (Resolution No. 96-128) 

Mr. Bouey stated the Commission previously authorized Port staff to issue an RFP 
for the design of the New Maintenance Facility at Pier 48. Staff received proposals 
from eleven consultant teams. A Port selection panel interviewed and evaluated seven 
teams. KYA/BPA received the highest score following completion of the evaluations. 
KYA is a certified MBE and BPA is a WBE firm. Port staff has negotiated a fee of 
$765,065 to provide the required architectural and engineering services. The fee 
includes all services necessary to provide programming, design development, bid and 
construction documents and construction management support. He noted that 
subsequent to the fire, staff has inserted another clause in the contract which provides 
the Port the capability to downward negotiate the fee to the extent that the insurance 
proceeds cover that work that KYA/BPA would otherwise perform. 

Commissioner Lee recused himself from voting on this item because his company 
does business with Kendall Young Associates. 

ACTION: Commissioner Cook moved approval to recuse Conmiissioner Lee from 
voting on this item; Commissioner McCarthy seconded the motion. 

ACTION: Commissioner Cook moved approval; Conmiissioner McCarthy 

seconded the motion. Four of the Commissioners were in favor; the 
resolution was adopted. 

7. PLANMNG & DEVELOPMENT 

8. ADMINISTRATION 

9. SPECIAL ITEM 

10. CONSENT CALENDAR 

A. Approval of a declaration of emergency to obtain assistance in damage assessment 
resulting from the oil spill at Pier 70. (Resolution No. 96-126) 

B. Approval of a declaration of emergency for repairs to Pier 43- V2 Franciscan 
Restaurant parking deck failure. (Resolution No. 96-129) 

ACTION: Commissioner Cook moved approval; Commissioner McCarthy 

seconded the motion. All of the Commissioners were in favor; the items 
on the consent calendar were adopted. 



A121096.igq 



I 



11. NEW BUSINESS / PUBLIC COMMENT 

Commissioner Hardeman stated that he and Commissioner Herman are reviewing resumes 
from potential candidates for the Executive Director position. 

Bill Fiore, representing Local 101 - United Food & Commercial Workers, stated that in 
September a number of fish workers approached the union and asked to be involved in a 
union organizing campaign for H&N Fish Company. Subsequent to the attempt of the 
workers to try to organize, the company fired two and laid off another 22 employees. The 
union has evidence that this is a direct retaliation for the union organization attempt. The 
employees are recent immigrants of South America, Guatemala and Mexico. Mr. Fiore 
claimed that there are also rampant race and sex discrimination at the plant, which is a 
direct violation of Section 29. 1 of the lease that H&N Fish has with the Port. The union 
feels that H&N Fish is in direct violation of not only sex but race discrimination. He 
cited an example that because they were women they did not become full time workers 
and would not get benefits. He noted that this was a practice of the main supervisor. This 
company had rampant wage and hourly wage violations as well. Workers were asked to 
punch out while they were asked to continue working after they punched out. He urged 
the Port to rectify the situation. 

Commissioner Herman inquired if charges were filed directly against the company for sex 
discrimination, Mr. Fiore replied that they filed National Labor Relations board charges. 
One of the employees that was a victim of sex discrimination has gone to FEH but she is 
proceeding with a letter to sue. Human Rights Conamission is also involved with Section 
29. 1 of this lease. He urged the Commission to step in and ask the tenant to rectify the 
situation. Commissioner Herman inquired if charges have been filed with the custodian of 
that section of the charter which prohibits the unacceptable conduct. Mr. Fiore stated that 
HRC is in the process of filing charges. The Wage and Hour Commission has been 
notified of the situation. Their attorneys have been working with the employees and the 
board. He requested the Port to get involved with the lease agreement with this tenant. 

In response to Commissioner Hardeman's inquiry of whether Port staff has been assigned 
to oversee this matter, Mr. Bouey replied that staff has not received a copy of complaints 
but have received copies of other correspondence from the union. The two issues are 
union organizing and the lack of response from H&N. He stated that the Port has no 
authority to interfere with union organization issues. He, however, agreed with the 
speaker with regard to the issue of sexual and race discrimination. He stated that if there 
is a finding, that could provide a basis for the Port Commission to terminate the lease. It 
is his further belief that the Port is not charged with that investigation or that finding. The 
charge would be levied with HRC. HRC would conduct an investigation and will, in turn, 
notify the union of the results of their investigation. If they felt that they could substantiate 
it, the Director makes a finding which then can be appealed by H&N to the HRC 
Commission. If that finding were upheld by the HRC Commission, they would forward it 
to the Port Commission. The Port Commission would decide what to do with that finding. 
Legal Counsel Julie Van Nostern concurred with the Executive Director. 

Commissioner McCarthy inquired if the tenants can be put on notice that a complaint has 

A121096.igq . 5 . 



i 



been filed against them. Mr. Bouey replied that he believed they are aware of the 
complaint. Conmiissioner Hardeman requested that this item be placed on the next agenda. 
Mr. Bouey commented that in order to expedite this matter, he requested that Mr. Fiore 
or the appropriate people file the charge with HRC. As soon as HRC make a finding, this 
item will be brought back to the Port Commission. Mr. Bouey then introduced Carmen 
Smith, an HRC representative, to Mr. Bill Fiore. 

Theresa Roller, Street Artist, made the Commission aware that in September 1994, the 
street artists lost the J8 and J9 spots. Last June, it was all ready to go through but spaces 
JIA and JIB were substituted instead. They looked forward to getting the spaces back as 
they have been in the street artists program for 20-23 years. The person in the shoe store 
put in a door that was never used. It was under that technicality of the ordinance that the 
two spaces were removed. She asked the Conmiission why this item was not open for a 
debate. Conmiissioner Hardeman replied that if a motion is not seconded, it is not subject 
to a debate. 

Kathy Hallinan, Street Artist, stated that she has never seen anything like this happened at 
a Conmiission meeting. It appears to her that there was some political maneuvering that 
has gone on behind the scenes. She stated that she is disappointed that the Commission 
did not take the time to listen to the street artists comments or point of view. 

Commissioner McCarthy commented that nobody talked to anyone. She had planned to 
vote no on this item because she believes there are too many street artists already. 
Nobody has spoken to her and she's also surprised that no one seconded the motion. 

Maria Filibus, Street Artist for six years, stated that she's surprised about the 
Commission's decision. 

Mr. Rosenblum, Street Artist, stated that he does not understand how an item is placed on 
the agenda and not discussed. He does not understand how a decision is made before the 
meeting. 

Commissioner Herman commented that before indicting the Commission about the 
democratic rules, they should be aware that this Commission, as all Commissions in the 
City, and unions operate according to well-established rules - the Robert Rules of Order. 
The Robert Rules of Order govern the conduct of the meeting. When an issue is placed in 
front of the assembly, it requires a motion for concurrence and that motion must be 
seconded. It is unfair to suggest that Commissioners were approached not to second any 
motion in favor of this issue. If one of the Commissioners exercises their democratic 
right to second the motion, that is not a plan or scheme, it is part of the democratic 
process. Those who decide not to second the motion are exercising their rights. The 
Commission heard the recommendation and found things that were objectionable and 
decided individually not to second the motion. If you offer a proposal and it needs a 
motion for concurrence, it needs to be seconded. If it is not seconded, it automatically 
dies. That is the rule, that is the law, the law of parliamentary procedures. 

David Campus, Street Artist, stated that the spaces have been there for twenty years and 



A121096.igq 



were taken away and substituted. He does not see any reason why they can't the spaces 
back. 

Lisa Kim, Street Artist, stated that jobs are limited. She asked the Commission to 
appreciate their art and appreciate their program and give them opportunities to make their 
own living. 

Danny Markowitz, Street Artist, stated that he too is disappointed with the Commission's 
decision not to vote on this item. 

Jose Geraldo, Street Artist, stated that he was surprised with the Commissions' decision. 
It is their only means of making a living. He urged the Commission to rethink their 
decision. 

One of the street artists addressed Commissioner McCarthy's comments regarding having 
a lot of street artists already. He stated that those are the best spots in the area. He does 
not understand the difference of opinion by the Executive Director and the Commission. 

12. EXECUTIVE SESSION 

At 5:20 p.m., the Commission Secretary announced that the Commission will withdraw to 
executive session to discuss the following matters: 

A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - This session is 
closed to any non-City /Port representative. * 

1) Property : Port property located at Berry Street and Second Street (China Basin). 
Person Negotiating : Port representative: Dennis P. Bouey, Executive Director 
*San Francisco Giants Representative : Larry Baer, Executive Vice President 

Under Negotiation: Price Terms of Payment _J^ Both 

An executive session has been calendared to discuss real property negotiations 
between the Port and San Francisco Giants, regarding the proposed ballpark. 

This is specifically authorized under California Government Code Section 
54956.8. 

B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING ANTICIPATED AND 
PENDING LITIGATION: 

1) Discuss significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of California 
Government Code Section 54956.9 (1 case). 

2) Joseph Peters v. CCSF; CCSF (cross-complainant) v. Somerset Insurance 
Services, et.al.; San Francisco Superior Court No. 963-495 

3) Republic Insurance Company et.al. v. CCSF 

A121096.igq . g . 



U.S. District Court C94-2627-FMS 

C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING PERSONNEL MATTER 

1) Discuss personnel matter pursuant to California Government Code Section 
54957. 

D. Vote in open session on whether to disclose Executive Session discussions (S.F. 
Admin. Code Sec. 67.14) 

At 7:00 p.m., Commissioners Hardeman, Lee, Cook, Herman and McCarthy 
returned from executive session and convened in public session. 

ACTION: Commissioner Lee moved approval to not disclose any information 

discussed in the executive session; Commissioner McCarthy seconded 
the motion. All the Commissioners were in favor. 

The meeting was adjourned at 7:02 p.m. 




A121096.igq . 9 



/SAN FRANCISCO 
PORT COMMISSION 



<r 



^SPECIAL MEETING 

9:00 A.M., December 20, 199^ 

FERRY BUILDING, SUITE 3100 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

DEC 19 1996 

SAN FRANCISCO ' 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



/• 



1. ROLL CALL 



/.GENDA 



^ 



2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - December 10, 1996 

3. EXECUTIVE 

A. Executive Director's Report 



DOCUMEMTS DE'=''^ 

DEC 19 1996 /sT A^^^ 

SAN FRANCISCO 7>//pAi. 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



B. Endorsement of the basic principles of the proposed Giants and the Port term sheet 
for the ballpark. (Resolution No. 96-138) 

C. Informational Presentation on the Waterfront Land Use Plan - Joint Staff 
Recommendations for Public Review and Comment by the Port, Bay Conservation 
and Development Commission, and Save San Francisco Bay Association. 

4. LEGISLATFVE 

5. TENANT & MARITIME SERVICES 

A. Approval of Telecommunications Policy, Siting Guidelines and Standard 
Telecommunications Lease. (Resolution No. 96-123) 

B. Consent to wireless telecommunication services use at Pier 39 (Resolution No. 96- 
124) 

C. Approval of Marine Terminal Agreement for Maruba S.C. A. for use of Pier 94/96. 
(Resolution No. 96-135) 

D. Approval of lease with Peer Inn, Inc. for the Peer Inn Restaurant at Pier 33 
(Resolution No. 96-132) 

6. FACILITIES & OPERATIONS 



A122096.igq 



7. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 

A. Approval of 60 Berth Hyde Street Fishing Harbor proposed project, authorize 
expenditure of loan funds from the California Department of Boating and Waterways 
and adopt Environmental Review and Project Approval Findings. (Resolution No. 
96-136) 

B. Guidelines for review and approval of Signs and Murals on Port property. (Resolution 
No. 96-137) 

8. ADMINISTRATION 

A. Presentation of Fiscal Year 1997/1998 Operating Budget. 

9. SPECIAL ITEM 

10. CONSENT CALENDAR 

A. Approval of a declaration of emergency for contracted assistance for the demolition 
and repair of the fire damaged Pier 48 sheds and related components. (Resolution 
No. 96-130) 

B. Approval of travel to Washington, D.C. for one Port representative to meet with 
Congressional and Administration officials on Legislative Proposals regarding the 
Cruise Industry on January 20-23, 1997, in accordance with the Port's Fiscal Year 
1996-97 budget. (Resolution No. 96-133) 

C. Approval of travel for one Port representative to attend the Special Seminar for 
members of Port Authority Governing Boards and Commissions sponsored by the 
American Association of Port Authorities in Pahn Beach, Florida (January 29-31, 
1997), in accordance with the Port's Fiscal Year 1996-1997 budget. (Resolution No. 
96-134) 

D. Approval of travel for two Port representatives to attend the National Passenger 
Cruise Convention at Miami, Florida, in accordance with the Port's Fiscal Year 
1996/97 budget. (Resolution No. 96-131) 

E. Approval of Retainer Agreement for Professional Services between the Port and 
Dennis P. Bouey. (Resolution No. 96-139) 

11. NEW BUSINESS / PUBLIC COMMENT 

12. EXECUTIVE SESSION 

A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - This session is 

i-City/Port representative. * 



A122096.igq -2- 



1 



c 



1) Pro perty : Port property located at Berry Street and Second Street (China Basin). 
Person Negotiating: Port representative: Dennis P. Bouey, Executive Director 
*San Francisrn fiiants Representative: Larry Baer, Executive Vice President 

Under Negotiation: Price Terms of Payment / Both 

An executive session has been calendared to discuss real property negotiations 
between the Port and San Francisco Giants, regarding the proposed ballpark. 

This is specifically authorized under California Government Code Section 
54956.8. 

B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING ANTICIPATED AND 
EXISTING LITIGATION MATTERS: 

1) Initiation of Litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of California Government Code 
Section 54956.9 (1 case) 

(a) Red and White Fleet, Inc. (formerly Harbor Carriers, Inc., a subsidiary of 
Crowley Corporation) operating at Pier 41. 

2) Discuss existing litigation matter pursuant to subdivision (a) of California 
Government Code Section 54956.9 

a) Pemya v. CCSF; San Francisco Superior Court No. 972-961 

C. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT/HIRING (Govt. Code Section 54957) 

Discussion and action to nominate qualified applicant for the position of Port Executive 
Director who will have the management responsibilities of the Port of San Francisco, 
whose name shall be submitted to the Mayor for consideration for appointment pursuant 
to Charter Section B3.581(h). (Resolution No. 96-140) 

D. Vote in open session on whether to disclose Executive Session discussions (S.F. 
Admin. Code Sec. 67.14) 

13. ADJOURNMENT 

Public comment is permitted on any matte r within Port jurisdiction, and is not limited to agenda 
items. Public comm ent nn non-agenda items may be raised during New Business/Public 
Comment. Please fill out a sp eaker card and hand it to the Cnmmissinn Secretary . 



A122096.igq 



i 



i 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 



MEMORANDUM 



December 20, 1996 




Ferry Building 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone 415 274 0400 

Telex 275940 PSF UR 

Fax 415 274 0528 

Cable SFPORTCOMM 

Writer 



TO: 



FROM: 



MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 
Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. James Herman 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 



Dennis P. Bouey 
Executive Director 



SUBJECT: The basic principles of the proposed term sheet between the Giants and the 
Port of San Francisco for the Ballpark. 

DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE RESOLUTION. 



In March of 1996, the voters of the City and County of San Francisco approved 
Proposition B which authorized a proposed development on Port property for a new ballpark 
on approximately 12.5 acres site in China Basin. As a result, the Port, the Mayor's office, 
and the Redevelopment Agency have recently negotiated with the Giants an outline of terms 
of a proposed lease (non-binding term sheet). 

The term sheet is an important step because it covers a number of basic business 
terms of the proposed lease and provides the frame work for the actions the Giants and the 
City agencies need to take for the site to be assembled, entitlements to be granted, and 
complementary improvements to be financed and built. The proposed term sheet is 
acceptable to the Giants and their private lenders, who together are poised to make the 
substantial private investment necessary for the development of the new ballpark. 

The proposed term sheet is not intended to be and cannot be legally binding on the 
parties. The lease agreement and approval actions contemplated by the term sheet remain 
subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as 
well as public review and hearings required by law. Only after the environmental review 
process has been completed and after all necessary governmental approvals have been 
obtained may the City enter into a binding agreements. 



THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. 36 



H 



1 



Agenda Item No. 3B 
December 20, 1996 
Page 2 



The basic principles of the proposed term sheet may be summarized as follows: 

The lease of the ballpark site will be to China Basin Ballpark Company (CBBC). 
CBBC is a separate entity established and controlled by the Giants partnership for the 
purpose of developing and operating the new ballpark. CBBC will be the borrower 
from a lending syndicate of a $140 million private loan for construction of the park, 
and CBBC will build the ballpark at its cost. Giants management has assured the City 
that the financing to CBBC is in place. Revenues from the ballpark and 
complementary improvements will flow to CBBC, including proceeds from the sale of 
charter seats, proceeds from the naming rights agreement with Pacific Bell and rent 
paid by the Giants franchise under a sublease with CBBC. 

The lease is for a term of 25 years from delivery of the site to CBBC, which is 
anticipated to occur in late summer or fall of 1997. The initial lease term corresponds 
to 23 seasons of baseball at the new park. The lease potentially could continue for a 
total of 66 years from site delivery, consistent with the limitations on tidelands trust 
property under the Burton Act. The lease would include successive 5-year renewal 
options at the end of the 25-year initial term. 

The Giants franchise will enter into an agreement directly with the City to play their 
home games at the new ballpark for 23 seasons after the new ballpark opens. The end 
of the term of the non-relocation agreement corresponds with the end of the initial 
lease term. The non-relocation term compares favorably with the minimum term of 
leases at other new ballpark, such as Coors Field, even though those ballparks were 
financed almost entirely with public dollars. 

CBBC will pay fair market rent to the Port. Full rent of $1 .2 million per year begins 
upon delivery of the site to CBBC. The City's Director of Property advises that the 
ground lease rent is well within the range of market rent for the site, taking into 
account its existing physical, hazardous material and soil conditions and applicable 
tidelands trust limitations. The rent is subject to certain cost-of-living escalations 
during the initial lease term. The rent is reset to market at the end of the initial term if 
the Giants elect to extend the term. 

CBBC agrees to advance up to $500,000, at the City's option, for mutually agreed- 
upon City transaction costs, such as staff and legal costs of preparing and processing 
the lease documents. CBBC will get credit against rent for any such advances, with 
interest at CBBC's actual cost of funds up to a maximum of 8.5%. The rent credit 
for such advances are capped at $75,000 per year. CBBC also agrees to pay all costs 



Agenda Item No. 3B 
December 20, 1996 
Page 3 

and fees of entitling the project, which other developers would pay. There is no 
credit against rent for these costs. 

• Available property tax increment generated by development on the ballpark site may 
be used for ballpark-related infrastructure as mutually agreed-upon. CBBC agrees to 
provide certain assurances of repayment of Redevelopment Agency tax increment 
debt for the ballpark-related infrastructure if the term of the bonds exceeds the term 
of the lease or if possessory interest taxes from the site are reduced below a level 
needed to service the indebtedness. 

• CBBC will remediate hazardous materials at the site as required by regulatory bodies 
for the development of the ballpark. CBBC is also responsible for all demolition, pier 
substructure and other site preparation costs. 

• The Port will be responsible for delivering the site free of the Port occupancies. The 
Port will also be responsible for purchasing the parcel at 3rd and Berry, which 
Caltrans controls. The Caltrans parcel is expected to be acquired through a 
negotiated agreement with the State. The Port's responsibility for purchasing the 
Caltrans parcel and relocating the private tenants from the property is limited to 
$4,100,000. If the total costs exceed such amount, the terms and conditions for any 
such excess are subject to further agreement of the parties. 

• The schedule for the proposed ballpark project provides for site delivery in late 
summer or fall of 1997 and an April 2000 opening. 

• CBBC agrees, at the Port's option, to demolish the improvements and return the site 
to the Port in developable condition at the end of the lease term if CBBC does not 
exercise at least two 5-year renewal options at the end of the minimum term, for a 
total lease term of at least 33 baseball sessions at the new ballpark. 

The proposed term sheet will not create any contractually binding obligations on the 
part of the City. The Port, Board of Supervisors, City Commissions and the Redevelopment 
Agency Commission will retain the absolute discretion to (i) make such modifications to the 
form of the lease and the ballpark project that are deemed necessary to mitigate significant 
environmental impacts; (ii) select other feasible alternatives to avoid such impacts; (iii) 
balance the benefits against unavoidable significant impacts prior to taking final action if such 
significant impacts cannot otherwise be avoided; or (iv) determine not to proceed with the 
project. 



i 



4 



Agenda Item No. 3B 
December 20, 1996 
Page 4 



The Mayor intends to sign tiie term sheet subject to the Port Commissions 
endorsement. We anticipate that the final lease will be presented to the Port Commission and 
the Board Supervisors in June or July of next year consistent with the principles outlined in 
the term sheet. 



Prepared by: Dennis P. Bouey, Executive Director 



) 



G:\GIANTS\AGENDA4. 



i 



PORT COMMISSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



RESOLUTION NO. 96-138 



WHEREAS, 



WHEREAS, 



Section B 3.581 of the City Charter empowers the Port Commission of 
San Francisco (the ''Commission") with power and duty to use, conduct, 
operate, maintain, manage, regulate and control the Port area of 
San Francisco; and 

in March of 1996, the voters of the City and County of San Francisco 
approved Proposition B which authorized a proposed development on Port 
property for a new ballpark on approximately 12.5 acres site in China 
Basin; and 



WHEREAS, 



the Port, the Mayor's office, and the Redevelopment Agency have recently 
negotiated with the Giants an outline of terms of a proposed lease (non- 
binding term sheet), covering a number of basic business terms of the 
proposed lease and providing the frame work for the actions the Giants and 
the City agencies need to take for the site to be assembled, entitlements to 
be granted, and complementary improvements to be financed and built; 
and 



WHEREAS, 



WHEREAS, 



the proposed term sheet is acceptable to the Giants and their private 
lenders, who together are poised to make the substantial private investment 
necessary for the development of the new ballpark; and 

the proposed term sheet is not intended to be and cannot be legally binding 
on the parties and the lease agreement and approval actions contemplated 
by the term sheet remain subject to environmental review under the 
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as well as public review 
and hearings required by law; now therefore, be it 



i 



Resolution No. 96-138 
Page 2 



RESOLVED, that the Port Commission hereby endorses the principles of the term 

sheet set forth in the Memorandum to the Port Commission, for Item 
96-138 on the Port Commission December 20, 1996 meeting, a copy of 
which is on file with the Secretary of the Port Commission. 



I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Port Commission at its 
meeting of December 20, 1996. 



Secretary 



G:\GIANTS\RES0-138 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 



MEMORANDUM 



December 17, 1996 




Ferry Building 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone 415 274 0400 

Telex 275940 PSF UR 

Fax 415 274 0528 

Cable SFPORTCOMM 

Writer 



TO: 



MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 
Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. James Herman 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 



FROM: Dennis P. Bouey\y \W 



X-D^ 



Executive Director 






SUBJECT: 



Waterfront Land Use Plan - Joint Staff Recommendations for Public Review 
and Comment by the Port, Bay Conservation and Development Commission, 
and Save San Francisco Bay Association 



DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: 

NO ACTION REQUIRED 



INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION, 



I. INTRODUCTION 

A. The Waterfront Land Use Plan 

The Port of San Francisco has released a Draft Waterfront Plan (Waterfront Plan), the 
product of a five-year community planning process to define land uses for the 7-1/2 mile 
waterfront under its jurisdiction, from Fisherman's Wharf to India Basin. The grand goal of 
the Waterfront Plan is to reunite the waterfront with the City by providing for the Port's 
current and long-term maritime needs while also identifying opportunities for open space, 
public access and activities which attract the public to use and enjoy the waterfront. 

The Waterfront Plan was developed and recommended to the Port Commission by the 
Waterfront Plan Advisory Board, a 27 member body representing the fiill range of 
maritime, community, business and environmental interests in the future of the waterfront. 
This involved a 



THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. 3C 



PORT COMMISSION 
Page 2 

planning process consisting of more than 100 public meetings over four years. With few 
exceptions, the Port Commission approved the Advisory Board's recommended plan for 
analysis in an Environmental Impact Report. The Waterfront Plan Final EIR is scheduled to 
be certified by the Planning Commission on December 19, 1996. 

