starting point for every single environmental review. they have no renderings. nobody has seen any rendering and how it's like and the past couple of weeks are nice because there hasn't been rain. the dominant feature on the waterfront is the bay bridge lights and this is going to be a light source that is going to knock out the views of the bay bridge. why can't we have illuminated projections of what this project is going to look like in light of the bay bridge? and it's possible they don't want anyone to see it. the second thing is i have submitted a map. this is

historically bay -- this is a real map. this is a map that was done by the federal government and uc. it's where the sea level rises. i'm not comfortable that a person from san francisco is a climate change denier because we're used to that from republicans who don't live in the area near water. i think there was a lot more climate change before the storm hit in last october. we have a sea level problem and it's knocked out of the box by the same legislation. they are

grappling with sea level rise and if you're going to become climate change deniers say so openly. let's have a real hearing on it. i'm not so i look at where the bay used to be, which includes all these sites, and where we're going to have -- thank you. >> hello. my name is david [inaudible] mitchell and here on behalf of property owners near peoria and sea wall. while i think it's important that the planning commission has this hearing and on design issues i think it's important that the public is involved in this process as well, and right now the process with regard to the

environmental review on this project is seriously deficient. there is not adequate preparation or scoping hearing. we wrote a letter saying there are no details for the sea wall and what rooms and hotel is it going to be? what kind of apartments? what kind of retail? there are a number of things missing in the description. since then we noticed in the newspaper last week there is now going to be a cruise ship terminal at the end. there was nng -- nothing about that mentioned today and i understand that the warriors presented to the citizens advisory committee on their february 15 meeting that there was going to be a cruise ship terminal there. again it's not in this. such a

use would change the use so dramatically and it would require has own eir and scoping hearing. what needs to happen for the project to be done properly and keep moving have a new notice and scoping hearing so the public can adequately address and tell the city what needs to be studied. some of the points were made by the people about the views but there are many, many more. there is hazardous waste from a cruise ship terminal. there is the biology issues, air quality issues and traffic and we're not talking about 41 events a year. the original description talks about over 200 events a year and that's before the cruise ships that might stop there. we don't know that and

the details need to be in the description and environmental review and have a new scoping. i'm going to give you a copy of the letter that i just recently sent on february 22 to mr. waco asking that further environmental review occur with the notice of preparation and the scoping meeting. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners this land, san francisco, -- >> excuse me. i'm sorry to interrupt you. could you state your name for the record? you don't have to -- >> i don't have to? >> you don't have to if you don't want to. >> yes, according to the brown act. so if you know that that's okay man. give me my time because you -- this land, all of it that you see commissioners

belongs to the first people, and the zoning czar -- [inaudible]. i came to you sir and i told you because i felt very strongly that you would do the right thing. now, some asconstitute people, the development have spoken about [inaudible], have spoken about climate change and you planners think it's a joke. it's not a joke. let me take you back 300 years -- not that you can go back, but for thousands of years before that this land was pristine so in

about 250 years you built this concrete jungle and when we come here with this huge developments whether it's pier 70, whether it's hunter's point, whether it's whatever is going to go and by the ferry building, and when the public expresses themselves you look in a nonchalant manner. i don't come here anymore. i watch on the tv and look how you all react, so if someone fills your pockets or the pockets of others, and you all may look at me in a suspicious way, or you're appointed by mayor ed lee and do the biddings of say the consultants. that's on you.

you're looking very aghast at what i know because what we have here is we have some people that want to do right, but we have others who are forced to do wrong, so i know jessie blout is here and others and i respect them as friends, but come on. give me a break. listen to the people when it comes to traffic issues, when it comes to pollution, when it comes to the air quality, when it comes to quality of life issues. thank you very much. >> is there any additional public comment? okay. seeing none public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >> yeah thank you. i have some comments and i really appreciate the presentation from all people

who presented as well as commenters and i would like to speak to some of the commenters. there was one i want to know where you live and have an arena near you. i would love to. i live in west stones area and we might have restaurants stay open if we had the arena there. it's not practical. i agree with some people and it's coming in the future to have scale models makes a lot of sense. as pointed out by one of the speakers there was resiting of the arena in the last couple weeks, slightly more to the south from where it was first cited and it doesn't make sense to do scale models that people can point to and criticize to until we know where it's going to be and reflects all the

things greg had spoken to respecting site lines, respecting views as much as possible to minimize the impact and it was a good presentation to show the site as it is now will have the least impact as would any, and actually having something there is going to be an addition. i often like to drive down california street from the richmond districts and one of my favorite sites and on van ness avenue and see the tower of the bay bridge and having something like the arena from a distance would augment the view, and not deteriorate the view and as you notice from the presentations we have there are beautiful opera houses and other facilities in other cities on the water famous and they're world view and they added to

