credential and i checked on that and sure enough there is. so a lot of things were said at the time and the amendment language to change the date, i will support it but i'm reluctant to because at the time of our discussion i asked about all these things. and i was willing to talk to my colleagues. vice president yee: what i'm hearing from some of my colleagues is that, well, what if you don't raise the money and so forth, are you going to come back and change the date again? i am not going to extend any more dates on this. i think we've given -- we've

been fairly flexible extending it from the first two years and some more, we're doing this and we're putting some amendment language to get it to november 1 and so at this point i hope that your perspective on this of what could actually happen is going to be correct and that we can move forward and if it doesn't happen it's not going to happen. i'm hoping that it will happen for you, for us. but i will just tell you personally i would not support anything beyond this. somebody else could do it if they want but it won't be me. so roll call for the amendment. commissioner fewer: no. commissioner maufas: yes. commissioner murase: aye. commissioner norton: yes. commissioner wynns: aye. vice president yee: aye. that's five ayes. vice president yee: ok.

so on the resolution itself, comments? commissioner maufas: major, i had a couple of questions, just as we saw yesterday about how there is a commission's officers and enlisted personnel at each site, is that correct? one of each? and that's in compliance? >> the program is designed to have an officer, commissioned officer, generally someone who would have already done it and then an n.c.o., a lower ranking individual as an assistant. and the requirements over the years have never been for the n.c.o. to qualify for the program through the government, to get the government credential, to have a college degree. that's slowly changing as the army and military changes their requirements. so that's the way it was set up. we don't all have that in every place because we've lost some

folks, general powell left, we lost lieutenant colonel over at washington through retirement, etc., etc. so we haven't been able to replace people. so we're having -- some of these programs are run by n.c.o.'s who should have been in the secondary position and not been the supervisor of record. commissioner maufas: and just so i'm clear. you can't have two n.c.o.'s. maybe one who has the -- or is that the this thing that puts them over? they have the college degree? they're at a different level? >> yes. it's possible to have an n.c.o. run a program when there's no officer available. if you have two n.c.o.'s then one of them has to have a college degree. commissioner maufas: ok. >> in order to do that. vice president yee: any other questions, comments on this?

commissioner fewer. commissioner fewer: so i think that the purpose of doing this is to be more in compliance with the guidelines for the jrotc program, is that correct? >> yes, ma'am. commissioner fewer: ok. but according to our jrotc enrollment and i know you gave us some numbers but this was actually presented to us from our planning, research and accountability and i think that they probably are pretty accurate also. and so i'm looking at -- so when we talk about compliance, now, so i'm a little confused because yesterday at a meeting we said we had eight jrotc instructors, i think, one, two, three, four, five, six, we have seven currently, is that

correct? there's nine? >> there were seven people that were going to go to the alliant university orientation. there are a few folks who were planning on retiring. commissioner fewer: who presented this to us? i'm looking at this paper that just says, jrotc teaching credential, status and timeline. so we have seven listed here. does that mean that two of them are not currently in the timeline? is that what you're telling me? one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. there's seven here. does that mean two are not in the timeline? >> there are two that you're going to have to help me out, give me one second. commissioner fewer: ok. >> i thought i had nine of them listed here. there's only seven listed here. commissioner fewer: there's seven on here and you say that there's nine. it looks as though we have some missing folks. >> there are nine. there are nine.

seven of which are enlisted and two of which are commissioned officers. commissioner fewer: so it looks as though we have two commissioned, one at local and one at balboa, yourself, major. >> i have no idea what you're looking at. commissioner fewer: oh, ok. i actually don't know what i'm looking at now also then. if i'm told that you currently have nine instructors and i'm looking at this and i see seven, does that mean that two of them are off this list because they are not part of the timeline to a credentialing program? >> two of them are going to retire, two of them are planning to retire at the end of the school year and they're not going to participate in it. commissioner fewer: i see. we currently have nine but at the end of the school year we find ourselves in may, 2012, we'll only have seven, if we don't hire these new three, is that correct?

