underserved, but we are sort of the atm for a lot of the things happening citywide. i oppose this. thank you. commissioner miguel: is there additional public comment? if not, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini: thank you for your comments. i wanted to comment on those things that i did hear that had relationships to the eir, questions that need be answered. it may be something that the fifth is an analyzed

completely, those entrances and if they are adequately of about. there are questions about the adequacy of the traffic analysis. there were a lot of comments on the type of housing. there are questions about the recreational uses of the club. it would be open to residents. there are examples of that. the water displacement issue is one that is spoken to and it is

mentioned as an impact. the analysis takes into account all the possibilities that might occur because of the -- and that is probably about it on things that relate to the eir itself. commissioner sugaya: i will probably submit stuff and writing. -- in writing. one of the deficiencies, it could be done with respect to the announcements, and the that

we get is a photograph and superimposes a building. it seems to me that it is awfully static. the view is already blocked by trees, palm trees, what ever they may be. other buildings. talking about telegraph hill, in that area.

that mike give us a little better visual sense of what the impact of these particular buildings are going to be. it is supposed to serve the neighborhood. more than one person has come forward and said there are people from all over the city coming here. i don't know if that is an appropriate discussion. but some consideration for that issue, and maybe take a look. i don't know if this is private or not. if we can see what the membership.

commissioner borden: the follow- up to that thought, a new club specifically. if you look at projections between existing and that new facilities, whatever the impact will be is relative to a more modern club. i think it is important to address the things the referenced like the underground drug and the water table. i am sure some of the statements about the section needs to be better examined looking at all of the actual impact on pedestrians. and looking at other sort of parking and strategies that might make sense for that area. otherwise, those were just a few things that i thought of. commissioner miguel: i think commissioner sugaya's comments

about using more modern technology are quite well taken. i would welcome that. i will have written comments later, but just a few doubts. i do not think that the public trust with the hotel was sufficiently analyzed. just a comment to those that were talking about the 1962 agreement with the golden gate center, that was superseded in 76 in exchange. in my mind, this project is driven by probably a couple of things, mainly by the ability to create a parking sufficient to service itself.

my wife and i are at the farmers' market at 7:30 every saturday morning. our parking spot was taken away a couple of years ago, and other than a few motorcycle spaces, they have done nothing to replace those bases. -- spaces. i disagree with the statements that this in anyway takes care of any of san francisco's housing needs. i have to agree with the comments, i think it may have been someone that said these are extremely expensive. i'd love you are talking about the dollar equivalent for the spaces, but it is based on the

number of units, not the value and cost of the units. that is the way that that particular legislation was crafted. 34 units on the $2.5 million -- if they were a $600,000 and middle income type units. i really find a disparity in that ratio. i have to agree that the west side is an absolute mess. it is tragic for a main thoroughfare in san francisco. i have seen a number of plans that would take care of that. in a manner that the city is

deserving of. that is somewhat aside from the particular project established in this. >> if that is all, we can move on to public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission within the subject matter of the commission except agenda items. i have no speaker cards. commissioner miguel: public comments in written form can be submitted to the department until the close of business on august 15. is there any general public comment on the non-agenda items? public comment is closed.

this hearing is concluded.

>> all those in favor of approving the minutes? any opposed? the minutes or approved as a minute. item three, public comment on executive session. nothing? ok, executive session. is there a motion? >> so moved. >> approved. >> all of those in favor of adjourning to an executive session? any opposed? >> reconvene in open session. at second?

