or 415-554-4375. visit our website, www.sfelections.org.

>> meeting is called to order. >> [roll call] >> i into, approval of minutes of the july 122012 meeting. >> seconded. all in favor? >> please be advised that the ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers, and similar sound-producing electronic devices are prohibited at this meeting. please be advised that the chair may order the removal from the meeting room of any person(s) responsible for the ringing or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound- producing electronic device. please be advised that a member of the public has up to three minutes to make pertinent public comments on each agenda item unless the port commission adopts a shorter period on any item. -for a, executive director of report. >> good morning, members of staff.

please except our gratitude for making time for this meeting. unfortunately, it could not be held of the regular meeting time, so i want to thank everyone for changing their schedule on this early monday morning. thank you very much for making that effort on behalf of the port and our agenda today. on the executive director's report i have a couple of items that are very important. it has been an incredibly busy summer and we will roll right into a very busy fall. i think you are aware from the publicity, on thursday, the city planning commission had a hearing on the draft environmental report for the america's cup 34 of that and if your 27 cruise terminal and the northeast wharf project. the open comment period is ongoing and there are multiple ways to review the draft eir,

one of which is on mine, the second of which is in the lobby of port offices at pier 1. many members of the public have come in to take a look at that, to take a look at their own area of interest. that has been terrific. my compliments to staff for making that an opportunity. as you know, we are not the regulatory entity that is doing the in our mental impact report, so any comment on that need to go to the office of city planning, either to the environmental review officer and director of the environmental planning division of the city planning department, or to the eir coordinator. she can be reached at her e- mail. the public comment period closes on august 252011.

at the hearing last thursday there were approximately 40 speakers. today, there were six from the environmental council that is working with the city on eir. a number of issues were raised. one of the port is supportive of, reflects the impact to the aquatic club and the ability to mitigate impacts so there are not interruptions to the ability to swim there. we were pleased to hear those comments and look forward to working through them. there were other comments as well, many of which were reported in the press. we appreciate everyone's willingness to work with us further, commitment to these projects, which are pretty big milestones for the port. a number of those concerns had to do with the impact of the shoreside power system at pier

27 come offline, as well as the difficulty to analyze the long term development rights as currently drafted, since we are still working on those. the high school academy proposal, which you all have written about, has been presented. there were comments about problems for ferry building and other businesses, if the embarcadero were closed to vehicular traffic. it was a very informative discussion. i believe the planning commission spend a lot of time on it. they are also interested in finding out more about how to proceed going forward so that they do not have approval rights on the projects themselves. i think there will be more discussion coming and i am sure we will update you at the next port commission meeting. just wanted to make sure that you were aware of that, and for anyone that was here today, following this online or on tv. thank you so much for helping us with this complex issue.

august 25 is right around the corner, so we look forward to working with everyone. next on the report is the blue green went public comment period. we decided to extend that through the end of the month. the due date has extended to august 31, 2011. this week, there was a meeting. there will be a discussion of comments on the blue green way plan. that meeting is being held at 6:00 this wednesday at the eco center at parents had park. finally, a bit of press on this. we just want to make a special effort to recognize the passing of one of our former and a long serving members of the port, mr. eugene gartland. he first served as a port commissioner from 1972 through

1974. you then became an executive director. unfortunately, he passed away this past july 23 after a very long illness. he is survived by two daughters and four grandchildren, and numerous friends throughout the city. at his request, a very small funeral. you may know that he was appointed by mayor dianne feinstein. at the time, he was a maritime attorney and was the senior partner at a law firm. he was then general counsel for a major maritime organization. during his tenure as the port director and at the commission, he did a lot of amazing things. first and foremost was the purchase of the bethlehem shipyard, which is now our

longest serving west coast shipyard, which we are extraordinarily proud of. by doing this, he was able to ensure we had a thriving ship repair industry here in san francisco. it has obviously gone on for decades after that purchase, and it employs approximately 400 skilled union workers. so that is a great and lasting feet. in 1986, he negotiated a new agreement with the national shipping co. of the philippines at pier 80. this increase our revenues substantially. he negotiated a lease with the chinese province for 30,000 square feet of space at the pier 27 bulkhead. and he negotiated an agreement to serve a long and other countries, bringing in an

additional 100 teu's a week. he was involved in the purchase of the bethlehem shipyard property at sea wall laot 349. he was also presented an award of distinguished service for his efforts in the success of our mandate 1987. army day was a holiday to draw attention to national defense. i just wanted to take a moment to praise him and remember him for all of his great efforts. we have probably long gone up some of the things that we are working on today started many years ago. i do not think i see any members of his family today, but our