>> correct. commissioner fewer: ok. so we are doing this so that we will be in compliance with the federal jrotc program, is that correct? yeah. so i am looking at jrotc guidelines which i got off the website under the jrotc program, the department of defense. section eight, item eight, subsection b says that they'll be staffed with a minimum of two instructors as we're trying to adhere to. it also says local school officials are the hiring authority, right? according to -- accordingly all instructor applicants are subject to local policy concerning qualifications and employment contracts and i think right here because after two years no one complied with what our policy was. then i'm looking at here that it says, for jrotc program to

remain viable, now, our policy and i'm sorry to have to correct you, but i believe, and it could be that my recollection is wrong also, but 50 was not the number, 50 was the number of students that if a school had 50 or less then they may choose to elimb nat the program but by -- eliminate your own program but by your own guidelines and the department of defense it says, again, section eight, item g, for a jrotc program to remain viable, it must retain at least 100 students or 10% of the eligible high school population. i'm looking at our numbers here and i see that be a hamlin condoleezza rice high school, well -- abraham lincoln high school has less than 100, local has 77 and george washington has of a. -- has 56. so george washington, only 6.4%

of its population are in your program and at local only 8.8%. so you're in violation of not having a viable program by the department of defense standards . so we are attempting here to meet the minimum standards that you state here, however your program doesn't even meet the minimum standards set by your own department of defense guidelines. so i just don't see why -- quite frankly when i see at local 77 students and you plan on hiring another instructor for local you're going to have two teachers for 77 students, out of how many sections that are taught a day? that seems as though it is not excessive but it may be what all of our science and magget classes should have that student to teacher ratio. i think my point is, major, that we're doing all this again, making a lot of changes when really many of our

programs in this district are ready -- already are in violation of the own department of defense's guidelines for what is a viable program. set forth by the people who actually run the program and pay for it. so we're doing this to be in compliance but yet we're out of compliance on so many other things. and even if we hire these three, we will still be out of compliance. so i just think this is not a good way to set policy. i think that if we're going to say that we're doing this to be compliant then we should, you know, actually be compliant and actually the program should comply with its own guardians of its program which is the department of defense. and when i look at this, you know, now also with the extension of the date, i feel like we set policy two years

ago and the majority of the board approved it and i wasn't one of them to approve it but the majority did approve it and we're doing this because that policy wasn't met and again by your own department of defense guidelines it says that all instructor applicants are subject to local policy. so i just want to reiterate that i just don't understand sort of why we're setting policy like this and i don't think it's actually a very smart way to set policy for a school district. thanks. >> may i say something? i called this afternoon and did a head count at all the schools. lincoln is 126, local's 79 and they have 25 students that they are processing for the independent study program and

consequently they'll be in the jrotc program. and it will bring their numbers up to 100. washington is problematic, it's been problematic for years. i will concede that. these numbers do not indicate any of the leadership labs or drill labs that will be put in place. i anticipate every school to be at 100 or better. probably by this time next week. commissioner fewer: if i may respond. so i'm looking at this jrotc drill lab. i see the count 000, 0er zero at be a ham -- abraham lincoln, zero at washington, three at lowell. i see jrotc section two, i see zero at abraham lincoln, zero at galileo, zero at george washington, i see four in a class at lowell high school. which you want to put another instructor.

