what keeps your city vibrant we'll make a compelling place to live and visit i think that local business is the lifeblood of san francisco and a vibrant [roll call] >> is there any public comment on this executive session? seeing none, public comment is closed.

>> can i have a motion to reconvene? >> i second. >> all in favor? >> i make a motion we do not disclose anything that was talked about in closed session. >> i second. >> all in favor? pledge of allegiance. >> i pledge of allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> please see that the advice of the user of electroni use of els

prohibited. be advised that a chair may order the removal of any person responsible for the ringing of or use of a cell phone check pager, or any other similar device. you have up to three minutes for personal public comment on each nda em unless the commissioner says there is a shorter period on any item. item seven, items not listed on the edg agenda. >> is there any public comment on any item not listed on the agenda? seeing none, public comment is closed. this is for the alcatraz ferry embarkation project pursuant to the california environment low-quality act and request approval of three transaction documents in general agreement with the support of the national parks service for a 30 year term with two tenure options.

including ferry service from the site to alcatraz island, and a lease with the golden gate national park service. for sight improvements and you operate a visitor amenities including a visitor contact station and café for a 30 year term with two tenure options with a general agreement. >> good morning commissioners. on the deputy director for real estate and development. i along with support staff are excited to be before you for this special meeting, as we continue to make progress towards hopefully resolving a number of the issues surrounding the approval of this important opportunity for the port. for moving -- before mo to tree far into this, i want to

acknowledge the assistance of the stakeholders here today and our discussions over the last week including, you know, a wide range of folks you have heard from already. we appreciate the opportunity to have briefed you on some of the issues that maybe were not as clear as we came into the last meeting. our hope is rather than dwelling too much on the specifics of the transaction, we could get to the actual strategy that we would like to address some of the issues that came up. with that in mind, i would like to do a brief overview of the project context and timeline plaque as well as revisiting the financial analysis from the port process perspective of what the benefits are. i would like to and invite the park conservancy to join us to talk about the things they have been working on since the last meeting and then after that i get back up to sort of walk you through the specific issues that came up by the february and june meetings and provide you with our recommendation on how to

proceed from there. with her that, as an overall frame, you know, getting back to the concept here, which is a very new concept, i think, because of this proposal, it will be located at the location that is currently the embarkation point. there is a natural intuitive sense that it is the same thing over again. as you have learned over the three meetings we've had this year,here's a real new vision here that frankly commenced with discussions between the port and the national parks instant -- service nine years ago. the idea was, how do we harness the financial success of this hugely popular visitor attraction nationwide, to create a revitalized embarkation point for the kind of maritime businesses that we at the port want to foster? we normally partner with someone who can do capital improvements and recoup their dollars. here at the port, we are somewhat constrained in the ability to directly do that. the port has not had the capital budget to put $30 million as

it's proposed, in this project here. in fact $30 million exceeds our entire capital budget for the next fiscal year. we often times look e partnerships as a way to leverage beyond what we can pay for directly out of our budget. on the other hand, the national park service is under federal law, unable to spend dollars on property it does not own. we've had to create what seems check from the outside cats are very complex set of agreements but what's really way to say there are these revenues being generated. how do we translate that into a better visitor experience? the strategy that we arrived at was the first of its kind. a general agreement between the port and national park service. this agreement does not exist now. this is brand-new for this proposal. this partnership, the general agreement crates a partnership whereby the p nioks service partners with the ferry concessionaire and it is on -- undergoing the prospectus to elect a concessionaire, as well as the nonprofit partner in

parks and services to deliver and operate a revitalized embarkation point that includes the ferry landing services bu ao a welcome centre, and food service, you know, obviously all things that sort of enhance this already attractive visitor opportunity. so we went through a number of slides with you at the last meeting. this is an overall schat of ho theace will be divided up. the green areas are the parks and services welcome centre on the left side of the screen, and the food service area on the right side of the screen with the associated housing. the blue areas are the ferry concessionaire areas to operate the fairies themselves. and then we went through a number of graphics to sort of help you visualize what this is going to look like as compared to what is there today. obviously, a new area, a new plaza area where people can comfortably await their fairies or disembark, we also have a new welcome cent which would be another way for people to sort of engage in and to begin the process of learning about

