transportation, water taxis is what they are trying to promote with the contracts. we have some water taxi landings, up and down the water front and this is a great additional stop. we are in communication with the water transportation authority about whether they would want to serve this side of the east bay. we have the giant ballpark ferry service for giants games and the idea is maybe that's an appropriate way for people to get to this site as well. most importantly, we have a natural deep water berth on the pier. we have a recent announcement that the warriors are planning on pulling the

project to allow for continued occasional cruise use. this would be on days where we have 3 or more cruise ships in. we have our cruise terminal at 27 but this is a place where we have in the past service cruise vessels and would like to continue that service and we also have fleet week and would like to maintain that use. so public access to the bay is an important value that we've been working to plan for. the current proposal would provide 50 percent of public access which will provide unique advantage points to see the bay. and as we think about the branch project which is supposed to open in june of this year, it's a bit sad that

that huge public investment is looking to build a parking lot. this project looks to the open space near the wharf. as i mentioned with bcdc, we are trying to create this network of open spaces along the bay. so the water front public assembly use. and this is probably the core of the analysis. it's the major use that's proposed. the warriors would have a little over 40 basketball games each season at this site but there would be up to 200 events at the site each year. we think that public assembly use is going to draw people to the site, to the bay. if you think about the explore

tore yum project is a very similar public assembly use that is going to draw a whole new population down to that site and we are confident that this event use of this site will have the same effect in south beach. we want to go over some quick examples of similar types of public assembly uses on trust property in california and other examples on water fronts around the world. we think that this is a good frame for the state legislature to view this proposal. so we have the giants ballpark. it was an approved by the state lands commission on a 25 acre sight. some of the features that made this consistent with the local trust was a low wall providing views to the bay. also a great

public access way behind that right field wall that provides gates and free viewing opportunities of giants baseball games. as i mentioned earlier, ferry service, to and from games and this development was part of a broader development that included the marina use right next door. then the santa monica pier, 2 piers, the second was a larger one built next to it. there was a great interest in having amusement parks on piers. it

included a ride and a carousel at the location and what you see here is the ballroom which was a 5,000 capacity ballroom on the west coast which held concerts and dancing. the pier was partially destroyed several times and rebuilt. it's open today as the santa monica amusement pier today. this is the long beach arena. it's part of the broader long beach convention facility. it was built on fill land from 1928-1932.

it was actually built on 1962. it's a basketball facility. it's hosted the olympics in the past. it's got the largest mural in the world featuring marine life. it's not really part of an active water front. this facility is separated from the water by a 6 lane roadway and this lag other lagoon is a man-made lagoon. it's not the water front that we are seeking for 30-32 but very similar to facilities on tight lands. this is predecessor to the long beach arena long beach auditorium. great architecture at this location. these were

used primarily for concerts. the first municipal auditorium ended up collapsing and replaced by the second auditorium that operated in the 1960s and this is more of the kind of architecture and public access that we are seeking at 30-32. interesting comparison of the long beach auditorium which was built on fill on 30-32. you can see the structures. another component of this multipurpose venue is that the city doesn't have an arena. that it is a

component of venues. it's what we see on beachfront properties along san diego and long beach. it is oriented to this public assembly use either performance use or venues use. we know about the opera house. it was a site that hosted some of the olympic activities and designated as a world heritage site in 2007. it's what we think of when we think of sydney. the opera house was opened in 2008. it was designed by snow -- the same firm designed to build 30-32 and a place where

people go to enjoy the open space. it's another example of contaminated industrial water fronts repurposed for this kind of public assembly use. in vancouver, you have the convention center with a great public walkway that connects restaurants and hotels along the waters edge. this kind of convention use is sort of meeting that urban design standard that we would hope to meet with 30-32 with the proposed project. this is boston contemporary art which opened in 2006. a 65,000 square foot building. it's leaning over the boston harbor and it's got cafes and the main anchor

