at around the time the port was finalizing its waterfront land use plan, the port director at the time, executive director of bcdc entered into an agreement to change plans for the waterfront. the result of that effort was the special area plan. essentially, what it did was provide a plan level approach to achieve bcdc's policy goals for the waterfront, creating new plazas, open water basins for the waterfront, a way to rehabilitate the historic figure appenger piers, and provide accs to the waterfront. that success allows access to various buildings to go forward. generally, bcdc has a broad ownership of the waterfront. in the open water areas, they are responsible for phil, public access to the day, any new docks or pile-supported structures, gooding activity, open water activities, changes in use and any construction remodeling or repair of the structure. pretty much anything significant that the board does require the permission from bcdc. with respect to the cruise terminal, i am going to get into some of the major public benefits that the court agreed would be provided to the pie

the proposed criteria are specific to the port in the following ways. the port's draft better criteria would allow banners announcing any event, which is defined as an activity of general public interest to san francisco residents or visitors to the port of san francisco that takes place in the city or within port jurisdiction and can reasonably be expected to have an in-person attendance of 500 or more persons. for a single event or 1000 or more for a series of events. the criteria defined specific streets. in addition to the center median of the embarcadero road way and jefferson street. be executive director may approve banners on of the streets have become appropriate, such as a newly developed pier 70 area. the criteria described banners in three categories. just some examples on the graphics here that you can look at as i talk. a banner announcing an event to the port or its tenants, a public agency banner, which is announcing an event sponsored or supported by the city or its departments or other government agency, and that furthers the mission o

for over 100 years, the port was the primary industrial port of the west coast, really developed because of our assets here in san francisco. shipping technology has obviously changed. obviously we were obsolete by the late 1950's. in the late 1960's the container age hit. spatially it could handle that kind of industry. so, after that point at which the port was concerned over how to protect the water front and we put together the land-use plan, the official policy document of the port commission, it set forth goals and got policies for port approval and public open spaces before maritime industry needs. since the initial adoption in 1997, the port commission has demanded that went a couple of times to look at public access issues and architectural guidelines. the deal has been tweaked to realize the rich maritime heritage of the embarcadero as a nationally recognized historic district, preserving the waterfront and historic buildings. the proposed preservation plan goes to the next step, and it really is protecting uses. i think that court staff agrees. it is needed in a lot of differe

the port lives and dies by the revenue it generates on the port property. >> how is the ferry building doing in terms of creating revenue? >> it has been phenomenally successful. we are fully leased. the active merchants are incredibly happy to be part of the vibrant community. >> this is one of the most see places in san francisco. anybody who comes here from out of town, you have to walk through the ferry building. >> there are a lot of visitors here. definitely a lot of locals, too, who feel strongly about the connection to the marketplace. >> you were mentioning that this is pierre -- pier 14. >> first, it was a brick water for the downtown ferry terminal, constructed in 2001. after that, we added public access on top of it and connected it to the land side. now is eight 637-foot-long public access pier to enjoy the day, watched the very activity. there is a little bit of art on top of it. there are swivel chairs on a it and there are little sea >> can you t about proposition a that may affect this waterfront parks -- that may affect the waterfront? >> of the voters approved propos

the department of the environment and the port commission a study that looks at the port as a long-term option for an integrated waste facility. that's the first slide i showed you. this is something that we commissioned. the study is currently in process. we are working closely with the court to make sure we have all the information to determine if it is a long-term option. one thing i did want to mention, from our perspective, neither study directly informs the landfill contract that before you today. we've received a lot of questions. why act now? as you know, the contracts we currently have with waste management is slated to expire around 2015 with our current rate of disposal. we see that there are four reasons why we think it is important for this committee, as well as the board of supervisors, to consider acting now. the first is that recology has an agreement with union pacific for the rail portion of this. our concern is the cost to rate payers may increase if the agreement is not maintained. the second reason is this city does not currently have landfill capacity to deal with