alcatraz. at the bottom here we see instructive examples from other national parks facilities that really starts people getting into the mode of being at a national park asset. and then also the alcatraz café. obviously, people after a long trip to alcatraz, often times want food. they want a nice experience recount what happened while they were te. this is an opportunity to allow that but allow it in a first-class way along the lines of what the parks and servants he have put in place. we think this is a great addition to an already exciting offer to visitors. i want to take a quick walk-through the project timeline. these discussions started nine years ago. six years ago this month, they opened the public scoping. for the federal national and environmental policy acts process. a year and a half later in 2014, they agreed to their role as a cooperating agency for the plan. they draft environmental impact

statements in 2015. project staff began meeting with stakeholders including the south toledo city council. the court approve the term sheet for this project in june of 2016. the board ofsupervisors, in october of that year. as we get to the next slide, we see the rapidfire of things that have happened over the last 18 months. consultations with the cdc, working with the design review board on those issues i the cilannty pwork on the negative declaration. informational hearings with you this past january. the i.s.o. record of decision, and issuing the prospectus for the ferry concession, also in january, planning approved the final mitigated night deck in february of this year, followed by the first -- the second hearing commission of this year on february 27th. we followed up on june after an

update on wage determination was issued. i will talk more about that later in the presentation. we had your last meeting approximately 13 days ago where you heard this item again and continued at. we are back bef you today. i think, to not only revisit that discussion, but to talk about what this means to the port. here are the financial metrics that you have seen last this is a snapshot of how the different rental streams accrue to the port's -- post at --'s benefits. $2.3 million of rent which comes down to 2.5 million after rent credits which are amortized over four years. a short burn. and then we will get the full benefit of the rent from there. moving down to the investment sights that i alluded to earlier, $33 million, as i mentioned, three milling up what should be subject to rent

edit. $30 million of improvements paid for by the ferry concessionaire and the parts conservancy. obviously, continuing to improve our facilities that need that improvement, and again coming back to the financial metrics and the ridship. this is something we will be referring to later as we talk about the interpretive park cruises. here is a proposed profile that is included in the prospectus as well as t the liof reement with thetional park service. the anal projected revenue of the overall service is 44-$52 million with potential services, 40,000 potential passes toe determined in a richmond. those would be .2. ferry's rather than excursions like the interpretive park cruises are. i will pause here. as i mentioned i want to invite

laura up from the national park errvice to speak to you on behalf. >> good morning. thank you for holding the special meeting to vote on this important and exciting project. for over five years, the p national park services and golden gate national parks conservancy have been collaborating -- collaborating to develop division and solidify si terms that will enable the long-term alcatraz island embarkation sight with benefits for all stakeholders and 1.7 million visitors. these visitors bring in nearly $200 million to the city and total annual spending power. almost half of which is estimated to be spent in the vicinity of the embarkation si site. camille's, shopping and attractions. th.the conservancy has been a valuable partner to us and are

making critical invtsen in this project along wh their future concessionaire. we apprec the rigourous approachportth commission and staff have take to addressing issues that have arisen during the course ofs multiyear ocess. site-mac site-mac -- the project team and port staff have continued to meet and work through the vessel and interpretive park cruise questions. regarding vessel size, both at the current and previous concessionaire used two borage passenger vessels for alcatraz service. it continues to be our position that 2700 and two at 500 capacity vessels are best for the future alcatraz ferry service to satisfy both the operational schedule and the emergency needs of the island and the city. it is worth noting that vessel size is where of significant

consideration in the completed environmental compliance process as well. however, after hearing the concerns of interested stakeholders, we asked our consultant to update the initial investment analysis for these ls. their review determined that cost associated with building a new or buying used boats has increased more than originally projected. in total, the initial investment in the fleet is estimated to be $17.9 million. regarding interpretive park cruises, after considering stakeholder concerns regarding the interpretive park cruises, mps has agreed to phase in the service over the first six years of the contract term and then a reevaluation of the service with the port prior to the next concession contract click these changes to vesselstco estimates, and the interpretive

park cruises will result in m.p.s. decreasing the minimum required concession franchise bite three%. this is a savings to the future concessionaire of approximately 1.7 million per year. together, these are significant compromises by the national park service. pending the outcome at this meeting today, we will amend the perspective with this information and extend the solicitation to close on july 17th. this provides interestedt just over three weeks to update their proposals and submit them on time. in summary, the nation -- nature and structure of this partnership is unprecedented in many ways and we are generally excited about what the future holds. the 30 million-dollar port improvement project to be implement it by the next very concessionaire and the conservancy will provide a near welcoming gateway to alcatraz island centred on pier 31 and 33 in the historic district. the site will provide a seamless -- the site will provid seamless experience for visitors