to the pier and water front. and finally the copenhagen to denmark. it opened in 2005 and seats up to 2000 people but very similar kind of active public use activating the water front. so finally there are some other trust issues that we hope to accomplish with the project. first the pier itself is self directed. storm water is direct properly. they are coming up with a storm water design guides and this project is a rare opportunity to provide storm water treatment for the entire pier which will

improve better quality water for the project. the project includes up to 200,000 square foot of retail which is predominantly retail uses like restaurants. so moving into legislation, the bryant street pier project with ab 839 to modernize that cruise terminal it authorized substantial amount of non-trust general office space. general office space is not allowed on trust property and the legislation provided for up to 325 thousand square foot of office space. it

grants open space and other public benefits and it was really this office space requirement that in consultation with state lands, the port decided to go the legislative route to make sure the legislature is the ultimate trustee was comfortable with this proposal and they were. they adopted this legislation and clean up a b 605 to enable the project. the legislation also authorized some trust swaps pertaining to the water mark project on seawall lot 330. so, in making this authorization, the legislature made findings associated with the sites and the ports effort to develop the site and the purpose is to draw a narrow set of circumstances under which the state will authorize a

project like this. the current proposal by assembly memo member 1839 it authorizes the multipurpose venue project consistent with broader open uses, meritime uses, space requirements and also appeal for the authorization for the non-trust office at the site. it confirmation they can sell the lot in order to finance improvement that are required to fix the site and it allows court's to validated these actions associated with the project, judicial validation is something we often include in our legislation in order to an

affirmively assure that action is taken. also it further serves the public trust. there was the cruise use which was the port's primary goal but that cruise use was accommodated by a substantial non-trust program and the feeling of port staff that we have a much more trust consistent over all program at the piers 30-32 proposal. the next step is to consult about the latest proposal. we started that consultation process and there have been some amendments that have been submitted i believe today in the assembly.

the port always consults on our state land related to public trust issues and the policies committee the natural resources committee and it's our goal to have in addition to the hearings up at the state level that will be public, a series of public opportunities to comment on the legislative proposal so we've presented at the cac last monday night. we are here today presenting this item and we tend to go back to the land use to talk in further detail about the legislation so that whe we go through assembly and senate process we can bring the full range of public comments to bear in the proposals that we make through the process. so that concludes my

presentation and i'm available to answer any questions. >> thank you. anybody have public comment? >> jennifer from the state lands commission. >> rather than doing public comment if you can speak a little bit on the project now. good afternoon, thank you. it really is a pleasure to stereo # to speak to you today. i want to congratulate the port. meritime port and world class destination thanks to the accomplishment of the port of san francisco. our staff share a long history of working together cooperatively and collaboratively to enhance

public service including access along the water front. examples include the at&t ballpark and piers. one of the key factors, support staff as well as commission staff along the process. the pier 30 and 32. we have kept staff informed including the legislation. as background the state legislature as the ultimate trustees of public trust land and resources entrusted the land along the water front in 1968 to manage on behalf of all the people of california. the port 32 you the burden act has the responsibility and authorities to this land. there

are 84 other grantees. including san diego, long beach which include over 300 statutes. the commission over stands but not any authority over project proposals unless provided for in legislation. for the boars of the proposal that are being discussed today involving pier 30-32, the commission does have some approval authority over the sale of lot 330. there is some mechanisms which brad talked about with the san francisco water proposal. a request from the port considering formally a

proposal or legislation authorizing a specific proposal. commission did not direct the city or port to seek legislation in this instance. however, given that the legislature as the ultimate trustee of these lands over the past 15 years has expressed interest in the pier 30-32 through 5 pieces of legislation and the public's proposal. and staff does not object to the city and port seeking such legislation. neither the commission nor staff has taken a position on the current bill. however, based on past practices and assurance by city and port staff, i anticipate the port and city will continue to work closely with both commission staff and cdc staff and development of the