the port is the revenue for each container brought through the port. instead of sending stuff out of san francisco, all of a sudden you can be bringing them into san francisco, through our ports, and into the landfill. there's a lot to look out for barges. please take a long, serious look at it. that has not been done. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. my name is john smith. i am outside counsel for waste management. i have probably negotiated or developed 50 or more franchise agreements. i urge the commission to continue its steady -- study. the fee is paid under the contracts are multiple and different. what may be 10.9% is duplicated elsewhere in other fees that other jurisdictions pay in addition to the franchise fee. livermore has an impact fee, plus an in ministry fee that is ongoing. some of these are collected at the transfer stations. it is also to the benefit of the contract entities. others are collected at the landfill or are paid back or to the benefit of the contract in agency. i urge additional study be done

first and foremost, the winner of the deal was the city effort, which i include the port, for winning the bid of the america's cup 2013. we are proud of that accomplishment. the real-estate deal maker of the year was michael cohen, who you recall was the director of the office of economic and workforce development. among the many accomplishments they cited, several were here at the port, including the exploratorium, treasure island, hunters point, and his help with the america's cup bid. the exploratorium project was a finalist for the best private- public deal of the year. we are happy for the recognition and congratulate our partners. the pier 24 pilara collection was a finalist for best rehabilitation/renovation deal of the year. it is a tremendous base. and lafitte restaurant was named the best new restaurant in san francisco. we want to thank our partners and hope to do better next year. the earth day, april 22, is coming right up. the port has already teamed up with several entities, the neighborhood parks council, blue-green way, see scavenger, audubon society, kayaks and limit

relocated from the port property or from their current location on port property. if we want to expand and to amend this resolution to include the businesses that might be affected that might be just a side of the port property, then we can include that, and we can provide staff with some guidelines of what you would like to say, and then we can bring it back to you next month. >> and also, we'll be happy to include any comments and a corresponding letter that would go with the resolution. commissioner dooley: i do not know if we want to add this are not, but one thing we are not addressing at this point is the impact on small businesses cost -- business is who i know are already concerned with the impact on traffic and parking, the influx of parking that they are feeling, like people are not going to be able to access their businesses. it is already going to be brought up now. the f train is packed at all times, and the number 10, which is the only city bus which serves that area, has been drastically slashed, so, in a sense, already, there is no public transporta

at the port. the third is the issue of franchise fees and what that can mean to vital services in san francisco. there is a lot of work to be done. i draw your attention to something that may not have been mentioned but i think is emblematic of the whole structure itself. that is on page 7. it is interviews with doe staff. the last line in that paragraph is most emblematic of what is upside-down about our system. staff indicated having a long- term relationship with recology is an appropriate alternative to a competitive procurement process. i am not sure how you could reconcile that with a competitive procurement process. supervisor campos: thank you. is there any other member of the public that would like to speak. miss nutter, you wanted to add something? >> following up on studies that need to be done, i want to make sure the commissioners know that the department of the environment work with a company called hdr to put together a memo on cost estimates. commissioner campos, a scent that to yo

the port is paying the sheriff for the cruise ship terminal analysis. the america's cup budget will hopefully pay for the share related to the america's cup, assuming that there is a budget approved by the board of supervisors here it whether it ultimately is a single report -- i do not know that we know that yet. but in terms of -- there is something under ceqa called and adjacency will, and for that reason, it is being studied together. -- adjacency rule. >> i do not know how easily you can get back to your slide on the funding sources, but it did not quite match up with what we have in our report, and you went through it fast enough that i could not tell if it was just that it was based or we have a table 3 on page 9 of the report, and a quick passage through could not match. >> i thought that a stable four. >> it was tabled two. >> no, it was not. it was tabled four, i think, that he shed