>> i would also like to make game motion that there are two versions of the agenda. on some, item 13 was deleted, which was just adjournment. so i move to add at item 13 back on to the agenda, for adjournment. about a second. >> any public comment? >> all of those in favor of revising the agenda? the motion is carried. is there a motion regarding closed session? >> motion not to disclose? >> is there a second? any discussion? all of those in favor? the motion is carried. >> item six, please be advised that the ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers, or similar sound producing electronic devices are prohibited at this

meeting the chair may order the removal of any person responsible for the ringing or use of a cell phone, pager, or similar sound-producing electronic device. please be advised that a member of the public has up to three minutes to make pertinent public comments on each agenda item unless the port commission adopts a shorter time on any item. item seven a., executive director's report. >> good afternoon. board staff, and a member of the public. i have a brief executive director's report today. i am starting with another of our blue greenway planning and design guidelines workshops, this thursday evening, june 16, at pier 1, from 5:30 until 7:30. they will focus on improving it

cited and the site furnishing. the meeting is from 5:30 until 7:30 at pier 1, and we already have a draft. his agent online at sfgport.com/bluegreenway, and will be taking, it's on that until july. you can leave your comments on line. we welcome the comments. it is an exciting project for us. the next item is the final environmental impact report for the brannon street wharf, at long last heard by the city planning commission this thursday, june 16, and we sincerely hope that will be certified. this is the final eir for the project, which has spent 11 years in conceptual design.

it is finally moving forward. banks to the generosity of multiple sources, including the bond measure, the project is fully funded -- thanks to the generosity of multiple sources. that is really exciting news for us and we are looking for to that at long last. as i think you already know, this week, the oracle racing has debuted to of their ac-45 vessels for the running of the catamarans. the ac-72's which are twice as tall, will be running for the calendar series in july, 2013, as well as the final match of the america's cup. this week, from 1:00 until 3:30, june 13 through june 17,

is the running of america's cup 45, and they're testing out the courses. i think they have some fine- tuning, after yesterday's capsizing, as well as race management technology, all under the purview of john, who is the course designer for the america's cup management group, formally doing the same job for the st. francis yacht club. they're doing places all over the bay. -- there are viewing places all over the bay. the most scenic would be from golden gate bridge to pier 39, or the 1850 replica of the america's cup yacht race. or the 2003 challenger usa 76. those vessels are also out there, and hopefully everybody will get to see them. they're said to go about 30 knots, which is quite quick.

very exciting. next is the development commission will be meeting on july 7. this is imported the port of san francisco is our joint application with the america's cup event authority with a commission to consider, the special area plan amendment to allow open activity in the water basin for the america's cup on the 34 -- for the america's cup 34. but it is at the water basin a little to the south of pier 32- 38. whose phone is ringing? that is where the key vessels will be brought during the match. the second place is the open water basin at the rincon park. the proposal is spectator yachts would be berthed in that open water basin. it the special area plan limits

mooring to non-commercial vessels. the items will be held at the commission meeting on july 7, in the port commission room, in this building. there will be a staff report available, june 24. at this time, staff is only recommending an allowance for the brannon street wharf open water basin and not the rincon point open water base. at some more to come on where the super yachts will be berthed. and finally, i'd like to propose the port commission adjourned its meeting today in honor of the fallen san francisco firefighters, lieutenant vincent perez and firefighter paramedic anthony valerio, two college to we have lost 10 days -- two of our colleagues that we have

lost. >> any comments on the executive director's report? ok. >> item 7 b., legislative updates. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is jonathan stern with the planet -- with the port planning and development division. given that our legislative liaison was detained, he asked me to give you a brief update about the legislative agenda of the port and city at the state legislature. there are two bills that have been going through the legislature and i will give you a brief update regarding them. there we go. there are two bills, both about development projects.

the first, ab-418, regards pier 7-0 and the trust status out at the pier, at the other bill is regarding the cruise terminal and the sites that will be in the america's cup. just as background, the port works with legislature, in conjunction with the city legislative committee. this is the group convened by the mayor's office, and generally puts together all of the specific needs that the city looks at, what is planning to move toward it at this time, and we are part of that process. ab-418 is really an administrative trust bill. it is a trust exchange

mechanism. at this map shows the report that port staff that did a number of years ago about the trust status of the area components of pier 70. many of the pieces of property were acquired with the original grant. many of them were acquired afterwards, specifically the shipyard, which support purchased for $1. each of these parcels, some of them were filled land, some of the more i planned. -- some of them are upland. they have specific stories that affects their legal status. when we are going through our normal process, we have a couple options. we can sit down with staff and

