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 available and through to final design? >> thank you commissioner. jessie band again. this is an important discussion. we look to getting feedback from you. as craig mentioned we're in 2.0 of the design. we are taking the consideration from the cac. i believe we have been to over a hundred community meetings between the cac and neighborhood and board meetings et cetera. we are trying to take that feedback from the regulatory agencies that have jurisdiction over this site and the state lands commission and putting it into a new version of the site plan which also includes -- there was a reference to efforts to accommodate the east berth for cruise use. i would say

it's not a terminal like people are used to thinking about like the one that just opened. more of a berkt that is that for use when the others are full so it's a tertiary or fourth berth and a port of call, and not a full home port but we are taking that into consideration which has some effects on the overall site plan. the bottom line is we expect to have a higher level of design that's associated with the next site plan so you will begin to see more detail, more architectural detail. we will certainly have a physical model and have many more perspectives from different parts of the site as well as into the site from various locations. all of that will occur at the end of april is our target for rolling out that next iteration of the site

plan as well as a higher level of design and we're hoping to be back actually at this commission in april along with being at the port commission and the cac. >> thank you. and i wanted to ask a series of transportation questions and i don't know who that is best for. so we got this diagram with the yellow blue. i know at this point we're in a conceptual phase but if you could go over some of the larger challenges of the site? obviously accommodating the different modes. is there anything about the site that will require a lot of attention to try and figure out? and my second question is around muni light rail so if there are any performance or operating suggestions being provided about light rail because my own

experience along that side it's quite slow. >> i would like to introduce erin miller and that give some perspective. >> thank you. >> jennifer mentioned at the beginning of the meeting this afternoon we are working on a assessment that is taking into account not only this project but all of the development we are anticipating seeing along the waterfront, particularly eastern front in the area and we are beginning to where we expect to see transportation impacts and help us to begin to identify in our own system as well as the regional system where there maybe short falls as the projects come on line. we are working in an up and down

manner zooming into the specific projects working with the cac for piers 30-32 as they dig more deeply into the specifics of their site so we have been meeting with the transportation subcommittee of that cac and we are rounding out some of the potential solutions. this assessment will begin to identify possible solutions, things that we think will help to support the transportation system at these different locations. we can't -- we don't finalize them through the assessment but they are able to inform the environmental review so there are ideas that we come up could potentially be mitigation and a proposal as we work through those so we're not at a super high level of detail.

we are aware our light rail is impacted here and we have a lot of transportation improvements on the board that are coming on line in the next 10-15 years that will help the problems that you see today and then we will continue to work with these folks to identify more solutions that are specific to the area. things as simple as tracks and signal improvements can support the future increase in activity on the waterfront. one thing i can say about this site that we're interested in is the fact that we actually think you don't have to take muni to get to this site so it's a great opportunity. you're within a walking distance of bart, cal train and this is a transit rich location and it's in a wonderful walkable part of the city so we hope to be able through the

assessment to help focus people to arrive there by foot, by bike, by regional transit. relating to the parking question too i just would bring up we are as well looking at a parking strategy for this whole area and we are focusing specifically on trying to identify where parking resources are that are outside of this location and get people out of their cars instead of into the area circulating looking for parking and impacting the transit and parking in those areas. >> thank you. i think it was said that the assessment will come to this commission and i think this is important for looking at this project and others upcoming. thank you. >> absolutely we would love to come and let you know we are making a presentation about this to our own board next tuesday. >> so overall on this project i

am looking forward to continued conversation much i think whether this next level of design comes out in april there can be more questions answered, more specifics, a lot more discussion on the major issues brought up. >> commissioner hillis. >> so thank you very much for the presentation. i mean i take from a planning perspective this is definitely in the right space for an arena the downtown core. i echo the comments and it's walkable and when you go to the giants park it's too far and this closer to downtown i think is great and i think people will walk and the transit impacts won't be as great as we otherwise think. i mean i have to admit i was skeptical originally when it was proposed that the arena was going to be on the water and with state

land issues and i think the design really responded to that and it's a great design for the location and we're obviously not putting an arena anywhere and i think being off the embarcadero works well. [inaudible]. the retail program which i agree with commissioner comments prior to this what that feels and looks like and hopefully push back on state lands and when you say regional serving -- [inaudible] restaurant could be regional serving. so hopefully the retail will be kind of neighborhood and retail serving. the parking that's proposed, the 630 spots. how is that -- why was that proposed at that level

? it's obviously small to the parking around the giant's ballpark. >> yeah. jessie blat again commissioner. the parking obviously is it's a lot less than the warriors have at oracle and i wanted to make one point on that that we did do a survey of parking use during the season and we found that the highest point of the use of the oracle parking lot was 5,000 cars and when you think about oracle those that know the site pretty much capture every car that comes to a game or event and there is no where else to park there and it's interesting to think about that compared to our site you have more than bart. you have cal train and the walkablity of the site and muni

and walking. as it relates to our parking the 630 spaces that we are currently proposing serves a mix of players, personnel that's necessary for both the warrior's operation as well as the arena operation as well as some ticket holders for the events. >> certainly the design -- i mean how that works with the retail and open space does a great job in minimizing the impact of the parking. just on the open space too there wasn't a lot of this in the presentation and i know there was talk of making it active 24 hours or 12 hours especially on non game days. it would be nice to see more programmatic

details how that open space is activated and take the south beach park versus rincon park and i prefer south beach because there is more around it even when the giants aren't there and it's active when they're not there, so and this is obviously bigger and on the water so getting more detail would be helpful. just on process we hear a lot this is being fast tracked. it seems like we have been talking about it a long time. if it was fast tracked it might have been approved so far but what is the process from here on out and i know this is subject to change but just a general idea? >> commissioners in large part to be responsive to the design considerations and the conversations with stakeholders the project sponsors are