the view and i think it's important to get scale models and we get illuminated to see how much light, but the positioning of the arena is wisely 500 feet from the street, and that's just short of two football fields in length and that is a long ways and whatever the height of that structure is greatly minimized by from the distance where people are walking, where they are living and i think that part is very well done. i want us to not make the same mistake from the 60's and 70's. i was a college at that time and i was disappointed we dropped the ball and didn't build the arena at that time and i don't know of the politics but we lost not just the warriors but consents to oakland and san jose and

when paf rete and streisand and this is the problem and if we had an arena decent for presentation san francisco would be the first site but that doesn't mean this has to be the only site in san francisco but it's the best site because it satisfies so many things being so close to accessibility from cal train, from bart, from muni, from a lot of different public transportation and also very walkable. it also impresses me after giant games the number of people on the street walking up to market street or into the heart of san francisco and everyone had horror stories about how bad it would be and i don't think i ever had a problem coming or going to a giant games whether i walked or drive or public transportation. i usually don't drive and if i do i park a wayings away and i

think this makes sense. somebody brought up the question about maritime uses and as was pointed out in the presentation there is the idea of kayak access and some ferry terminal or some terminal is planned as part of the project. fishing will be available. there will be greater access to the water. there is none now. you can walk out there and look out into the water and now you can go right down to the water and i am not sure about the second cruise terminal. i think part of the consideration is to have that available if there was an instant where we had so many ships in or if the main one that we're building now

and it's for an emergency situation and only if you had to so that makes sense to me. i have one on transportation -- i want to hear more on transportation. i know peter albert is probably here. the comment i had and i brought it up to people one impact you're going to have is coming from the east bay and many will drive and the quicker you get them into a parking facility and not driving in san francisco the better. one thought right now you can come back on the bridge from bryant street from where sea lot 330 is and can't get off but maybe possible to get a ramp built and drop people into a

parking structure there and the same with fremont and folsom and you're a little farther away but the more you think about accommodating the traffic that come to events and have the least involvement on the waterfront or in city streets with their cars that would be a good solution to come up with. i had a couple of other thoughts on the entire thing. i'm not quite sure what the entry is supposed to look like. i had heard from earlier comments we were going to try to simulate some of the entries of the traditional piers. it doesn't look like that but i think that would be a very nice touch to tie it into the rest of the piers if we had something like we do near fisherman's wharf and one of the piers and have the arch way and the bulk head

only. it may not be the only entrance but a good symbolic entrance to the pier area and fit in better and you would see that visually and tie into the other finger piers mostly to the mother mostly, so i would like you to take that into consideration. >> >> and certainly we will under go an environmental report on this and it's moving forward and certainly issues surrounding climate change and other issues will be addressed, and this is something that at this point is conjukt url in my opinion and even if we have to look at the worse case scenario if it does occur to the limits that these people were talking about, but we have only the availability of the last few decades to be able to monitor subtle changes and we

can't find out what happened 500 years ago or a thousand years ago and we have to take that course, and the other thing i really liked is the idea of the parking is diminishing to the 630 which i assume is mostly players and personnel like that that have to park close to the facility, and it's covered and hidden so that makes a lot of sense to me to put that in there, and it would be no additional curb cut as pointed out, so i am very much in favor, but i think the public makes a good point. they want to hear about what the impacts will be. i think it's perfectly appropriate to be on the waterfront. as you know the waterfront in san francisco it's been 125 years -- maybe not

that long and had the present embarcadero, probably about 100 years so a lot of things have been created including the entire downtown of san francisco that wouldn't be there when there was a cove there and it's an ongoing process and as long as it's tasteful and respectful and augments the city we're at the a benefit rather than an empty pier that nobody can use so i like the project and i would like to hear more and i think these questions need to be addressed. >> commissioner borden. >> yeah, i appreciate the work that the staff did with the content and the design plan and the view corridors and what you were trying to accomplish. i do have some questions -- i mean people brought up the issue of height. obviously that is always an issue that we hear on a regular basis. can you talk a little bit about what the scale of the arena is? i understand that you haven't figured out the final plan and it's going to be

changing but i think it's helpful to have context for just understanding kind of the overall scale. >> the current drawings that you have seen show the arena height at 135 feet. a-comwho are the architects on the project together with us are working to ensure that dimension is appropriate and we understand and everybody is completely aware that whatever can be done to minimize the impact of that is something we should put a high value on. it's a challenging aspect of the project. >> right. and the range from the lower shed buildings that you described to that and what are the ranges? >> the structures that face the embarcadero and no higher and general width and dimension of the existing embarcadero

