draft, with no need to trade. this is why they can accommodate cruise vessels up to 900 feet in length. this past may, there have been two days where we worked the cruise ships. on these days, 300 members were assessed. we were proud of the people in the terminal, named after our esteemed past president. like you, jimmy once used to sit on the port commission and protect valuable maritime assets for the future. we need to have some of his long-term vision. we understand public access areas and etc. already included in the developers' plans. the issue is to keep maritime available for maritime use. thank you.

>> thank you. [unintelligible] >> i have a patrick came here? up excuse me. -- patrick camerkim here? excuse me. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is marty [unintelligible] i am a resident at the watermark. a building still located along seawall lot 330, part of a trust lot. i echo what katie has said. you know, the community, if it wasn't for support staff and some city staff, -- port staff

and some city staff, we never would have known that this project was going forward. we have a longstanding relationship. in gauging the community is incredibly important. we have made improvements in that area. we have adopted programs that the community is engaged in. we opened up a 2 acre dog park. we are interested in approving -- improving that area. we ask, speaking for myself here, simply to be involved as we can. this is a complex issue and it will take a long time to sort things out. personally, i am for any development on those piers that

fit the waterfront guidelines and rehabilitate the peeier. need to go to extraordinary lengths 3 b -- rehabilitate them at times. thank you. >> alex rogers? >> commissioners, thank you for your time. i am also here, partially, as part of the alphabet soup from the south beach neighborhood. up to second and third is what katie and marty had just said. i understand that there is some sort of discussion about the cac being organized into neighborhood groups. i would encourage you to make

sure that happens. we made some very strong standing during these negotiations and i am very sad that this resolution passed. we would really like to discuss a few other opportunities. but, we do want to be at that table. we need some new thinking on how we negotiate our quality of life issues. have a really good relationship with the giants, it is very clear that the city cannot maintain the quality of life in the neighborhood. it is something that private developers can walk away from. we need to think about that differently. so please help us. >> thank you.

>> commissioners, i am kathryn hooper. i am here where my maritime hat, as i have for years and years, starting with the first iteration of developing passenger lot 30-32. i was disappointed as well reading the warriors swooping in. i felt confident, going forward, all the review processes we would do for our 24 monterey agencies will insure that the right thing is done for the citizens, but i would like to reiterate a couple of things. the key and primary mission of the sent to cisco port commission is to protect and promote maritime commerce. clearly, one of our greatest resources of commerce in the port is the passenger cruise industry. you are now aware that we are blessed to be having a princess cruise year round. that is something that we are seeing more and more.

we are seeing more double and triple header is at the port. but it will not always be that way. we need piers 30-32 for a lot of operational consideration that i will not bore you with. it is critical space. i am also wearing a citizens have to talk about fleet week. fleet week takes place once a year, the 31st year we are doing it. it is a self sustaining the event that is very important to the city, if for no other reason, then financially. day-trippers' that come into the port for plea week spend on average of $109 per person. float that number out to the apartment 1.5 million that come into the port every day and you see a huge influx of revenue coming in tanks to fleet week. it is critical to fleet week

that we have birth. our ports is like -- has 7.5 miles of waterfront. how many piers can accommodate ports these days? not a lot. how about navy vessels? even less. take away the option of putting a big deck aircraft carrier on the face of 30-32 will impact fleet week. for those of you who do not live here, this event has become even more extraordinary. the fleet week organization are compromised and how we can put on funds, compromised by being able to go back to the admiral and say yes, we can accommodate ships in the sport. you will see me again. i will try to make it fun and happy, but the message will never change. we have got to retain and always

think about the mission of the port commission to preparprotecd promote the maritime industry. >> thank you. patrick kim. >> good afternoon, president brandon, fellow commissioners. i am the secretary treasurer of the ilwu. our guards and wachtmann work at cruise terminals. we are here early on in the process. we are asking for a way for the warriors to fight a cruise birth in their arena project. the arena and cruise birth can coexist at 30-32. the true spirit can actually enhance the project. the sport will still need a fourth cruise birth for future calls in the cruise business. san francisco's cruise business

has boomed since 2010. i am also a dispatcher, so i know how many passengers come in. in 2012, we will get 66 cruise ship calls, an increase of over 60%. the passenger count increases by 70% in 2012, to over 200,000 passengers. pier 35 is not a modern terminal. even though repairs have been done, it will need to be prepared annually and you will need to do dredging. i read in your staff report on the proposed project description that the proposed project would include maritime access, particularly along the north and east birth of piers 30-32 appeared that is pretty vague.