and create a waterfront plaza. we are very excited to see the project move forward -- forward and knew -- know it will be a lastingdeg by millions of visitors. thank you again. >> thank you, laura. >> i would like to invite someone else to say a w words and i will step back to talk about the specific issues. >> thank you. good morning commissioners. first of all, thank you so much for holding the scial hearing on a project as important to our waterfront, the alcatraz ferry embarkation project. for about five years, you have watched this project develop and see the vision grow. you've approved term sheets for leases and agreements. you've engaged with stakeholders and brought in public input, and you've offered your advice, your questions, and your guidance as we have moved forward. i really want to thank all of you for your diligence, your public service, and what you

have added to the project by fulfilling your role as port commissioners. i also want to extend my deepest thanks to elaina forward and her staff. they have been truly stellar professionals to work with over the past five years. as a result, of the port's involvement and the public comment, this project has become a better and better project and a project that is worthy of your approval and support today. say th because it fulfils the mission of all the partners, it serves millions of visitors to our waterfront each year and it provides for maritime businesses and jobs on the waterfront, brings significant capital investment to parts facilities at a time when that investment is needed. we are really honoured that the conservancy to be part of the partnership that brings these public benefits forward. many others in the community

also believe in this project, including civic institutions cinch as the chamrs of commerce and s.f. travel. waterfront businesses, environmental and historic preservation organizations, and community-based organizations. all can see the value of a high quality, long-term gateway to alcatraz island, and all can see the economic benefit this brings to the waterfront, and to our city. this economic engine is truly critical in a city that depends on $9 billion of travel and tourism funds each year. now, after a long journey with you all, after extensive engagement with stakeholders and public review and public comment, i believe the alcatraz ferry embarkation project stands ready for your approval. we know there is a certain urgency to ve this beyond -- along because of the many milestones and deadlines, ahead of bringing this to full reality.

i will close by thanking you once again for your critical and important role in advising this project and making it better along the way. given all the distance we've come, given all the adjustments we've made, most of all, because of the many, many public ts of this project, i sincerely hope that the commission will be able to approve the project. your approval will allow us to move ahead to make political milestones and bring this bd ision into reality. thank you very much. >> thanks, greg. so, as i mentioned, i would like to just walk through the four key issues i think have been most prominent in your discussions, and your debate over the internal dialogue over the past two weeks. starting with the wage issue that was just referenced in terms of their recent wage determination at the department of labor. as you saw the last meeting,

these wages have come significantly in the right direction in terms of reflecting the actual job classifications that would be employed at this sight -- site. we heard that because of the turnover of a new year of wages that some of the operators whose wages were taken into account for the survey, that these numbers are now a small percentage out of date. as we understand the federal process before the final contract is issued, the department of labor will have to do a review to ensure the wages are still up to date and accurate. they have appeal rights that outside stakeholders can put in place. we feel like while these aren't exactly where we think they should be based on the testimony you heard last time, we think there are mechanisms in place to move them forward. as this graph notes, those numbers are marginally above what we understand to be the contract for 20 -- 2017, 2018.

the competitive concerns that were raised for the existing excursion operators, i think from the national park service comments from this job, as you just heard, they took a hard look at the technical requirements and whether they were still in place. a she said they were, but they did recognize that the size of the required investment have been larger than originally intended. i think that is a benefit moving towards a more competitive process, which i think we all think would benefit the project. in addition, we alluded to the compromise discussions we had about the passenger limits for the interpretive park cruises, again for context, these are the cruises that begin and end at the embarkation site under original proposal, the passenger limits were 90,000 passengers a year. through discussions where the various stakeholders who have been before you, we havecome to aprose w think is

accepted on all sides that phases this service in from a starting point of 45,000 passenrs, but by year six, increases to 90,000 through the remainder of the initial concession lease, which is a 15 year term. a total reduction in passengers of about 200,000, which does affect the port's revenue, but at the same time we feel the compromise and the concerns that were raised were reasonable ones. we want to see a thriving competitive environment for our excursion operators throughout the porch. we are going to -- this will be part of our recommendations to you to adopt as part of this project if youecide to move forward. in addition, i wanted to highlight that the mechanics for this would create an actual mechanism to enforce this limit, which doesn't exist in current arrangements. so that we would attach these specimitations to the operations plan that is in the fairy concession or at least

now, and that already has an operations plan where they are required to satisfy as they operate, and they're existing processes for defaults including remedies that would include a determination if there was a fault of that kind. we are also going to -- we also propose adding a provision to the operations plan, that for any year they go over the limit, aside from those remedies that are already in the ferry concession lease, we reduce one for one the limit to bring back the number of rides to what was agreed. and then we would also recommend adding a provision that would create a mutual option for the parties, the port and the national park service to decide on each party's sole discretion, whether to proceed with interpretive park cruises as the next concessionaire lease after it expires.

