are intruders. because we now have to purchase a day pass. my father suffers from alzheimer's and enjoys the time that i can take him and walk through the camp, and he can enjoy his memories. i ask that we have an agreement where we do not feel like we have to apply a wrist band every day to go down there. our cabins are only used by our families. they're not rented out. it is not the general public coming through. i encourage you to come up with some sort of an agreement with us. thank you. >> is there anyone else who would like to speak on this item? >> 1931 was my first summer at campmather -- at camp mather.

i was four years old. we were not actually to stay in the camp, but the campground was open to the public for a fee. my brothers doctor recommended getting him out of the summer fog in santa cruz. so we camped at mather they all summer long and for four more years after that. of course our days were spent at the lake. i learned to swim in the old cement pool, and i was proud when i passed the test is one in the leg. in 1935, my father was able to buy a place at peach growers, and we continued to spend summers there, from june until september, swimming in birch lake every day. we still spend summers at our cabin. my father's grandchildren and great-grandchildren are growing up at the cabin, except that now they're not able to swim in birch lake. * change, that is to be understood.

but -- times change, that is to be understood. but surely it is possible to come up with some equitable arrangement that will allow the families at peach growers to share the heritage of the use of a birch lake. i ask for your thoughtful consideration in this matter. >> is there anyone else who would like to comment under this item? >> my name is dennis. me and my family have a cabin at peach growers, so i would like to address the issue of use of the lake. my understanding is that the first cabins at peach growers were built around 1910. so we're talking about a history of about 100 years. and i also want to emphasize

that the property, th mah -- the mather property is very unique. for hundreds of square miles, there really are not open meadows like that mather. only a few areas. the uniqueness is that it has this late -- lake. it is really the only place in a large area that is available for people to swim or to have that recreational opportunity. for example, the city has a large reservoir where hetch hetchy is, but that is closed to the public. the city has another dam with the body of water at early intake, which is closed to the

public. there is a swimming pool at early intake, which is closed to the public. there used to be a dam on the middle fork when it the boy scouts had a camp, but that is no longer there. so this particular spot, this lake, is the only place. and what my concern also is is that the city, by having a high fee, if that is what its decision is, which for a family of four, i believe, would be $52. again, not 100% sure on that, but i think so. there is also the issue of the difficulty to actually go and use and get a day pass. so not only do you have a high fee, but when, on a saturday --

people may come up on a friday night and then a saturday afternoon to go to get a pass, and it is the very time- consuming process, because all of the people that are checking in are at the office. if you have ever gone to mather and had to check in, which i have done many times -- i have been going to mather for over 50 years. i was up there with my family. my father was a police officer. that is it. >> thank you. >> is there anyone else would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioners, anybody? >> then we are on item 12, which is the adjournment. >> a great. there are communications. -- at the -- [inaudible]

>> we have found out that that is not one of our parks. yes. >> all right, thank you. >> i guess they have enough problems with jurisdiction. >> commissioner harrison >> before we adjourn, could someone please read what was on the plaque? i cannot read the plaque, and i think for tony, he was such a major contributor to camp mather, and i could not read it. i think it does a disservice to him for us not to have that information.

>> it is not clear from the picture, i will be there the week of june 25 for our senior staff event. i will bring back a picture with the text. >> i cannot even read what we said. >> i do not think you can see it from the photograph, so i will get it. >> 0h, so you'll have to get that. somebody will. please have somebody do that, because his contributions were just invaluable, and i really appreciate all the work that he did. i want to know if we recognized him accordingly. thank you. >> thank you. any other business? i will entertain a motion to adjourn. >> so moved. >> second. >> we stand adjourned. thank you, all.

>> 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 last november, december, and presented to the board of supervisors. if you add 40% to that, and is about $10 million, up $12 million on top of that. it is a significant wreck the new effect. -- it is a significant revenue effect.

if additional development occurs on the other sites, the additional capital of the tax increments also. >> any further questions? and the public comment on the legislative update? ok, thank you. >> items on the consent calendar, 8 a., to execute an amendment with coast and harbor engineering, inc., to extend the contract term by an additional 12 months, to may 28, 2012, to provide engineering design support services during construction of the mission bay shoreline protection work. 8 b., request adoption of certain supplements and errata to the 2010 port of san francisco building code. 8 c., request authorization to advertise a request for proposal soliciting professional engineering services to establish a building occupancy resumption