commission so the trust lands are in good hands. thank you for the opportunity to comment. >> thank you. now we are open for public comment. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is woods. i'm cochair with ron miguel with the land use design of the public subcommittee. the subcommittee is going to be reviewing this legislation and discussing it at a meeting on

march 20th to discuss any amendments that have been made. we do have issues we want to talk about. one of which is that there is no reference in the legislation to retaining the historic java house. i think we want to make sure that that is codified in the legislation. they do mention having a ka yack landing as part of the project and human voting committee said they don't want to be there. i don't know if it's appropriate to keep that wording in the legislation. and the other issue that i think we'll want to talk about is section 7 of the legislation which is a pretty sweeping approval beyond

what i think public trust issues are. but, it's a long process. we will appreciate any public comment and any public participation as we move forward. thank you. >> commissioners, you heard a pretty long presentation taking you all over the world and all over california. i want to stress one thing as a director of environmental justice advocacy. even though you heard some so-called regulatory agency give a pretty lengthy presentation, she did articulate very clearly that in this case she has no jurisdiction. so when the

public trust act was linked to at&t park we had issues with contamination. so as a director of environmental justice advocacy, i know that we have the capability, the year 2013 unlike the 50s, 60s and 70s and even up to the middle 1980s, they did have the laws but no one to do the clean up. so i'm fully aware that when the at&t park was built and if some folks don't have the history, i will give them the manifest where a lot of contamination was moved and dumped in the bay view. i'm also fully aware commissioners, unbeknownst to

you that contamination on pier 30-32 is not being done the right way. what happens when it's not done the right way, people who can remove the hazardous material and take them to a legal site will contact me more to use me so that i can write a blog and that's not my intention. my intention is to send a very clear message to the warriors and the good citizens to do the right thing. i did hear a presentation including 120 buildings going to be plt. build i don't know how it's going to benefit the public trust land. they do the the better interest of filling that campaign. thank you very much.

>> or the record dale rye heart. i want to point out a few things. the presentations have been seen in the past. they are old. maybe the next time they come back they will put them all on land including the warriors arena. this presentation talks about events, we have 41 games and larger events to house big concerts and they talked about two more. i think 100 is a misrepresented number. with the sydney opera house, they have water levels. climate changes is making the water level changes, all the places we talked about or seen today are going to face that. is the

copenhagen on land? with regard to 839 this is legislation related to something else. why aren't they creating a new legislation for a new project. they are trying to make it look new again. it's not. there is a new environmental report coming up. it looks like they are trying to use usurp environmental issues so when it comes up. it not the case. they have to pass mustard down the road. the real people left out on this is the general public. it's going to happen. no one asked us first. this is biggest problem. as far as the view from the wharf. the

water, the bridge, the east bay. i don't need an arena to block that. it a 13 story modelist that sits out there and completely destroys the view. as far as 330. the market are better now. maybe it will sell for $45 million and maybe you are tear the pier down. it is right for san francisco for the economics it will bring to san francisco, it does not need to tear up the water front. thank you. >> thank you commissioners. i'm dennis mckenzie. i'm working on educational proposals for 25

years and teaching public high school for the last 12 years. i provide you with a copy of my update for my request for the request for warriors. as you know from the previous material i have provided to the warriors and all the officials in san francisco for the last year by now i'm hopeful that this initial proposal could be implemented so that eventually another component that you receive deals with the developing cross cultural exchange programs for a number of countries but for sure the americas can begin with mexico and central america where i have been communicating with different elders and council in general and guatemala of providing a small classroom to bring students and schools and different officials people around this country to meet our students in this arena and

learn how to facility can operate for the benefit of all our kids and students and also different states across the country and using that as a model for the cross cultural program as well. i wish everyone well and i believe that everyone is realizing very deeply how this is a critical area that will be impacted and i believe everyone can work together to find the solutions necessary. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is earnest en -- i want to tell you that the giants state stadium is so outstanding we