in closing, you received a number of comments regarding the port baker service that is not yet been put in place, primarily from the city. a couple points i would like to meet -- make and then i would like to invite my colleague to talk about some of the more environmental review focused part of these comments. first of all, the general agreement is consistent with the final mitigated declaration by the san francisco planning department. that includes a limitation of cruises to weekends only. that is a limit, aside from the 40,000 that can only be on the weekends. in addition,s i just mentioned, because this is in the operations plan, failure to uphold the operations plan -- i will pause there and allow my colleague to come up. >> good morning.

just a background, the pt relies on the expertise of the planning department. on the transportation planning staff and the consultant for the analysis of transportation issues and final mitigated staff. the city's environmental planning department evaluated the impacts from the fort baker service and the points raised by the city in its appeal. and the planning commission upheld the final mitigated appeal in february. so, after he received all of the additional letters from the city, we consulted with the city's environmental planning staff and unfortunately the environmental planning staff could not be here today, but their environmental review there environmental review officer provided a statement that i want to read into the record after reading the letters. the san francisco planning department's transportation consultant has reviewed t

transptation consulting report dated march 19th, 2018 that was attached to the city's appeal letter dated march 21st, 2018. the report does not present substantial new evidence of transportation impacts of the fort baker ferry service. much of the report is premised on the city's claimed that the project would expand from what was described in the project description to include future additional ferry trips, bicycle svices to near wide and other destinations. the planning department determined that no additional transportation analysis would be needed to respond to the report in our final mitigated appeal response. we have also reviewed the two letters to the port commission dated june 22nd 2018, and do

not find any near substantive issues related to the final results that were not addressed to the final mitigated appeal. we continue to remain confident that the mitigated negative declaration for the alcatraz ferry embarkation was appropriately issued. thank you. >> thank you. that concludes the bulk of our presentation today. i wanted to end with our recommendation to you which was to improve the resolution before you with certain amendments. i will read the amen and then you will hear them. you have printed copies that you can share. this would be a motion that you would make and vote on in addition to the motion to approve the item. these resolution causes address the interpretive park clause issue as well as the lasne

that we described. i will begin reading now. resolves, that prior to the execution of the initial very concnairessio lease, the plan would be updated to reflect the annual limits for interpretive park cruises. 45,000 passengers in years one and two, 46,000 and year three, 47,278 passengers in year four, 40,460 passengers in year five, and 90,000 passengers annually in year 863 lease expiration after year 15. and, be it through their -- further resolved, in addition to the remedy supports may have for any violation of the operations plan, iluding, but not limited to the declaration of material fault, the concessionaire lease will provide that any violation of the limits above a given year will result in an equivalent reduction of the passenger limit in the following year, aunt be t further resolved that the

provision be added to the ga to prohibit interpretive park cruises for any concession or lease without the r consent of the port and m.p.s. and each such party's sole discretion and be it further resolved, in acknowledgement of the concerns raised by the city, as a future construction of fort baker, the general agreement will be amended to include a statement noting the party intends to comply with any reviews and approvals for any proposed changes to the vessel landing operations at fort baker. with that, i am available for questions, as is the rest of the staff. >> thank you. we have speakers. the first is up. >> thank you and good morning. i am the mayor of the city of

sausalito. before i start my formal comments, i want to thank and acknowledge the efforts of the national park service and laura and her team capped the port commission, and it's executive director, and mayor farrell to negotiate the mutual and agreeable solutions that we have raised. we appreciate the additional language that is contained in the amended resolution that appears in front of you today, and we appreciate the negotiations that are continuing with the national park service. that being said to, these additional measures do not yet satisfactorily address the issues that sausalito has raised. our preferred solution is to simply sever the fort baker project from the overall project until this project can be fully planned and studied. alternatively, and other acceptable solution would be to adopt the three simple regional transportation solutions we have

provided to you as part of our correspondence. the national park service has acknowledged its long-term plan to connect its various facilities to one another. that makes these regional transportation solutions all the more important. in addressing the comments you heard this morning, there is nothing in theproj t description, or project agreement, that prevents the court baker project from expanding from its current projected two weekend day trips to 200. nothing in the project agreement prevents a tremendous expansion of the initially planned fort baker service. that is why our three mitigation measures are so critical to us this is a 50 year project. so there is lots that can happen in 50 years.

