mps, there should be acceptance to historical uses of the bay, that are just as important as commercial uses. so we don't feel we're in conflict with mps, but keeping them in an area, that is already set up for testimony parking, hotel so people can walk to the embarkation, as opposed to city street or have to make their own way down to the marine area it would be in everybody's interest to maintain that relationship. if you look at where they're considering their one choice would be fort mason going to the east end of alcatraz, skaefty concerns alone, would force us to truncate or eliminate our activities i thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker is jddurst of the

dolphin and swimming club >> commissioner, i think we would all love to see some type of resolution, favorable with peer 31-and-a-half. as bill pointed out, we have been operating for 130 year-140 years we have boats as old as 1880 we have a fleet of well over 18 historic boats on the bay. we have 250 boats using every day. boats go out every day, a particular note with the way our boat traffic comes close to fort mason is during the time of the third nesting season march 13th-july 31st on alcatraz island we have a 30

foot avoidance zone for the bird act we're going up to the -- i will not go into hydro dynamics but we're interfering, with the fisherman's lines with the piers, in order avoid the current. it would be -- the reason i bring this up is the ier in studying fort mason site says there is no recreational use of the bay right outside of fort mason. this is obviously not true. i would like to encourage the board to renew the lease i think you guys are doing great work hammering it out, stick in there we want to see this all resolved, thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. any other speakers during public

comment? you don't have to submit a card. >> alice, rogers i would like to encourage this work to stay on peer 31-and-a-half. i'm extremely concerned actually about the traffic impacts of people getting to fort mason to take the boat to alcatraz it's really difficult to get there in public transit. and the last thing that that area needs is a lot more automobile traffic. unless and until the e line makes it's way all the way to fisherman's wharf and mason it doesn't make sense, i hope they understand that and stays where it is. >> thank you. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed.

commissioners? you can all stay if you want to hear us. [laughter]. we're going to continue to talk. proceedier is we have public comment first before we make our statements then we may have staff that have questions basen on comments, that are heard as well we invite you to stay and hear. commissioner brandon i will star with you. commissioner woo ho >> with her request. thank you. i appreciate the presentation so thank you in going through all of the process and details of what we have been trying to achieve with the mps the reason i didn't request this on the agenda obviously this topic has hit certain nerveses in the community both in the mediate

area, and the recreational users i'm not a member of the dolphin club but i have swam in the bay many years ago >> not on purpose [laughter] >> i appreciate the recreational swimming i think we wanted to hear all of the issues on the table. i think we know this is a sensitive thorny issue for everybody involved, we want to have an open discussion, to make sure the port commission and staff are in line to move forward. i think you are hearing clearly we want to retain pier 31-and-a-half. we know this say better way to continue but we need to find to get back to the financial side, of a fair way of sharing

this. we have two entities we have the port and the park services, between two government agencies we're not trying to tilt the balance we need to find out a fair way to make the right improvements, so the visitors of san francisco one bing one of the largest attractions, can be made in a way that is attractive. and i think that i it's important for the stakeholder, the national service, the communities are heard. we in particular we see it in the press we want to hear from everybody that has anything to say, with this particular location makes sense. and reasons why other locations made sense, we should hear the arguments as well one is obviously a nonport property we're interested in retaining it, i think our friend, i'm

surprised they're not here today they feel the current location is advantageous, to the tourist experience up and down the waterfront, it's integrated right now, it seemed to work, i don't hear a lot of complaints so we have to figure out a way, i'm hoping our friends from the national park service we at the port commission do feel to find a fair way to move forward, we understand the rules you are under constraint if you have rules that constrain you in terms of capital investment that still makes sense. i think the staff outlines all the issues, we know you have other issues as kro the country, that can also help us i think you know what i'm referring to i think there say way we can get there we have to work hard together and wanted to make

sure we back the staff here at the commission. >> commissioner adams? >> first of all, i want to thank everybody for coming out, a few things need to be said, when this issue started i wanted to thank john doll, and jay, the park service went to the media, that frustrates me you have a problem with the port you negotiate it that is pure arrogance, they have stuff they did not want to negotiate in good faith, that is bs that is wrong. if you look at what they want, they want us to give them the store i understand what the community has to say, and i expect you know jay and john to keep negotiating hard against them, people need to talk to the

park service, it's not the port. we're not just going to give them the store. sometimes people want to go along to get along. we're not going to do that, they're going to respect us they need to make a deal right now they have not stepped up their game when people look at the port we have not released anything out to the media, they said that about the port getting everybody rattled up about going to fort mason, we have the best intentions, but they need to set down negotiate with the port and try to find something we can live with. and they wanted in their lease every ten years, they roll it over in the port commission we may not be here this commission won't be here they want to roll it over automatically the future commissioners wouldn't have say. there is no transparency to that. we're the guardians right now of this port we have a