B. The Urban Design and Public Access Element 

One of the key Port Commission amendments to the Plan called for the development of 
urban design guidelines to ensure that new development under the Waterfront Plan occurs in 
a manner which enhances the waterfront. Toward that end, the Port created a Technical 
Advisory Committee (TAC) to review and advise the development of an Urban Design and 
Public Access (UDPA) element of the Waterfront Plan. The TAC is made up of highly 
respected members in the design profession, and representatives from the Planning 
Department, Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), Waterfront Plan 
Advisory Board, and Save San Francisco Bay Association. 

The UDPA element will define a comprehensive urban design vision which identifies 
locations and types of public access and open space areas and views, historic preservation 
policies, and architectural standards, which will be realized as waterfront development 
projects occur. The UDPA will be incorporated into the Waterfront Plan, or otherwise 
adopted such that its implementation is required, as applicable, as part of new waterfiront 
projects. 

C. BCDC/Port/Save the Bay Joint Recommendations for Public Review 

In addition to developing the Urban Design and Public Access element, the Port entered into 
an Agreement with BCDC Under the Agreement, BCDC and the Port are to jointly review 
the Waterfront Plan in the context of existing BCDC plan policies, and develop mutually 
agreeable amendments to the Waterfront Plan, and BCDC's Bay Plan, and San Francisco 
Special Area and Total Design Plans, consistent with the McAteer-Petris Act. The Port and 
BCDC agree that resolution of these policy and regulatory issues will enable both agencies 
to realize their ultimate objectives more effectively than under current policies and 
regulations. BCDC's stated objectives are to 1) revitalize the San Francisco waterfront; 2) 
provide maximum feasible public access; and 3) reduce Bay fill. The Port shares those 
objectives. In addition, the Port seeks to increase developer certainty and streamline 
BCDC's project review process by establishing clear definitions and requirements for 
waterfront projects subject to BCDC permitting authority, and conducting its project review 
as part of a single, integrated joint design review process by the City, BCDC and the Port. 



Agreement Between the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and tiie Port of San Francisco to Review 
Port Plans and Policies Implementing the San Francisco Waterfront Plan as well as Possible Amendments to the San Francisco Ba\ 
Plan, Special Area Plan, Total Design Plan, and Other Documents, Port Commission Resolution # 96-02. March 25. 1996. 



PORT COMMISSION 
Page 3 

BCDC and the Port have met intensively to discuss the issues stated in the Agreement, as 
well as to exchange ideas and develop a consensus about an urban design vision for the San 
Francisco waterfront. These discussions were joined by Save San Francisco Bay 
Association ("Save the Bay"). The three parties have reached conceptual agreement in each 
of following areas. These joint recommendations are presented for public review and 
comment, and will be the subject of joint Port and BCDC Commission public hearings, and 
other public and community meetings prior to adoption of the Waterfront Plan. 

1) Pier Removal : The removal of Piers 34 and 36 to create a public open space and 
more open water; the removal of Pier 24 as part of new development of Piers 26 and 
28; and the removal of most of Pier 33 to create a larger expanse of open water 
between Piers 3 1 and 35. In addition, the creation of more open water area is 
recommended in the Pier 15-29 area; these area is designated a Special Study Area, 
subject to a separate specific planning effort to determine the location of additional 
open water, public access and views prior to approval of new development on any of 
these piers. 

2) Cre ation of Large New Publi c Plazas: The creation of a central Plaza in Fisherman's 
Wharf on approximately 70% of the site, with an underground garage, financed from 
revenue receipts from retail development on the remaining 30% of the site and the 
parking garage. In addition, two other large public open spaces would be created in 
the South Beach area ("Brannan Street Green", involving removal of Piers 34 and 
36), and in the Pier 15-29 Special Study Area; these plazas would be financed by 
25% of the Port's gross cash receipts from new development projects, deposited into 
a Public Access Account. Funds from this account could also be expended on pier 
removal. 

3) P ublic Access on Piers: In addition to the public plazas described above, new 
development projects on individual piers would be required to dedicate 25% of the 
pier area to public access. It is expected that new development on larger piers will 
require a greater amount of public access; recommendations regarding the location, 
amount and design of the public access will be made by a proposed Joint Port/City 
/BCDC Design Review Committee (discussed below). Public access also would be 
required for substantial commercial recreation uses proposed on existing piers as 
interim uses; the public access requirement for most other interim uses would be 
satisfied through the Port's commitment to create and finance the large public plazas 
described in 2) above. 

4) Rules Governing Fill and ihe Pier Recnnfiguratinn: For each development 
opportunity area where piers could be reconfigured, there are recommendations as to 
the maximum perimeter of reconfigured piers, and amount of pier area which would 
be permitted by BCDC. Generally, the maximum pier perimeter is the existing outer 
edges of the piers in question, and the permitted pier area is the area of the existing 



PORT COMMISSION 
Page 4 



piers; BCDC could approve additional transfer of fill from another pier removed 
elsewhere on the waterfront, but could not exceed the maximum pier perimeter line. 

5) Land Uses on Piers : The Port's piers would be assigned to one of four categories, 
based on the physical condition of the facility: Category 1 (Excellent), Category 2 
(Good), Category 3 (Fair), and Category 4 (Poor). For BCDC permitting purposes, 
projects on Category I and II piers would be treated as within BCDC's "Shoreline 
Band" jurisdiction, regardless of the type of repair and maintenance conducted by the 
Port; land uses would be controlled by the Public Trust and the Waterfront Plan, but 
not BCDC itself, and maximum feasible public access would be required. Projects 
on Category III and IV piers would be treated as within BCDC "Bay" jurisdiction, 
and BCDC would control both land use and public access, at a point at which the 
Port proposes repairs which exceed replacement of 25% of the piles supporting the 
facility. 

6) Historic Preservation: Many of the bulkhead buildings and piers appear to be 
potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Bulkhead 
buildings located at Category I and II piers would be treated as within BCDC's 
Shoreline Band jurisdiction; bulkhead buildings located on Category III piers, which 
are determined to be National Register resources would be eligible for exemption 
from BCDC's land use regulations under Title 14, Division 5, Section 10704 of the 
California Code of Regulations. In addition, prior to granting approval for removal 
or alteration of any historic structures, the joint recommendations call for preparing 
a preservation plan for resources located between Pier 45 and China Basin Channel, 
which will identify historic resources that will be protected and preserved, and will 
reconcile competing public objectives such as increasing public access and views. 

7) Joint BCDC/Port7City Design Review Committee: The joint recommendations 
include the creation of a Joint Design Review Committee, consisting of design 
professionals, with representation from BCDC, the City and Port. Its purpose would 
be to review development projects in a single, integrated process where the various 
design objectives can be discussed and jointly resolved. The Design Review 
Committee would review projects with respect to consistency with the design 
policies and criteria of all City, Port and BCDC plans pertaining to the waterfront; 
overall project design; and amount, shape and types of improvements for public 
access areas. 

These joint recommendations, as modified in response to public comment, will be 
incorporated into the Waterfront Plan, the Urban Design and Public Access element, and/or 
other related implementation documents, as appropriate. The application of these joint 
recommendations in reviewing new waterfront projects would be in addition to the policies 
contained in the Waterfront Plan and the Urban Design and Public Access element. The 



i 



r 



I 



PORT COMMISSION 
Page 5 



recommendations also will be the basis for amendments to the BCDC Bay PlEin and San 
Francisco Special Area Plan. Together, these policies will define the design standards and 
regulatory framework for new waterfront development projects; each individual project will 
be reviewed for compliance with these rules. 



Prepared by: Dennis P. Bouey 
Executive Director 



I 

H:\oshima\mbmcommrep 



> 



ATTACHMENT "A" 
DRAFT CONCEPT AGREEMENT AMONG 
THE PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO, THE SAVE SAN FRANCISCO BAY 
ASSOCIATION, AND THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND 

DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 

December 12, 1996 



INTRODUCTION 

In 1996 the Port of San Francisco ("Port") and the Bay Conservation and Development 
Commission ("BCDC") entered into a Memorandum of Agreement to guide fmalization and 
implementation of the Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan ("Waterfront Plan"), including an Urban 
Design and Public Access ("UDPA") element. Pursuant to that Agreement the staffs of BCDC 
and the Port have been meeting to develop recommendations on certain key BCDC-related issues 
for presentation to the Technical Advisory Committee, the Waterfront Plan Advisory Board, the 
BCDC Design Review Board, the State Lands Commission, members of the public, and the 
Commissions of BCDC and the Port. At the invitation of BCDC, the Save San Francisco Bay 
Association ("Save the Bay") participated in the discussions and has agreed with this concept 
agreement. 

(;OALS 

The goals of this Concept Agreement are to: 

• Complete the Urban Design/Public Access element of the Waterfront Plan (the "UDPA") 
consistent with this concept agreement. The UDPA will describe urban design guidelines 
for the waterfront including but not limited to the location of significant views and vistas, 
location of open water, new public access concepts, new public plazas and overall design 

• Remove piers to create more open water. 
Create new public plazas on the waterfront 

• Improve the design, location, and amount of public access on piers 

• Develop new rules for replacement fill and pier reconstruction or reconfiguration 

• Develop new rules governing land uses on existing piers. 



f 



i 



J 



Develop means to protect historic resources on the waterfront. 

Expedite permit processing including the creation of a Joint Port/BCDC/City Design Review 
Committee to help streamline permit processing for new projects on the waterfront. 



REMOVAL OF PIERS TO CREATE OPEN WATER 

The UDPA element of the Port's Waterfront Land Use Plan (WLUP) will specify piers that 
the Port will remove. 

Piers 34 and 36 will be removed to create a new public space, called Brannan Street Wharf 

Pier 24 will be removed as part of redevelopment of Piers 26 and 28. Any reconfiguration of 
Piers 26 and 28 must not exceed the combined area of Piers 26 and 28. 

A Special Planning Study will be conducted by the Port, the City and BCDC with public 
participation to determine the location of additional open water between Piers 15 and 29 
New development on any piers is this area cannot proceed until the Special Study is complete 
and adopted by the Port and BCDC. 

Pier 33 will be removed to create open water; approximately 50,000 square feet of pile 
supported fill may be replaced between Piers 3 1 and 35. 

A minimum of two openings between connector buildings will be provided, one at Piers 3 1 
through 35, and the other to be determined by the Port and BCDC 



II. CREATION OF NEW PUBLIC PLAZAS ON THE WATERFRONT 

Public access will be addressed through the provisions of the UDPA. Three new public pla/a.s 
will be created by the Port. 

• A central plaza at Fisherman's Wharf, on Seawall Lots 300 and 301, will consist oi' 
approximately 70% open space and the balance reserved for a festive market hall for 
commercial or retail uses. New retail or commercial structures will be designed in a manner 
compatible with the open nature of the plaza. The open parking lot will be replaced h\' an 
underground parking garage. 

• Whaif 25, a public plaza in the vicinity of the bases of Piers 19 through 27, will be created 
The size, location, and other design details will be determined through the Special .Studs o\' 



i 



I 



I 



the area between Piers 15 and 29. 

• Brannan Street Wharf will be a public plaza stretching along no less than 600 of the 
Embarcadero. This plaza will be created through the removal of Piers 34 and 36. Some fill 
will be necessai'y to create a suificient open space. 

To finance these new public plazas, this concept agreement includes the following flinding 
mechanisms: 

• The Plaza and underground parking garage at Fisherman's Wharf will be financed by revenues 
from new retail and commercial development on the site. 

• The Pon will create a Public Access Account to fiind the Brannan Street Wharf and Wharf 
25. The Port will deposit 25% of gross cash receipts fi"om all major new development on Piers 
and Seawall lots into the account (new revenues from Fisherman's Wharf will not be included, 
as they are designated to flind the new plaza and underground garage; certain project-specific 
Poit revenues will also be excluded). The Fund will be used to build the new plazas, but will 
be subject to certain requirements concerning priorities for bonded indebtedness. 

• Plazas will be constructed as soon as there are sufficient fijnds in the Account to permit 
necessary financing. The Brannan Street Wharf will be the first priority for the Fund. 

• The Fund may also receive grant or other funding; money from the fund may be used to 
remove piers to create open water. 



III. PUBLIC ACCESS ON PIERS 

• All new development on piers will be consistent with the applicable provisions of the UDP.'X 

I including provisions relafing to the size and shape of public access. The Joint Design Review 

Committee will review the shape, scope, and level of improvement of public access 



J 



I 



New development on finger piers will dedicate at least 25% of the pier tbotpnnt to public 
access. For larger piers, it is expected that more public access area will be necessary The 
Joint Design Review Committee will make recommendations regarding the extent of public 
access dedication for larger piers, existing or reconfigured. 

New interim uses that generate a suhstantial increase in the. need for public access (to be 
defined by the parties) will provide maximum feasible public access consistent with the project 
and the UDPA. Examples of such uses include a new public market or commercial recreation 
inside an existing shed. 



f 



New interim uses that do not generate a substantial increase in the need for public access 
would not be required to provide public access. The development of the three new plazas and 
removal of piers to create open water will satisfy the legal requirements to provide "maximum 
feasible public access" under the McAteer-Petris Act. 

New development of maritime uses will provide maximum feasible public access, consistent 
with the project, and will conform to the provisions of the UDPA when feasible. 



IV. PIER RECONFIGURATION 

Piers may be replaced or reconfigured, consistent with the provisions of the UDPA for each 
development opportunity area. The following approach will govern the shape and extent of 
pier reconfiguration: 

• The "Permitted Pier Area" will define the maximum square footage or area of the 
reconfigured pier(s) 

• The "Pier Perimeter" will define the boundaries beyond which no replacement or reconfigured 
fill can be placed. 

• New development of water-dependant maritime projects will be subject to special provision.s 
of the UDPA which will balance fijnctional requirements with open water and public access 
in a manner that encourages such maritime uses. 



LAND USES ON PIERS 

Piers in Port Jurisdiction will be assigned to one of two categories based on the physical 
condition and useful life of the Pier: 

(\ue^()iy I: Piers in excellent or good condition, with expected useful life o[^?->'S yeais oi 
more. For the purposes of BCDC permits, these piers will be treated as falling within 
BCDC's shoreline band jurisdiction, and thereby not subject to the water-oriented land use 
restriction. After 35 years, proposed new projects on these piers will be treated as falling 
within BCDC's Bay jurisdiction, whereby uses will meet the water-oriented test. 



Cule^^oiy II: Piers in fair or poor condition will be treated as falling within BCDC's Ba 
jurisdiction. Projects on these piers must conform with the public access and pic 
reconfiguration/replacement provisions of the UDPA Proposed uses must be water onenicci 



i 



i 



I 



The Port will conduct "Basic Maintenance" on these piers in association with interim uses 
without invoking the water-oriented use restriction; basic maintenance consists of 
replacement of up to 25% (cumulative) of piles. 

Pier reconfiguration or replacement of more than 25% of piles will trigger the provisions of 
the UDPA and BCDC's Bay jurisdiction. 

Revised pier repair and land use rules for new development will not take effect in the area 
between Piers 15 and 19 until the Special Study for the Pier 15-19 area is complete and 
adopted. 



VI. PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC RESOURCES 

• Some of the bulkhead buildings are on Category 1 piers and can be redeveloped under the 
provisions slated above in Section V. Some bulkhead buildings in need of repairs on 
Category 11 piers appear to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. 
Pile supported structures, which could include bulkhead buildings, that are on the National 
Register or designated as a California Registered Historic Landmark can be repaired or 
rehabilitated under existing BCDC regulations without triggering the water-oriented use 
restriction (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 5, Section 10704). 

• The Port will complete fijll documentation of historic structures. 

• The Port will evaluate how to increase public access and views in a manner compatible with 
historic preseiA/alion 

• Prior to approving any action that would adversely affect an historic resource, the Port will 
prepare and adopt a plan for historic resource preservation, covering the area between Pici 
45 and China Basin Channel. 



VII. JOINT DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE 

The Port, BCDC, and the City will form a Joint Design Review Committee, which will 
consist of professionals in the field of design. The objective is to achieve early coiisensu.s on 
project and public access design. The joint review of proposed projects will expedite ilic 
permitting process at both state and local levels. The authority and composition oi' the 
Committee remains to be determined. 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 




TO: 



FROM: 



MEMORANDUM 

December 20, 1996 

MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 
Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. James Herman 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 



Dennis P. Bouey 
Executive Director 



Ferry Building 

San Francisco. CA 94111 

Telephone 415 274 0400 

Telex 275940 PSF UR 

Fax 415 274 0528 

Cable SFPORTCOMM 

Writer 




SUBJECT: Resolution approving standard leasing parameters, standard form lease and 

siting guidelines for Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS ) facilities 

DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached resolution. 

Background 

The telecommunications industry requires the placement of Wireless Telecommunications 
Services (WTS) facilities in order to support the operation of wireless networks. This is a 
rapidly growing segment of the telecommunications industry. 

At the Port Commission meeting on November 12, 1996, a presentation on Wireless 
Telecommunication Services (WTS) was given by a representative from the San Francisco 
Department of City Planning. The Commission also received a copy of a report entitled 
"Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines", prepared by the 
Department of City Planning. 

The Port and City Attorney's Office staff have prepared a number of documents that address 
the placement of wireless telecommunications facilities on Port property, including standard 
leasing parameters, a standard form lease and facilities siting guidelines. Each of these 
documents is summarized below. (A copy of the standard form lease for these facilities was sent 
to the Commission on December 6, 1996, under separate cover.) 



THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. 5A 



J 



Wireless Telecommunications Services 
December 20, 1996 
Page Two 

Standard Leasing Parameters 

The Standard Leasing Parameters are attached to the attached Resolution. In brief, the 
parameters approve the following: 

(1) Term of Lease: Not to exceed nine years, with no options to extend; 

(2) Termination Rights: The Port has the right to terminate the lease upon 6-months 
notice if required for a Port program or project; 

(3) Base Rent: Will vary at each facility, but in no event less than $1500.00 per month, 
adjusted by CPI or negotiated stepped increases; 

(4) Security Deposit: Two months' rent. 

Standard Lease Form 

A copy of a proposed standard lease form was sent to you last week along with a memorandum 
from Assistant Port General Counsel Neil Sekhri summarizing the lease provisions. 

Facilities Siting Guidelines 

These guidelines include general siting policies, building siting criteria, information required to 
be submitted with an application, and sample conditions of approval, and are summarized 
below. 

General Siting Policies 

• Land use (compatibility with surrounding uses and scale, non-interference with existing 
nearby WTS facilities, minimization visual obstruction, protection of landmark and 
other significant structures, protection of open spaces and view corridors, mitigation of 
any negative effects) 

• Urban Design (protection of urban design, scale, architectural character and visual 
continuity, limitations of numbers of antennas in close proximity to one another, 
materials and colors to be used) 

• Health and Safety (operators to pay costs to monitor emissions from facilities, ensuring 
the availability of emergency telecommunications services, controlled access to facilities) 

• Community Involvement (outreach to neighborhood organizations within service area) 

Building Siting Criteria 

• Visual impact of the facilities from public streets, vistas and adjacent residential uses 

• Minimization of noise and thermal transmission to tenants in building. 

• Avoidance of intrusion into open space. 

• Siting of antennas in such a way as to comply with standards for controlled access. 



A pplication Information Required and Conditions of Approval 

Please refer to the attached guidelines for a complete list of all information required for an 
application and for a list of potential conditions of approval. 



Prepared by: Sharon Lee Polledri, 
Director of Planning and Development 

Poi3/H:Agdwts.l2IO 



i 



PORT COMMISSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

RESOLUTION NO. 96^l123_ 



WHEREAS, under City Charter Section B3.581 et. seq., the Port has the exclusive 
power and duty to use, conduct, operate, maintain, manage, regulate and 
control the Port area of San Francisco; and 

WHEREAS, the telecommunications industry is a growing and important industry in San 
Francisco and the Bay Area, providing a critical service to residents, 
businesses and public agencies and institutions, and Wireless 
Telecommunications Services (WTS) including Personal Communications 
Services, Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio and other similar systems are 
needed to support this industry; and 

WHEREAS, several parties have contacted the Port regarding the placement of WTS 
facilities on Port property; and 

WHEREAS, the Department of City Planning prepared a report entitled "Wireless 
Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines" which 
provides a comprehensive summary of the wireless telecommunications 
industry, a copy of which was provided to the Commissioners prior to the 
meeting of November 12, 1996; and 

WHEREAS, Port and Department of City Planning staff made an informational 
presentation regarding the WTS industry and the guidelines at the 
November 12, 1996 Port Commission meeting; and 

WHEREAS, the Port staff is in the process of developing urban design and public access 
guidelines for all Port property, and have coordinated the facilities siting 
guidelines with the more general urban design guidelines; and 

WHEREAS, Port staff conducted research regarding the current market lease rates and 
terms for WTS facilities elsewhere in San Francisco, and has prepared 
standard leasing parameters and a standard form lease for these facilities on 
Port property; and 

WHEREAS, Port staff believes that the most efficient, fair and responsible approach to 
the leasing of Port property for WTS facilities is for the Commission to 
adopt standard leasing parameters and siting guidelines for the staff to 
follow, and that separate Port Commission approval would only be required 



I 



« 



Resolution No. 96-123 

page -2- 



if a proposed lease did not fall within the adopted parameters; now, 
therefore be it 



RESOLVED, 



RESOLVED, 



RESOLVED, 



that this Commission hereby adopts as its Standard WTS telecommunication 
lease that certain form of lease file-named "Telecommunication Form 
Lease," dated December 20, 1996, a copy of which is on file with 
Commission Secretary, subject to such non-significant changes as approved 
by the City Attorney; and be it further 

that the Port Commission does hereby delegate to the Executive Director, 
or his designee, the authority to approve and execute telecommunications 
leases on behalf of the Port, including assignments and subleases thereof, 
provided the terms of the leases meet the parameters adopted herein and 
attached hereto as Attachment I, and provided that the form of the Lease is 
substantially in conformance with the Telecommunications Form Lease 
adopted hereunder; and be it further 

that the Commission does hereby adopt the WTS Facilities Siting Policies 
attached hereto as Attachment II and does hereby direct the Executive 
Director, or his designee to follow the attached Siting Policies in reviewing 
and approving the installation of WTS facilities on Port property. 



/ hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Port Commission at its 
meeting of December 20, 1996. 



Secretary 



i:\agdwtp2.121 



I 



4 



ATTACHMENT I 

STANDARD LEASING PARAMETERS FOR LEASE OF 
COMMUNICATIONS SITES ON PORT PROPERTY 

Facility Locations : as designated and approved in advance by the Port's Planning Division. 

Communications Site : a "communications site" is defined as a single Port Facility utilized by a single 
company for installation of "back-up" equipment (receiving, transmitting, power supply, cooling/air 
conditioning equipment) located within one box, room or shelter, and placement of up to nine (9) antennas 
connected to said back-up equipment. 

Term of Lease : will vary at each site, but in no case to exceed nine (9) years. No options shall be given. 

Port's Right to Terminate : The standard lease will contain a provision allowing the Port to terminate the 
lease upon 6-months notice if the Premises are required for a Port program or project, without 
compensation for the tenant's Improvements or Alterations. This provision may be waived only with the 
consent of the Executive Director or his/her authorized designee. An optional provision may be included 
to compensate the tenant for all or part of its unamortized costs to install its Improvements and Alterations, 
if, in the judgment of the Executive Director (or his/her authorized designee) it is economically reasonable 
for the Port to do so, taking into consideration the tenant's anticipated costs, the amount of Base Rent and 
the likelihood of the Port terminating the Lease during the Term. In no event shall the tenant be 
compensated for the cost of its personal property or for relocation expenses. 

Base Rent : will vary at each Facility, depending on the location, type of facility, ease of access and other 
factors. In no case shall the monthly Base Rent be less than $1 ,500.00 per month per communications 
site. Additional rent may be charged for additional anteruias or equipment. Base Rent shall be paid 
monthly or annually, as negotiated. 