zero at mission and zero at phillip. so i'm looking at jrotc rivalry. i see zero, abraham lincoln, zero balboa, zero at galileo, zero at washington. i see two at lowell. i see zero at mission high school and zero at burton. so a lot of these class sizes are very, very small. i'm looking at also, let's see, i could look at another class here. naval science one, i see zero at lincoln, zero at balboa, zero at washington, zero at lowell, zero at mission and 84 at burton. so it's sort of the same numbers across the board here. so i'm sort of wondering, even with these class sizes, how many sections does a teacher teach or how many sections of jrotc are there in a school day , how many students are

instructors actually teaching and, you know, we're not including students who participate after school. we are actually just including students who are currently enrolled with the master schedule and this is where we get our data from. so i think your numbers might show a higher number and a head count maybe and also, you know, we're also looking at a 10-day count but things change, too. so these numbers quite possibly could even be high. again, i don't see how the numbers sort of justify it. vice president yee: can you respond? do you have a response to that? >> well, there are no students at any of these schools in any of the navy one, two, three programs because it's only at burton. the army programs are at the other schools. s.i.s., as you all know, is

less than 100% accurate, all i can tell you is that i called and got the numbers. as i was leaving the school, changed by two. the drill labs and leadership labs traditionally are sort of -- they are sort of hand loaded after the regular classes get put in place. some students come in to do those that may not be in another class. and some may go on and do that other drill lab as well. so once the hard enrollment for the school day gets established then we sort of hand enroll the other ones. lists are provided to counselors, the counselors take care of it. it's not something that is automatic as the regular class loading is. so it takes some time. and it's just the way it's been over the course of the 17 years i've been here.

commissioner maufas: so i just want to respond to commissioner fewer's sort of question. you had recalled what when he done previously. no, you're correct. i just wanted to reassure you that what you recall is correct. because i recall those same things. so, if i'm understanding correctly, between us and you, i'm going to put this to you, 10-day count, you'll have a hard and fast number, tell me when you'll have your number that you believe will be true? because i'm going to ask our staff to compare and as we go forward i want to know those numbers myself. and i don't want -- i'm going to ask you. when -- when do you believe you

will know that you have the correct numbers for your class sizes at school? >> the numbers are not that different. their number is 910 and our number is 874. total. and in fairness we're not to the 10-day count. what commissioner maufas: right. >> so i don't have any reason to dispute what their numbers are and what -- and when the 10-day count happens then we'll know what they are. >> meeting is called to order. >> [roll call] >> i into, approval of minutes of the july 122012 meeting.

>> seconded. all in favor? >> please be advised that the ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers, and similar sound-producing electronic devices are prohibited at this meeting. please be advised that the chair may order the removal from the meeting room of any person(s) responsible for the ringing or use of a cell phone, pager, or other 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 period on any item. -for a, executive director of report. >> good morning, members of staff. please except our gratitude for making time for this meeting. unfortunately, it could not be held of the regular meeting time, so i want to thank everyone for changing their schedule on this early monday morning.

thank you very much for making that effort on behalf of the port and our agenda today. on the executive director's report i have a couple of items that are very important. it has been an incredibly busy summer and we will roll right into a very busy fall. i think you are aware from the publicity, on thursday, the city planning commission had a hearing on the draft environmental report for the america's cup 34 of that and if your 27 cruise terminal and the northeast wharf project. the open comment period is ongoing and there are multiple ways to review the draft eir, one of which is on mine, the second of which is in the lobby of port offices at pier 1. many members of the public have come in to take a look at that, to take a look at their own area

of interest. that has been terrific. my compliments to staff for making that an opportunity. as you know, we are not the regulatory entity that is doing the in our mental impact report, so any comment on that need to go to the office of city planning, either to the environmental review officer and director of the environmental planning division of the city planning department, or to the eir coordinator. she can be reached at her e- mail. the public comment period closes on august 252011. at the hearing last thursday there were approximately 40 speakers. today, there were six from the environmental council that is working with the city on eir.

a number of issues were raised. one of the port is supportive of, reflects the impact to the aquatic club and the ability to mitigate impacts so there are not interruptions to the ability to swim there. we were pleased to hear those comments and look forward to working through them. there were other comments as well, many of which were reported in the press. we appreciate everyone's willingness to work with us further, commitment to these projects, which are pretty big milestones for the port. a number of those concerns had to do with the impact of the shoreside power system at pier 27 come offline, as well as the difficulty to analyze the long term development rights as currently drafted, since we are still working on those.