condolences and gratitude for all of them have sacrificed for the city and port. thank you. >> is there any public comment on the executive director's report? >> item 4b. informational presentation on assembly bill 418 delegating to the california state lands commission the authority to realign public trust restrictions at pier 70 and turning public trust restrictions on sea wall lot 330. >> good morning, commissioners. special projects manager for the port. dianne is passing out to you some maps of pier 70, which will

be used in the presentation. just bear with me while i get this launched. i am here representing the port team that has been working on pure 70 for many years, the master planning process. many others in the planning development group. there was a key component of the master plan that looked at realigning the public trust designation at pir 70 in a way that will help promote the master plan. the core of the master plan is to have revenue-generating uses

on the waterfront development site. commission has awarded an exclusive negotiating rights to the force city development team for that right. that will be the economic engine to save a lot of historic buildings, build the parks, do the other thing that we all hope peer 70 can be. assemblymember ammiano has come to the port's aid again this year. he has offered ab418, and today's presentation goes over how this will facilitate the trust exchange and also how we can facilitate one of our major part requirements under the host agreement with the america's cup event of poverty. -- authority. in anticipation of getting force city on board as a development partner, trying to further the entitlement process at your -- pier 70, much of the staff

reached out to the california state lands commission january and started talking about legislation to a effectuate the eugene gartland trust swap -- pier 70 trust swap. anytime there is a trust swap, the agreement needs to be authorized. assemblymember ammiano introduced the bill in february, sailed through without problems. this morning, it is up in state senate appropriations and is headed to the suspense file. we are optimistic about it coming off and being voted on the senate floor. over the past month, we have been negotiating a series of technical but important amendments with the california state lands commission staff. i will go over those in the

presentation. for the public who may not be familiar with the public trust, the public trust is -- represents the port's mission as enshrined in law. the doctrine originated in roman law, transmitted through the night mcartor, to the original 13 colonies. as each state was admitted to the union, it obtained public trust rights to, basically, the waterways in those states. in california, the public has certain rights in submerged lands and kind land between mean low and the nine died. whether those are filled or not filled. as we know, the san francisco waterfront has been filled over time. california had designated the california state lands commission to administer public trust lands. they administer lands around

lake tahoe and in other areas of the state that have not been granted to local grantees, like the port of san francisco, and backed up by the california attorney general. the public trust doctrine is basically a doctrine of uses that are supported by public trust lands. generally limited to those uses that are water-related or dependent. such as commerce fisheries and navigation, environment of preservation and recreation, habitat wildlife refuges, or open space, and then uses the promote public trust uses or accommodate the public uses of public land. we hold these lands not just for the people of the city and county of san francisco, but for the people of the state. one of the uses that this permit is visitor uses. this would be hotel, restaurant

uses. people around the state could come to san francisco and enjoy the lands that we hold in trust for them. a bit of background about pier 70. a 60-acre site. it has been in continuous use for ship repair and shipbuilding for 150 years. portions of the site have. not many people know that the federal government owned this site until 1967. it was a base closure before the concept of base closures. port staff undertook a several years long master planning process with the vision to create an historic district that could be listed on the national register of historic places with major waterfront open spaces, innovative for industries and the preservation of that important ship repair operation that employs so many workers in san francisco.

the title history of pier 70 is a bit complicated, and really the reason that we need state legislation to resolve these issues, to allow development to go forward. the port acquired a big portion of pier 70 through the burton act. another portion, as director moyer mention, from the bethlehem steel corp. portions of the site are historic uplands. there were never tidelands and were never subject to the common law of public trust. those areas are subject to the burton act requirement. several parcels have been in and out of private, state, and federal ownership. i am going to invite the person who has guided the port through this trust exchange discussion with state lands, outside cancel bill white, to walk through some of the slides at pier 70 and

share some of the history with you. >> good morning, commissioners. brad has himself become an expert in the public trust over the years. this may be the last time that i have to the system of public trust matters. the history of pier 70 is quite interesting. i will not get into many details, but i will walk through days maps that brad has prepared to give you a flavor of why we have this opportunity in the first place. as you know, most of the land that the ford owns in the portfolio is subject to the trust. virtually all of it came to the stadium the burton act. most of the land owned by the state in the city was subject to the trust. pier 70 is a major exception,

and it has given us this rare our opportunity to do an internal trust swap without having to look outside of the port's own holdings to effectuate the trade. so let us look at one of the earliest conveyances of property, here at the site, in the light green area at the bottom of the matp. the time the land portion of that rectangle down there was owned by the state. they were conveyed to the pacific mills co. back in the 1960's, one of the first industries in this part of san francisco. they had a major iron mill that was operating on the up land portion. they have perhaps already expanded into the tidelands.