Base Rent Adjustment : Base Rent shall be adjusted annually on the anniversary date of the Lease using the 
Consumer Price Index or stepped increases, as negotiated. 

Security Deposit : equal to two months' Base Rent; cash only. 

For other standard lease terms, please see the Standard Form Communications Site Lease, attached. 



I:\PARAM.COM 



I 



I 



I 



ATTACHMENT II 
WTS Facilities Siting Policies 

The following policies and guidelines shall apply to the siting of Wireless Telecommunications Services 
Facilities on Port properties: 

Land Use 

Insure that the siting of Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities is compatible with nearby 
uses. WTS facilities should meet Federal Communications Commission (FCC) health and safety standards. 
Operation of new facilities should not cause interference with existing nearby facilities such that the existing 
facility would be required to increase its power source or other equipment to continue proper service. These 
potential impacts should be considered, measured and mitigated prior to approval of a new facility. 

Insure that the type of WTS facility is compatible with the scale of the locale or, if it is out of scale, is (1) 
determined to be necessary at that location for the Applicant's operational needs (2) meets the criteria of 
Section 303( c ) of the Planning Code; and (3) incorporates all feasible measures to ameliorate visual intrusion 
or other adverse impacts. Whenever feasible, design out-of-scale facilities as public art rather than obtrusive 
utiHties. 

Insure that the facility is sited on a structure in such a way as to minimize visual obstruction. Sites to be 
considered, in order of preference, are: (1) Public buildings structures, utilities, or other neighborhood 
institutions; (2) Industrial or commercial buildings where existing visual obstructions/clutter will be removed; 
(3) Industrial or commercial buildings where existing visual obstructions/clutter cannot, in a commercially 
reasonable and viable manner, be removed; (4) Residential buildings which exceed the height limit where 
existing visual obstructions/clutter will be removed; (5) Residential buildings which exceed the height limit and 
where the back-up equipment is installed within the building envelope or installed in such a way as to minimize 
visual obstruction; or (6) Residential buildings which are at or below the allowable height limit. 

Protect landmark structures, historically-significant structures, architecturally-significant structures, landmark 
vistas or scenery, and view corridors from visually-obtrusive WTS antennas and "back-up" equipment. 

Protect natural resources, open spaces, recreational trails and/or other recreational resources from intrusion 
from installation of unmitigated WTS facilities such that emissions, lighting, signage or barriers would 
diminish the value and/or public access to those resources. 

Insure that the siting of any WTS facility will be subject to development requirements that will mitigate any 
potential health, safety, urban design, neighborhood character or public access impacts and insure that the 
installation will positively address the 8 priority policies of Section 101. 1 of the City Planning Code (Prop. 
M policies). 

Urban Design 

Protect the urban design, scale, architectural character and visual continuity of the neighborhood by siting 
WTS facilities on buildings and in such a way that would minimize visual obtrusion and protect the vistas and 
beauty of the San Francisco Waterfront. WTS facilities should be made as unobtrusive as possible, consistent 
with the reasonable technological requirements of the facility. No advertising sign or identifying logo should 

Wireless Telecommunications Services Facilities Siting Guidelines " ' " 



I 



I 



I 



be displayed on any WTS facility or element except as otherwise required by law. Antenna panels should not 
reflect light. The Port staff should review applications to determine when a locale or building is approaching 
the maximum number of WTS facilities such that the locale or site is not overwhelmed with facilities and/or 
the site is perceived to becoming an "antennae farm" or too "busy" and visually distracting. 

Require Applicants to develop and submit with their Application a 5 year plan generally describing the services 
to be provided within the City of San Francisco or the Port, each service area within the City, and the size, 
type and number of facilities anticipated for each service area within the 5 year period. 

When reasonably possible and commercially practicable, remove existing visual obstructions/clutter on the 
rooftop or roofline on a permanent basis associated with the installation of WTS facilities. 

Health and Safety 

The Applicant should pay all reasonable costs associated with the measuring, recording, reporting and 
monitoring of emissions, including noise, EMR/RF, and thermal, associated with the WTS facility at all 
locations. Such information should be made available by the Applicant to any interested party through the 
Apphcant's Neighborhood Liaison. All such records be available for public review in City records. 

The Applicant has the responsibility to insure that the facility in which the equipment is to be located is 
structurally-sound and is seismicly-safe for the proposed equipment. 

The Port should insure that emergency telecommunication services are available on a priority basis to the 
appropriate agencies in the event of a disaster or emergency; that is, if the system is rendered inoperable by 
a disaster, carriers shall be required to work closely with the City's Office of Emergency Services (or its' 
equivalent) to restore emergency City services as quickly as is possible. The installations should not interfere 
with any City emergency service telecommunications system. 

The Applicant should insure that the WTS facilities are sited in such a way as to comply with any FCC-adopted 
safety standards governing controlled and uncontrolled access to the facility. Facilities should have barriers 
to prevent unauthorized access. Signs in several languages as may be required by any FCC-adopted standards 
be posted, to advise people of the presence of equipment emitting electromagnetic radiation and radio 
frequency radiation and to warn people not to approach this equipment. 

Community Tnvolvement 

Applicants should establish a neighborhood liaison program for each neighborhood within their proposed 
geographic service area and publicize within the neighborhood the name, address, fax and phone number of 
the neighborhood liaison. The liaison is encouraged to meet with the community to present the Applicants 
proposal prior to application to the Port, and the Applicant should meet with neighbors and representatives of 
any neighborhood organization within the area to present its proposal(s) once an application has been filed. 
The liaison program should continue throughout the time the WTS facility remains operational in the 
neighborhood. 

Building Siting Criteria 

Each Communication Site shall be installed on and/or within the building in such a way as to: 

1. Minimize the visual impact of the installation from public vistas or streets. 



Wireless Telecommunications Services Facilities Silina Guidelines 



) 



2. Minimize visual impacts of the facility from habitable living areas (such as bedrooms or living rooms) 

of residential units which directly face any antennas within 100 feet horizontal distance. 

• Whenever possible, back-up facilities shall be installed within the existing building envelope; 

• If new construction is required for the back-up equipment, the housing for this equipment 
shall be low-lying and shall be painted, screened, landscaped or otherwise treated 
architecturally to minimize visibility of the equipment or to otherwise create a visually 
pleasing feature; 

• If back-up equipment is installed on the roof, the facility shall be setback or otherwise located 
to minimize visibility, especially from the street or public places. 

3. Minimize noise and thermal transmission from equipment to tenants of the subject building. In 
residential districts, San Francisco noise standards for residential use must be met. Noise levels 
created by back-up equipment, such as air conditioning, ventilation or power equipment, should at all 
times be within the levels established by the San Francisco Noise Ordinance. 

4. Avoid or minimize intrusion into usable open space within the lot. 

5. Site antennas in such a way and provide barriers and signage to prevent a person from passing within 
the safety limits established by the FCC-adopted standards for controlled access. 

Application Information Required 

Each application for a WTS facility, whether an antenna, relay station or other similar structure or equipment 
shall provide the following information to the Port of San Francisco. 

A.) Five Year Facilities Plan. Each application shall include a five year facilities plan which shall 
describe: (1) Generally, the type of telecommunications services expected to be provided by the 
Applicant within the City over the five year period; (2) a description of how these services would be 
provided throughout the City and would not result in lower service than required in any one 
neighborhood (i.e. on No "redlining" of service); (3) a description of the number of geographic 
service areas within the City and a map showing these areas; and (4) a description of the number of 
installations anticipated for each geographic service area and the number of antennas anticipated for 
each cell site therein. If the Applicant has already provided such a plan to the City Department of 
Planning within the last one-year period. Port may waive this requirement. 

B.) Service Area Definition. Each application shall identify the geographic service area for the subject 
installation, including a map showing the site and the associated "next" cell sites within the network. 
Describe the distance between cell sites. Describe how this service area fits into and is necessary for 
the company's service network. 

C.) Location Preference within the Service Area. Each application shall provide the following 
information: Identify which Location Preference the proposed facility is meeting. If the proposed 
location is not a Preference 1 through 3 location, describe the efforts and measures taken to pursue 
those preferences and why a higher preference location was not technologically, legally or 
economically feasible. 



Wireless Telecommunications Services Facilities Siting Guidelines -3- 



I 



I 



I 



« 



D.) Cumulative Effects: Identify the location of the Applicant's antennas and back-up facilities per 
building and number and location of other telecommunication facilities on the property and include 
the following data for each facility: 

1.) Height of all existing and proposed WTS facilities on the property, shown in relation to the 
height limit for the applicable zoning district and measured from sidewalk grade; 

2.) Dimensions of each existing and proposed antenna and back-up equipment on the property; 

3.) Power rating for all existing and proposed back-up equipment subject to the Application; 

4.) Preferred method of attachment of proposed antenna (roof, wall-mounted, mono-pole) with 
plot or roof plan along with detailed installation plans with a description for screening and/or 
visual integration into the building's architecture. 

E.) Ambient Radio Frequency Fields: Report estimated ambient radio frequency fields for the proposed 
site. Identify the total number of watts per installation and the total number of watts for all 
installations on the building (roof or side). 



F.) Surrounding WTS Antennas: To show number and types of WTS antennas 100 feet of the proposed 
site and provide estimates of cumulative EMR emissions at the proposed site. 

G.) Photo Montag e: To show the scale of the locale, provide photographs (photo montage) identifying 
the height of buildings within 100 feet distance of the proposed site showing the primary building 
facades. The Applicant shall include photographs of the antennas to be used and their method of 
attachment. 

H.) View Corridor/Screening : If there is a commonly identified public view corridor within 100 feet of 
the proposed site (such as an entrance to the City, a view of a famous City landmark or vista), identify 
what element(s) of the proposed facility (including screening) can be viewed from this public space 
or vista point. 

I.) Maintenance Program. Provide a description of the anticipated maintenance and monitoring program 
for the antennas and back-up equipment, including frequency of maintenance services, back-up service 
plans for disruption of service due to repair, maintenance or monitoring activities. 

J.) Signage: Provide signage at the facility identifying all WTS equipment and safety precautions for 

people nearing the equipment as may be required by any applicable FCC-adopted standards. 

Sample Conditions of Approval 

The Port could place any or all of these conditions, or could place similar conditions of approval on specific 
applications. Each application would be reviewed and analyzed on a case-specific basis. It is anticipated that, 
if deemed suitable for approval, applications for similar-technology WTS facilities will be given any or all of 
the follov^dng conditions of approval. 

Conditions of Approval 



Wireless Telecommunications Services Facilities Siting Guidelines 



< 



< 



i 



1. Authorization. This authorization is granted to install a public use in the form of antennas 

and back-up equipment (the "Communication Site") for the provision of personal wireless services 

on the of an existing Port structure located at . The facilities 

are to be installed in general conformity witii die plans submitted with the Application and identified 
as EXHIBIT , dated and submitted to the Port for review on 



2. Plan Drawing s. Prior to the issuance of any building or electrical permits for the installation of the 
facilities, the Applicant shall submit final scaled drawings for review and approval by the Port ("Plan 
Drawings"). The Plan Drawings shall: 

a.) Structure and Siting. Identity all facility related support and protection measures to be 
installed. This includes, but is not limited to, tiie location(s) and method(s) of placement, 
support, protection, screening, paint and/or other treatments of the antennas and other 
appurtenances to insure public safety, insure compatibility with urban design, architectural 
and historic preservation principles, and harmony witii neighborhood character. 

b.) Cumulative Facilities. For tiie Subject Property, regardless of tiie ownership of die existing 
facilities: 

i.) Identify the location of all existing antennas and facilities; 

ii.) Identify the location of all approved (but not installed) antennas and facilities. 

c.) Emissioas. Provide a report (as described in Condition 3(e) and 8 below), subject to approval 
of the Port, that operation of the facilities in addition to ambient RF emission levels will not 
exceed adopted FCC standards with regard to human exposure in uncontrolled areas. 

3. Project Implementation Report. The Applicant shall prepare and submit to tiie Port a Project 
Implementation Report. The Project Implementation Report shall: 

a.) identify the three-dimensional perimeter closest to the facility at which adopted FCC standards 
for human exposure to RF emissions in uncontrolled areas are satisfied; 

b.) document testing that demonstrates diat the facility will not cause any potential exposure to 
RF emissions tiiat exceed adopted FCC emission standards for human exposure in 
uncontrolled areas. 

c.) compare test results for each test point wiUi applicable FCC standards. Testing shall be 
conducted in compliance with FCC regulations governing the measurement of RF emissions 
and shall be conducted during normal business hours on a non-holiday week day with die 
subject equipment measured while operating at maximum power. 

d.) be prepared by a certified professional engineer or other technical expert. 

e.) set forth die testing and measurements undertaken pursuant to Condition 8, below. 



Wireless Telecommunications Services Facilities .Sitine Guidelines 



I 



i 



4. Notification prior to Project Implementation Report. The Applicant shall undertake to inform and 
perform appropriate tests for residents of dwelling units located within 25 feet of the transmitting 
antennae at the time of testing for the Project Implementation Report. 

a.) At least twenty calendar days prior to conducting the testing required for preparation of the 
Project Implementation Report, the Applicant shall mail notice to the Port, as well as the 
resident of any legal dwelling unit within 25 feet of a transmitting antenna, of the date on 
which testing will be conducted. The Applicant will submit a written affidavit attesting to this 
mail notice along with the mailing list. 

b.) When requested in advance by a resident notified of testing pursuant to subsection (a), the 
Applicant shall conduct testing of total power density of RF emissions within the residence 
of that resident on the date on which the testing is conducted for the Project Implementation 
Report. 

5. Community Liaison. Within 10 days of the effective date of this authorization, the Applicant shall 
appoint a community liaison officer to resolve issues of concern to neighbors and residents relating 
to the construction and operation of the facilities. Upon appointment, the Applicant shall report in 
writing the name, address, telephone and facsimile number of this officer to the Port. The 
Community Liaison Officer shall report to the Port what issues, if any, are of concern to the 
community and what issues have not been resolved by the Applicant. 

6. Installation. Within 10 days of the installation and operation of the facilities, the Applicant shall 
confirm in writing to the Port that the facilities are being maintained and operated in compliance with 
applicable Building. Electrical and other Code requirements, as well as applicable FCC emissions 
standards. 

7. Screening. 

a.) To the extent necessary to ensure compliance with adopted FCC regulations regarding human 
exposure to RF emissions, and upon the recommendation of the Port, the Applicant shall: 

i.) Modify the placement of the facilities; 

ii.) Install fencing, barriers or other appropriate structures or devices to restrict access 
to the facilities; 

iii.) Install multi-lingual signage, including the RF radiation hazard warning symbol 
identified in ANSI C95. 2-1982, to notify persons that the facility could cause 
exposure to RF emissions; and/or 

iv.) Implement any other practice reasonably necessary to ensure that the facility is 
operated in compliance with adopted FCC RF emission standards. 

b.) To the extent necessary to minimize visual obtrusion and clutter, installations shall conform 
to the following standards: 



Wireless Telecommunications Services Facilities Siting Guidelines 



I 



< 



i.) Antennas and back-up equipment shall be painted, fenced, landscaped or otherwise 

treated architecturally so as to minimize visual impacts; 

ii.) Rooftop installations shall be setback such that back-up facilities are not viewed from 
the street; 

iii.) Antennas attached to building facades shall-be so located, placed, screened or 
otherwise treated to minimize any negative visual impact; 

iv.) If WTS facilities are to be located on architecturally-significantly or historic buildings 
or structures, all facilities shall be integrated architecturally with the style and 
character of the structure or otherwise made unobtrusive; 

V.) Although co-location of various companies' facilities may be desirable, a maximum 
number of antennas and back-up facilities per property shall be established, on a 
case-by-case basis, such that "antennae farms" or similar visual intrusions for a site 
and area are not created; and 

vi.) The Applicant shall remove antennas and equipment that have been out of service for 
a continuous period of six months. 

8. Periodic Safety Monitoring. The Applicant shall submit to the Port and to the Citys' Zoning 
Administrator 10 days after installation of the facilities, and every two years thereafter, a certification 
attested to by a licensed engineer expert in the field of EMR/RF emissions, that the facilities are and 
have been operated within the then current applicable FCC standards for RF/EMF emissions. 

9. Emissions Conditioas. It is a continuing condition of this authorization that the facilities be operated 
in such a manner so as not to contribute to ambient RF/EMF emissions in excess of then current FCC 
adopted RF/EMF emission standards; violation of this condition shall be grounds for revocation. 

10. Noise and Heat . The WTS facility, including power source, ventilation and cooling facility, shall be 
operated at all times within the limits of the San Francisco Noise Ordinance. The WTS facility, 
including power source and cooling facility, shall not be operated so as to cause the generation of heat 
that adversely affects an building occupant. 

11. Implementation and Mo nitoring Costs. 

a.) The Applicant, on an equitable basis with other WTS providers, shall pay the cost of 
preparing and adopting appropriate General Plan policies related to the placement of WTS 
fecilities. Should future legislation be enacted to provide for cost recovery for planning, the 
Applicant shall be bound by such legislation. 

b.) The Applicant or its successors shall be responsible for the payment of all reasonable costs 
associated with the monitoring of the conditions of approval contained in this authorization, 
including costs incurred by this Port, the San Francisco Department of Public Health, the San 
Francisco Department of Electricity and Telecommunications, the Office of the City 
Attorney, or any other appropriate City Department or agency pursuant to Planning Code 
Section 351(f) (2). The Planning Department shall collect such costs on behalf of the City. 

Wireless Telecommunications Services Facilities .Sitina Guidelines -7- 



4 



4 



c.) The Applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all fees associated with the installation 
of the subject facility which are assessed by the City pursuant to all applicable law. 

12. All Conditions Basis for Revocation. The Applicant or its successors shall comply fully with all 
conditions specified in this authorization. Failure to comply with any condition shall constitute 
grounds for revocation of this Building Permit. In the event that the project implementation report 
includes a finding that RF emissions for the site exceed FCC Standards in any uncontrolled location, 
the Port may require the Applicant to immediately cease and desist operation of the facility until such 
time that the violation is corrected to the satisfaction of the Port. 

13. Severability. If any clause, sentence, section or any part of these conditions of approval is for any 
reason held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect or impair other of the remaining provisions, 
clauses, sentences, or sections of these conditions. It is hereby declared to be the intent of the 
Commission that these conditions of approval would have been adopted had such invalid sentence, 
clause, or section or part thereof not been included herein. 

14. Transfer of Operation. Any carrier/provider authorized by the Port to operate a specific WTS 
installation may assign the operation of the facility to another carrier licensed by the FCC for that 
radio frequency provided that such transfer is made in accordance with the provisions of the lease 
between Port and said transferor. 

15. Compatibility With City Emergency Services. The communication-Site shall not be operated, nor 
caused to transmit on or adjacent to any radio frequencies licensed to the City for emergency 
telecommunication services such that the City's emergency telecommunications system experiences 
interference, unless prior approval for such has been granted in writing by the Port. 



I:Wireless2.wpd 



Wireless Telecommunications Ser\'ices Facilities Siting Guidelines 



I 



I 



4 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 



MEMORANDUM 



December 12, 1996 




Ferry Building 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone 415 274 0400 

Telex 275940 PSF UR 

Fax 415 274 0528 

Cable SFPORTCOMM 

Writer 



TO: 



MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 

Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. James R. Herman 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 



FROM; 



Dennis P. Bouey 
Executive Director 



Iji/ft 



SUBJECT: Consent to wireless telecommunication services use at Pier 39 



DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: 

CATION SERVICES USE AT PIER 39 



CONSENT TO WIRELESS TELECOMMUNI- 



The Pier 39 master lease (Port Lease # L-9707, the "Lease"), as amended oji October 31, 1979, 
authorized certain specified uses, none of which include wireless telecommunication services 
("WTS") use. The Lease provides that any new use or change of use requires consent by the Port, 
and it further provides that the Port and the Pier 39 Limited Partnership ("Tenant") negotiate the 
new rent due the Port for the new use or change of use. In the event the Port and Tenant are 
unable to agree on the rent, the Lease provides for binding arbitration. 

In early 1996, Tenant requested a building permit from the Port for a planned WTS facility on the 
Pier 39 garage, which is located on the premises for the Lease ("Premises"). Although Tenant 
had previously received a building permit for another WTS facility on this garage, it was the 
position of Port staff and the City Attorney that this proposed WTS facility was not an authorized 
use under the Lease. Consequently, although Port staff believed that WTS facilities might be an 
acceptable use on the Premises, Port staff maintained that the Port Commission would need to 
consent to the use and approve the rent due the Port for this new use. Moreover, the Port 
Commission could not approve the WTS use nor approve the building permit for the WTS facility 
until the Port adopted WTS facilities siting guidelines. 



THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. 5 B 



Agenda Item No. 5B 
December 12, 1996 
Page Two 



Pending the adoption of such guidelines and conditioned upon these guidelines allowing for WTS 
facilities use on the Premises, Port staff and Tenant reached agreement that the rents payable to 
the Port for the WTS facility use be thirty percent (30%) of the rent received by Tenant from the 
operators of WTS facilities on the Premises. Port staff has determined that the proposed location 
of WTS facilities on the Premises would be allowed under the Port's proposed WTS Facilities 
Siting Guidelines, subject to satisfaction of the specific siting criteria contained in the proposed 
guidelines. 

Provided that the Port Commission approves the proposed WTS Facilities Siting Guidelines, 
presented as Agenda Item 5A of the December 20, 1996 Port Commission meeting, Port staff 
recommends that the Port Commission grant its consent to the WTS facilities use on the Premises. 
Port staff further recommends that this consent be subject to the condition that the rent Tenant 
shall pay to the Port for this use shall be calculated at thirty percent (30%) of the rent received 
from the operators of WTS facilities on the Premises. The initial combined rent to be paid Tenant 
by the existing and the now proposed additional WTS facilities operator is expected to total 
approximately $3,000.00 per month. Tenant would therefore initially pay the Port rent of 
approximately $900.00 per month for this WTS facilities use. 



Prepared by: Lewis Wiseman, Director, Tenant and Maritime Services 

G:\WP51\AGENDAS\P39TELEC.KB\November 26. 1996 



I 



PORT COMMISSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

RESOLUTION NO. 96-124 



WHEREAS, 



WHEREAS, 



WHEREAS, 



WHEREAS, 
WHEREAS, 



RESOLVED, 



RESOLVED, 



Charter Section B3.581 empowers the Port Commission with the power and 
duty to use, conduct, operate, maintain, manage, regulate and control the 
Port area of San Francisco; and 

under Charter Section B3. 58 1(g) leases granted or made by the Port 
Commission shall be administered exclusively by the operating forces of the 
Port Commission; and 

pursuant to Section VLB of that lease agreement dated October 31, 1979, 
by and between Pier 39 Limited Partnership, successor in interest to North 
Point Center, Inc., as Tenant, and the City and County of San Francisco 
acting through its Port Commission, as Landlord, as amended (the 
"Lease"), Tenant is permitted to change uses authorized by the Lease or to 
add a facility, operation or use not specifically authorized by the Lease; and 

the Port has the right of approval and consent to such intended change of 
use, not to be unreasonably withheld; and 

the Port Commission's consent has been requested for use of the premises 
under the Lease ("Premises"), for the design, construction, maintenance, 
operation, repair and replacement of wireless telecommunication services 
facilities and any and all related and auxiliary activities (collectively, "WTS 
Facilities"); now therefore, be it 

that the Port Commission hereby approves the new use consisting of the 
design, construction, maintenance, operation, repair and replacement of 
WTS Facilities and any and all related and auxiliary activities, subject to 
satisfaction and compliance with those conditions attached hereto as Exhibit 
A; and be it further 

that the Port Commission hereby approves the percentage rent for the WTS 
Facilities use as set forth as Condition 3 of the conditions attached hereto 
as Exhibit A. 



/ hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Port Commission at its meeting 
of December 20, 1996. 