responsibility we work for this community. i'm sorry, we're going to work, but i'm asking ask these guys i support them 200 %, i expect the park service to step up, stop negotiates negotiatesing with the media, sit down with the port staff and hammer out issues here ask them why they're being unreasonable with the port staff, these guys are being nice i'm i don't have to be nice. the guys from park service they're here i'm talking to them sit down with the port staff, and negotiating a fair deal you know your offer is unacceptable, don't frustrate us like that. we're working for san francisco we're not doing our due diligence diligence, ranting and raving --

i dolphin club i appreciate your support, but you point the park service, and you put just as much pressure on us as you do on them. thank you. >> commissionerer brandon >> thank you you john and jay for a great report, i agree with my fellow commissioners, we definite definitely want it to stay here at the port. i was going to ask, as far as looking at the three options have we gotten any research on what it will cost to retro fit not only pier 31-and-a-half, but pier 41, to see the comparables? and with pier 41, it's leased right now when does that lease

expire? >> good afternoon commissioners, jay wardses, real estate division regards to questions regarding pier 41 i will address that it's a month to month lease it expired here shortly last month, it's on a month to month lease there is work that needs to be done to that building there has not been the costs associated with that it's a selected all turntive site i don't think there is in terms of mps -- with have an alternative proposal, and reinvest their own money. in fact karen gold bloom is in

the audience today -- for 25 years, investing their own capital, there is sea wall work that needs to be done here it's in the $2 million range of course the structure itself is really i don't think anything special i'm aware of the mps is to try to utilize and add to it. which is a difficult under taking we have not spent much time on that particular alternative we can at your direction if you wish >> i was wondering then pier 31-and-a-half but we're also looking at pier 31 and pier 33 >> i'm sorry of the confuse, 31-and-a-half is where it's located on the marginal wharf, they're primarily in the shed pier 33, what we have proposed

is to really pivot that to take advantage of the $7 million investment the port is making, renovating the historic shed, for the that development that should enhance the operations, that is one differentual on the site plan the other is the pier 33 bulkhead as you see what you walk up to the site, alcatraz cafe that is under separate lease, that say nice revenue source for the port we have enjoyed the benefit of the revenue what mps requested they take control over the bulkhead building which is the gate way, they want to improve the visitor experience, after a lot of deliberation back and forth thinking about the costs, as commissioner adams, has urged us to do we have really thought,

okay we can give up control if you will, of that site it is important how it's done and who pays for that so we had a discussion on those costs associated with that renovation of that piece. >> i think their property needs to be a lot more transparent in how our dollarses are being spent to make this happen, where it happens you seem it would look at how much it would be how much to do it at port mason, as opposed pier 31 and 41. -- the port can do which we all want like my fellow chicagos ner said i thank you for bringing this to our attention, i think the public questions, the port in what they're doing, but also mps, and how they're

handling the situation. thank you. >> thank you. i too concur with the remarks of my colleagues, and i think commissioner ner adams said it well a few things of concerns i wanted to also correct the misunderstanding out there the port doesn't want to negotiate on the contrary the port raised this issue years ago, we needed to start negotiations on this concession the port has wanted to be on the table, and rewant to reiterate to be at the table and negotiate but we have an obligation to all san francisco that utilize the waterfront, we continue an act of fund of priority obligation, and not prioritize one over the other maybe it's unintended consequences but that is what

their terms would be doing requiring work to be done at this site, over the necessary work at others as we go forked we can reach some agreement that is fair and reasonable to utilize, the scarce resources in the staff report for a variety projects to make sure we have recreation activity on the water for all to utilize that is our obligation as commissioners, we make sure we cake care of everyone that utilizes the waterfront and stewards with this pressure resource, with scarce resources, we need to strike a balance. i want to read a couple comments, and prap have you come back on that on the staff report it states, we have struggled with the structure that has been put forward and

that in order to move forward we will be assuming some ongoing maintenance but that the park services, seem to indicate they want to transfer significant financial obligations, from the federal to the local government i e. port this places a significant burden on all of us here maybe that is not the intent of some of the negotiations maybe you can address that on backing off a draconian position. to something that is reasonable particularly in light of further analysis, with the agreements that have been entered into, with the statute they do seem to adjust for fluctuations and revenue, and not put a cap that

the port would have not only approves this site and costs associated but those thing change, how is that for a mouthful? [laughter] >> i'm not sure what the question is at this point >> i'm making a stument but i'm assuming you don't disagree >> no we are looking at the statute, for a number of reasons number one it's a ferry service to and i conic location, the statue of liberty is similar to what is generated at alcatraz and thirdly horn blower is the ferry for both of those, at alcatraz and in new york. we have looked at the statue of liberty, we don't have all of the documents >> why not?