i do not know what that means. we hope that means meaningful maritime activities, like cruise ship operations. i want to distribute copies of the letter recently sent to the mayor's office from our local ilwu president on our behalf asking that the cruise birth be included in their redesign. your staff had received copies. we look forward to being a part of this public process, even if it means me going back to city hall and sitting through long hearings. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? >> do you have any idea when we might expect them to come back to the commission? >> i believe either at the july or august meeting is what i would expect that to occur. the warriors have hired a local

representation who is pretty familiar with the city paused process. they are purchase of aiding and other development projects, particularly pier 70. they know about the process. we are mainly looking to set a milestone for the project and make sure the city's cost during the negotiations are covered. >> i no plans have not been formalized, but there was reference made to maritime usage. do you have a sense of what that might look like? could you address the concerns about the backup of cruise ship terminals? >> city staff has discussed with representatives of the warriors, the potential for the crew's use that you have heard about today on the face of piers 30-32.

other concepts have been discussed about ferry access. that has been very successful, recreational access, the ability for people to bring their boats to be read and talk alongside it. it is so early in the project design stage, i think, the warriors are taking in all of these suggestions and try to understand the plans and policies that govern the site. i would expect they are not going to have a firm project description probably until the fall, as they go through the process of understanding the policy surrounding the site. >> is it possible that staff could look into the impact whether we can have a cruise ship terminal there or not?

maybe that is something that we would want to include in the negotiations and be made aware of. i think there are some concerns raised by people in the area. it is my understanding that there will be a citizens advisory committee to meet regularly. >> from what i understand, that idea is under discussion. certainly, in the waterfront land use plan, we have a policy of forming a citizens advisory committee to preview the development proposals, looking into them in detail before we come back to the commission. i do not know the exact form that would take, but i know that the board of supervisors, board members also emphasized the importance of the public outreach strategy here and how to make sure the neighborhood and other waterfront constituents are really heard through the process. >> we would want to echo those same sentiments as well.

>> i would just mention we formed our first cac in 1913, and we have had continuously ever since. i imagine that will be the case here. >> and legal parlance, this was called the leading question. >> any other comments or questions? all in favor? aye. resolution 1250 has been approved. >> item 8b. informational presentation regarding the national park service selection process for a proposed embarkation site for ferry service between the northern san francisco waterfront and alcatraz island. >> good afternoon. john dull from planning and development. this is only an informational presentation. there is no court action. primarily, this is a heads up to what is coming down in the next few months, years. mts recently approached the port

preparing their intention to begin a site selection plan -- a process, and then and offered a selection process for alcatraz island ferry service. frank dean is here from the national park service to present an overview of these processes. he will talk in a moment but i wanted to go over some of the general overview. as noted in the staff report, in terms of sites, mts is looking at the fort mason, port sites, identified as 31.5, 41, and pier 45. since 2005, mps has operated out of the pier 1.5. the lease with the port will expire in 2014.

there operator agreement is slated for expiration in 2016. under this new proposed selection process, instead of choosing an operator who has had control, mps is looking for a long time site controller at the port or pet fort mason and then choose an operator. this enables us to have a permit site but the operator may change, since federal regulation would require only a 10-year operating lease. as noted in the staff report, the port recurs -- prefers mps to consider sites in the northern waterfront and that we intend to use the environmental review process as a public process to select a new site. as we go to the selection process, they will develop analyses of each potential site.

the port has and will continue to provide information for the port sites and we will continue to have ongoing dialogue. the selection process this summer starts and is expected to be completed by the fall of 2014. at that point, if a portside is selected, mps would enter into negotiations for a long-term said control. near the end of the process, they would also initiate an operator selection process, which as i mentioned, it is a 10-year lease. we're coming to you now as a heads up that mps will start the selection process this summer and to alert you that once the site selection has been made by 2014, and if that side is a port side, there will be a number of port commission action items to be considered, including entering into inclusive--

exclusive negotiations, what the product description is, depending on that, there could be a secret process in addition to the nepa process. we will have to see. we do not know what the description for these sites will be. finally, the site selection process and operators process are independent of one another. let's say they picked pier 31.5, that does not guarantee that horn blowers will be the operator. you could have a situation where they are at pier 31.5 but you could have another opera likewise at 41, 45. 41 right now is blue and gold. pier 45, 41, red and white. there is " to be a little bit of -- it will be an interesting process. in summary, board staff will continue to work with mps so that and inform set selection

decision is made. certainly, it is the ports that's a goal to retain the it alcatraz landing site to be on law no. waterfront within port property. additional information comes available, we will come back to you with an update. with that, let me introduce frank dean of the national park service. if there are questions afterwards, jay and i are here to answer questions. one less thing. we made a mistake in one of the exhibits which amy has provided you a revised exhibit for pier 31.5.