Secretary 



G:\WP5I\AGENDAS\P39TELEC.KB\December 12, 1996 



I 



r 



EXHIBIT A 

CONDITIONS TO PORT APPROVAL OF WIRELESS 

TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES FACILITIES 

(Attachment to Resolution No. 96-124) 

1 . Compliance With All Applicable Laws . Tenant or its subtenant WTS Facilities 
operator(s) (collectively, "Subtenant") shall comply with all permits required and 
issued with respect to the WTS Facilities, including compliance with the Port's WTS 
Facilities Siting Guidelines and with all other laws relating to or affecting use of the 
Premises applicable to the approved use currently in effect or which may hereafter be in 
effect at any time during the remainder of the Lease term, whether or not now 
contemplated by the panies. 

2. No cost or Liability on the Part of Pon . All costs associated with any approvals for or 
operation of the proposed use shall be borne by Tenant or Subtenant, and Tenant or 
Subtenant shall be solely responsible for complying with any and all conditions imposed 
by regulatory agencies and shall pay any and all fines or penalties imposed as a result of 
the failure of Tenant or Subtenant to comply with the terms and conditions of any 
regulatory approvals, and, to the fullest extent permitted by law. Tenant and Subtenant 
agree to defend, indemnify and hold City, Port and their agents harmless from and 
against any loss, expense, costs, damage, attorney's fees, penalties, claims or liabilities 
which City or Port may incur as a result of Tenant's or Subtenant's failure to obtain or 
comply with the terms and conditions of any regulatory approvals or as a result of the 
operation of the approved use. 

3. Payment of Rent . Commencing as of the date of Port approval of Resolution 

No. 96-124, and for so long as the WTS Facilities operate from the Premises, Tenant 
shall pay to Port a sum equal to thirty percent (30%) of the rental received by Tenant 
from the Subtenant operators of said WTS Facilities. 

4. Acknowledgment . Tenant shall provide Port with an acknowledgment of its agreement 
to comply with all of the foregoing conditions by signing below. 

Acknowledged and .Agreed: 

"Tenant' 




Fritz Arko 

President 

Pier 39 Limited Pannership 

G.\WP51\AGENDAS\P39TELEC.KB\November 26. 1996 



i 



I 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 



TO: 



FROM: 



MEMORANDUM 

December 9, 1996 



MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 
Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. James Herman 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 



Dennis P. Bouey 
Executive Director 




Ferry Building 

San Francisco. CA 94111 

Telephone 415 274 0400 

Telex 275940 PSFUR 

Fax 415 274 0528 

Cable SFPORTCOMM 

Writer 



SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A NEW MARUBA S.C.A. MARINE TERMINAL 
AGREEMENT 

DIRECTORS RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE THE 5-YEAR MARINE 
TERMINAL AGREEMENT WITH MARUBA S.C.A. AT PIER 94/96. 

The Port has concluded negotiations for another Five-year Marine Terminal Agreement 
with Maruba S.C.A. for use of Pier 94/96. Their previous agreement expired on March 
1, 1996. Maruba S.C.A. offers service to and from Latin America with calls in Port 
Quetzel, Caldera, Balboa, Buenaventura, Guayaquil, Callo, Buenos Aires, Montevideo 
and Port Madrgyn. Their vessels make bi-weekly calls at Pier 94/96. 

Material provisions of the agreement include the following: (i) five year term, 
commencing on October 1, 1996; (ii) reduced wharfage and dockage rates based on the 
total annual volume and in consideration of their long term usage of the Port's cargo 
facilities; (iii) nomination of Pier 94/96 as their regular published Bay Area port of call. 

If SSA ceases operations at Pier 94/96, the Agreement also allows termination by either 
Port or Carrier if they are unable to reach agreement with a new management contractor. 

Estimated annual revenue for the agreement is approximately $95,000 from wharfage, 
dockage, and crane rental. A copy of the agreement is attached hereto. 



Prepared by: Lewis Wiseman, Director Tenant and Maritime Services 



THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. 5C 



i 



I 



I 



I 



I 



PORT COMMISSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



RESOLUTION NO. 96-135 



WHEREAS, 
WHEREAS, 



RESOLVED, 



RESOLVED, 



Maruba S.C.A. desire to enter into another Marine Terminal Agreement 
with the Port, for use of Port's marine terminal facilities; and 

said Agreement grants Maruba S.C.A. reduced dockage 
and wharfage charges for the utilization by the Carrier of Pier 94/96 as 
their regularly scheduled Northern California port of call; now 
therefore, be it 

that the San Francisco Port Commission approves the Marine Terminal 
Agreement with Maruba S.C.A., in substantially the form of which is on 
file with the Secretary of the Port Commission for this agenda item; and 
be it further 

that the Port Commission authorizes the Executive Director (i) to enter 
into the Agreement, (ii) to make any necessary refinements to the 
Agreement as are approved by the City Attorney ;(iii) to file the 
Agreement with the Federal Maritime Commission; and (iv) to take all 
such further actions as are necessary to put the Agreements into effect. 



/ hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Port Commission at its 
meeting of December 20, 1996. 



Secretary 



i 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 




MEMORANDUM 



Ferry Building 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone 415 274 0400 

Telex 275940 PSF UR 

Fax 415 274 0528 

Cable SFPORTCOMM 

Writer 



December 20, 1996 



TO: 



MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 

Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. James Herman 
Hon. Denise McCartliy 



FROM: Dennis P. Bouey Q^Vf^ Jy-vi?^ 



Executive Director \j 



SUBJECT: Approval of lease with Peer Inn, Inc. for the Peer Inn Restaurant at Pier 33. 
DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE LEASE WITH PEER INN, INC. 
BACKGROUND 



Peer Inn Restaurant 

For thirty-seven years, George and Ann Papadakis and the Papadakis family have operated the 
Peer Inn Restaurant at Pier 33. The Tenant under this lease is Peer Inn, Inc., a California 
corporation, which is wholly owned by the Papadakis family. Their tenancy has been on only a 
month-to-month basis until the Port granted them a new three-year lease in 1994, pursuant to its 
Policy for Leasing Retail Business Sites (the "Retail Policy," discussed below). The current lease 
expires April 30, 1997. The current monthly base rent is $2,730.20, versus percentage rent 
calculated at 7% of gross receipts. During the 1995/96 Fiscal Year, the Peer Inn Restaurant 
generated gross sales of $263,687 ($86 per square foot of interior restaurant space) and paid 
$18,456* ($6.03 per square foot) of total rent to the Port. 



THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. 5D 



< 



I 



t 



Agenda Item No. 5D 
Page 2 



Pursuant to the Retail Policy, Peer Inn, Inc. has now requested a new long term lease following 
the expiration of its existing three-year lease. Peer Inn, Inc. has also submitted a business plan 
for redeveloping the restaurant, which includes a significant investment. Pursuant to the Retail 
Policy, Port Staff has reviewed the compliance of Peer Inn, Inc. with the criteria for direct 
negotiation of a long term restaurant lease, and staff has negotiated a new lease. 

* Tenant is paying percentage rent only during construction of the Waterfront Transportation 
Project. 

Policy for Leasing Retail Business Sites 

On April 28, 1993, the Port Commission approved the Retail Policy (by Resolution No. 93-52). 
This Retail Policy reaffirms the Port's commitment to foster and encourage full and equitable 
opportunities for leasing retail sites on the waterfront through an outreach and competitive bid or 
request for proposal process (in accordance with section 23.24 of the Administrative Code). 
However, the Retail Policy also allows for the direct negotiation of a lease with an existing retail 
tenant if the benefits of direct negotiation exceed the benefits of a public offering. The Retail 
Policy offered a one time opportunity for an existing month-to-month tenant to receive a three-year 
lease provided that the tenant was in good standing and was in compliance with affirmative action 
requirements. This short term lease opportunity was granted to provide time for the tenant to 
develop a business plan and strategy for capital investment. 

For a longer term lease to be awarded then to an existing retail tenant through direct negotiation, 
the Port Commission must determine that: 

1. The tenant is in good standing : 

2. The tenant is committed to making a significant capital investment supported by a sound 
business plan which will benefit the Port; 

3. The tenancy is in the best economic interest of the Port, and the tenant is the best economic 
tenant available; and 

4. The tenant has a good record of affirmative action and nondiscrimination and is committed 
to future compliance. 

As discussed below, Port staff believes that Peer Inn, Inc. and its proposed business plan satisfy 
those criteria for direct negotiation pursuant to the policy. 

1. Gk)od Standing . Peer Inn, Inc. has a consistent history of compliance with the obligation 
of its existing lease. 

2. Sound Business Plan . With a longer term lease, Peer Inn, Inc. proposes to renovate and 
reposition the restaurant as a full service Greek restaurant. The restaurant concept is to 



Agenda Item No. 5D 
Page 3 



create a comfortable open design restaurant which will offer fresh and healthful Greek 
cuisine prepared in open view of diners. The business plan includes investing $500,000 
($141 per sq. ft.) in the renovation of the restaurant, and engaging a management group 
with extensive experience developing and operating San Francisco restaurants. The 
Papadakis family will remain the owners of Peer Inn, Inc. 

The renovation and operation of the New Peer Inn will be managed by the Peer Inn 
Management Group, comprised of Chris Kasaris and Chris Tsardoulias. After holding 
responsible positions in the restaurant and produce business, Chris Kasaris opened the Bay 
City Bar & Grill in 1986 near Third and Brannan Streets, and he continues to operate this 
successful full-service restaurant. Chris Tsardoulias has 34 years of restaurant 
development and executive chef experience. His experience includes Executive Chef of 
the Ritz Hotel Vancouver, Executive Assistant Chef of the Fairmont Hotel in San 
Francisco, and Executive Chef for the Hyatt Corporation, where he was responsible for 
opening five different Hyatt hotels, including San Francisco's Hyatt Regency Embarcadero 
and the Grand Hyatt. Most recently, he was Executive Director of Food and Beverage for 
the Royal Cruise Line. 

The renovation plan, illustrated on the enclosed floor plan and section attached hereto as 
Exhibit A, will create an open dining room, affording views by all diners of the water and 
a new open cooking line with a wood burning oven and open fire rotisserie. A small bar 
will be created along with a comfortable waiting area. The new open configuration will 
increase the seating capacity from 85 to 132. 

The windows of the street facade will be returned to their original size and style, retaining 
the historic waterfront architectural design, but offering better visibility into and through 
the restaurant to the water. Blue awnings will be installed over the new doors and 
windows with discreet white signage. The existing aluminum frame window system on 
the water will be replaced with operable wooden windows. The renovation design will 
favor natural woods, stone and tile over synthetic materials. 

The New Peer Inn will offer a unique menu of light and healthful Greek cuisine, comprised 
of fresh fish, meats and produce. The marketing plan for the New Peer Inn will be based 
on the following principles: maximizing convention and visitor patronage; drawing from 
traffic generated by the new F-Line and the revitalized waterfront; developing a 
neighborhood clientele from the nearby offices and Cruise Terminal; and creating a 
distinctive destination restaurant for local and regional patrons. Access will be enhanced 
by offering valet parking at a curbside passenger loading zone. 



Agenda Item No. 5D 
Page 4 



Best Economic Tenant . Port staff has determined that the market base rent per month on 
the Northern Waterfront is in the range of $2-$3. Peer Iim, Inc. has agreed to pay an 
initial monthly base rent of $2.80 per sq. ft. , which is at the upper end of this market rental 
range. Moreover, based upon the planned renovation and the new management group, the 
New Peer Inn is projected by Peer Iim, Inc. to generate average sales of $200,000 per 
month in the first year after the renovation, increasing to $317,250 per month the fifth year 
after the renovation. As indicated in the following table, the Port would therefore realize 
average monthly rent of approximately $3.96 per square foot in the first year increasing 
to $6.28 per square foot in the fifth year. 

PEER INN, INC. 
GROSS SALES AND RENT PROJECTIONS 



Lease 
Year 


Projected 
Gross Sale! 
Annual 


I 
Monthly 


Average Monthly 

Percentage Rent (a>l% 

Total PerSq. Ft, 


1 


$2,400,000 


$200,000 


$14,000 $3.96 


2 


$3,000,000 


$250,000 


$17,500 4.95 


3 


$3,396,000 


$283,000 


$19,810 5.60 


4 


$3,701,000 


$308,417 


$21,589 6.10 


5 


$3,807,000 


$317,250 


$22,208 6.28 



4. Affirmative Action . Port staff has determined that Peer Inn, Inc. has a good affirmative 
action record in employment, purchasing and contracting. In addition. Port staff has 
reviewed and approved the Affirmative Action Non-Discrimination Plan prepared in 
conjunction with the lease negotiations, which would be enforceable by the lease. The new 
lease further requires that not less than 30% of the construction costs expended by Peer 
Inn, Inc. for its Tenant Improvements would inure to the benefit of bonafide MBE, WBE, 
or DBE enterprises certified by the San Francisco Human Rights Commission ("HRC"). 



i 



i 



Agenda Item No. 5D 
Page 5 



PROPOSED LEASE 

1. Tenant : Peer Inn, Inc., a California corporation, 

2. Premises : 3,538 sq. ft. of interior restaurant space located in the Pier 33 Bulkhead 
Building between Piers 33 and 35. 

3. Term : A nine-year term, commencing 150 days following the date that Tenant obtains all 
required regulatory approvals for the proposed renovation of the Premises, including 
issuance of a Conditional Use Permit by the City Planning Department, issuance of a 
permit by BCDC, and issuance of a building permit by the Port. During the 150-day 
period prior to the commencement of the term ("Renovation Period"), Tenant shall have 
the right of early entry to undertake the renovation, and will be subject to all the terms and 
conditions of the Lease except for the Term and amount of Base Rent (discussed below). 
If all of the above regulatory approvals are not obtained by July 1, 1997, the Lease will 
be null and void. On the first day of the Renovation Period, Tenant's current lease shall 
terminate. 

4. Use : A full-service restaurant, operation of a take-out food service window, and sale of 
in-house signature items (provided, however, the sale of such retail items shall not exceed 
5% of the Tenant's gross receipts). 

5. Base Rent : Initial Base Rent of $9,906.40 per month, which equals $2.80 per sq. ft., 
subject to annual cost of living increases. During the portion of the Renovation Period, 
the Base Rent shall be reduced to $2,700 ($0.76 per sq. ft.) per month. 

6. Percentage Rent : Percentage rent, which shall be offset by Base Rent paid, shall be 
calculated and paid monthly by applying the percentage rates indicated below to the gross 
sales of the indicated types of sales. 

a. Full service restaurant food and bar sales - 7%. 

b. Take-out food and beverage sales - 9% . 

c. Retail merchandize sales - 9%. 

7. Maintenance : Tenant responsible for all maintenance to the Premises, including the 
exterior, but excluding the roof and the pier substructure. 



% 



J 



< 



Agenda Item No. 5D 
Page 6 



8. Tenant Improvements : 



Prior to the first anniversary date of the lease Term, Tenant shall expend at least 
$500,000 on Tenant Improvements to the Premises, as outlined below: 

Complete Interior Renovation $320,000.00 

Upgrade of Plumbing and Addition $ 65,000.00 

of Handicap Restrooms 

New HVAC System $25,000.00 

Upgrade of Electrical System $ 75,000.00 

New Exterior Awnings $ 15.000.00 

TOTAL $500,000.00 

Construction of Tenant Improvements to the Premises by Tenant, in an amount of 
not less than $500,000, constitutes a material consideration to the Port. 
Consequently, in the event that Tenant has spent less than $500,000 on Tenant 
Improvements as of the first anniversary date of the Term, the monthly Base Rent 
will be increased by the difference between $500,000 and the amount actually 
expended by Tenant on Tenant Improvements, amortized on a straight line basis 
over the balance of the lease term. For example: If by the first anniversary date 
of the Term, Tenant has only expended $400,000 on Tenant Improvements, then 
the monthly base rent will be increased by $1,041.67 ($500,000 - $400,000 = 
$100,000; $100,000 ^ 96 months = $1,041.67). 

Tenant agrees that not less than 30% of the construction costs it expends on Tenant 
Improvements shall inure to the benefit of MBE, WEE or DEE enterprises, as 
certified by HRC. 

Prepared by: Lewis Wiseman, Director, Tenant & Maritime Services 



G:\WP51\AGENDAS\PEERIN.MEM\KB\jef\December 10, 1996 



I 



4 



PORT COMMISSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



RESOLUTION NO. 96-132 



WHEREAS, 

WHEREAS, 

WHEREAS, 

WHEREAS, 
WHEREAS, 



WHEREAS, 
WHEREAS, 



Charter Section B3.581 empowers the Port Conunission with the power and 
duty to use, conduct, operate, maintain, manage, regulate and control the 
Port area of San Francisco; and 

under Charter Section B3.581 leases granted or made by the Port 
Commission shall be administered exclusively by the operating forces of the 
Port Conmiission; and 

the San Francisco Administrative Code, Section 23.24, provides that retail 
sites should generally be offered to the public through competitive bidding; 
and 

the Port remains committed to fostering and encouraging full and equitable 
opportunities for leasing of retail sites on the waterfront; and 

in order to balance the benefits of competitive bidding with the benefits of 
direct negotiation with existing tenants, the Port Commission adopted the 
Policy for Leasing Retail Business Sites ("Retail Policy") on April 28, 1993 
through Resolution No. 93-52; and 

Peer Inn, Inc., an existing Port tenant, has requested a renewal lease for the 
Peer Inn Restaurant site at Pier 33, pursuant to the Retail Policy; and 

the Retail Policy provides that a retail lease may be directly negotiated 
when: 

1 . The tenant is in good standing; 

2. The tenant is committed to making a significant capital investment 
supported by a sound business plan which will benefit the Port; 

3. The tenancy is in the best economic interest of the Port, and the 
tenant is the best economic tenant available; and 

4. The tenant has a good record of affirmative action and 
nondiscrimination and is committed to fumre compliance. 



% 



< 



WHEREAS, 



WHEREAS, 



the Retail Policy further requires that, prior to granting a lease pursuant to 
said policy, the Port Commission must make findings that the tenant 
satisfies the criteria for direct negotiation and that the benefits of direct 
negotiation outweigh the benefits of competitive bidding; and 

Port Commission approval is being sought for Lease L- 12392 between the 
Port and Peer Inn, Inc., the terms of which are set forth in the 
Memorandum of Agenda Item 5D for the Port Commission Meeting on 
December 20, 1996; now, therefore, be it 



RESOLVED, 



RESOLVED, 



that the Port Commission finds that Peer Inn, Inc., satisfies the criteria for 
direct negotiation, qualifying it to directly negotiate with the Port for a long 
term lease pursuant to the Retail Policy, and finds that the benefits to the 
Port of directly negotiating a lease with Peer Inn, Inc. outweigh the benefits 
of competitive bidding; and be it further 

that the Port Commission hereby approves Lease L-12392 between the Port 
and Peer Inn, Inc., which incorporates the business terms set forth in the 
Memorandum for Agenda Item 5D for the Port Commission meeting on 
December 20, 1996, and that the Executive Director, or his designee, is 
hereby authorized to execute Lease L-12392 on behalf of the Port in such 
final form as is substantially in the form on file with the Secretary of the 
Port Commission for said agenda item and in such final form as is approved 
by the City Attorney. 



thereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Port Commission at its meeting 
of December 20, 1996. 



G:\WP51\AGENDAS\PEERIN.MEM\December 16, 1996 



Secretary 



« 



I 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 




MEMORANDUM ^,,,, 



December 13, 1996 



Ferry Building 
San Francisco, CA 94111 
Telephone 415 274 0400 
Telex 275940 PSF UR 
Fax 415 274 0528 
Cable SFPORTCOMM 



TO: MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 

Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. James Herman 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 

FROM: Dennis P. Bouey ^K ^ ^^^ 

Executive Director 

SUBJECT: Hyde Street Fishing Harbor Project Approval. 



DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE 60 BERTH HYDE STREET FISHING 
HARBOR PROPOSED PROJECT, AUTHORIZE EXPENDITURE OF LOAN FUNDS FROM 
THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF BOATING AND WATERWAYS, AND ADOPT 
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PROJECT APPROVAL FINDINGS. 



The Hyde Street Fishing Harbor is a proposed 60 berth harbor located to the east of the Hyde 
Street Pier. It is part of a series of improvements in the Fisherman's Wharf area collectively 
known as the Seafood Center that includes: a 1,200 foot breakwater completed in 1986; $11.6 
million in earthquake repairs at Pier 45 completed in 1995; and new fishing industry related uses 
in sheds A and C located on the east side of Pier 45. 



THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. 7A 



I 



PORT COMMISSION 

Page 2 



In 1994, the Port Commission authorized the staff to prepare an environmental impact report 
(EIR) for the Hyde Street Fishing Harbor and new uses in Sheds A and C on Pier 45, as 
required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In January 1995 a team led by 
the Duffey Company began preparation of the EIR. On April 25, 1996 a Draft EIR was 
released for public review and comment and over 300 pages of conmients were received. The 
Draft EIR analyzed a 60-berth harbor design, a 86-berth harbor with room for another 20 tied 
vessels, a no-build alternative, and various alternative uses for Sheds A and C. 

The preferred project alternative for the Hyde Street Fishing Harbor that is analyzed in the 
EIR and is before you for approval, consists of a 60-berth harbor, as shown on Attachment I 
to the attached resolution. It also consists of harbor-related improvements which include the 
following: (1) An approximately 200 square foot restroom; (2) Fuel dock that includes lighting 
and spill containment equipment, automatic shut-off features, a leak detection system, remote 
operated shutoff switch and pressure sensitive valves; (3) A single security gate at the end of 
the pier; (4) A vessel sewage pump-out station; (5) An approximately 40 square foot oily 
waste disposal facility; (6) A central depression in the new pier area to direct storm water to 
die combined sewer system; (7) Parking for approximately 45 vehicles; and (8) 
Approximately 3000 square feet of public access at the foot of the new pier. The project 
under consideration at this time does not include proposed uses for Sheds A and C. Those 
uses will come before the Commission in the ftiture. 

On December 12, 1996 the Planning Commission certified the EIR and adopted a resolution 
stating that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with development of the 
project. The resolution before the Port Commission today is for approval of project design, 
authorization to expend loan fiinds from the California Department of Boating and Waterways, 
and adopt environmental review and project approval findings for the harbor. 

Public comments throughout the design and EIR phases of the project have continually focused 
on water quality in the Fisherman's Wharf area. After completion of the Draft EIR and public 
comment period, the Port formed a Water Quality Advisory Committee for the Fisherman's 
Wharf area to address longstanding environmental issues associated with water quality. The 
committee includes representative from the fishing industry, area merchants, the swimming 
and boating community, and resource agencies. Recognizing that environmental issues do not 
stop at jurisdictional lines, the committee is also evaluating the effects of pollution sources 
outside of Fisherman's Wharf. The committee will develop recommendations for improving 
environmental and water quality for the Fisherman's Wharf area and present those 
recommendations to the Port Commission and other relevant agencies. The Port has agreed to 
ftind the committee through 1998. 

Under CEQA, the Port Commission must prepare written findings of fact that explain how it 
has dealt with each significant impact and alternative identified in the EIR. The EIR for this 



PORT COMMISSION 
Page 3 



project found no significant impacts caused by the proposed project. However, certain 
measures were suggested to maintain and improve water quality. The attached resolution 
adopts findings for the project, addressing the following issues: (1) Alternatives to the project; 
(2) Significant effects on the environment; (3) Impacts determined to be insignificant; and (4) 
Additional environmental protection measures included in the project. The findings also adopt 
a monitoring program to track implementation of the additional environmental protection 
measures. 

The total cost for the Hyde Street Fishing Harbor is estimated at $4.5 million. The Port has 
obtained a loan from the California Department of Boating and Waterways for $3.5 million, 
with Port operating funds supplying the remainder of the project budget. The next steps are to 
obtain BCDC and Army Corps of Engineers permits for the project. The Port Commission 
authorized staff on November 12, to issue a Request for Proposal for detailed project design. 
Staff will seek Commission approval in 1997 for approval of the detailed project design, and 
for construction bids in 1998. Construction is scheduled to start at the beginning of 1998. 