say this very specific property has this-and should be treated this way, and this is not in the trust, or because we are doing pier 70, we can try to all ligne trust status. this is the representation of three statuses we would like to see. the yellow are areas where the trust is lifted. almost 40 acres at pier 70 have other reasons we think the trust may not apply. the green areas would be in the trust. these are some of the internal streets. and then the historic buildings would either be in the trust, could be maintained by the port in or out of the trust. but i mentioned before, this

bill is primarily an administrative bill. it is delegating to the state lands commission, making these trust exchanges. ultimately, there will be a lot of staff work and tidal research to verify the status and get them from this map to the second. this is not really a matter that needs to be written into state law, the mechanism where the land commission can address these issues as they go by. this is particularly important as we move forward with the development initiatives we have, the waterfront site that we're negotiating before the city development, and for the 20th street building. these are mechanisms that will help us finish those processedes. there are sort of two issues that we are looking at, that have to be resolved before this is finalized.

they both have to essentially do with the trust money and historic buildings. the first is some of these lands seem to be non-trust land, but they're still held by the port, and the harbor fund is essentially a trust assets. so what happens with this money. at the land commission wants to make sure that we do not put general trust money, harbor fund money into non-trust properties. that is a nuance and the details we still have to work out. similarly, do historic buildings get held at the trust with use restrictions or are they held as non-trust assets that achieve the mission of the trust of historic preservation? again, there are some nuances that have to be worked out. it has gone all the way through the assembly, including the

committee. it has gone to the senate side. it has been deemed to be non- revenue. it does not have to go through the appropriations process. is scheduled to be heard on june 28, and our hope is it will be voted in a positive manner and go to the senate floor for adoption and go through the confirmation process. that is the trajectory right now. ab-664 is another ifb bill. as you have probably heard, we have gone to the legislature a number of time, last six years, to strengthen the infrastructure of the finance district capabilities. this particular bill has to do with properties that are subject to the america's cup, and where

the will be long-term improvements done by the event authority or short-term improvements, sites that might become better because they're touched by the america's cup. it is to create a district on these properties. we have gone to the state legislature to say that we've elected capture the ifb's districts. specifically, this is based on the misalignment of local investment and state-projected tax gains, based on the america's cup event in 2013. the report is expected to invest $55 million minimum of improvement for port properties. this will have the effect of having the port authority make those investments that offer long-term development rent credit to that effect. essentially it will be local investment. the city is also signed up to

cover $32 million of the cost raised by the america's cup organizing committee or local taxes. what has been rejected is the $61 million of state revenue from the state from income taxes, sales taxes, etcetera, from the economic activity in 2013. based on those conditions, we have asked through the mechanism similar to what we did at pier 70 last year, that the city and port would be able to capture more of the revenue, the tax increment revenue through this mechanism. currently, we only have the ability to capture sixty-five cents of every tax increment dollar. it is generated through new development. in this district, that would raise it from 65 to ninety cents of every dollar tax capture. it has similar safeguards. the state has oversight. that would go through the state

investment bank to be certain these are projects that are of statewide interest. anyway, this has also passed all the way through the assembly. it has deemed to be a revenue bill, as it should be. it is currently being heard at the senate rules committee schedule on july 6. after that, it will probably go into recess until august to go through the appropriation reviews process, and hopefully we get through that process this year. other bills ended up being two- year bills because of the additional scrutiny of the state is having with the tight revenue bills. that is a possibility.

but also, the america's cup, everybody wants to pitch in. it is getting some traction, and we hope this bill could be potentially a one-year bill. that concludes my update. >> when you say you would be capturing more, what does that translate into total amounts that the port would be of the capture out of this? >> it is about 40% more. our current projections from just the development at 3032 and pier 30-32, the probable production capacities is about $27 million. that is an analysis we ran