structures. those are the only two significant features on the arena side. on the sea wall side there is currently shown a podium and 40 feet and that is equivalent to the lowest surrounding buildings to the south. above that and that's the reason why we have proposed the two type structures to get as much into them as possible to keep the podium as low as possible. we understand it's an interesting idea and people have issues and we are looking at that concept. >> it's like glazing and looks irresdescent and like munich and what is that appearance? >> the building will be approximately 50% glass where the areas of visitors will be. much of the arena at the highest systems and mechanical

structures are not glass and some type of metal and we're still evaluating that and there will be a fair amount of glass so you have direct view to the area and the exterior of the building. it's not meant to be -- and some people are saying birds will fly in and we are aware of those issues and we don't want to create glare also and that is on going as the project continues. >> and is illumiation? >> we are aware of the beauty it provides and with the amazing light sculpture that is there. it's spectacular and getting world interest and the first thing is meet sustainability guidelines and make sure you don't have light leaks out and

we don't want excess light on the pier itself and only for safety. >> is it similar -- i mean is there -- i know we have talked about seeing an actual -- >> model. >> have you created a model? >> i showed tonight various renderings and someone said they hadn't seen them and they were published in the newspapers. the model is being built now and we will have that and there is a digital model we're working with and 3d to get ready and yeah we're also dealing with some of the issues and as i said earlier we are being as responsive as we can be. >> great. you talked about retail and obviously we don't have tenants or clients lined

up, but how do you visualize the kinds of retail that would be appropriate in this project specifically on the pier side and obviously probably different on the other side? >> the layout of the retail is straightforward. it's a simple module along the street and not deep so it's not a giant sears and roebuck or something like that so the layout to have different retail from small to medium and maybe large but not big box but the dimensions are relatively minimal compared to the site. >> it's more retail and like the things people buy to and from the arena or a combination -- you might go there to shop while at the ferry building as well? if a combination or one

particular thought? >> commissioner i am development advisor for the warriors on this project and we are actively designing the retail scheme right now, but i will say generally the retail will be -- first it will have a san francisco sensibility. it will be high quality retail. it will likely be predominantly food and beverage oriented. we don't envision this a big fisherman's wharf style retail development. we think it will have a combination of uses that serve the neighborhood. there is many restaurants in that general vicinity. we believe there is opportunity to serve the local population and the event population with high quality food and beverage offerings.

we do have considerations to address vis-a-vis the land issues and bcdc would like to see as much visitor oriented re tail as possible and serve the region and not just the local needs of the neighborhood so we have to always balance from policy perspective specific surveying things with larger serving retail uses that bring the whole bay area to the site. >> so you wouldn't envision -- for example, there are different retailers inside the arena and available during the events and the outside retail is available all the time? >> yeah. one of the unique aspects of the project we open up what would be typical insular uses to the ticketed customer and we kind of turned it outward and said we want to put those

uses closer to the neighborhood and the region so people can enjoy the restaurants and the other offerings. >> so are you saying people could go into the arena space purchase things without having buy tickets? >> no, not so much. but we're bringing what would otherwise be inside the arena to the embarcadero. there maybe places in the arena accessible to the public but the majority is along the stretch of the embarcadero that was in the design. >> okay. i guess one more question for the project sponsor. there has been a lot mentioned about sea level rise and hunter's point it was 18-inch height that everything was raised. how have you contemplated that in the overall design?

>> there are multiple issues. some are smaller and some are larger. the smaller scale work wouldn't occur until later but the larger scale which we are interested now there are issues where we are placing the arena in terms how it's located on the pier itself so we are rising slightly a few feet the actual level of the pier to help stabilize it and furthermore the main entrance will be significantly higher than today. that's the big picture . the small pictures and things done at the wrar of park and we are used to and our work and working on a number of projects on piers around the world and we have to

address that and my house was flooded by hurricane sandy so it's a real thing to me. >> great. i think the concept and the way you're looking at view cordoors and from our perspective private views are not protected and we do that and the code doesn't protect the private views and it's unique with the arena from from a planning perspective that's what not we're looking at but the view shed and it is corridor and it is ability to see the bridge and the historic district and obviously things that we care the most about so seeing a scale of the model and the digital imannuals and shadows and all that stuff will be the most interesting thing. i think that a curved facility creates an interesting way to move light. that seems valuable in that

approach. i can't give more specific design issues -- feedback because i haven't seen a lot of the redetail and i think it's important for the community to start to see that because obviously for the finishing of the scoping of the eir those facts are important so i think that will -- obviously it won't satisfy everyone but i think it will go a long way in people understanding the context in which this project is being contemplated. i do think that there seems to be steps in the right direction in terms how you're shaping the project and i look forward like i said more specific details. >> commissioner . >> thank you. can you give a time frame what this would be av