Sharon Lee PoUedri 

Director, Planning & Development 



f:\wp51\hydapras 



PORT COMMISSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

RESOLUTION NO. 96J16 



WHEREAS, the Port Commission developed a plan for revitalization of the commercial 
fishing industry at Fisherman's Wharf, including the provision of new vessel 
berthing facilities and provision of new shoreside fish distribution facilities; and 

WHEREAS, the Port Commission has prepared a preliminary design and feasibility study of 
the harbor facilities which showed adequate demand and need for the harbor, 
and that it functioned efficiently with other facilities at Fisherman's Wharf; 

WHEREAS, the Port applied for and obtained an agreement with the California Department 
of Boating and Waterways to obtain a $3.5 million loan for construction of the 
"Hyde Street Fishing Harbor", loan contract 89-21-77, amended March 19, 
1996; 

WHEREAS , the City and County of San Francisco, acting through the Department of City 

Planning Department prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for 
the Hyde Street Fishing Harbor/Pier 45 Sheds A and C, File No. 93.574E, 
consisting of a Draft EIR dated April 25, 1996, any consultations and comments 
received during the review process, any additional information that became 
available, and a Summary of Comments and Responses dated November 26, 
1996; and 

WHEREAS, the FEIR analyzed a preferred project consisting of 60 berths and related 
improvements, as well as an 86-berth harbor alternative with room for an 
additional 20 tied vessels, and a no-build alternative; and 

WHEREAS, the San Francisco Planning Commission certified the FEIR as complete on 
December 12, 1996, and found that the preferred project will not have a 
significant effect on the environment and that it would improve the existing 
setting for the fishing industry by the provision of much-needed facilities and 
would improve existing water quality; and 

WHEREAS, findings entitled "San Francisco Port Commission Findings Related to 

Environmental Review and Project Approval: Hyde Street Fishing Harbor" that 
analyze alternatives, environmental effects, additional environmental protection 
measures included in the project, and monitoring thereof have been prepared and 
submitted as an attachment to this Resolution; now, therefore, be it 



i 



Resolution 96-136 
Page 2 



RESOLVED, that the Port Commission adopts and incorporates the Final Environmental Impact 
Report (No. 93.574E and the attached "San Francisco Port Commission Findings 
Related to Environmental Review and Project Approval: Hyde Street Fishing 
Harbor," and the monitoring program set forth in Attachment I to the Findings; 
and be it further 

RESOLVED, that the Port Commission approves the 60-berth proposed project and related 

improvements associated with the "Hyde Street Fishing Harbor" as identified in 
Attachment I, attached hereto; and be it further 

RESOLVED, that the Port Commission authorizes the Executive Director to accept and expend 
loan funds from the California Department of Boating and Waterways, loan 
contract 89-21-77, amended March 19, 1996, for up to $3.5 million for design and 
construction of the "Hyde Street Fishing Harbor" and further authorizes the 
Executive Director to enter into such additional agreements or to take such fiirther 
action as is necessary to implement this authorization. 



/ hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Port Commission at its 
meeting of December 20, 1996. 



Secretary 



4 



4 



ATTACHMENT I 

f Harbor-related improvements will include the following: 

(1) An approximately 200 square foot restroom; 

(2) Fuel dock that includes lighting and spill containment equipment, automatic shut-off features, 
a leak detection system, remote operated shutoff switch and pressure sensitive valves; 

(3) A single security gate at the end of the pier; 

(4) A vessel sewage pump-out station; 

(5) An approximately 40 square foot oily waste disposal facility; 

(6) A central depression in the new pier area to direct storm water to the City's combined sewer 
system; 

(7) Parking for approximately 45 vehicles; and 

(8) Approximately 3000 square feet of public access at the foot of the new pier. 



ATTACHMENT I 






,*-*\ 
'"■-/" 







UJ 






rw 






ID 




£C 


O 




O 


U- 




CD 






< 












CD 






CD 






P 3 




1 


< < 




00 


r> 




_; tfi 






C 






.-.IT 






C_) Ld 




U.' 


Zuj 




,c^ 


t- 


\ 


c/^ 




•s. 


>- 


C2 




— I— 


^iir' 




. 


-;tw( 


\ 












FmDINGS RELATED TO ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PROJECT APPROVAL 
HYDE STREET FISHING HARBOR/PIER 45 SHEDS A&C 

L INTRODUCTION 

1. Description. These findings are made in support of the San Francisco Port Commission's 
approval of a new Hyde Street Fishing Harbor project, consisting of new facilities to 
accommodate a total of 60 boats and related harbor service facilities. These findings are made in 
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Cal. Pub. Res. Code 
Section 21000 et seq.), and Chapter 3 1 of the San Francisco Administrative Code. The project 
sponsor is the San Francisco Port Commission. 

The Port has proposed a project consisting of three components: (1) the Hyde Street Fishing 
Harbor; (2) related Harbor Service Facilities; and (3) New Uses in Sheds A and C located at Pier 
45. The only parts of the project being approved at the present time consist of the Hyde Street 
Fishing Harbor and the related Harbor Service Facilities. These findings relate only to those two 
parts of the project being approved at this time, which are referred to herein as the "proposed 
project." 

The Hyde Street Fishing Harbor component of the proposed project includes reconstruction of 
the east side of Hyde Street Pier and construction of a new Hyde Street Fishing Harbor with 
space for 60 boats, as shown on Figure 19- A, Comments and Responses (page C&R 27), 
identified therein as Alternative A-1. Reconstruction of the east side of Hyde Street Pier would 
include the removal and relocation of the existing rock fill and replacement of the existing timber 
pier structure with concrete piles. The new berthing system would consist of permanent floating 
berths with room for 60 vessels with separating floats supported by a concrete guide pile berthing 
system. A floating barrier to prevent debris from floating from the Harbor to Aquatic Park would 
be added between the Harbor and Hyde Street Pier, immediately east of the Eureka dolphin. 

The Harbor Service Facilities component of the proposed project includes a 200 square foot 
restroom, lighting and spill containment equipment for the existing fiael dock, a new/replacement 
fuel delivery pipeline including automatic shut off features, a leak detection system, remote 
operated shutoff switch and pressure sensitive valves, a single security gate at the end of the pier. 
a vessel sewage pump-out station, a 40 square foot oily waste disposal facility, a central 
depression in the dock area to direct storm water to an oil water separator prior to disposal to the 
Bay, parking for a total of 45 vehicles, and 3000 square feet of public access at the foot of the 
new pier. 

2. The Environmental Impact Report. The City and County of San Francisco, acting through 
the Department of City Planning (the "Department") published a Draft Environmental Impact 
Report ("DEIR") on April 25, 1996, and filed with the State Office of Planning & Research under 
State Clearinghouse No. 94073023. The Planning Commission held a duly advertised public 
hearing on the DEIR on June 6, 1996, at which public comment was received on the DEIR. The 
period for acceptance of written comments ended on June 10, 1996. 



The Department prepared responses to comments on environmental issues received at tiie 
public hearing and in writing during the 30-day public review period for the DEIR, prepared 
revisions to the text of the DEIR in response to comments received or based on additional 
information that became available during the public review period, and corrected errors in the 
DEER. This material was presented in a Draft Summary of Comments and Responses, published 
on November 26, 1996, was distributed to the Planning Commission and to all parties who 
commented on the DEIR, and was available to others upon request at Department offices. A 
Final EIR ("FEIR") for the Hyde Street Fishing Harbor/Pier 45 Sheds A and C, File No. 93.574E, 
was prepared by the Department, consisting of the DEIR, any consultations and comments 
received during the review process, any additional information that became available, and the 
Summary of Comments and Responses. The FEIR was certified as complete by the San Francisco 
Planning Commission on December 12, 1996. 

3. Evidentiary Basis for Findings. These Findings are based on substantial evidence contained 
in the record before this Commission which has been independently reviewed by this Commission. 
For ease and clarity of reading, specific citations to information in the record upon which each 
finding is based may have been omitted. In all instances, however, these Findings are based on the 
information contained in the FEIR, as supplemented with information provided by staff, 
consultants, and interested parties, and reasonable inferences drawn from such information. 

Project Environmental Impact Report files have been made available to the Port 
Commission and the public, and these files are part of the record before the Port Commission. 
This record is available for review at the Department of City Planning, Office of Environmental 
Review, at 1660 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94103. The record before the Port 
Commission includes, without limitation, the following: 

1. The Final Environmental Impact Report, consisting of the DEIR, comments 
received on the DEIR, Responses to Comments, errata and staff initiated text 
changes to the DEIR, and all appendices; 

2. All relevant staff, consultant and public reports and memoranda kept in the 
ordinary course of business providng substantial evidence to support the findings 
related to the proposed project, and the FEIR, including attachments, appendices 
and references kept in the ordinary course of business; 

3. All studies conducted for the proposed project and the FEIR contained or 
referenced in the staff reports and FEIR, including appendices; 

4. All documentary and oral evidence, including staff reports, received and 
reviewed at public hearings, workshops and other public meetings related to the 
FEIR and/or the proposed project held before the San Francisco Planning 
Commission and the Port Commission; 

5. All matters of common knowledge to this Commission; and 



6. All public notices, including but not limited to notices of preparation and 
completion issued for the proposed project, and notices of public meetings. 

11. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT 

A. Introduction. 

In addition to the proposed project, the Final EIR analyzed a No Project Alternative, and 
Alternative A, which was Hyde Street Fishing Harbor, Maximum Expansion, a more intensive 
harbor alternative. The FEIR does not analyze a project that is less intensive than the proposed 
project, and does not analyze a project in an alternative location. CEQA requires the EIR to 
describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project which 
would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially 
lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Because the EIR does not identify any 
significant impacts resulting from either the proposed project or the more intensive alternatives, 
an analysis of alternative sites or projects to the proposed project would not provide this 
Commission with meaningful information on environmentally superior options, but would merely 
offer an alternative that would not meet the project objectives. In addition, the Port is not 
considering Alternative A at this time because it is not environmentally superior to the proposed 
project and survey information referenced in the DEIR indicates that increased need for harbor 
expansion does not warrant a harbor of the magnitude described as Alternative A. 

B. No Project Alternative. 

The Port Commission rejects the No Project alternative as environmentally inferior to the 
proposed project, because, without the proposed project the following would occur: 

• Transient and oversized commercial fishing boats would continue to raft in 
the Harbor or side-tie to other boats, making supervision and access to the 
boats difficult for the Harbor Master; 

• Modern facilities for the commercial fishing industry such as floating 
docks, storage and gear boxes, parking for boat operators, security gates 
and night lighting in the berthing area would not be provided; 

• Flexible skirts surrounding boats in a berth would not be provided and 
floatable debris from boats and other surface water contaminants would not 
be contained in the Harbor for the Port's skimmer to collect; 

• The pump-out facility would not be provided, which would increase the 
potential for illegal disposal of human waste into the Bay; 

• The existing fueling facility would not be improved with a new fuel delivery 
pipeline to the fuel dock with automatic shut off and leak detection, and 
fuel would continue to be provided by the fuel truck parked on Hyde 
Street Pier, increasing the potential for oil spills in the Bay, 



• Stormwater and urban runoff from the Hyde Street Pier would continue to 

drain into the bay, compared with the proposed projects' oil-water 
separator proposed for the paved area of the Pier. 

m. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT 

The Port Commission has considered all of the information set forth in the record and finds that 
the proposed project will have no significant effects on the environment, and that it will improve 
the existing setting for the fishing industry by the provision of much-needed facilities and would 
improve existing water quality. 

IV. IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE INSIGNIFICANT 

The Port Commission finds that, based on the record before it, the following potential impacts 
identified in the FEIR would not have a significant effect on the environment: 

1. Land Use. Zoning, and Bay-Fill . The FEIR indicates that land uses within the project 
site, and fishing-related uses in particular, would not be substantially altered by the proposed 
project. The proposed project would allow more control of fishing vessels in the harbor. Truck- 
based fish-trading activity would not be expected to change due to the project. The proposed 
project would add additional Bay Fill, but would also result in significantly improved public access 
area, and would be subject to review by BCDC. Based on the EIR and the entire record before 
the Port Commission, the Commission finds that the proposed project impacts on land use, zoning 
and bay fill are less than significant. 

2. Water Quality . 

Statement of Facts 

a. Fish Processing. The FEIR indicates that the Port does not anticipate 
substantial increase in number of vessels using the harbor as a result of the proposed projeci, and 
shows that fish landings have decreased by almost 50% since 1988. In addition, the FEIR finds 
no direct relationship between fish processing activities and bacteriological water quality. 

b. Potential fijel/oil spills. The FEIR indicates that the proposed project would 
not result in any increased potential for fuel or oil spills from fishing vessels over that which 
currently exists because the FEIR indicates that the Port does not anticipate substantial increase in 
number of vessels using the harbor as a result of the proposed project, and the improvements 
included in the proposed project would reduce the potential for fijel spills in the Harbor associated 
with the fliel dock. 

c. Other Waste Discharges. The FEIR indicates that the Port does not anticipate a 
substantial increase in number of vessels using the harbor as a result of the proposed project and 
that, therefore no increase would occur in potential for waste discharge over current conditions. 



« 



i 



In addition, new restrooms and sewage handling facilities, including a waste pump-out, included 
in the project would reduce the likelihood of increased waste discharge. 

d. Litter/Trash. The FEIR indicates that the Port does not anticipate substantial 
increase in number of vessels using the harbor as a result of the proposed project, and that 
increased litter is not expected to occur. 

e. Construction Activities. Dredging/ placement of fill and rock materials, 
removal of existing piles and installation of concrete piles would result in short term effects on 
turbidity and suspended solids, and decreases in dissolve oxygen. However, the Port is subject to 
water quality regulations and permit requirements by the Army Corps of Engineers and BCDC 
and California Department of Fish and Game. Port would avoid conflicts with scheduled 
activities of swimming clubs using the area. 

Findings . Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Port Commission, the 
Commission finds that the proposed project impacts on water quality are less than significant. 

3. Marine Biology . Removal of some existing rock and timber would result in loss of 
habitat for some species, while placement of new rock and concrete fill would create potential 
habitat for other species, resulting in a net gain of new substrate. Losses of benthic habitat would 
be short-term. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Port Commission, the 
Commission finds that the proposed project impacts on marine biology are less than significant. 

4. Public Utilities . An estimate increase in impermeable surfaces associated with the 
floating berths and walkways would not affect the existing combined stormwater/sewer collection 
system. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Port Commission, the Commission 
finds that the proposed project impacts on public utilities are less than significant. 

5. Public Services . The existing levels of police and fire services would be expected to be 
adequate to accommodate any incremental increase in demands for their services. Based on the 
EIR and the entire record before the Pon Commission, the Commission finds that the proposed 
project impacts on public services are less than significant. 

6. Air Quality . The FEIR indicates that the Port does not anticipate substantial increase 
in number of vessels using the harbor as a result of the proposed project, and as a result, no 
increased odors associated with boating and vessel activity, such as diesel fijmes, would be 
expected. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Port Commission, the Commission 
finds that the proposed project impacts on public services are less than significant. 

7. Transportation . The additional 45 parking spaces are expected to serve existing harbor 
user and would not result in increased vehicle trips. Existing and fijture trips to the Harbor are 
already included as part of the existing traffic volumes in the area and do not indicate 
unacceptable levels of service. The additional berths are not expected to create additional parking 
or loading requirements because the additional berths are intended to accommodate existing 
numbers of vessels. Transit demand is anticipated to be minimal. Significant additional pedestrian 
trips are not expected to be generated by the proposed project. Based on the EIR and the entire 



record before the Port Commission, the Commission finds that the proposed project impacts on 
transportation are less than significant. 

8. Hazards . The fiaei dock will be fitted with improvements over the existing conditions, 
such as a pipe line with automatic shut off features, a leak detection system, remote operated shut 
off switch and pressure sensitive valves. It would also contain spill containment equipment. Any 
hazardous materials in excavated soil or dredged materials would be handled in accordance with 
regulatory testing and disposal requirements. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the 
Port Commission, the Commission finds that the proposed project impacts on hazards are less 
than significant. 

V. ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL 
PROTECTION MEASURES INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT 

The Port Commission finds that the following measures are not necessary to mitigate any 
adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project, but are nevertheless incorporated by the 
Port as part of the project, and will be monitored by the Port in accordance with the monitoring 
program attached hereto as Attachment 1 ; 

L The Port currently maintains and will continue to maintain a spill prevention and 
response plan that specifies procedures to follow in the event of a fuel spill. Emergency 
fuel clean-up equipment is maintained at the existing fuel dock and the Wharfingers office. 
The Port will continue to train personnel in the use of this equipment, and will continue to 
educate boat owners/operators/ about illegal discharges and spill in the Bay and in harbor 
waters. 

2. The Port will install facilities to minimize the potential for fijel leaks from the storage 
tanks to the fiael dock. These will include replacement of the fuel delivery pipeline from 
the seawall to the fuel dock that would include automatic shut-off features, a leak 
detection system, remote operated shutoff switch and pressure sensitive features. 

3. The Port will include an oil-water separator for the fuel dock area as part of the 
project. Impermeable surfaces will be designed to collect runoff in a depressed area 
directing stormwater to the combined sewer system. 

4. The Port will include as part of the project a pump-out station at the fuel dock for 
disposal of chemical toilet waste from boats using the harbor. 

5. The Port will coordinate with the San Francisco Fire Department to use a fireboats to 
periodically hose off the breakwater during outgoing tides so that debris and animal 
wastes are dispersed into the Bay and not into the Harbor. 

6. The Port will continue to use a work skiff one or two hours each day to clean up 
floating debris in the harbor. The Port will increase the frequency of the skiff operation on 
an as needed basis. 



I 



7. The Port will design the project so that boat berths will be enclosed on three sides. 
The Port will install a free-floating skirted debris barrier along the west boundary of the 
project directly adjacent to the San Francisco National Maritime Historic Park. (See 
Attachment I). 

8. The Port will coordinate with swimmers using Aquatic Park regarding scheduling of 
dredging activities to avoid conflict with scheduled activities. 

9. The Port's construction specifications will include use of debris barriers, or temporary 
wraps for piles removed, in the harbor to reduce the release of floating debris to the Bay. 

10. The Port will continue not to conduct dredging activities during herring season. 

11. The Port will continue to coordinate with restaurant owners and nearby commercial 
operators to improve housekeeping practices (such as improved grease disposal bins, 
dumpsters with side covers, increased cover garbage receptacles, sidewalk sweeping, etc.) 
to reduce litter and trash entering harbor waters. 

12. The Port will continue weekday supervision of the harbor and will add another 
wharfinger position to increase hours and days of supervision. 

13. The Port has established the Fishermans' Wharf Environmental Quality Advisory 
Committee to address water quality issues on a multi-jurisdictional level, and has 
committed to fijnd the Committee at least through June 30, 1998. 

14. The Port will revise its berthing agreements and regulations to include stricter 
controls on waste discharges, transient vessel berthing, and other harbor management 
issues. 

VI. NO NEW INFORMATION 

The Port Commission finds that no new information of substantial importance has become 
available, no modification to the project has occurred that would require important revisions to 
the FEIR, and no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under 
which the project is undertaken since the Planning Commission certified the FEIR and, therefore, 
there is no need to prepare an addendum or supplement to the FEIR or recirculate the FEIR 



G:\nhs\hydest.fgs 



1 



ATTACHMENT 1 
MONITORING PROGRAM 



MEASURE 



ACTION REQUIRED/ 
RESPONSIBLE PARTY 



SCHEDULE 



L The Port currently maintains and 
will continue to maintain a spill 
prevention and response plan that 
specifies procedures to follow in the 
event of a fuel spill. Emergency fijel 
clean-up equipment is maintained at 
the existing fuel dock and the 
Wharfingers office. The Port will 
continue to train personnel in the use 
of this equipment, and will continue 
to educate boat owners/operators/ 
about illegal discharges and spill in 
the Bay and in harbor waters. 



Spill prevention and 
response plan will be 
maintained and 
updated by Port's 
Environmental 
Section. Port 
Wharfinger will 
maintain fuel clean-up 
equipment on-site. 
Port's Health & 
Safety Manager will 
continue to train 
personnel and educate 
boat owners. 



Currently performed 



2. The fuel dock would include 
automatic shut-off features, a leak 
detection system, remote operated 
shutofif switch and pressure sensitive 
features. 



These features will be 
incorporated by the 
Port's engineering 
department into the 
design specifications 
for project 
construction. 



During design and 
construction phase of 
project, or as included 
in a separate project. 



3. The Port will include an oil-water 
separator for the pier area as pan of 
the project. Impermeable surfaces 
will be designed to collect runoff in a 
depressed area directing stormwater 
to the combined sewer system. 



These features will be 
incorporated by the 
Port's engineering 
department into the 
design specifications 
for project 
construction. 



During design and 
construction phase of 
project. 



4. The Port will include as part of the 
project a pump-out station at the fijel 
dock for disposal of chemical toilet 
waste from boats using the harbor. 



These features will be 
incorporated by the 
Port's engineering 
department into the 
design specifications 
for project 
construction. 



During design and 
construction phase of 
project. 



5. The Port will coordinate with the 
San Francisco Fire Department to use 
a fireboat to periodically hose off the 
breakwater during outgoing tides so 
that debris and animal wastes are 
dispersed into the Bay and not into 
the Harbor. 



Port's Maintenance 
Department will 
coordinate with Fire 
Department to 
accomplish this 
measure on a regular 
basis. 



Currently performed 
and to continue on an 
ongoing basis. 



6. The Port will continue to use a 
work skiff one or two hours each day 
to clean up floating debris in the 
harbor. The Port will increase the 
frequency of the skiff operation on an 
as needed basis. 



Port Wharfinger will 
make visual 
inspection on a daily 
basis to determine 
when the skiff 
operation frequency 
will be increased. 



Currently performed 
and to continue on 
ongoing basis. 



7. Install a free-floating, skirted 
debris barrier on the west boundary of 
the project directly adjacent to the 
San Francisco National Maritime 
Historic Park. 



These features will be 
incorporated by the 
Port's engineering 
department into the 
design specifications 
for project 
construction. 



During design and 
construction phase of 
project. 



8. The Port will coordinate with 
swimmers using Aquatic Park 
regarding scheduling of dredging 
activities to avoid conflict with 
scheduled activities. 



Port's Environmental 
Health & Safety 
Manager will 
coordinate with 
swimmers regarding 
Port's dredging 
schedule. 



Currently performed 
and to continue in 
advance of any Port 
dredging. 



9. The Port's construction 
specifications will include use of 
debris barriers or the harbor to reduce 
the release of floating debris to the 
Bay. 



10. The Port will continue not to 
conduct dredging activities during 
herring season. 



These features will be 
incorporated by the 
Port's engineering 
department into the 
construction 
specifications for the 
project. 

Port's Health & 
Safety Manager will 
coordinate with 
fishing community to 
insure that no 



During design and 
construction phase of 
project. 



Current policy of 
Port, to continue in 
future 



i 



i 



• 



11. The Port will continue to 
coordinate with restaurant owners 
and nearby commercial operators to 
improve housekeeping practices (such 
as improved grease disposal bins, 
dumpsters with side covers, increased 
cover garbage receptacles, sidewalk 
sweeping, etc.) to reduce litter and 
trash entering harbor waters. 

12. The Port will continue weekday 
supervision of the harbor and will add 
another position to increase hours and 
days of supervision. 

13. The Port has established the 
Fishermans' Wharf Environmental 
Quality Advisory Committee to 
address water quality issues on a 
multi-jurisdictional level. 



14. Port will revise its berthing 
agreements and regulations to include 
stricter controls on waste discharges, 
transient vessel berthing, and other 
harbor management issues. 



dredging occurs 
during herring season 

Port's Wharfinger and 
Manager of 
Fisherman's Wharf 
will coordinate with 
Port restaurant and 
commercial tenants in 
the project area. 



Port will hire a second 
wharfinger position 
for the project area. 



Port's Health & 
Safety Manager will 
staff the committee, 
and evaluate the 
committee's fijture 
role. Funding for 
Committee proposed 
in Port budget for 
fiscal year 1997-1998 

Port's Assistant 
General Counsel will 
coordinate with 
Wharfinger and 
Tenant Services to 
revise regulations. 



Currently performed, 
and to continue in 
fijture. 



Second wharfinger 
has been budgeted, 
and is anticipated to 
start in early 1997. 

Current Advisory 
Committee meeting 
regularly; anticipated 
to continue as long as 
needed. 