we are trying to predict an uncertain future. this is why we have proposed the three very simple regional transportation solutions that will address impacts regardless of whether it is to watch what we can trips per day or 200 weekeipstr per day. the three solutions are as follows. one, national park service should ensure that any shuttle services provided to transport or arriving tarriving to forge r passengers to other national park service sites proceed southward to highway 101 rather than through sausalito. two. national park service shall coordinate with public transportation providers in the county to ensure the availability of connecting shuttle bus service to transport arriving forge baker ferry passengers between fort baker and sausalito and to the region and three, national park service shall require that the fort baker ferry concessionaire

provide one-way return service from fort baker to peer 21 for passengers and passengers with bicycles. we think these are three simple solutions that will address our long-term concerns. >> thank you. thank you very much. >> hello, commissioners. i am with the coast neighbourhood association. we represent the northern waterfront. i didn't realize i would be first. i was going make this short and sweet. we think it will enhance the experience. thank you. >> thank you. >> good morning and thank you for holding the special meeting

on the alcatraz embarkation project. i am stacy slaughter and have served as a trustee for the golden gate national parks conservancy for 12 years and i amcurrently a board of vice chair. in my professional life i am the executive vice presidenexecutivf communications and senior advisor to c.e.o. larry baer of the san francisco giants. i have been with the giants for 22 years and was involved with the development of at&t park and involved with the mission rock project. i am very familiar with the mission and goals of the port, and the port's need for high quality, dynamic waterfront uses that serve the community and provide ecocurn and contribute to the greater well-being of san francisco. the project you are considering today embraces those goals and provides a bold pathway to achieve them. i strongly encourage you to improve -- approve this project today as it represents over five years of planning, design, environmental review and

community input. commissioners, you have done a great job of being very thoughtful and deliberate through this process. let's not forget that alcatraz is a political anchor to our city's tourism and industry. it was awarded the number 1 landmark in america by trip advisor and generates millions of it dollars in economic activity for our safety. this landmark is where the other -- is the embarkation site. it will only generate other economic benefits for our city. simply put, this project is good for the waterfront, for the economy and for our community and it represents a golden opportunity to further activate our beautiful waterfront. i encourage yourpport today. thank you. >> good morning, commissioners. thank you very much. is nice to be on the side of the microphone. let me say that for 15 years i

was on the board, the golden gate national park conservancy and i shared that board for eight years. during that time and in previous years check the total amount privately raised philanthropic lead by the conservancy for the national park exceeds $400 million. this is by far and away greater than any other organization that helps parks, including the national organization. the course of that time -- in the course of that time, we built crissy field, they did a warming hut there, they did the golden gate bridge visitor centre, they did the land ten visitor centre, they did the beach visitor centre, and when he think of all these partnerships with people, they've all been both successful in their goals, as well as economically successful and winners of many awards for the kind of projects that they put together. today, we look at, and i fully recognize it, three

organizations that have broad reach. the board of san francisco, the conservancy at the national park service. when you think just geographically, of what that involves, you know there is going to be stakeholders that are all interested in what you do. today's opportunity, for a 30 million-dollar exptu and a world-class facility simply requires that we all use our best thinking of how to make it happen, not to do an up or down vote, but to say, how can we please the greatest number of people to make this work week is all of our responsibility, and i urge you to look at it in those terms, and i urge you to support it completely. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> hello. i'm actually president of the treasure island development authority, but i speak here today as chairperson with an

advocacy organization which is supporting good planning and good government in the city. we have been longtime partner with the golden gate park's national conservancy, and we very much support this project. i've got to say, there's really three points that i like to make. first, this is an incredible partnership between the port, the conservancy, and the national park service. and particularly in today's environment, the political environment, to have a partnership between the federal government and our local government, you do a major project like this, is so important. and i would say, also, that these types of civic projects, as we all know at treasure island, as well, take such an inordinate amount of concern by citizens.