>> we asked from the mps staff we received some of those. we asked then our consultant libby siful of siful consultanting to do freedom of information request to see if we can understand the deal she's put together a matrix of the various agreements, even within that there is still some questions we still have. for example. how the capital obligations are taken care of. that is part of a part of the information we still do not have. we have told this to the national park service, i think they're doing their own search and see if they can find the answers for us as well. maybe in the next few weeks, we will be able to get more information. >> that might be a good starting point recognizing our

constraints and obligations to all of our other tenants, and all that utilize our waterfront we cannot prioritize dedication of funds, >> this is an example. we see lots of projects on the waterfront. not all of them. in terms of predictability from our tenants or master developers they know what the future looks like. this is an operation we know is successful today. you know what the revenue is you know -- it's not going to go away. alcatraz is going to be a constant, the economics, tourist cycle goes up and down with the economy, basically, this is one where at least at this point, the national park service has not been able to explain why they cannot share that with us this is not a forecast of what

is going to happen they have a track record they're asking to say if we want to continue this we need to figure out how to pay for this together in whatever structure if they can't put money in capital investment they have an example where they have more revenue, with another existing iconic site the statue of liberty i'm glad commissionerer [inaudible] mentioned it, i cannot, understand why they can't show us the document -- the normal he galties of the freedom act i don't yes why we're not sharing the information instead of going through the torturous process we are right now, it's not a positive experience from what we're hearing if they have things they have not shared with

us we should hear that. it seems they're with holding that is a not a positive way of doing business on any count. >> kim mer -- commissioner adams, >> that is something the public doesn't know, we have requested documents for months and months and they haven't come if someone wants an agreement by july or august all we asked is for documents, we have been waiting 3-4 months, on documents, they're stalling, they're not negotiating in good faith, they're not turning over the document, that is something the public doesn't hear you are wondering, how serious they are about wanting to get agreement, i want it to stay here, and man up and take care of business,

and negotiate with the port a know john and jay, this is not the first time at the rodeo -- so we can sit down and get a good deal then they run out to the media, the port doesn't want to negotiate, we want an agreement, we want them to provide the documents that we need we want a fair agreement so everybody in the city gains by this. i know supervisor -- i don't want it either i think it's and i con on our waterfront we have cruise terminals, we have 27 million visitors a year, to come to san francisco we're a city with i midas touch, i want it to be right there, but be fair, and negotiating dwrooement i want you to know the facts, these guys are trying, the national

park service is holding back and not negotiating in good phat. >> thank you. i think we have put the point on it. [laughter] those of you that came and spoke today, we would urge you, as you heard the directives, to urge the park service, to step up to the plate here we're not being unreasonable, we're not trying to get a sweat heart deal, we want this to be fair for everyone. i know john and jay you will get there for us. thank you. >> we have confidence. >> thank you everyone who shows up today rewant to thank the national park service for hearing our message as well. thank you.

>> item 11 c informational presentation on public process participation and schedule for the update on the waterfront land use plan. >> thank you many. president members of the commission, i will start with introductory remarks, while many gets the slide show manny gets the slide show up. -- and the proposed process going forward to up gate the water land use plan for all of it's property, the public participation element of that public process, is probably the most important thing to make sure we refresh and have

citywide and regional understanding about what are the issues facing the port and what are the kinds of balancing i think this last item illustrated that the port commission is charged with balancing a number of competing objectiveses to improve the waterfront this presentation is really focused on responding to direction we received from you at the last meeting to fortify further, the process particularly president katz, i want to thank you for your head and guidance on this. basically, what we heard from the port commission comments last month was that we had proposed waterfront plan working group, as shown on this slide, that had a series of different perspectives perspectives that would be represented on a 30 member

waterfront working group, that would be appointed by the port staff executive director monique moyer. what we heard from the port commission is we really wanted to broaden that participation further, what we have proposed in the staff report i will be describing here is broadened participation structure, as initially proposed we do propose having an appointed group, created by the port staff through monique moyer of the waterfront plan working group the perspectives on that group are depicted in this slide i will not read each one of them, they're intended to embrace the full breadth of the interests and perspective of needs on the san francisco waterfront. what we have done here is to become a little more specific about how the slots would be a

apportion across the perspectives -- the waterfront advisory teams the waterfront group itself have skuthed we have 30-32 members on this group, as a passive body whereby the port staff could convene these people woe ewe would have open exchange in public meetings, any member of the public can attend. of the 30-32 seats, 2-4 of those seats would be apportion of staff members, and mbc d.c., commission is at the table from the get go. 13 of the seats would apportion to the waterfront perspectives

indicated on this slide, from water time commerce public access financial and city economy, cultural institutional that will give you a taste of the diversity of that. we wanted to make sure the membership was open so we could invite members from a site-wide audience even though who are on the west side of the city may not be as familiar with what is going on at the port in order to educate the public broadly about what the waterfront means, and the context of the larger city, as well as the bay area region we have ten seats of this waterfront working group for citywide and regional perspectives some of those people may or may not have previous experience or knowledge about the waterfront, but our interest is trying to educate