. i think people broadly understood that there was that trade off, so if the cursor medal goes there, the feeling is that the port thatbcdc should work to find replacement public access -- the port and bcdc should work to find replacement public access. one of the issues has to do with the embarcadero. there is a broad feeling that we have done a good job, but that the west side is an important potential way for the public to appreciate the they, and that it does not match the standard of hurricane way and this side of the street. i think it is something that we all know and have seen in our own planning processes. with regard to historic rehabilitation and public benefits, i touched on this a little bit before. i think people appreciated the fact that the special area plan prompted the port to nominate

the embarcadero historic district to the register of historic places. that was one of the requirements of the special area plan. they do not always view the port as being as committed to historic preservation as some of our stakeholders would like us to be. one of the issues we talked about along this line is that pier 23, in the special area plan half of it, is supposed to be removed. when you do a major project at the pier 27 through 31 location. pier 23, as part of that historic district nomination, is part of that resource, and staff have forwarded the notion that it may not be wise to remove the back half of that pier, that that could be a significant impact to an important historic resource, and the pier itself was in good condition.

we found that some people were really went to the trade-offs that were made in the original special area plan. a great deal of other participants in the process of the value of keeping the back half of pier 23. that is an issue i think we need to explore more in the process. what happens towards the end of the interview process is the america's cup. it was something being negotiated concurrent with many of the interviews. it was not a direct topic area that was discussed in most of the interviews because it did not become a reality until the end of the interview process. but as a result of the cruise terminal project and the america's cup, we now have three proposed amendments to the special area plan that i would like to go over at a high level and see if the commission or public has comments. so, you are not going to be able

to see this very well, but at pier 27, the area between pier 19 and copier 27 is an old bird -- pier 19 and copier 27 is an open water plaza. the plaza is supposed to overlook the open water basin. the burgeoning activity in the open water basin would significantly impact the character of the water basin. our planned amendment proposal would be to shift the base into the area between pier 29 and 31. also the area off of pier 23 in the half. it is a shallow area between

pier 43 and pier 45 that has a great views of the bay and is adjacent to the park. the america's cup also proposes to remove the entirety of the pier 27 shed and a portion of the 29 shed that intersects with 27. that removal is a greater level of removal than the proposed pier 23 removal by and the special area planned. we would propose that that removal would be a trade-off for pier 23, allowing us to keep that historic resources. it will allow us to keep the potential to acre plaza at the end appeared 27 and 29 that needs to be used for cruise ship provisioning when there are cruise ships in place, but it could serve as important public

access when it is not in use for crews purposes. without getting too lost in the details, we see a need to plan additional public access improvements. possibly on the west side of the embarcadero. we are also looking at additional removal options. possibly phased removal of the non-historic connector shed. it is called pier 19 and 1/2 and it would provide great views of the bay. that is the port staff initial proposal on the public benefits in vision that the site. we have a ways to go with stakeholders to get to the right formula. i would like to move on to the america's cup special area planned proposal.

the area on the screen is the area between pier 14 and 22 and a half. it is the open water basin in the area planned. but the new agreement requires that the port provide this space for the purposes of large spectator vessels during the races. in to permit dredging in this area. it would need to be to a debt of about 12 feet. promising that long-term in that location from the event authority. the proposal for this special area plan would be related only to the special use of this location for the race. it would permit these large

spectator wrote vessels in the park with docs installed on a temporary basis, moved after the race. i have to say to the commission that the feedback we have gotten on this proposal has not been great. the lincoln park area provides extraordinary views of the day. members of the public are going to want to see the day, even if they are not interested in the america's cup. we have a ways to go in terms of convincing the staff and the commission about the merits of this proposal. this is the open water basin. just south of the bay bridge. as you remember, the industrial bases are planned for this area. catamarans would be merged in the base itself near pier 32.