a lot of time, a lot of input, and it is so fragile, in some ways, the civic projects. they take so much time to put them together. and tear, after five years, i think, acally,t is nine years check they are here before you today, and is so important, i think to support that effort, and to make something happen in the city. the o thin is you have an incredible team of designers. they did other great projects on the waterfront, and they did landscaping workin wit us on treasure island to design great parks and public spaces. so this is an incredible team that is going to design this project with great sensitivity. i'm sure that what they will design here and what will be built will be something which we

can celebrate in the city. so, thirdly, again, i think as stewards of the public realm, which we are, as commissioners, the various commissions, you know, we are the stewards of the public realm. and this is a great project on the san francisco waterfront. i think, you know, as stewards, we need to support it and make sure that it comes into fruition. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> good morning, commissioners. and the manager of policy for the san francisco chamber of commerce. i am joining you today to represent the interest of thousands of local businesses and express our support for the

alcatraz embarkation project. we've submitted a letter to you that outlines the reasons why we are supporting at, but listening to testimony today, it strikes me that as san francisco faces challenges, and thinks more regionally the steps that you are taking now, are creating a amefrrk for san francisco to work with different jurisdictions that future commissioners and government leaders will follow. it is a very important that alcatraz has captured the imagination of our nation and attracts 1.7 million visitors in creating a hundred $75 million in annual spending power, and we are in support of this project. it will continue to drive this engagement and support our local businesses. that is the san francisco we respectfully encourage the commission to approve the project so the public may soon realize the benefits. thank you very much. >> thank you.

>> good morning. i'm here as the associate director of communications for the exploratory and. i'm here to indicate strong support of the embarkation project that would be our close neighbor and part of the community and businesses along the embarcadero. we appreciate the diligence that has gone into the review process and we believe the port has addressed the appropriate elements so far. we appreciate continued activation of the waterfront and feel the project would work towards establishing the embarcadero as premier visitor destination in san francisco. we hope to see the embarcadero community continue to grow with appropriate and well considered projects such as alcatraz, and for this reason we felt it was important to be here in person to issue our support for the project. thank you. >> thank you. >> good morning commissioners and port staff. i'm wanting to thank you guys,

all of you, for not only asking the questions, but getting the answers to some of these tough issues. i would like to thank elaine and her staff working with labor to try and ensure a level playing field. these things are really difficult. would like to thank k service is for being patient. i know this is a tough tough contract that will go out. but on behalf of my organization, we support this contract moving forward, provided provisions are approved. we look forward to work with the park services in the future. >> thank you. >> good morning commissioners. i'm the vice chairman of the boatmen's union. i would like to read a statement from our national president

regarding the issue on the agenda. i would like to thank the commissioners and to the executive director for your diligent work to resolve issues surrounding the national park service and alcatraz ferry contract lease agreements. we appreciate all the port to stand to urge the m.p.s. to address the items raised during previous commission meetings in order to have a more competitive but it. wede t m.p.s. ecognis and will address the need for more realistic dollar amounts to build 700 passenger vessels and the wait requirements will be updated. we disagree with their inclusion of bay cruises and the alcatraz rsp -- r.f.p. they will compete unfairly against our legacy of private employers. a compromise was reached that we can support that allows the court to realize improvements for the peer. after the 2,000 bid was awarded

to hornblower, they lost a federal lawsuit requiring payment of the prevailing wage of the workers. we spent half a million dollars in that fight. twelve years later, we have the same issue. it has taken over a year to once againmparco the mpf to include local prevailing wage in the r.f.p. thank you for all the commission has done. if they had worked with us from the beginning we could have avoided that delay. the m.p.s. has always required as alcatraz ferry concessionaire to provide three boats can hold at least 300 passengers. multiple ferry boat operators in san francisco have qualifying fleets that can meet this requirement. however, that includes us maintaining the existing limits on passenger loads to alcatraz. the result is only one bid or hornblower has been complying with the terms of the new r.f.p. the horn player does hornblower

failed to live up to their claims of using solar power boats and the m.p.s. did not think. they fail to comply with terms in their concession agreement to create a new visitor centre with expenditures of at least $5 million. no visitor centre was built, and the park sent -- service did nothing. hornblower maybe the only bidder although they have long violated federal wage wars and failed to let deliver on past promises to build a solo vessels and done little to improve the visitor centre as required by the previous contract. we call on the national park service to ensure the fair bidding process for interested parties are not skewed towards the existing concessionaire, and i would like to be able to distribute a copy of all of this -- of this for everyone. >> thank you. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is michael bennett.