options regarding the port. i know that between then and now there has been a commission agreement between the apartments. if we could hear the conversation towards those new information items, that would be terrific. i would like to record -- recognize the supervisor campos has joined us for the committee. >> thank you for the opportunity to present today on the proposed landfill contract for san francisco. when we were here two months ago, we had a detailed overview of the selection process for choosing a landfill contract as well as the benefits of the proposed contract. i have a couple of slides as a reminder to a couple of different items. that then we will address the issues that came up in the last committee. the first slide that i wanted to highlight is the slide that goes over the san francisco refuse system and what the elements of the system more. of course, we have collection, governed by the 1932 ordinance, the picking up and hauling of trash recyclables through the streets of san francisco. process

exports passed through the port of oakland on

just walking through the peers with members of the port. i can not only say that not only did we make the right decision, the world has made the right decision. this is one of the most beautiful places on our -- earth that this 34th america's cup could possibly be. when you look out today, you'll get a glimpse of what millions of other people and viewers and visitors will see in 2013. my first thought was to let you know that this was a very high priority for me. many of you know i was not here december 31, so i have been looking for the unopened champagne bottle that was supposed to be left in room 200. maybe it is in some supervisor's office, but there has got to be one unopened bottle there to celebrate because knowing that this is coming -- on december 31, it was a culmination of what i saw was a whirl wind, a solid year of activity. ever since the cut was one in february and the immediate negotiations that gavin newsom and others had started, culminating in the negotiations and certainly working very closely with our board of superviso

the port is the revenue for each container brought through the port. instead of sending stuff out of san francisco, all of a sudden you can be bringing them into san francisco, through our ports, and into the landfill. there's a lot to look out for barges. please take a long, serious look at it. that has not been done. supervisor campos: thank you.

that the small business commission request that the office of workforce development and the port of san francisco provide dedicated resources to assist affected businesses. thereof be it further resolved that the small business commission request that the office of economic and workforce development, port of san francisco and other city departments assist affected businesses in relocating to new locations and negotiating leases, including special assistance for businesses that have business models that require location on or near the waterfront. be it further resolved that the small business request that the planning department, department of building inspection, port of san francisco, san francisco public utilities commission and other departments provide steam lined permitting and entitlements in order to allow businesses to relocate to their new locations. be it further resolved that the small business commission request that city departments waive or the americas cup event authority be responsible for all permit entitlement, impact and other fees and costs associated with the forced

let's hear from the port of san francisco. thank you for patiently waiting. >> i am john wu, a manager for the ports. i do not have 100% -- they are backing me up. there were three comments, from the 2009 audit, as well as one sandal audit to comment on. i guess i should back up, and thank them, even though we have any comments. i thank him for being very supportive in the process. with respect to the disaster recovery, i would like to clarify that the audit comment, related to the information system, we have the general controls. one of the requirements -- there was a substantial computer system and a computerized system, that we were backing up, and we were bringing the system back up. the comment was directed at us not being able -- we did not have a well-defined plan, and the facility to bring up these tapes. that is the kind of context and they brought this in so it looks like we were doing nothing in terms of continuity. we worked very closely with the comptroller's office, and i think that we were called -- a large depa

one was to barge recyclables from the port of san francisco to the port of oakland. one was to barge composed of material to other facilities. the third was to use the program related to the california marine highway to barge materials and possibly people between oakland, sacramento, stockton, and san francisco. i believe the discussion on combustibles -- compostables is still going on with other agencies. we found other jurisdictions barging have agreements in place to barge and rail. new york has been doing it. honolulu has tried to but are being tried in court. there were going to barge material to washington state. supervisor mirkarimi: commissioner avalos. supervisor avalos: you mentioned honolulu and new york. where do they barge to? i am not sure if it is a myth, but new york used to barge out and dump in the ocean. what are the conditions in honolulu? >> honolulu was going to ship to washington state. that has been tied up in court. it has not happened. new york used to go to the fresh kills landfill. they are now in an agreement with new jersey to barge to a