the event the authority would do substructure improvements to the deck. the teams would have tent structures to perform team operations in. there would be cranes on the south face of 32. the boats would be lifted of groundwater and there would be a device between our round pier 32 end pier 36. dredging would happen to a depth of 15 feet. this would be just off of the wharf. so, again, this amendment proposal would be for the temporary use of anything like was contemplating the rate in the area so that we potentially have the same issues here that we have to work through with

ac/dc as we do in the 24.5 area. all three of these amendment requests have been submitted. i would like to go over the next steps that we are facing in this process. the first step is that bcdc staff brings a subscription notice of the application. the commission says whether or not to go forward with processing the application. this has already happened with the cruise terminal in the early commission. that application is in process and would have its public hearing in october of this year with possible action on the amendment itself in the early 2012. the america's cup related amendment proposals have not

done in the brief description of this form yet. we expect that that what happened in june. again, commission action in early 2012. we think that there is an intervening step, particularly for the cruise terminal [no audio] over the course of the fall. we need to consult more with bcdc and the stakeholders themselves. we are not sure that the workshop setting is the right way to approach this, but we hope to use the time between now and over the course of the summer to build more consensus about the actual form of the final amendment. so, that is my presentation. i will open it up to the commission for an questions.

>> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? commissioners? comments? questions? >> one question in terms of the floating docks. is there any reason it could not be located along pier 1 as opposed to horizontal leave bursas vertically? blacks are you talking about the area that should go between 14th and 22 m behalf? that structure is pier 14, the public what way to the south of the ferry building the. my understanding is that that appear does not have enough strength to be able to support more than the breakwater function is conducting right now. that if you been tempted to hook up to it, docs or other facilities, for the morning of

these super-vessels, that you would run into a problem. we have been looking at whether or not the boats themselves need to be that close to shore. the floating docks could be moved out over 100 feet from the shoreline, something that is being examined. >> that would then reduce the amount of dredging needed? >> it would reduce the amount of dredging needed. much of this is driven by operational needs for the large spectator vessels. also, currents in the area. the currents are quite small outside the bright water structure. you would have to take good advantage of the protection that the break water provides. >> commissioner?

>> other than peter 27, which we would have had to do because we are pursuing a cruise terminal, these others with the do seem to be related to the america's cup. if we are going to deliver on the promise, i assume we are talking about some fairly intense negotiations. >> that is one reason why we are proposing three separate amendment considerations and negotiations that might be different for the different locations. certainly, we laid a lot of ground work with these interviews related to the amendment. the public has had less of a chance to live up to the proposals. and these are so temporary.

through 2014 to remove any improvements that have been made. they really are different proposals. >> any other questions or comments? >> in terms of the feedback that has been given, you indicated bcdc was not enamored of some of these efforts. would that impact the timing of moving forward on provisions for the america's cup? >> one thing that i will say is that everybody bcdc, and this is true of all of the regulatory agencies that we have brought issues to, everyone is engaged. a really great staff at all of the regulatory agencies.

we have been able to meet on a regular basis. one thing that we went over in the staff report that i did not go over in my presentation was putting together an area for the working group. kelly is an environmental planner on loan from the puc and has organized that effort. everyone gets the sense that the america's cup is happening out a press time schedule. working quickly to come up with alternate approaches where required. yes, there is a risk of the leg. i think that everyone understands the events are planned for what they are planned for. let's thank you. we really appreciate it.

>> item 9b, request approval to execute agreement with the u.s. army corps of engineers for staffing costs associated with expect -- expedited regulatory review for the proposed terminal and the 34th america's cup for costs not to exceed $157,703. >> the army corps of engineers one, they will be an agency that will support the work of other federal agencies through their process. the item i am here to present today, kelly actually prepared. she has been negotiating based

on a template that was first trail blazed by the puc, entering into a memorandum of agreement to get dedicated staff who are there to address the permit issues that you have on a timely basis. physically the proposal is to provide staff and support. for the city to provide staffing support. we estimate that about 80% of these costs are america's cup related. 20% are related to the cruise terminal. the other federal agencies that would be reimbursed through this effort include the know and national fisheries, who are doing an endangered species act consultation.