before i talk a little bit about the project, i want to talk about me, personally, and how much this project has helped me professionally. i was introduced to the project five years ago working at the bayview ymca as a wellness coordinator. my primary goal as e wellness ordinator is working with the community that is suffering from community violence and health disparity. at that time, the place where we used to walk was down third street and when we got introduced to the project with the shuttlecock it was like a breath of fresh air. it allowed residents from the bayview to start going out into parks, and what a great impact it was moving forward. folks started going to the parks, loading up shuttles and

creating wellness opportunities and walking across the golden gate bridge and getting introduced to atlanta's and. we started looking at educational goals and i moved on to get my degree from san francisco state. this program has impacted the bayview hunter's point community immensely. it is a way for our seniors and our youth to get out. this program has created job opportunities for our youth and our seniors, working at chrissy fields. i also have been involved in the projects at india-based then, and along with channel six state park. this project is right in alignment with the whole regional efforts ofactivating the shoreline. so i am here as a stakeholder. i've been involved for the last five years, as i mentioned, and i'm hoping we can approve this

project today. thank you. >> thank you. >> morning. i have a letter that i will read into the record. it was cowritten by myself and the c.e.o. and president appear 39. before i do so, i want to thank elaine and your staff for addressing our issues since the june 12th mission -- meeting and meeting vigourously with us to get it done before today. thank you. dear elaine, we are writing to express ouruppor to approv the ebetwee the port and the national park service for the pier 39 embarkation site to alcatraz island. we previously expressed concern about the negative impact of the park cruises will have on the local baker's market. we now understand there is a tentative agreement between the port and the m.p.s. to limit the

park cruises during the first five years of the lease. during the initial five year term, we understand that the park cruises will b capped at a level that current concessionaire is carrying today and it would increasennually by two and a half%. in year six, it would step up to a maximum of 90,000 passengers per year for the duration of the initial 15 year term of the lease. we believe this temporary limitation is both reasonable and appropriate and gives time for the existing bay cruise operators to adjust marketing strategies to mitigate the additional passenger capacity beginning in year six of the lease. with these changes, we can fully support and improve the new embarkation sight to alcatraz island. thank you. >> thank you. >> good morning staff and commissioners. i would like to express some thanks from san francisco labor

council and its affiliates. i know everyone has put a lot of energy and time and passion into working out some of the particulars so when we say interested stakeholders, we are also including working people in the city who depend on some of these more technical and process driven, you know, footnotes, unfortunately. determination is an important factor there. i will reserve thanks to the m.p.s. once a final review is done. nothing personal, but that is an important piece and needs to be taken up again later on down the road. to fully understanding with the current numbers, we need to look at that again closely. i'm a little concerned at a welcome more comments on the deputy director of development, on what this rollover, 141 really means. i'm cautiously optimistic on the whole project. but if the existing concessionaire for the future concessionaire goes over their limit, and that rolls over, it is probably like elite they will go over their limit again and again. i would hate to see us put in a remedy that any other employer

sees as a reasonable compromise only to see that it is blowing through at the inevitability is year six, thereafter, and you are over the limit till. i'm curious about what remedy can be sought there. generally, we are cautiously optimistic that because of the hard work of the director and the commission support cactus will move forward in a way that i think the gentleman from the conservancy said that is really looking at how to accomplish this in the best possible way? not necessarily a straight up or down. that was well said. we recognize and support the conservancy. with that, the labor movement of san francisco stands united behind this project and we are appreciative of your work so far. we want to see the work continue in concert with our city elected officials. >> thank you. >> good morning. name is tom and i am an employee

of the red and white fleet. you know, this project has one word to me. i think that word is oco patients coco patients of the staff and what they have gone through and paents of the port commissioners and patients of the national park. and so the red and white fleet is here to support this project. supports the way it's written, and we, again, want to complement everyone on their patients. there is one thing that we do, two comments i want to make. one is the best -- vessel size. it is a misnomer because we have maritime support for all vessels to go toheid ofanybody that has problems in the bay. 's so i disagree with the consultant, and the other thing is, i think we are kind of missing, we have to look at an overall responsibility. i think the national park is very good at preserving,