Currently in process; 
anticipate adoption of 
new agreement and 
policies in early 1997 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 




Ferry Building 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone 415 274 0400 

Telex 275940 PSFUR 

Fax 415 274 0528 

Cable SFPORTCOMM 

Writer 



MEMORANDUM 

December 13, 1996 



TO: MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 

Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. James Herman 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 

FROM: Dennis P. Bouey(^^ t^ D ? P 

Executive Director^ 1/ 

SUBJECT: Guidelines for Review and Approval of Signs and Murals on Port 
Property 

DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: Approve Guidelines for Review and Approval 
of Signs and Murals on Port property. 

The Port receives an increasing number of permit applications for signs on Port property, 
as the landscape and roadway improvements along the Embarcadero near completion. 
Recognizing that one of the principal goals of the Port's Waterfront Land Use Plan is to 
ensure an exemplary level of urban design that is worthy of the waterfront setting, the 
Commission has approved the preparation of an Urban Design/ Public Access Plan that 
will be incorporated in the Waterfront Plan. This work is now underway with the 
involvement of a Technical Advisory Committee, with representatives from civic, 
environmental, and professional design groups and regulatory agencies. 

The Urban Design/Public Access Plan lays out concepts and principles that address the 
urban design, public access and historic resources throughout Port property. The Design 
Plan is the implementing tool to express design goals and define specific characteristics or 
parameters for structures and public improvements as the Waterfront Plan is implemented. 



THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM 7B 



< 



PORT COMMISSION 
Page 2 



Signs and murals are prominent visual features in the waterfront environment. 
Accordingly, staff has prepared the attached Guidelines specifically to address the 
evaluation of the design of signs and murals on Port property. These Guidelines will 
assist the Port staff in evaluating applications for sign permits. Staff may recommend 
further design review by outside design advisors if the proposed sign has significant 
implications for the urban design of the waterfi"ont. 



Prepared by Sharon Lee PoUedri 
Director, Planning and Development 



PORT COMMISSION 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

RESOLUTION NO. 96J27 



WHEREAS, the Draft Waterfront Land Use Plan was endorsed by the Port Commission 
in January, 1 995 and calls for preparing urban design guidelines for Port 
property that ftirther define the character of development on the waterfi-ont; 

WHEREAS, the Port is preparing an urban design and public access plan that will 

address design, public access and historic resource issues throughout Port 
property; 

WHEREAS, the urban design/ public access plan will be the implementing tool to 

express design goals and define specific characteristics or parameters for 
structures and public improvements as the Waterfront Plan is implemented; 



WHEREAS, the Port Commission has reviewed the progress of the urban design/public 
access plan at its meetings on March 26, 1996 and June 13, 1996; and 

WHEREAS, signs and murals on Port property have a high visual impact on overall 
quality of the urban design of the waterfront. 

RESOLVED, the Port Commission hereby adopts the Guidelines for Signs and Murals 
on Port property as set forth in the Attachment I hereto; and be it further 

RESOLVED, that the Port Commission hereby authorizes the Executive Director or his 
designee to approve signs and murals located on Port property on behalf of 
the Port, subject to conformance with the Guidelines for Signs and Murals. 



/ hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Port Commission at its 
meeting of December 20, 1996. 



Secretary 



< 



Attachment I 

PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 

GUIDELINES FOR REVIEW 

AND APPROVAL OF SIGNS & MURALS 



I. Application of Guid elines and F.yemptions 

A. Port Desig n Committee R eview and Ap proval No person shall place or 
erect any sign or mural that is subject to these Guidelines on projects within 
Port jurisdiction without first obtaining review and approval by the Port 
Sign Committee in accordance with these Guidelines. 

B. Application . Except as specifically exempted in Section I.C. hereof, these 
Guidelines shall apply to all permanent and temporary signs installed on 
property within Port jurisdiction which are visible from public streets, 
sidewalks or waterways, including interior signs designed or arranged to be 
primarily visible from the outside of any building or structures. 

C. Exemptions. These Guidelines shall not apply to the following: 

1. Public Service signs displayed on the inside of windows or glass 
doors for a limited time which are no more than 6 square feet in 
area. A public service sign shall be defined as a non-commercial 
sign devoted to a religious, charitable, cultural, governmental or 
educational purpose. 

2. Political Signs limited to 6 square feet in area and removed within 
10 days after the election. 

3. Legally required posters, notices or signs. 

4. International, national, state, city, county (or other political 
subdivision), or maritime house flags. 

5. Port or City signs, or State-installed traffic or direcfional signs. 
II. Permit Snhmittal apd Review Proce.ss. 

A. The following procedures shall be applicable for the review of all proposed 
signs that are subject to these Guidelines: 



-1- 



i 



i 



1 . Applications for Port Sign Committee review shall be submitted on 
Port Building Permit Application Forms and shall include detailed 
specifications and drawings as follows: 

a. Building Site Plan, drawn to scale, and showing: 

(1) Locationof proposed sign. 

(2) Locationof existing landscaping. 

(3) Locationof existing adjacent signs and other signs in 
the vicinity of the premises that are to remain in 
place. 

b. Exterior elevation drawings, drawn to scale, of the building, 
structure, or principal open space features, showing location 
of existing adjacent signs to remain and the proposed sign. 

c. Details of sign, drawn to scale, which include: 

(1) Sign dimensions. 

(2) Plan view. 

(3) Elevation view. 

(4) Colors. A sample of each proposed color to be used 
must be submitted for review and approval. 

(5) Materials. Material samples may be required. 

(6) Letter size and type style. 

(7) Lighting or illumination. 

(8) Name, address and telephone number of 
manufacturer as well as manufacturer's 
specifications. 

(9) All structural details, which shall comply with the 
San Francisco Building Code. 

( 1 0) All electrical details, which shall comply with the 
San Francisco Electrical Code. Provide UL Labels 
where applicable. 

d. Photograph of the building, structure or open space features, 
marked to show proposed sign location. 

e. The application fees required shall be as listed in the San 
Francisco Building Code. 

After'receipt of a completed application, together with all supporting 
documentation, the Port Sign Committee shall review the application in 
accordance with the Port's urban design guidelines and public access plan 

-2- 



i 



which are currently being developed (and available in draft form), and also 
in accordance with the following considerations: 

a. The design of a sign shall be integrated with the architecniral 
design of the building or site. 

b. Adjoining and surrounding improvements shall be equally 
considered, taking into consideration the architectural 
character of any adjoining improvements and existing \ie\vs 
or view corridors. 

c. Signs shall be consistent with the character of the Pon 
waterfront setting or neighborhood location. 

3. The Port Sign Committee, upon review of an application, may 
approve, conditionally approve, or deny such application. 

a. In those instances where the Port Sign Committee has denied 
an Application, the Committee shall inform the applicanL in 
writing, why the application has been denied. 

b. The applicant may resubmit a revised application addre^ing 
the deficiencies which led to the denial of the application or 

. may appeal the Port Sign Committee's decision to the Port 
Executive Director or his/her Designee. The appeal must be 

■ in writing and must state the reasons why the application 
should be approved. The determination of the Director cr 
his/her Designee shall be final. 

4. The Port Sign Committee may recommend review by the Pon"s 
Design Review Committee, if it determines that the sign may hz.ve 
significant implications for the urban design of the waterfront 
setting. The review is coordinated by the Port's Planning and 
Development Division. 

III. Temporary Signs and Banners. In addition to any permanent signage permitted 
herein, tenants or licensees may be permitted up to two temporary signs as 
described below. Except as provided in sections C and D below, temporary* signs 
will be permitted for a two-week period, with additional two-week extensions 
possible to a maximum of 8 weeks. Each extension will require additional 
approval by the Port Sign Committee. 



I 



i 



A. Sign?^ Noticing Public Events which are removed immediately after the 
event has taken place. 

B. Signs in Anti cipation o f PermanentL^igns for businesses which are open to 
the public prior to delivery of a permanent sign. 

C. Real Fstate Signs no larger than 16 square feet in area that are displayed for 
a limited period of time. The duration of display must be specified in the 
permit but will be individually determined in accordance with the project's 
needs. 

D. Constmctinn Sig ns. Construction signs for construction projects stating the 
names and addresses of those individuals or firms directly coimected with 
the design or construction project and/or the name of the owner, the leasing 
agent and/or ultimate user. Construction signs are limited to 32 square feet 
in area and one sign per street frontage. 

IV. Murals. Murals or extensive paint treatments applied or affixed to the exterior of a 
building or lease premise shall require a Port permit. 

. The Port Sign Committee may recommend that the design is reviewed by the Port's 
Design Advisors (See Section II. 5.) 

V. Prohibited Signs. The following signs are prohibited on Port property: 

A. Portable sig ns, such as sandwich boards, except signs for intermittent 
parking uses, (e.g. valet parking signs). 

B. Wind signs, revolving signs, reflecting sig ns, blinking signs, balloon signs 
and other tethered signs. 

C. General Advertising Signs. General Advertising shall not be permitted on 
Port property, unless authorized by the Port Executive Director. 

VI. Signage 
A. 

1. Except as provided otherwise herein, the total area of signs shall be 

limited to one square foot for each linear foot of street frontage for 
each street frontage. 



-4- 



f 



J 



B. 



1 . Signs affiyeH to buildings. The maximum height of a sign affixed to 
a building shall be the eaveline of the building to which it is affixed. 
In a multiple-use building (such as a building with ground level 
retail and office uses above) the signage shall not extend above or 
below the level of the signed use. 

2. Free-standing signs. Free-standing signs shall be limited in height 
to ten feet above the grade, measured at the horizontal center line of 
the sign. 

C. Sign Projection from the fa ce of the buildin g. 

1 . Signs attached to buildings or structures shall project out from the 

face of the building no more than two inches when the low^est part of 
the sign is seven feet or less above the grade directly below the sign 
and no more than six inches when the lowest part of the sign is more 
than seven feet above the grade directly below the sign. 

D. Total Num ber of Signs. 

1. No more than two signs per single-tenant building will be 

permitted. No more than one sign per tenant in a multiple-use 
building will be permitted. If a single-tenant building has a 
frontage on more than one street, an additional sign to the two 
allowed on the main frontage may be permitted on each additional 
street frontage. In a multi-tenant building, the Port Sign Committee 
may recommend guidelines for the design and placement of a 
building directory. 

E. SigrLLacation. 

1. Except as provided in V.E.4. below, all tenant signs shall be placed 
within the boundaries of the leased or licensed space. 

2. When feasible, tenant signs should be affixed to buildings or 
structures. 

3. Signs will not be permitted on or over public sidewalks or nny other 
public passage areas, unless the owner has received a sidewalk 
encroachment permit or similar agreement from the Port, and such 



i 



I 



signs are characteristic of the neighborhood or area, as determined 
by the Sign Committee. 

4. Off-site signage may be permitted only in the case of a business that 
has no street frontage. 

F. Tlhimination. 

1 . Use of high-intensity, unshielded or undiffused lights shall not be 
permitted. Lights shall be shielded or diffused so as to eliminate 
glare and annoyance. 

2. No electrical or illuminated sign shall blink or be intermittently 
lighted. 

VII. Maintenance; Remov al of Si gns. 

A. The owner of any sign shall maintain the sign in a sound and safe condition 
and so that the sign does not become unsightly. The Port Sign Committee, 
upon notice, may revoke the permit for any sign which is not so maintained. 

B. A sign which no longer serves the purpose or the establishment for which 
the sign was originally permitted must be removed by the sign owner and 
the removal area restored to the original condition prior to the installation of 
the sign. This must be done within 1 days after the discontinuance or 
abandonment of the use or premises. 

VIII. Abatement of Nnn-Cnn formin g Signs. 

A. Any sign in Port jurisdiction which does not conform to these Guidelines or 
which is erected without Port Sign Committee review and a Port Building 
Permit or is hereafter erected or constructed in violation of the requirements 
of these Guidelines shall be considered a non-conforming sign. 

B. The Port may declare any non-conforming sign to be a public nuisance and 
may require the sign owner to remove the sign. If not removed as 
requested, the Port may remove the non-conforming sign at the sign- 
owner's expense. 



4 



VIII. YariancLe 



A. Applications for variances from these Guidelines shall be made in writing to 
the Port Sign Committee. The Applicant shall submit a detailed explanation 
why the specific guideline challenged should not apply. 

B. To grant a variance, the Port Sign Committee must make all of the 
following findings: 

1 . The proposed sign will be in harmony with the general purpose and 
intent of these Guidelines; 

2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying 
to the sign application involved that do not apply generally to other 
similar uses or property; and 

3. That owing to exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, the literal 
enforcement of specific provisions of these Guidelines would result 
in practical difficulty or imnecessary hardship not created by or 

attributable to the applicant. 

C. In those instances where the Port Sign Committee has denied a variance 
application, the Committee shall inform the applicant, in writing, why the 
application has been denied. 

D. The applicant may resubmit a revised application addressing deficiencies 
which lead to the denial of the variance, or may appeal the Port Sign 
Committee's decision to the Port Executive Director or his/her designee. 
The appeal must be in writing and must state the reasons why the variance 
should be approved. The determination of the Director or his/her designee 
shall be final. 



IX. Penalties. 



No sign shall be placed, erected or constructed without first obtaining a Port 
Sign Comminee approval and a building permit from the Port. Any sign 
installed at a site or building within Port jurisdiction for which approval and 
a Permit have not first been obtained shall constitute a violation of the San 
Francisco Building Code as described in Section 205 therein. Penalties for 
any such \iolation shall be as provided in Section 205. 



H:\sig&mura.wpd 



-7- 



\ 



« 



I 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 




MEMORANDUM 



Ferry Building 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone 415 274 0400 

Telex 275940 PSF UR 

Fax 415 274 0528 

Cable SFPORTCOMM 

Writer 



December 20, 1996 



TO: 



MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 
Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Fiankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. James Herman 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 



FROM: Dennis P. Bouey ^W^f ^ 



Executive Director M 



SUBJECT: Presentation of FY 1997/98 Operating Budget 



The proposed FY 1997/98 Operating Budget is presented today for your review and 
comment. This item will be brought back to the Commission for approval at its second 
meeting in January, to be held on January 28, 1997. The proposed FY 1997/98 Operating 
Budget is summarized as follows: 









Increase/ 






1996/97 


1997/98 


Dscieass 


E££££nt 


Revenue 


$33,944,921 


$35,100,712 


$1,155,791 


3.4% 


Expense 


33,271,177 


34.586.130 


1.314.953 


4.0% 


Suiplus 


$ 673,744 


$ 514,582 


$(159,162) 


(23.6%) 



THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. M 



Car go Division 

A new Cargo Division is included in the FY 97/98 budget. This Division will be 
responsible for promoting Port cargo facilities and for managing cargo terminal operations 
and other harbor services. A Maritime Manager will be responsible for this Division. 
The Maritime Manager position may be reclassified as a Division Director. If this 
reclassification occurs during the budget process, the final Port budget will be amended to 
reflect this change. 

Revenue 

The proposed revenue budget of $35. 1 million for FY 97/98 is a $1.2 million increase 

(3.4%) over the prior fiscal year. Revenues for FY 97/98 are as follows: 









Increase/ 






1996/97 


1997/98 


Decrease 


Percent 


Cargo 


$1,221,500 


$1,779,000 


$557,500 


46% 


Harbor Services 


630,700 


700,000 


69,300 


11% 


Ship Repair 


1,540,000 


987,000 


(553,000) 


(36%) 


Commercial/Industrial 


22,122,000 


22,577,000 


455,000 


2% 


Parking 


3,555,300 


3,424,000 


(131,300) 


(4%) 


Cruise 


509,200 


725,700 


216,500 


43% 


Fishing 


1,211,700 


1,251,600 


39,900 


3% 


Other Marine 


448,400 


549,000 


100,600 


22% 


Power 


723,300 


719,000 


(4,300) 


(1%) 


Miscellaneous 


95,000 


50,000 


(45,000) 


(47%) 


Marketing 


200,000 


625,000 


425,000 


213% 


Facilities & Operations 


170,000 


170,000 





0% 


Administration 


1.517.821 


1.543.412 


25.,591 


2% 


Total 


$33,944,921 


$35,100,712 


$1,155,791. 


3% 



The major changes in the FY 97/98 revenue budget over the prior fiscal year are in cargo, 
ship repair, commercial and industrial rent, cruise and marketing revenue as follows: 

• cargo revenue is projected to increase $557,500 (46%) due to the recently signed 
agreements with Serpac and Madrigal Wan Hai; 

• ship repair revenue is projected to fall $553,000 (-36%) primarily due to the closure 
of the Service Engineering Company shipyard at Pier 50; 

• commercial and industrial rent is projected to increase $455,000 (2%) primarily due to 
rent from percentage leases that are projected to grow from increased tenant sales; 

• cruise revenue is projected to increase 216,500 (43%) primarily due to increased 
passenger volume associated with larger vessel capacity; and 



• marketing revenue is projected to increase $425,000 (213%) due to increased filming 
and special event revenue. 

Revenue for a three year period is as follows: 



Revenue 
FY 95/96-FY 97/98 

(In Millions) 




95/96 



96/97* 



97/98^ 



H Commercial D All Others HI Parking H Cargo D Fishing; 
Budget 



I 

i 



Expense 

The proposed expense budget of $34.6 million for FY 97/98 is a $1.3 million increase 

(4.0%) over the prior fiscal year. Expense for FY 97/98 is as follows: 



i 



I 









Increase/ 






1996/97 


1997/98 


Decrease 


2£l£Snl 


Salaries & Fringe 


$14,558,940 


$15,481,475 


$922,535 


6% 


City Wide Overhead 


319,164 


500,000 


180,836 


57% 


Other Current Expenses 


3,467,791 


4,010,767 


542,976 


16% 


Materials «& Supplies 


1,073,554 


1,153,517 


79,963 


7% 


Fixed Charges 


258,700 


290,115 


31,415 


12% 


Capital Outlay 


274,103 


205,752 


(68,351) 


(25%) 


Facilities Maintenance 


290,700 


357,000 


66,300 


23% 


Debt Service 


7,873,541 


7,411,841 


(461,700) 


(6%) 


Insurance 


800,000 


600,000 


(200,000) 


(25%) 


City Attorney 


923,100 


1,026,800 


103,700 


11% 


Fire Protection 


1,165,015 


1,195,300 


30,285 


3% 


Workers Comp 


375,000 


325,000 


(50,000) 


(13%) 


Light, Heat & Power 


520,000 


470,000 


(50,000) 


(10%) 


City Planning 


168,400 


283,400 


115,000 


68% 


All Other Depts 


957,169 


1,025,163 


67,994 


7% 


Revenue Transfer - DPT 


246,000 


250,000 


4,000 


2% 


Total 


$33,271,177 


$34,586,130 


$1,314,953 


4% 



The accompanying budget summary and detailed budget books do not reflect a recent 
addition. The Facilities Maintenance budget has been amended to add $50,000 for the 
Fisherman's Wharf Environmental Quality Advisory Committee presented at the last 
Commission meeting. These funds will be used in the development of an environmental 
quality plan or set of recommendations. 

The major changes in the FY 97/98 expense budget over the prior fiscal year are in 
personnel, other current expenses, debt service and services of other departments 
(insurance. City Attorney, and City Planning) as follows: 

• personnel costs are projected to increase $922,535 (6%) as a result of: 

scheduled salary and step increases ($218,132); 

anticipated wage increases not yet negotiated, a 2% increase ($230,600); 

6 new positions ($299,300); 

7 reclassified positions ($39,600); 

2 funded positions that were previously unfunded ($110,300); and 
fringe benefits ($24,603); 

other current expenses are projected to increase $542,976 (16%) primarily due to 
increased professional services expense expected from a new janitorial contract and the 
transfer of expense for professional auditors that was previously budgeted in Services 
of Other Departments; 



I 



f 



• debt service expense is projected to fall $461,700 (-6%) based on the current debt 
repayment schedule; 

• services of other departments are projected to change significantly from the previous 
fiscal year in the following areas: 

• insurance expense is projected to fall $200,000 (-25 %) due to the renewal of 
insurance premiums at lower cost; 

• City Attorney expense is projected to increase $103,700 (11 %) due to the 
assignment of one additional attorney to the Port; and 

• City Planning expense is projected to increase $115,000 (68%) due to additional 
persormel assigned to the Port for land use and development services. 



Expense for a three year period is as follows: 



Expense 
FY 95/96 - FY 97/98 

(In Millions) 



$20 r 




95/96 



96/97* 



97/98* 



^1 Personnel Q Debt Q Other Depts B Current Exp H All Others 
* Budget 



\ 



Staff requests the Commission to authorize the Executive Director to make non-material 
changes to the annual operating budget as may be necessary. For example, the proposed 
budget contains anticipated salary increases not yet determined. As labor agreements are 
negotiated, budgeted salary and fringe benefits estimates will be updated. Similarly, 
anticipated expenses for Services of Other Departments contained in the budget are 
preliminary estimates. These estimates may be revised as information is received from the 
Departments delivering the requested services. 



Prepared by: Ben Kutnick 



I 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 




MEMORANDUM 



December 13, 1996 



Ferry Building 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone 415 274 0400 

Telex 275940 PSF UR 

Fax 415 274 0528 

Cable SFPORTCOMM 

Writer 



TO: 



MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 

Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. James Herman 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 



FROM: 



Dennis P. Bouey 1[^(^J^V>\^ 
Executive Director 



SUBJECT: Pier 48 Sheds A and B, approving a Declaration of Emergency for contracted 
assistance to demolish the fire damaged portions of the sheds, to assess the 
damage to the strucmre, to develop the building shell repair design, and to 
perform the subsequent construction 

DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE THE DECLARATION OF AN 
EMERGENCY TO ALLOW CONTRACTORS TO ASSIST PORT STAFF WITH THE 
DEMOLITION AND REPAIR OF THE FIRE DAMAGED PIER 48 SHEDS AND 
RELATED COMPONENTS 

On November 26, 1996, a fire at the east end of Pier 48 destroyed the interconnecting wood 
frame structure and caused substantial structural damage to the steel frames, walls and roof 
at the easterly end of Sheds A and B on the pier. The fire caused significant deformation of 
steel trusses and caused pre-cast concrete wall panels that make up the exterior walls of the 
sheds to move from their original position. Port maintenance staff cordoned-off the severely 
damaged area of the sheds to prevent access by the public. The damaged portion of the sheds 
are in eminent danger of collapse and should be demolished immediately. 

The nature of the demolition requires the expertise of a demolition contractor who is 
experienced in the demolition of steel frame structures with pre-cast concrete panels. Port 
maintenance staff is not experienced in performing this type of demolition work. Concurrent 

THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. lOA 



I:\wp5 l\agd-emer.f)48 



i 



^ 



PORT COMMISSION 

Page 2 



with the demolition work, engineering services are required to assess the damage to the 
structure to identify the scope of any additional demolition and to develop a repair design for 
the building shell. Existing Port engineering resources are not currently available to perform 
structural damage assessment and repair design. The building damage assessment, repair 
design and subsequent construction will be competitively procured from outside contractors. 
These measures will be taken under this emergency declaration to protect the life and safety 
of Port tenants, the general public and Port employees. 

Funds for these emergency contracts will be from insurance proceeds and the insurance 
company has indicated it will advanced the Port $750,000. The estimated cost of demolition 
is between $250,000 to $350,000. The estimated cost for the engineering services is 
$200,000. 

Until the engineering consultant has performed its work, the estimated cost of reconstruction 
costs will not be known. 

It is requested that an additional 10% in contingencies must be available for all contracts for 
possible Type 1 contract modifications. 