the state granted those lands to the company in, i think, 1863. it is not clear whether that grant was intended to free the tidelands from the trust or not. there are different opinions on that. we have been conservative and treated those lands as potentially subject to the trust, not withstanding that private grant. so we have treated them as land within the trust today. just for a point of reference, the blue line that you see running through the property was the historic shoreline. that is a brandy high tide line was at the time of the statement. the green area shaded to the right of that is where land is granted by the state to pacific railway mills.

the second grant that occurred in the 1860's, around 1868, was the yellow kerria that you see. -- area that you see. this was a commission set up by the state, thailand commissioners, and they were responsible for mapping out the shoreline in san francisco in order to get to deeper water, and then selling off time the lands that were -- tidelands to create a better waterfront in san francisco. these lands were ultimately acquired by the predecessor to pacific mills. union ally in works.

they became one of the greatest shipbuilding companies on the west coast, perhaps the greatest. and this is where it all happened. those lands we know from well- developed case law, are free of the trust. at least the ones that are filled. you can see one area that was never filled, despite their private ownership. so there is a little bit of a question mark as to the trust status of those lands. so everything in yellow, including, surprisingly, the streets. those lands were all confirmed within the ownership of the trust. consequently, those plans were never conveyed to the port to the state under the burton act.

the remainder of the site is historic up plans. those are adjacent to what had been the pacific railway mills property. ultimately, pacific railway mills sold that property to [inaudible] iron works. and they were another major producer of iron, had a major facility. ultimately, as brad mentioned, that was acquired by the federal government during world war ii. the federal government held the property until 1967, at which point, it was acquired by the state. we are not sure why it was acquired, but we know that for -- from record that it was. one year later, the state

transfer that property under the burden act to the port. that is why the port is holding a major area of historic up plans not subject to the trust. these lands are subject to the burton act, which is why they are not being sold into private ownership. but the burton act pressure actions on the use of those properties can obviously be modified by statute. that is one of the main reasons we have moved forward with ab 418. this is a composite picture of what the trust looks like on the property today. hot on the bottom you see land subject to the trust, including land pretty distant from the waterfront. you also see st. areas that were never conveyed by the state to private ownership, subject to the trust, to the port by the

burton act. the yellow and gray are the area that we believe are not subject to the cost today -- trust today. the remainder, there is a dispute as to what rules govern their. it was required by the port, supposedly with trust money, but it was only $1. suppose the bay, that came out of eugene gartland's pocket. so the port may not have to spend even $1 on the property. as you can see, a great deal of the waterfront itself is not in the trust, according to this that -- map. whereas back plans are shown in the trust. that is why this property was calling for the change.

here is why -- what we think the trust should look like on the property. had the green area is what, at the end of the exchange, would be in the trust. one is in yellow would be out of the trust. and when we take this trust out of the land through the exchange, we would be worth -- removing all of the restrictions imposed from the burton act. those lands could be sold by the port. they could be leased to private owners and they could be used for any purpose presidential, commercial, office, thing that you are typically prohibited from doing on trust land. the green is maintain the existing ship facility, series of waterfront parks, along with a couple of key street access

ways that allows the public to get to the waterfront under this proposal, the trust actually comes out ahead in terms of acreage. i just wanted to point out one other aspect of the bill that makes ab 418 important. there are some major historic buildings close to this site. normally, buildings on trust lands are subject to the same use restrictions as other trust lands. so the state has been a bit more flexible. those buildings are pre- existing, and they do not want the space to go to waste, but they are still reluctant to allow uses other than trust uses, even though the cost of restoring those buildings are often astronomical.

what we have done here, the red buildings are the historic buildings that are actually on trust land, where we have provided some flexibility in the statute to allow non-trust uses so that the public can access them, ensure that they are returned to federal standards set forth by the secretary of interior. but some of the key historic buildings are in yellow. they are not shown it in a different color on this map. in those building we retain complete flexibility to use the inside for any purpose, whatsoever. that is really going to assist the port in the renovation and preservation of those buildings. that is all. thank you. i am here for questions if you

have any. >> thank you so much, bill. the only thing i would have to correct from the presentation is that i did not prepare the maps. i would like to thank my staff for producing those fabulous maps. i just want to go over a few of the other requirements of ab 418 related to pier 70. a lot of these are standard requirements for any trust exchange, so they are not unusual. the lands coming out of the trust have to be found useless for trust purposes. the monetary value of land added to the trust must be greater than or equal to the value of those that are removed from the trust. the exchange cannot interfere with trust uses. at pier 70