>> good afternoon. thank you for having us today. interested to share with you our thoughts. in the interest of time, i just want to reinforce some of john paul's point. we're in the early stages of the process, in their early scoping phase. -- john's point. we are open to comments during this period of time as well, to any and all ideas. then we will have a second chance to hear from the public, which will then shape the final plan and decision.

our objective in all of this is we would like a long-term home for the alcatraz pier. as you can see in the image, we are open to where that might be. we believe, given the premier destination and alcatraz has become, we would like to have a long-term home for the peer and then have ferry operators that would service out of that pier, whichever one is selected. the idea is, 1.5 million visitors a year, a premier destination for locals and tourists alike. it is an important destination for the local economy. we will be looking at a potentially expanding very service to fort baker and sausalito. we are analyzing the potential for that. we have no immediate plans to do

that, unlike the address plans, which are more immediate. so why are we doing this? we are looking for a stable location that provide certainty for the park visitors, neighbors, and local businesses, and allow long-term investment for that site. we will like to see a welcome, national park-quality center at the dock. we believe this would be good for the city and national park service. we are also looking to provide at the same time, not only the dog, but identifiable and welcoming facility'ies. we're all we have significant needs on alcatraz island, given the

decaying infrastructure. the balance for us is, despite the money we generate from sales on the island, there is investment needed for the port, at fort mason and on the island itself. we are trying to juggle the various responsibilities. as john said, the goal is to retain facilities, and we are open to that. mps is also required by law to consider all sites that make the best overall choice, considering all factors, including financial feasibility. i will also know, almost all of the sites, whether on federal or port land, require substantial investment.

hopefully, we can work together with the city and port in a partnership, given the importance of alcatraz as a destination. selection of the site is not related to selection of a ferry operator. this is just a conceptual drawing of what we would like to see, all the ingredients you would like to have an embarkation center, operational space, interpreted aspects, retail, bathrooms, sense of a rival, gathering space, lineup, and then the votes and dock itself. this could be at any of the sites. the highlighted schedule, you see the scoping stage, the third item. that is where we are now, through june and july. we have public meetings scheduled at fort mason and then another one at sausalito city

hall on june 28. one year from now, we will be coming back with the draft plan and alternatives for all of us to consider, and to hear from you all. as you can see the bottom line, a separate process for the actual perry contractor selection. that is it. we are very open to selection of the sites. we hope the board is as well. we want to consider this a partnership, going forward, and making the best choice for the visitors come the citizens, and city of san francisco. >> thank you. >> unless you have any questions, that is our report. >> thank you. we do have public comment.

taylor safford. >> good afternoon, commissioners, executive director. speaking on behalf of pier 39, i want to reinforce how important alcatraz is for fisherman's wharf. in spite of the fact that one of our affiliates has a site at risk in this process, we very much support keeping it on port property, the respect of that. i just wanted to go on record with that. >> if i may be deduced taylor as the new pier 39 organization, taking over for bob mcintosh. >> is there any other public comment? veronica sanchez. >> i am speaking on behalf of -- who is in negotiations right now

and could not attend. related to this item but not directly, i just wanted to bring up a couple of issues that could be areas of interest and inquiry for the commission, in terms of the current situation for the current operation operating and alcatraz landing at piers 31.5. as members of the public, we would be interested in finding out if support staff could provide an update on where the cruise is with the ceqa process for the current facility. according to the current contract they have with the national park service, they were supposed to have a landing built, i think in 2008. our information is that they have not even completed the ceqa process. this has been a subject of great

congressional interest. it would be helpful to get an update on where they are in the ceqa process. here we are in 2012, almost to the end of the contract. it would also be helpful to have a response to the status of how pier 31.5 -- it is mentioned in the staff report that there are limits to the trucks that can go in and out. that is a very serious situation. whether there is any progress with addressing that issue. lastly, we would ask that a status report be provided to the commission about the repairs appear 1.5 -- at pier 1.5.

they are supposed to complete repairs by the end of the year in order to receive credits. we want to find out if that project is on track to be completed. obviously, cars are parked their everyday and it is a concern to the public. we wanted to put these questions forward with the hope that the commission could work with staff to get some progress ports. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? >> john, may i pose a question? it appears the current leases on some of these sites will expire during the process of completing the eis, before any negotiations are complete.