Prepared by: Cliff Jarrard 

Chief Harbor Engineer 



I:\\vp51\agd-emer.p48 



PORT COMMISSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

RESOLUTION NO. 96- 130 

WHEREAS, on November 26, 1996, a fire at the east end of Pier 48 destroyed the interconnecting 
wood frame structure and caused substantial structural damage to the steel frames, 
walls and roof at the easterly end of Sheds A and B on the pier; and 

WHEREAS, the damaged portion of the sheds are in eminent danger of collapse, should be 
demolished immediately and the nature of the demolition requires the expertise of a 
demolition contractor who is experienced in the demolition of steel frame structures 
with pre-cast concrete panels. Port maintenance staff is not experienced in performing 
this type of demolition work; and 

WHEREAS, concurrent with the demolition work, engineering services are required to assess the 
damage to the structure to identify the scope of any additional demolition and to 
develop a repair design for the building shell; and 

WHEREAS, existing Port engineering resources are not currently available to perform the 
structural damage assessment and repair design therefore the building damage 
assessment, repair design and subsequent construction will be competitively procured 
from outside contractors; and 

WHEREAS, these measures must be taken under this emergency declaration to protect the life and 
safety of Port tenants, the general public and Port employees; and 

WHEREAS, funds for these emergency contracts will be from insurance proceeds and the 
insurance company has indicated it will advance the Port $750,000; and 

WHEREAS, the extent of damage will not be completely known until demolition and subsequent 
construction is underway; now therefore be it 

RESOLVED, that the San Francisco Port Commission hereby ratifies the action of the President of 
the Commission contained in the letter to the Controller dated December 4, 1996; 
and be it further 

RESOLVED, that the San Francisco Port Commission hereby authorizes staff to issue an emergency 
demolition contract; authorizes staff to issue an emergency professional services 
contract to assess the damage to the structure and to develop a repair contract 
documents for the buildings shells; authorizes staff to issue a construction contract for 
repair of the shells; authorizes 10% in contingency funds for all these contracts for 
possible Type 1 contract modifications; and authorizes the Executive Director to 
accept the work upon final completion of the construction contract. 



i 



/ hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Port Commission at its meeting of 
December 20, 1996. 



Secretary 



\wp51\agd-emer.p48 



c 



«* 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 



MEMORANDUM 



December 10, 1996 




Ferry Building 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone 415 274 0400 

Telex 275940 PSF UR 

Fax 415 274 0528 

Cable SFPORTCOMM 

Writer 



TO: 



3 



MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 
Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. James R. Herman 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 




FROM: Dennis P. Bouey 
Executive Director 



SUBJECT: Approval of Travel Authorization for One Port Representative to 
Travel to Washington, D.C. to Meet with Congressional and 
Administration Officials on Legislative Proposals Regarding the 
Cruise Industry and other Port projects (January 20-23, 1997), in 
accordance with the Port's Fiscal Year 1996-1997 Budget. 



DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: 



APPROVE ATTACHED 
RESOLUTION 



With the leadership of the Cruising America Coalition, an organization of major 
cruise ports and tourism organizations, the Port of San Francisco plans to 
introduce legislation for next year's Congressional session to open up the 
domestic cruise market to foreign flag carriers. This legislative initiative is part of 
the Port's long term marketing plan to develop new cruise business. To discuss 
the viability of legislative proposals and develop the strategy for the Cruising 
America Coalition, the Port's Governmental Affairs representatives needs to meet 
with Congressional and Administration offices in Washington, D.C. The 
legislative representatives of other ports and tourism groups will also attend these 



THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. lOB 



c 



I 



Port Commission 
Page 2 

meetings. The trip will also provide an opportunity to update our Congressional 
delegation on the Port's projects, particularly the restoration of the Ferry Building, 
at a time when Congress is ready to reauthorize the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act, the law that will set transportation funding policies 
for the next three years. 

The estimated cost for the trip is as follows: 

Airfare $824.00 

Hotel (3 nights) $555.00 

Transportation (airport transfers and, cabs $200.00 

Meals ($40/day x 4 days) $160.00 

Telephone Calls 60.00 

Total $1799.00 

These funds are available for expenditure in the Port's FY 96-97 budget. 

Prepared by: Veronica Sanchez, Manager, Governmental Affairs 



J 



PORT COMMISSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



RESOLUTION NO. 96-133 



WHEREAS, 



WHEREAS, 
RESOLVED, 



the Executive Director is requesting travel authorization for one 
Port representative to attend meetings in Washington, D.C. 
(January 20-23, 1997) with Congressional and Administration 
representatives regarding legislative proposals to open up the 
domestic cruise market and transportation issues; and, 

the costs of this trip has been included in the Port Commission's 
Fiscal Year 1996-1997 budget, now therefore, be it 

that the Port Commission hereby approves this travel request. 



/ hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the San Francisco Port 
Commission at its meeting of December 20, 1996. 



I 



Secretary 



i 



^ 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 



MEMORANDUM 



December 10, 1996 




TO: 



FROM; 



SUBJECT: 



MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 
Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. James R. Herman 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 



Dennis P. Bouey 
Executive Director 



Ferry Building 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone 415 274 0400 

Telex 275940 PSF UR 

Fax 415 274 0528 

Cable SFPORTCOMM 

Writer 




Approval of Travel Authorization for a Port representative to Attend the Special 
Seminar for Members of Port Authority Governing Boards and Commissions 
sponsored by the American Association of Port Authorities in Palm Beach, 
Florida (January 29-31, 1997), in accordance with the Port's Fiscal Year 1996- 
1997 Budget. 



DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE ATTACHED RESOLUTION 

The American Association of Port Authorities is sponsoring a special seminar for commissioners 
of governing boards of Ports to provide briefings on port industry trends, new revenue 
opportunities for ports; principles and practices in Board/Management relations and legal 
liability of Commissioners and Port managers. This seminar is specifically aimed at giving new 
Commissioners an overview of the Port industry and in introduction to the issues facing ports 
throughout the nation. With the concurrence of the President of the Commission, a 
representative will attend this seminar to represent the Port of San Francisco. 



The costs of the trip are as follows: 

Airfare 

Hotel ($125/day x 4 nights) 

Conference Registration 

Transportation 

Meals ($40/day x 4 days) 

Telephone Calls 

Total 



$317.82 
$500.00 
$395.00 
$100.00 
$160.00 
35.00 
$1,507.82 



These funds are available for expenditure in the Port's FY 96-97 budget. 

Prepared by: Veronica Sanchez, Manager, Governmental Affairs 



THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. IOC 



c 



I 



PORT COMMISSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



RESOLUTION NO. 96-134 



WHEREAS, 



With the concurrence of the President of the Port Commission, the 
Executive Director is requesting travel authorization for a Port 
representative to attend the Special Seminar for Members of Port 
Authority Governing Boards and Commissions sponsored by the 
American Association of Port Authorities in Palm Beach, Florida 
(January 29-31, 1997); and, 



WHEREAS, 



the costs of this trip has been included in the Port Commission's 
Fiscal Year 1996-1997 budget, now therefore, be it 



RESOLVED, 



that the Port Commission hereby approves this travel request. 



/ hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the San Francisco Port 
Commission at its meeting of December 20, 1996. 



Secretary 



€ 



c 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 




MEMORANDUM 



Ferry Building 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone 415 274 0400 

Telex 275940 PSF UR 

Fax 415 274 0528 

Cable SFPORTCOMM 

Writer 



December 13, 1996 



^ 



TO: 



FROM: 



MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 
Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie G. Lee, Vice President 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. James Herman 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 

Dennis P. Bouey "^^^^^ 
Executive Director ^ 



SUBJECT: Approval of travel for two Port representatives to the national Passenger 
Cruise Convention at Miami, Florida, in accordance with the Port's Fiscal 
Year 1996-97 budget. 



DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE THE TRAVEL AS BUDGETED. 

An area of growth opportunity for the Port of San Francisco lies in the marketing of its 
cruise facilities. Currently, spin-off revenues from cruise activity, at an average 50 calls 
per year, contribute in excess of $14 million to local labor, tourism, and support 
businesses throughout the City. Since 1994, the Port has dramatically increased the 
annual number of passenger vessels and passengers. We need to continue to foster this 
trend, and look forward to generating commercial interest in two new cruise markets: 

1. An alternate homeport season outside of our traditional Alaska season (i.e. S.F./ 
Mexico winter itineraries), and 

2. Coastal cruises, which will require legislative change. 



; 



THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. lOD 



I:\.wp51\SEATRAD97.agn 



d 



PORT COMMISSION 

\ Page 2 



The SEATRADE convention at Miami is the most widely recognized gathering of decision 
makers in the cruise and ship repair industries. More passenger vessel owners and 
operators have their corporate headquarters in Miami than in any other city in the world. 
By sending two Port representatives to speak knowledgeably on how San Francisco's 
facilities and location can benefit the passenger cruise market, we hope to attract additional 
Port of call interest. 

We have budgeted the following amounts for our current fiscal year to cover this activity. 



Two Airfares 


$ 1,600 


Exhibit & Registration Fee 


3,000 


Hotel (6 days) 


1,600 


Meals 


500 


TOTAL 


$ 6,700 



Prepared by: Carolyn Macmillan 
Marketing Manager 



.) 



I : \ . wp5 1 \SEATRAD97 . agn 



c 






PORT COMMISSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Resolution No. 96-131 



WHEREAS, the Executive Director is requesting authorization for two representatives 
to travel to the National Passenger Cruise Convention at Miami, Florida; 
and 



WHEREAS, 



WHEREAS, 
RESOLVED, 



the purpose of this trip is to strengthen industry contacts; exhibit to key 
decision makers those Port attributes which can attract more passengers 
and benefit their operations; and introduce a winter itinerary utilizing 
Mexican ports of call, and 

the costs of this trip have been included in the Port Commission's Fiscal 
1996-97 budget; be it 

that the Port Commission hereby approves this travel request. 



/ hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Port Commission at its 
meeting of December 20, 1996. 



Secretary 



I:\.wp51\SEATRAD97.agn 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 



TO: 



FROM: 



MEMORANDUM 

December 18, 1996 

MEMBERS, PORT COMMISSION 

Hon. Michael Hardeman, President 
Hon. Frankie Lee, Vice President 
Hon. Preston Cook 
Hon. James Herman 
Hon. Denise McCarthy 

Ben Kutnicl^l^ 
Director, Administration 




Ferry Building 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone 415 274 0400 

Telex 275940 PSF UR 

Fax 41 5 274 0528 

Cable SFPORTCOMM 

Writer 



SUBJECT: Approval of Retainer Agreement for Professional Services between the Port 
and Dennis P. Bouey. 

DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: APPROVED ATTACHED AGREEMENT 



At 5 p.m. on December 20, 1996, Dennis P. Bouey will resign as Executive 
Director to take the Director of Aviation position at Philadelphia International Airport. A 
new Executive Director will be appointed by the Mayor for an interim period while a 
search for a permanent Director is conducted. It is the desire of the Commission and the 
Mayor that Dennis P. Bouey be retained during this interim period to assist the new 
Executive Director, solely at the new Executive Director's discretion, with: 

(a) Selected transactional matters; 

(b) Selected litigation matters; and 

(c) Implementation of the Waterfront Plan. 

Mr. Bouey is uniquely qualified to provide this assistance given his past three 
years as the Executive Director. At the sole discretion of the new Executive Director, 
these services will provide the new Executive Director with a smooth transition into that 
position and provide for the orderly conduct of Port business. 



Prepared by: Ben Kutnick, Director, Administration 



THIS ITEM COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. lOE 



\ 



CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 
PORT COMMISSION 

RESOLUTION NO. 96-139 



WHEREAS, At 5 p.m. on December 20, 1996, Demiis P. Bouey will resign as 

Executive Director to take the Director of Aviation position at Philadelphia 
International Airport; and 

WHEREAS, A new Executive Director will be appointed by the Mayor for an interim 
period while a search for a permanent Director is conducted; and 

WHEREAS, It is the desire of the Commission and the Mayor that Dennis P. Bouey be 
retained during this interim period to assist the new Executive Director, 
solely at the new Executive Director's discretion, with: 

(a) Selected transactional matters; 

(b) Selected litigation matters; and 

(c) Implementation of the Waterfront Plan; and 

WHEREAS, Mr. Bouey is uniquely qualified to provide this assistance given his past 
three years as the Executive Director; and 

WHEREAS, At the sole discretion of the new Executive Director, these services will 
provide the new Executive Director with a smooth transition into that 
position and provide for the orderly conduct of Port business; and, 
therefore be it 

RESOLVED, That the Retainer Agreement, a copy of which is on file with the 

Commission Secretary, is hereby approved and the new Executive Director 
shall execute the Agreement and complete all necessary paperwork as 
expediently as possible. 



This is to certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Port Commission at its 
meeting of December 20, 1996. 



Secretary 



< 



4 



CITY & COUNTY OF^S AN FRANCISCO 

j>ORT CO^MMISSION DOCUMENTS DEPT 
.^INUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING DEC 3 ms 

DECEMBER 20, 1996 qam r^r. 

% ^^^ FRANC/SCO 

1. ROLL CALL ^^^^/C LIBRARY 

The meeting was called to order by Commission President Michael Hardeman at 9:05 
a.m. The following Commissioners were present: Michael Hardeman, Frankie Lee, 
Preston Cook and Denise McCarthy. Commissioner Herman arrived at 9: 10 a.m. 

12. EXECUTIVE SESSION 

At 9:07 a.m., the Commission Secretary announced that the Commission will withdraw to 
executive session to discuss the following: 

A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - This sessJon is 
closed to any non-City /Port representative. * 



1) Property : Port property located at Berry Street and Second Street (China Basin). 
Person Negotiating : Port representative: Dennis P. Bouey, Executive Director 
*San Francisco Giants Representative : Larry Baer, Executive Vice President 

Under Negotiation: Price Terms of Payment __^ Both 

An executive session has been calendared to discuss real property negotiations 
between the Port and San Francisco Giants, regarding the proposed ballpark. 

This is specifically authorized under California Government Code Section 
54956.8. 

B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING ANTICIPATED AND 
EXISTING LITIGATION MATTERS : 

' 1) Initiation of Litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of California Government Code 
Section 54956.9 (1 case) 

(a) Red and White Fleet, Inc. (formerly Harbor Carriers, Inc., a subsidiary of 
Crowley Corporation) operating at Pier 41. 

2) Discuss existing litigation matter pursuant to subdivision (a) of California 
Government Code Section 54956.9 

a) Petuya v. CCSF; San Francisco Superior Court No. 972-961 



A121295.igq/1 _J. 



C. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT/HIRING (Govt. Code Section 54957) 

Discussion and action to nominate a qualified applicant for the position of Port 
Executive Director who will have the management responsibilities of the Port of San 
Francisco, whose name shall be submitted to the Mayor for consideration for 
appointment pursuant to Charter Section B3. 581(h). (Resolution No. 96-140) 

D. Vote in open session on whether to disclose Executive Session discussions (S.F. 
Admin. Code Sec. 67.14) 

At 9:30 a.m., Commissioners Hardeman, Lee, Cook, Herman and McCarthy returned 
from executive session and convened in public session. 

ACTION: Commissioner Lee moved approval to not disclose any information 

discussed in the executive session except for Item 12C. Commissioner 
Lee read Resolution 96-140 for the record. Commissioner McCarthy 
seconded the motion. All of the Commissioners were in favor. 
Resolution 96-140 was adopted. 

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - December 10, 1996 

ACTION: Commissioner Cook moved approval; Commissioner McCarthy seconded the 
motion. All of the Commissioners were in favor; the minutes of the meeting 
were adopted. 

3. EXECUTIVE 

A. Executive Director's Report : Mr. Bouey reported that the Annual Report is 
completed and commended Carolyn Macmillan for a job well done. 

Mr. Bouey stated that this is his last Port Commission meeting. He leaves the Port 
sadly but delighted that in the last three years, staff put together two back-to-back 
profitable years. As a measure of efficiency, the operating revenue per employee is 
the highest in the history of the Port. With the exception of cargo, every maritime 
business at the Port is up ~ fishing revenues are up 50%; cruise business in 1993 had 
about 36,000 passengers; next year, we expect more than 85,000 cruise passengers. 
Cargo, however, is on the rebound. The new strategy reflects the realities of today. 
In 1993, the Port was in technical default with its bonds. It had a debt coverage of 
1.0 and it needed 1.3. Today, the debt coverage stands at about 2.2, which is the 
highest in the history of the Port. 

Mr. Bouey mentioned that without the support of the Mayor's office and this 
Commission, the Port could not have accomplished all that it accomplished in the last 
few years. More importantly, without the hard work and dedication of the staff, the 
Port wouldn't have accomplished what the Port has accomplished. He commended 
staff for their hard work. He added that the Port's Planning staff is absolutely 

M122096.igq _2. 



incredible. The Waterfront EIR may be certified at the next Planning Commission 
meeting. Port staff, including the City Attorney's staff, has been nothing short of 
magnificent. He cannot express enough his gratitude and appreciation for their fine 
work over the last three years. 

He also mentioned that every decision and every recommendation brought to the Port 
Commission in the last three years has been done out of respect for the Port and to 
preserve its dignity. Moreover, it was done out of loyalty to the Port. Most 
importantly, every recommendation to the Commission has been brought in the most 
honest and forthright manner possible. Through the confluence of the Mayor, Port 
Commission's support and the good work of staff, the Port is in better shape today 
than it was three years ago. More importantly, the Port is poised for greatness. 
When the development moratorium is lifted, we would be able to create a waterfront 
that respects our maritime heritage, encourages those businesses and, at the same 
time, will provide for those activities that will bring the people of San Francisco to 
the waterfront. 

B. Endorsement of the basic principles of the proposed Giants and the Port term sheet 
for the ballpark. (Resolution No. 96-138) 

Mr. Bouey stated that in March 1996, the voters of the City & County of San 
Francisco approved Proposition B, which authorized a proposed development on Port 
property for a new ballpark. The Port, with the Mayor's office, has recently 
negotiated a term sheet with the Giants. The term sheet is an important step because 
it covers a number of basic business terms of the proposed lease and provides the 
frame work for the actions the Giants and the City agencies need to take for the site to 
be assembled, entitlements to be granted, and complementary improvements to be 
financed and built. The proposed term sheet is acceptable to the Giants and their 
lenders. It is important to note that the proposed term sheet is not intended to be and 
is not legally binding. Only after the environmental process has been completed and 
after all necessary governmental approvals have been obtained may the City enter into 
a binding agreement. He expects that over the next three or four months, the Port 
and the Mayor's office will begin lease negotiations. 

He then enumerated the basic principals of the proposed term sheet: 

• The lease of the ballpark site will be to China Basin Ballpark Company (CBBC). 
CBBC is a separate entity established and controlled by the Giants partnership 
for the purpose of developing and operating the new ballpark. CBBC will be the 
borrower from a lending syndicate of a $140 million private loan for construction 
of the park, and CBBC will build the ballpark at its cost. Revenues from the 
ballpark and complementary improvements will flow to CBBC, including 
proceeds from the sale of charter seats, naming rights agreement, etc. 



• 



The lease is for a term of 25 years from delivery of the site to CBBC, which is 
anticipated to occur in late summer or fall of 1997. The initial lease term 



M122096.igq .3. 



• 



corresponds to 23 seasons of baseball at the new park. The lease potentially could 
continue for a total of 66 years. The lease would include successive 5-year 
renewal options at the end of the 25-year initial term. 

The Giants franchise will enter into agreement directly with the City to play their 
home games at the new ballpark for 23 seasons after the new ballpark opens. 
The end of the term of the non-relocation agreement corresponds with the end of 
the initial lease term. 

CBBC will pay fair market rent to the Port. Full rent of $1.2 million per year 
begins upon delivery of the site to CBBC. The City's Director of Property has 
advised that the ground lease rent is well within the range of market rent for the 
site, taking into account its existing physical, hazardous material and soil 
conditions and applicable tidelands trust limitations. The rent is subject to certain 
cost-of-living escalations. For the conclusion of three years, and for each of 
those three years, the rent may be adjusted by the CPI for a maximum of 3 
percent per year. Every three years thereafter, the rent will be adjusted by the 
CPI for each year up to a maximum of 5 percent. 

CBBC agrees to advance up to $500,000, at the City's option, for mutually 
agreed-upon City transaction costs, such as staff and legal costs of preparing and 
processing the lease documents. CBBC will get credit against rent for any such 
advances, with interest at CBBC's actual cost of funds up to a maximum of 
8.5% . The rent credit for such advances is capped at $75,000 per year. CBBC 
also agrees to pay all costs and fees of entitling the project the same fees which 
other developers would pay. There is no credit against the rent for these costs. It 
is not anticipated that we would borrow the $500,000 from CBBC. 

Available property tax increment generated by development on the ballpark site 
may be used for a ballpark-related infrastructure as mutually agreed-upon. 
CBBC agrees to provide certain assurances of repayment of Redevelopment 
Agency tax increment debt for the ballpark-related infrastructure if the term of 
the bonds exceeds the term of the lease or if possessory interest taxes from the 
site are reduced below a level needed to service the indebtedness. 

CBBC will remediate hazardous materials at the site as required by regulatory 
bodies for the development of the ballpark. CBBC is also responsible for all 
demolition, pier substructure and other site preparation costs. 

The Port will be responsible for delivering the site free of the Port occupancies. 
The Port will also be responsible for purchasing the parcel at Third and Berry, 
which CalTrans owns and controls. The CalTrans parcel is expected to be 
acquired through a negotiated agreement with the State. The Port's responsibility 
for purchasing the CalTrans parcel and relocating the private tenants from the 
property is limited to $4.1 million. 



M122096.igq 



• 



The schedule for the proposed ballpark project provides for site delivery in late 
summer or fall of 1997 and an April 2000 opening. 

• CBBC agrees, at the Port's option, to demolish the improvements and return the 
site to the Port in developable condition at the end of the lease term if CBBC 
does not exercise at least two 5-year options at the end of the minimum term, for 
a total lease term of at least 33 baseball seasons. 

It is the Mayor's intention to sign the term sheet, subject to the Commission's 
endorsement. It is anticipated that the final lease will be presented to the Port 
Commission and Board of Supervisors in June or July of next year, consistent with 
the principles outlined in the term sheet. Staff has worked hard on this term sheet and 
believed that it represents a fair deal for the Port. 

Commissioner Cook thanked Mr. Bouey and Julie Van Nostern for the successful 
negotiations on behalf of the Port and the City. Commissioner Cook mentioned that 
he was concerned about the market rate deal for the Port but in reading the term 
sheet, he is confident that it is a fair market rate deal. Commissioner Lee echoed 
Commissioner Cook's comments. He welcomed the Giants to play ball at Port 
property. Commissioner McCarthy stated that she had deep concerns on how the Port 
would come out of this negotiation. She commended Mr. Bouey and Ms. Van 
Nostern' s for their efforts. Commissioner Hardeman stated that we have a mandated 
two thirds of the voters of this City wanting a ballpark at that location. Under all 
these pressures, staff was able to cut a good deal. The Commission feels that Mr. 
Bouey, Ms. Van Nostern and the rest of the staff did a fantastic job. He added that 
the Mayor and Rudy Nothenberg went on a limb to meet all their concerns and we 
owe them thanks. The lease is not finalized yet but we are on the road to playing ball 
there. He thanked everyone for all their hard work, 

ACTION: Commissioner Lee moved approval; Commissioner Cook seconded the 
motion. All of the Commissioners were in favor; the resolution was 
adopted. 

C. Informational Presentation on the Waterfront Land Use Plan - Joint Staff 

Recommendations for Public Review and Comment by the Port, Bay Conservation 
and Development Commission, and Save San Francisco Bay Association. 

Mr. Bouey stated that the Waterfront Plan was developed and recommended to the 
Port Commission by the Waterfront Plan Advisory Board. The Waterfront EIR will 
now be certified in a couple of weeks. Subsequent to that, the Port Commission may 
adopt the Plan at which time the development moratorium imposed by Proposition H 
would then be lifted. Early on it was realized it was not enough to have a plan but to 
implement it in the most viable way. The Port Commission amended the plan to 
require urban design guidelines in a public access element. The Port created a 
Technical Advisory Committee to review and advise the development of an Urban 
Design and Public Access guidelines. This committee is made up of highly respected 



M122096.igq 



members in the design profession and representatives from the Planning Department, 
Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), Waterfront Plan Advisory 
Board, and Save San Francisco Bay Association. This element will define a 
comprehensive urban design vision which identifies locations and types of public 
access and open space areas and views, historic preservation policies, and 
architecmral standards to ensure that we get quality developments in the waterfront. 