the high school academy proposal, which you all have written about, has been presented. there were comments about problems for ferry building and other businesses, if the embarcadero were closed to vehicular traffic. it was a very informative discussion. i believe the planning commission spend a lot of time on it. they are also interested in finding out more about how to proceed going forward so that they do not have approval rights on the projects themselves. i think there will be more discussion coming and i am sure we will update you at the next port commission meeting. just wanted to make sure that you were aware of that, and for anyone that was here today, following this online or on tv. thank you so much for helping us with this complex issue. august 25 is right around the corner, so we look forward to working with everyone. next on the report is the blue green went public comment period. we decided to extend that through the end of the month.

the due date has extended to august 31, 2011. this week, there was a meeting. there will be a discussion of comments on the blue green way plan. that meeting is being held at 6:00 this wednesday at the eco center at parents had park. finally, a bit of press on this. we just want to make a special effort to recognize the passing of one of our former and a long serving members of the port, mr. eugene gartland. he first served as a port commissioner from 1972 through 1974. you then became an executive director. unfortunately, he passed away this past july 23 after a very long illness. he is survived by two daughters

and four grandchildren, and numerous friends throughout the city. at his request, a very small funeral. you may know that he was appointed by mayor dianne feinstein. at the time, he was a maritime attorney and was the senior partner at a law firm. he was then general counsel for a major maritime organization. during his tenure as the port director and at the commission, he did a lot of amazing things. first and foremost was the purchase of the bethlehem shipyard, which is now our longest serving west coast shipyard, which we are extraordinarily proud of. by doing this, he was able to ensure we had a thriving ship repair industry here in san francisco. it has obviously gone on for

decades after that purchase, and it employs approximately 400 skilled union workers. so that is a great and lasting feet. in 1986, he negotiated a new agreement with the national shipping co. of the philippines at pier 80. this increase our revenues substantially. he negotiated a lease with the chinese province for 30,000 square feet of space at the pier 27 bulkhead. and he negotiated an agreement to serve a long and other countries, bringing in an additional 100 teu's a week. he was involved in the purchase

of the bethlehem shipyard property at sea wall laot 349. he was also presented an award of distinguished service for his efforts in the success of our mandate 1987. army day was a holiday to draw attention to national defense. i just wanted to take a moment to praise him and remember him for all of his great efforts. we have probably long gone up some of the things that we are working on today started many years ago. i do not think i see any members of his family today, but our condolences and gratitude for all of them have sacrificed for the city and port. thank you. >> is there any public comment

on the executive director's report? >> item 4b. informational presentation on assembly bill 418 delegating to the california state lands commission the authority to realign public trust restrictions at pier 70 and turning public trust restrictions on sea wall lot 330. >> good morning, commissioners. special projects manager for the port. dianne is passing out to you some maps of pier 70, which will be used in the presentation. just bear with me while i get this launched.

i am here representing the port team that has been working on pure 70 for many years, the master planning process. many others in the planning development group. there was a key component of the master plan that looked at realigning the public trust designation at pir 70 in a way that will help promote the master plan. the core of the master plan is to have revenue-generating uses on the waterfront development site. commission has awarded an exclusive negotiating rights to the force city development team for that right. that will be the economic engine to save a lot of historic

buildings, build the parks, do the other thing that we all hope peer 70 can be. assemblymember ammiano has come to the port's aid again this year. he has offered ab418, and today's presentation goes over how this will facilitate the trust exchange and also how we can facilitate one of our major part requirements under the host agreement with the america's cup event of poverty. -- authority. in anticipation of getting force city on board as a development partner, trying to further the entitlement process at your -- pier 70, much of the staff reached out to the california state lands commission january and started talking about