in addition to pulling the mark, construction by peers will play a role in processing the national environmental protection act. we are requesting that the port enter into this memorandum of agreement on behalf of the city. and that when the office of economic or workforce development gets appropriate authority, we either transfer the memorandum of agreement to wewd, or we transfer it to the air -- to their budget billing

code. that is something that elaine has negotiated with cfo for owe d. off we are confident that we will not be paying these expenses on behalf of the america's cup. i think that i lost a couple of people in the process. kelly, whom i had mentioned before, is a superstar. we have a dream team for permitting on this project. and they work through very complicated permit processes that will stretch through the rest of the year. on behalf of support staff, i would like to say how much we appreciate everything. are there any questions on this

memorandum of agreement? >> thank you. >> second. >> is there any public comment on this item? pop all in favor? resolution 1135 has been approved. >> item 9c, request approval to execute memorandum of agreement with the association of bay area governments for staffing costs up to $260,340 associated with expedited regulatory review for the proposed pier 27 cruise terminal and the 34th america's cup. >> this item is the state equivalent of the federal and l.a. that we just discussed. the two state agencies or to play in the cruise terminal. they have jurisdiction over 401

certification. also looking at ways to discharge. and then there is the bay conservation development committee. the commission had previously approved a memorandum of agreement. the cdc will have to permit all of the floating docks and construction activities happening up and down the waterfront. the workload for both agencies is quite high. in this case we have a slightly different approach other than factoring in with both of those agencies. payback would be the employer for this that that would be processing permits on behalf of those agencies we are

estimating a similar cost split. the arrangement would again be the same regarding transferring an l.a. to them -- transferring mla to them. in the dream team, our environmental planner on loan from the planning department. he is helping out a lot with kermit issues. if there are any questions on this, but would be happy to answer them. let's second. >> is there any public comment on this item? those in favor? resolution 1136 has been approved.

item 9d, informational presentation on the draft people plan for the 34th america's cup event. >> hello. this is michael martin. he is the proud owner of all of the city's obligations under the america's cup. the hosting the new agreement,. you cannot tell by looking at him, but for a time he was a securities bond lawyer. so, we are recycling at our very best, just moving around. he actually joined the office of economic and workforce development, where he was most recently a project manager and most well known to commissioner foley. he has agreed to be here today so that you can meet him, engage

with him, and most importantly hear about one of the city's obligations, which is to create and manage a people plan. as you know, there was a preliminary people plan as of march 31. you will recall that in the final version it is required to roll into part of the e i are by the end of september. >> that hit everything i had planned for my introduction. i am the america's cup project director. i really appreciated the directors reference to the owner of the city's obligations, because that is how i feel. in many ways i am coordinating

across a wide range of staff. not only on the things required of the agreement, but also the promise of white people wanted to bring this here in the first place. economic, maritime history, all of those things. it has been an exciting and challenging ride so far. this place is already a major center of activity and we are blessed to have so many good people working on it already. hopefully i will be able to be helpful is the strategy for moving tens of hundreds of thousands of people to be very scenic but also not easily and often constructed areas along the waterfront where we can watch these spectacular events. as mentioned, the people plan is

called for and the initial draft was issued for feedback at the end of march. as accepted by the city of kent authorities and we cannot say that we are actually doing this until we have the proper view, but the hope is to have a clear strategy with the help of the feedback from the public and it turned out to be very fortuitous. what we heard, especially in the early public scope meetings in the amendment, that this was the people, these visitors,

these residents, wanted to know how the event would impact their lives if they were not interested. they just live in san francisco. since march we have been to 24 public meetings. cuff i believe that we have six more scheduled through the middle of june. we are receiving comments on line, as well as from anyone that we can talk to, to get as much of the good thinking out there as we can. one last piece on the schedule. we just released from the office of economic workforce development web site, not a catchy name, but that is what it is, a status report on the people plan. we are inviting comments from the public through the end of the month. if you do not see your comments here, please get it in.

we will have another project status update in june along with transit project providers that will help us to strategizing on a bay area level. tying it all together so that people can see what is coming in the september timeframe. a quick overview that i am sure you have seen that your meetings before, in terms of the schedules of the meetings that are coming, the first is due next year in the summer of 2012. we have mid-august and mid- september. the window was really july through september. we are working to figure out the specific dates. those are one of events. nine days of sailing each. sort of their own format. the champion of those sorts of events are not actually related to 2013.

once we get to 2013, there is the cup challenge series between july and the beginning of september that will, perhaps, be interspersed with the defender series. otherwise it will simply be the challenges facing off for a chance to go against the offender in the america's cup final. moving to the people plan itself, the way it was structured in march, it jumped from an initial decision to work from the -- from these guiding principles. resource efficiency was the primary one. it had to do with looking at the building blocks that we had in figuring out the best way to deploy those instead of building whole new system is out whole cloth. here