The Port begun negotiations with State Lands in terms of what policies should be 
enforced as the Port moves forward. At the same time, the Port negotiated an MOU 
with the Department of City Planning for the purposes of negotiating amendments to 
the Master Plan and Zoning changes so the Waterfront Plan could be implemented. 

Lastly, the Port signed an MOU with BCDC to sit down and discuss a number of 
issues that serve the needs of BCDC, their constituents as well as serve the needs of 
the Port. A conclusion has been reached and today Will Travis and he will sign the 
MOU. The Waterfront Advisory Board was advised of the result of the negotiation 
and was warmly received. It was next presented to the Planning Commission. He 
expects that in the very near future, there will be joint Commission meetings between 
the Port and BCDC, invite the public and discuss the issues. He expects that what is 
presented today will be examined carefully but the essence of it will continue 
forward. BCDC has their commitments and obligations to provide meaningful public 
access, provide reduction in bay fill. He, Will Travis and Save the Bay put together a 
document that will serve as the basis of discussions that will allow the Waterfront 
Plan to move forward in the most successful way. He noted that they have come up 
with a framework with such a plan that will allow San Francisco to revitalize its 
waterfront. 

The following are the key elements of the agreement: 

• Pier Removal - the removal of Piers 34 and 36 to create a public open space and 
more open water; the removal of Pier 24 as part of new development of Piers 26 
and 28; and the removal of most of Pier 33 to create a larger expanse of open 
water between Piers 31 and 35. In addition, the creation of more open water area 
is recommended in the Pier 15-29 area; this area is designated a Special Study 
Area, subject to a separate specific plaiming effort to determine the location of 
additional open water, public access and views prior to approval of new 
development. 

• Creation of New Large Public Plazas - the creation of a central Plaza in 
Fisherman's Wharf on approximately 70% of the site, with an underground 
garage, financed from revenue receipts from retail development on the remaining 
30% of the site and the parking garage. In addition, two other large public open 
spaces would be created in the South Beach area ("Brannan Street Green" 
involving removal of Piers 34 and 36). 

• Public Access on Piers - in addition to the public plazas, new development 

M122096.igq .5. 



• 



projects on individual piers would be required to dedicate 25 % of the pier area to 
public access. It is expected that new development on larger piers will require a 
greater amount of public access. 

Land Uses on Piers - the Port's piers would be assigned to one of four categories, 
based on the physical condition of the facility: Category 1 (Excellent); Category 
2 (Good); Category 3 (Fair); and Category 4 (Poor). Projects on Categories. 1 and 
2 would be treated as within BCDC's Shoreline Band jurisdiction. 

Historic Preservation - Many of the bulkhead buildings and piers appear to be 
potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. 

• Joint BCDC/Port/City Design Review Committee - the purpose of the committee 
would be to review development projects in a single, integrated process where 
the various design objectives can be discussed and jointly reviewed. It would be 
our hope that this committee's recommendation would be the staff's 
recommendation to the Port Commission. BCDC and Port staff will staff this 
committee. 

Aside from the process outlined today. Chapter 5 of the Waterfront Plan has an 
implementation chapter which requires for developments that a public body be 
assembled to advise the Port. In addition, the EIR that will be certified in the next 
week or so is a programmatic EIR for the Waterfront Plan. Each project will have its 
own specific EIR. This agreement serves not only the Port well but also serves the 
needs of BCDC but more importantly, serves the needs of the people of San Francisco 
and the bay area. He thanked Marc Holmes, the negotiator from Save the Bay. Mr. 
Holmes brought a vision and acumen and was also very helpful in the negotiations. 
He also thanked Will Travis and his staff. 

Nunzio Alioto mentioned that they just recently saw the Waterfront Land Use 
proposal. He addressed the triangular parking lot issue. He hopes that in the future 
the merchants in the Fisherman's Wharf area are invited to participate in the 
discussions and ultimately the final plan. Mr. Bouey stated that representatives from 
Fisherman's Wharf will be involved. Communications have commenced a month ago 
with the representative of the Fisherman's Wharf Merchants Association, Al Baccari. 
He noted that Port tenants will be invited to participate. 

Jane Morrison stated that she liked the idea of public access and open views of the 
water that this plan is presenting. She urged that any new development be 
concentrated on maritime, fishing and for purposes that have to be on the water. She 
inquired how binding the agreement would be. Mr. Bouey responded that this is just 
a framework to begin discussions to come up with an MOU that everyone will sign. 
He's sure that there will be a clause that would allow either side to adjust the rules if 
necessary. 

Will Travis, Executive Director of BCDC, stated that he keeps finding things in the 

M122096.igq .7. 



agreement that are just wonderful. The negotiations were difficult but what they 
found was they had common goals. They looked at new ways of achieving what all 
the parties wanted to achieve. The basic provision of the agreement is to remove old 
piers. There will be wonderful, new public plazas. There will be public access on 
any new development on the piers. Priority will be given to maritime use at the Port 
and preservation of the Port's wonderful historic character. Opportunities for vibrant 
waterfront development will be provided. The permit process will be streamlined. 
Ample opportunities for public input will be provided. He offered his full 
endorsement for this agreement. The notion of joint public hearings is one that he 
would like to move forward. He concluded that in the signing of this document 
today, the Port is poised no more, greatness starts today. 

Commissioner Herman stated that the objectives set forth is sound provided that this 
new scheme does not become a vehicle to speed up development to a point where 
control slips from the hands of those who have to have it. He thinks that the 
development process in the City is so cumbersome and time consuming. He hopes 
that we don't create a development arrangement where we eliminate safeguards and 
where there are rationale constraints on developers so that there is a very clear and 
full understanding as to precisely what the agreement is. If we simply zero in on the 
propriety and if we simply concentrate on expediting development, we have to add a 
third ingredient that is spelled out in no uncertain terms and there is some way of 
carefully monitoring and evaluating of establishing rules that protect against 
indiscriminate development in the name of creating open space. He made it clear that 
while we have one arrangement today, he is not in favor of allowing that to become 
the rationale for streamlining the process. He urged that there be consideration, 
discussion and precise understandings about the limitation and the importance of 
carefully policing every single thing that is done where changes are made especially 
for purposes of speeding up the process but not opening a door for what was not or is 
not to be intended. 

Mr. Bouey agreed with Commissioner Herman and stated that his concerns were 
addressed through the agreement and the Waterfront Plan. The Commission's 
Waterfront Plan requires the creation of public body to advise the Port on each of the 
projects. Mr. Bouey and Mr. Travis then signed the MOU. 

4. LEGISLATIVE 

5. TENANT & MARITIME SERVICES 

A. Approval of Telecommunications Policy, Siting Guidelines and Standard 
Telecommunications Lease. (Resolution No. 96-123) 

Mr. Bouey stated that at the November 12 Port Commission meeting, a representative 
from City Planning made a presentation on Policy Guidelines for Wireless 
Telecommunication Services. From the work done by Planning, Port staff put 
together a policy for siting these antennas and other fixtures. He then introduced Paul 

M122096.igq .g. 



I 



Osmundson and requested him to present the highlights of the policy. 
Mr. Paul Osmundson indicated that staff took the policy developed by the Planning 
Department and took parts of it that they did not believe were applicable to Port 
projects. The vast majority of it, however, was intact. Basic issues covered in the 
policy include: policies and guidelines on land use, urban design, health and safety, 
community development, building siting criteria including visual impact, minimizing 
noise and others. They have also prepared a set of standard lease conditions that 
would allow Tenant & Maritime Services Division to negotiate leases that were in 
conformance with the standard lease form. Mr. Bouey pointed out that the 
Commission received a substimte sheet for Attachment 1, wherein the number of 
antennas connected to the back up equipment would be 12, instead of 9. 

ACTION: Commissioner Cook moved approval of the resolution, as amended; 
Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. All of the Commissioners 
were in favor; the resolution was adopted. 

B. Consent to wireless telecommunication services (WTS) use at Pier 39 (Resolution No. 
96-124) 

Mr. Bouey stated that Pier 39 intends to install a WTS facility on its parking garage. 
Since this is not an accepted use in their current lease with the Port, staff has 
negotiated a separate rental agreement wherein the Port will receive 30% of the 
revenue received by Pier 39 for this facility. It is anticipated that the current rent 
would be $3,000.00 per month. 

In response to Commissioner McCarthy's inquiry of how the 30% share of the Port 
was derived, Mr. Bouey responded that since the current rent structure cannot serve 
as a model, staff believed that since Pier 39 maintains the facility and entered into the 
relationship with the company, 30% is more than fair rent for allowing them to have 
this additional use. 

ACTION: Commissioner Cook moved approval; Commissioner Lee seconded the 
motion. All of the Commissioners were in favor; the resolution was 
adopted. 

C. Approval of Marine Terminal Agreement for Maruba S.C.A. for use of Pier 94/96. 
(Resolution No. 96-135) 

Mr. Bouey stated Maruba has been a long-time tenant of the Port. They offer service 
to Latin America. The Port has concluded negotiations for another five-year term for 
use of Pier 94/96, subject to the same provisions in the last two cargo agreements. 
Expected revenue for the agreement is approximately $100,000 from wharfage, 
dockage and crane rental. 

ACTION: Commissioner Lee moved approval; Commissioner McCarthy seconded 
the motion. All of the Commissioners were in favor; the resolution was 

M122096.igq .9. 



adopted. 

Commissioner Herman stated that a lease with Mission Valley Rock Company has 
been executed without the Commission being aware of it or being consulted. He is 
perplexed as to why a five-year lease has been signed by the Port. He knows that 
other companies have been waiting for that space. He understands that Mission 
Valley Rock Company is a tide water, sand and gravel company and it operates 
adjacent to Pier 92. Leasing parameters were adopted by the Port Commission in 
1993 that allow for the signing of these leases within a very precise framework. This 
lease is not within that framework. He then requested a copy of the lease. Mission 
Valley Rock Company has a $.10 per sq. ft. arrangement. He would like his 
questions answered at the next meeting so that the Commission is ftilly comfortable 
with the operations at that site. Pier 92 is one of the most desirable piers for marine 
facilities remaining at the waterfront. It has rail access and it is on a deep water 
channel. It has access to Highways 101 and 280. Conmiissioner Herman reiterated 
his request that the Real Estate Director provide the Commission full documentation 
as to what was done to certify the financial viability of the company as well as the 
company's history. He believes that this matter should not be permitted to proceed 
until the parameters adopted by the Commission in 1993 are strictly adhered to. 

Commissioner Hardeman inquired if Mr. Bouey or Mr. Wiseman is prepared to 
respond on this matter. Mr. Bouey replied that staff will respond to Commissioner 
Herman's request at the next meeting. He concurred with Commissioner Herman that 
in 1993, the Port Commission adopted a policy in establishing market rents. Those 
market rents are resurveyed each year and brought back to the Commission for their 
approval. He also concurred with Commissioner Herman that if for any reason a 
project or a lease does not meet those parameters, it is brought to the Commission for 
the approval. If it meets those parameters, staff is empowered to sign the contract 
and the Commission gets a report of the signed leases at the end of the month. As it 
turns out, the market for unpaved land south of China Basin is $. 10. Tidewater has 
been a tenant for a number of years at the Port. Subsequent to Tidewater, the Port 
had a contract with Chasm and now with Mission Valley Rock. With regards to 
others wanting to lease the property, we have more sites and if those entities are 
willing to pay the minimum leasing rent, staff is happy to meet with them. 

Commissioner Herman stated that the Commission should evaluate the uses of all of 
Pier 90. It has always been a dry cargo facility. With the advice of the Counsel, 
Commissioner Hardeman requested Commissioner Herman to conclude his remarks 
since this item is not publicly noticed. Commissioner Hardeman suggested that 
Commissioner Herman meet with staff to address his concerns and the item will then 
be calendared upon his request. Commissioner Herman inquired if any work now in 
progress be held in abeyance until the Commission gives its seal of approval. Mr. 
Bouey stated that the lease has been signed and it meets the leasing parameters. 
Commissioner Hardeman interjected and stated that since this item is not calendared, 
the Commission does not have the authority to act on this item. 



M122096.igq .\Q. 



D. Approval of lease with Peer Inn, Inc. for the Peer Inn Restaurant at Pier 33 
(Resolution No. 96-132) 

Mr. Bouey stated that for 37 years, George and Ann Papadakis have operated the 
Peer Inn Restaurant at Pier 33. The current monthly base rent is $2730.20 a month 
and they have applied to renegotiate their lease under the Port's retail policy. The 
tenant must be in good standing committed to making a significant capital investment 
which is supported by a sound business plan and that the tenancy must be in the best 
economic interest available and the tenant must have a good record of affirmative 
action. With regard to good standing. Peer Inn has a consistent history of compliance 
with the obligation of its existing lease. With regard to a sound business plan, Peer 
Inn proposes to renovate and reposition the restaurant as a full service Greek 
restaurant. The concept is to create a comfortable, open design restaurant which will 
offer fresh and healthful Greek cuisine. The business plan includes investing 
$500,000 in the renovation of the restaurant and engaging a management group with 
extensive experience developing and operating San Francisco restaurants. The 
Papadakis family will remain the owners of Peer Inn, Inc. Port staff has determined 
that the market base rent per month on the Northern Waterfront is in the range of $2- 
$3. Peer Inn has agreed to pay an initial monthly base rent of $2.80 per sq. ft. 
Under the new plan, the restaurant is envisioned to generate average sales of 
$200,000 per month following the renovation. Port staff has determined that Peer Inn 
has a good affirmative action record in employment, purchasing and contracting. The 
new lease further requires that not less than 30% of the construction costs expended 
by Peer Inn for its tenant improvements would inure to the benefit of bonafide MBE, 
WBE or DBE enterprises certified by the S.F. Human Rights Conmiission. The 
premise is 3,538 sq. ft. The lease is a nine-year term, conmiencing 150 days 
following the date that the tenant obtains all required regulatory approvals. It is a 
full-service restaurant. The initial base rent is $9,906.40 per month. The tenant is 
responsible for all maintenance to the premises, including the exterior, but excluding 
the roof and the pier substructure. 

Commissioner Herman stated that there are other facilities on the waterfront, most 
notably Pier One Deli, who also deserve longer term leases. He inquired what is 
going to be done for them. Mr. Bouey stated that staff has begun discussions with 
Pier One Deli. There are other restaurants that are a little problematic but staff is 
working on them as quickly as possible and bring it to the Conmiission for approval. 
Commissioner Herman inquired as to any anticipated time frame with respect to Pier 
One Deli and others. Mr. Bouey replied that Pier One Deli should be before the 
Commission relatively soon. 

Mr. Mike Wilmar stated that he has known every Port Director that San Francisco 
has had for the last twenty years. He acknowledged that Dennis Bouey is the best 
Port Director that San Francisco has had in all the times that he has been associated 
with the Port. He is not without his flaws but he is fair, tough and reasonable, when 
it counts. The turnaround in the Port's balance sheet and the agreement signed this 
morning are superb examples of all those qualities. He stated that Mr. Bouey will be 

M122096.igq .H. 



deeply missed by the City and our loss is Philadelphia's gain and wished him well. 

ACTION: Commissioner Herman moved approval; Commissioner Lee seconded 
the motion. All of the Commissioners were in favor; the resolution was 
adopted. 

6. FACILITIES & OPERATIONS 

7. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 

A. Approval of 60 Berth Hyde Street Fishing Harbor proposed project, authorize 

expenditure of loan funds from the California Department of Boating and Waterways 
and adopt Environmental Review and Project Approval Findings. (Resolution No. 
96-136) 

Mr. Bouey stated that the EIR has been certified. Staff is very excited about this 
project. It is going to attract more fishing boats to the Fisherman's Wharf area. It is 
going to clean up the environment, the water. Staff is asking for a notice of 
determination which will allow the Port to move forward with the project. Staff has 
already issued an RFP for design services. The total cost for the Hyde Street Fishing 
Harbor is estimated at $4.5 million. The Port has obtained a loan from the California 
Department of Boating and Waterways for $3.5 million, with Port operating funds 
supplying the remainder of the project budget. 

Commissioner McCarthy commented that she is very pleased with this project. Port 
staff has put in a lot of hard work over the years, especially in the last couple of 
years. 

Sal Tarantino indicated that they wholeheartedly support the Hyde Street Fishing 
Harbor. He indicated that they currently lease seven parking spaces from the Port. 
He wanted some assurance from the Port that they would be able to continue leasing 
the parking spaces when the project is finished. 

Brad Bergline, representing hunself, friends of Aquatic Park and all the recreational 
water users in the area, urged the Commission to vote no on this project. The 
construction of additional berths is unnecessary. The Port and the Planning 
Commission have been unable to quantify the need for these additional needs given 
the fact that the current harbor, under strict management, is underutilized. Water 
quality has not been addressed at all by the Port or by the EIR. He claims that the 
EIR falsely states that boats do not create pollution. Additional berths in this area 
will become another source of pollution. In the last ten days, there have been two 
serious oil spills emanating from the area. He asked that this project be stripped of 
all the berthing because it is unnecessary. There are no mitigation plans mentioned. 
The dredging site is not addressed as well. The funding of this project is totally 
inappropriate since the funds from the Dept. of Boating and Waterways are 
supposedly reserved for recreational use. Changes in the project have not been 

M122096.igq .J2- 



addressed as well. He remarked that this project needs further review and urged the 
Commission to vote no on this item. 

Mr. Bouey stated that this project has been a long time coming. Port staff has spent 
an inordinate amount of time on this project. Changes were made to the project in 
response to public comments. In addition, the Commission has been responsive by 
setting up an environmental advisory group, staffed it, funded it and committed to 
funding projects. Without a doubt, this project will lead to increase water quality. 

Commissioner Herman inquired if Mr. Tarantino's request for parking can be 
accommodated. Mr. Bouey replied that staff will take a look at the situation and will 
pass it onto the new Executive Director, Doug Wong, for his consideration. 

ACTION: Commissioner Cook moved approval; Commissioner McCarthy 

seconded the motion. All of the Commissioners were in favor; the 
resolution was adopted. 

B. Guidelines for review and approval of Signs and Murals on Port property. (Resolution 
No. 96-137). THIS ITEM WAS PUT OVER TO THE NEXT MEETING. 

8. ADMINISTRATION 

A. Presentation of Fiscal Year 1997/1998 Operating Budget. THIS ITEM WAS PUT 
OVER TO THE NEXT MEETING. 

9. SPECIAL ITEM 

Commissioner Cook mentioned that according to the San Francisco's Sunshine Ordinance, 
the Commission is authorized to make a purely camaraderie action. He moved approval 
to make a presentation; Commissioner McCarthy seconded the motion. All of the 
Commissioners were in favor. 

Commissioner Cook stated that Mr. Bouey has performed admirably during his tenure as 
Executive Director of the Port of San Francisco. He has led the Port from a time in 1993 
of a budget deficit, low morale and high expenses to a current surplus, a highly efficient 
staff and a waterfront all San Franciscans can be proud of. Commissioner Cook added 
that Mr. Bouey will be missed as Port Director. Mr. Bouey has shown a leadership 
quality that has led to well over 100 new tenants, both commercial and maritime and 
corresponding higher revenues. He has successfully negotiated the Waterfront Plan that 
will create an environment of open and public space allowing for more access to the 
waterfront. He is leaving this Port in significantly better shape than when he began his 
tenure just three years ago. He then presented a "maritime" clock to Mr. Bouey in 
recognition for an outstanding job. 

Commissioner Lee read Resolution 96-141 (a copy of which is on file with the 
Commission Secretary). He also presented Mr. Bouey the "Order of Maritime Merit with 

M122096.igq _13_ 



1 



the Rank of Admiral" plaque. 

Mr. Bouey reiterated his earlier comments of support from the Commission and staff's 
hard work and commitment. He thanked the Commission and indicated that he was very 
touched by their gift and by the sentiment contained in plaque. 

Commissioner McCarthy indicated that as a junior member of the Commission, she has 
not had a lot of time dealing with Mr. Bouey. She remarked that they haven't always 
agreed but she had genuinely enjoyed the give and take they have undertaken. It has made 
a difference in the waterfront plaiming process. 

Commissioner Lee conmiented that he enjoyed the last two and a half years working with 
Mr. Bouey. He is a man of high integrity. Every decision he has made is in the best 
interest of the Port. He is a loyal employee to the Port, the Commission and the City. He 
is hardworking and his best act was to take very high quality senior staff. He promised 
that staff and the Commission will continue the fine work, the foundation Mr. Bouey has 
built, established and accomplished. 

Commissioner Herman complunented Mr. Bouey and wished him good luck. 
Commissioner Hardeman indicated that he worked with Mr. Bouey longer than anyone 
else in the room. They go back in the 1970's during the labor movement. He mentioned 
that Mr. Bouey was the brightest labor leader at the time. He would have been the leader 
of labor if not in San Francisco, in the State of California. Commissioner Hardeman stated 
that he will miss the friendship. He indicated that one of the reasons he came to the Port 
Commission was his association with Mr. Bouey. Their friendship never interfered in 
their decision making. They both did what they felt was right. He concurred with 
everything that was said about Mr. Bouey. Mr. Bouey has tremendous integrity and he's 
sorry to see him leave and thanked him for everything he has done. 

10. CONSENT CALENDAR 

A. Approval of a declaration of emergency for contracted assistance for the demolition 
and repair of the fire damaged Pier 48 sheds and related components. (Resolution 
No. 96-130) 

B. Approval of travel to Washington, D.C. for one Port representative to meet with 
Congressional and Administration officials on Legislative Proposals regarding the 
Cruise Industry on January 20-23, 1997, in accordance with the Port's Fiscal Year 
1996-97 budget. (Resolution No. 96-133) 

C. Approval of travel for one Port representative to attend the Special Seminar for 
members of Port Authority Governing Boards and Commissions sponsored by the 
American Association of Port Authorities in Palm Beach, Florida (January 29-31, 
1997), in accordance with the Port's Fiscal Year 1996-1997 budget. (Resolution No. 
96-134) 

D. Approval of travel for two Port representatives to attend the National Passenger 

M122096.igq ■_|4_ 



Cruise Convention at Miami, Florida, in accordance with the Port's Fiscal Year 
1 996/97 budget . (Resolution No . 96- 1 3 1 ) 

E. Approval of Retainer Agreement for Professional Services between the Port and 
Dennis P. Bouey. (Resolution No. 96-139) 

ACTION: Commissioner Cook moved approval; Commissioner Lee seconded the 
motion. All of the Commissioners were in favor; all of the items on the 
Consent Calendar were adopted. 

11. NEW BUSINESS / PUBLIC COMMENT 

Bill Fiore reported that with regard to H&N Fish issue at Pier 45, HRC is currently 
investigating the simation. He hopes that at the next meeting there is a solution to this 
problem and some finding by the HRC. 

Diane Oshima, Port employee, expressed her appreciation to Dennis Bouey for all the 
work he has done on behalf of the Port. She stated that Mr. Bouey has shown great 
dignity and integrity in all of the work that he has done. Ms. Oshima indicated that she 
will continue to be impressed by the honesty, forthrightness and the respect he has shown 
in all matters he had dealt with. She saluted his tenacity, willingness to roll up his sleeve, 
get to the heart of the matter and deal with the hard issues to bring about real change at 
the Port. She indicated that all his accomplishments were capitalized by the MOU with 
BCDC and Save the Bay. She stated that the Port would not be able to celebrate these 
accomplishments without the work that he has done. She added that through Mr. Bouey 's 
actions, inspired staff to strive for excellence in the best interest of the Port. The Port 
has made great strides in showing to the City that the Port is taking very serious 
responsibility for its public trust responsibilities and bringing the public to a greater 
understanding of what the Port is actually about. Mr. Bouey was willing to meet with the 
community, willing to answer their questions in a very forthright and honest manner and 
that will bring a very long standing impact at the Port and the City. She regrets that Mr. 
Bouey is leaving and that his departure is particularly bad timing. Mr. Bouey has been 
instrumental in defining of what the vision of the waterfront would be. She concluded that 
through his actions at the Port, though they may not be fully appreciated, will have a 
lasting impact. She wished him the best. She then read a letter of appreciation from 
Anne Cook, also a Port employee. 



The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m. 



M122096.igq _|5_ 



7 



I 



I