protecting, and educating the public. but one of my concerns is the environment. if we don't have a clean environment, there won't be anybody to ride the ferry at alcatraz. just think about that. can't keep kicking the can down the road. we have to address the environment. and i would like the next time this comes up, that the national park looks at all the tional parks in t city of san francisco and they look at everything. we are at this stage now where san francisco, and the national park service can be a leader, or a follower. i think the port and the national park should take a focus on the environment. if we all are dead because of pollution, there's no customers. there's no visitors. in conclusion, i want to say

that we support this, but we think that we should take a higher view of the whole environment. wee to start in san francisco. again, i want to thank the national park, o the port commissioners for being so patient. and also, i think we have to think about the staff. elaine and her staff. but also mr martin and the rest of the gang that has taken a lot of beatings. this is a great opportunity. thank you. >> thank you. is there any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. prior to the commissioner's discussion, might, do you want to addressny of the concerns brought up? >> can you address the enforcement issue and on the other view pre. >> that was definitely one i wanted to come back and speak to. right now, under the lease, the operation plan is a set of confidence that the operator has to fulfil in their operations.

the lease contains a set of events -- events of default under which, if they violate the operations plan, we can issue an event of default. there could be something as small as a fee for the notice to set out to say, hey, you do something wrong, a slap on the wrist. it could stand all the way up to result in termination. i think the alternate -- of the other thing i mentioned earlier about where does- reducing the year's ride was not to be the remedy, that was the foot fault in this year, aside from the lease remedies. we will say that you have fewer rides next year to add back up to zero from what you took extra in this year. we still hold the ultimate right of termination for someone that habitually goes through these limitations. that is a right we do not have now under our current relationship with the ferry concession. i'm not sure there are any others, but i'm happy to answer questions as your dialect

proceeds. >> director forbes? >> that is one i wanted coverage. thank you. >> okay. >> i guess, for the record, i think that the commissioners that have been on this commission have always been ivertf this project from the very beginning. as we have learned through the process, the devil is in the details. is a long journey. it has been a long journey. this is a 50 year lease. we've taken our time and i appreciate tom's comment to say patients as been a very important part of this process. ti we thought we were almost through the issues, other issues surfaced, but i feel that we will be ending in a good place,

because i think it was important for us to hear from all the stakeholders. first, i want to say that there are many lessons. i want to thank the park service and our report staff are working t lot these issues in the beginning. it was very difficult for us to get the requisite information we needed to determine the economic terms of the lease. which we have now. and to understand how the concession would work going forward, and the impact on other existing port tenants which are the other boat operators in the bay. there are tenants. we want to look out for them. our objective is to be fair to labor, to be fair to the existing operators, and a deal that is fair to the port and the national park service. i think that most of these issues have been addressed. as it relates to some of the issues that were raised today by the city of sausalito, i just want to say that i think that, on the one hand, i heou. bu the oth hand, i'd be reluctant to commit to certain mitigation terms, tactically speaking over 50 years, because of a situation over 50 years could change as well. i would not want to be committed in writing. the resolution that we have written today gets a lot of

leeway. it is broad enough to be able to address some of the issues. we understand your concerns, but i think it would be, also, difficult for us to commit to terms that we don't know what's going to happen over 50 years in terms of tactically speaking and traffic patterns, and other plans from the port. i think we believe that m.p.s. will, in good faith, address their concerns as they are raised over time, and we have put into this agreement something that addresses that. i think that's the only issue that i heard today that we haven't been able to resolve to the satisfaction of the stakeholders. i think that we have gone over this agreement with a fine tooth comb. we have heard many, many discussions and commissioners have spent time on the issues, both here in the commission as well as off-line briefings. i don't have any further questions for staff. i think, at this point, we have talked this thing through and i want to say that i think we are prepared to move forward today. i am prepared to vote for today.

>> thank you. >> thank you. first of all, i want to thank the staff from the port and the conservancy for coming together from where we were taught what weeks ago. i think this show of public support and stakeholderrtpo is very good compared to what we saw two weeks ago. it is a testament to your hard work, i don't want to thank you. i'm happy we were able to look at how to scale the park decreases in a way that would not competitively hurt our long-term folks at the port. i also really, would like i like the acknowledgement about the wage issue. this is a comment. i would recommend the national park service, if it is not already in your contracting practices with a new concessionaire, put in the cpi increases are up, or any other unit increases that would normally take places -- take place in other contract, apply to this contract, whether or not th o