public 3 days but any single member of the board could allow it into the deadline. >> how is this different? i believe that this amendment doesn't set a number of you days for the planning departments responses. i think it was a very timely issue in that we were responding to about 5 hundred pages of information that was submitted 8 days before the scheduled hearing tomorrow on 706 mission street. it is as i mentioned we feel extremely important in future legislation there were not points responded to an the record. so as the planning did not like to make sure that we are certainty to have adequate opportunity to respond to

information. the one thing that sounds different is here i allow the board to vote and it allows the members to allow written documentation into the record >> i certainly a single member of the board allowing it vs. a board to make sure we have the opportunity to provide the responses to the information provided. so from our standpoint it's unlivable that the entire 11 member board would refuse to allow us to submit it so a single member is a safeguarded. so from information from the planning department we want to

be absolutely certain we have an opportunity to respond to information submitted 8 days before the hearing. so from our standpoint something that gives us the maximum shawn's is the most desirable option >> what is that? >> that would allow us to submit information without needing any board action to let it had so. the second most strongest assurance would be it only takes one member of the board to allow it to be admit and the least outcome would the the board to allow our response to be submitted >> right now the written material submitted lantern noon

and 8 days before will not be submit until the board votes. >> that would be our preference and so. >> your changing that to one member of the board. >> if it takes one member of the board to allow later information to be submitted i think it would be essentially be the same situation we have now. it's hard because we're talking about two things the planning departments ability to respond and a other than the planning department >> okay. thank you for that clarification. other than the planning department it would be more desirable for the board - this is purely from the standpoint of

the planning department having the opportunity to respond to the information. the late submital of the information would be problematic >> so within 8 days or less of the hearing. >> yes. >> if the planning department doesn't respond to an issue that's been raised than that can have implications on others information. >> would you like to commit? do you know >> yes. i believe the issue is the document dumping provision. >> yeah, the 8 days and majority vote of the board. >> is there a particular question? >> yes supervisor kim had

raised the question about the information submitted by the appellants within 8 days would it be a majority of the vote vs. any member of the board for the late items be accepted and ms. jones says this raises issues about the planning departments ability to respond during the initial process. >> may i add to that? if i have 8 days when does the board get to vote within that eight day process? my guess would be it would be at the appeal so they wouldn't know if they should respond to it

they will respond to it anyway. >> i think that's correct supervisor kim as a practical matter if planning didn't have time to respond there would obviously be no response in the record. if it was very voluminous for example they could say we haven't had time to respond. >> as it works annoy we make every he effort to respond no matter when it is submitted but there are situation when it comes in two late to prepare a response. so we try to respond verbally at the hearing

>> so if we play out the scenario and keeping in mind once an appeal is filed until it's heard at the board it's not like it happens next week. so if someone were to the day before the hearing or actually let's say, you know, one p.m. a couple of hours before a hearing submit an shootout voluminous amount even if material i guess the options would be we'd have a speed reading in the planning department who could respond not likely but it would be a sloppy response which undermines sequa. or not be able to respond or

leave us exposed in a lawsuit. so i think this is a situation to allow the late items - supervisor kim? >> there's a provision in the document to protect document dumping. mroon will probably then have to plan to respond to it because they don't know how the board is good morning to vote. i'm not clear on this >> i think based on past practice. planning will attempt to respond if they can and if it was a short letter or something like that and could respond but there

have been distanced when entire dicks have been presented on the day it's not possible >> i'm not ready to support this amendment it's not exactly how it's written into our legislation but currently our way of dealing with the legislation is allowing the public to respond. but in lourg certainty cases if it comes in 8 days after the record. i'm open to discussing that but i don't think of having a majority vote is an answer either. we have also don't want to have planning to give their respond a

day or hour before the appeal it's challenging to us as we try to get information on time. >> i think con - i think the planning department has a chance to respond to that at the end. those are the key concepts and is other aspects of it are the policy decisions for the board and a president chiu do you have a prospective. let me put out a couple of thoughts and reactions.

i think when a party provides this information late it generally means a practice we're not considering the information. the party has a responsibility to get us this information earlier. i don't feel we have to have planning to respond 3 or 5 days later so long as we know that we get the information. planning knows we don't have enough time to respond either. i am concerned about a majority vote. i think if majority of the board might want to keep out documents that are going to the appealed later but if that's not the

right thresholds - let me ask another question is this something we need to resolve today? my understanding it's not. we could severe this and defer it and work something out. this is screaming for a resolution. this is not shouldn't be the hot button in the legislation. i think it doesn't necessarily have to be the majority it could be three or four supervisors but i think it would be good to require some kind of reasonable threshold. so why don't we then remove that from the amendments that we're considering today and we'll keep that in the offer and take it

hopefully after we can hammer something out. so the amendments before us today are the ones i outlined minus that particular amendment. we changed the title as ms. warren outlined at the beginning of the meeting. so colleagues can we take those amendments without objection? okay. that will be this order. again those items are to number one. as amended. president chiu >> i'm sorry you're asking for a motion? >> no, the amendments have been adopted so we have item one and the original item. and so let me make a couple of

comments i've talked about 15 amendments so to address both the proposals on the table. i've heard from the public we have to consider both pieces of legislation at the same hearing quote/unquote side by side. if it's not eminently obviously we've been trying to take the best ideas from supervisor wiener's legislation and we've been doing this and we'll continue to do this to continue to focus on the best issues. so if we've not had those in front of us at the same time that's not true.

i want to give the public the opportunity to a review them. i'd like to ask this to be continued for at least a week so the folks can digest this. so with that i think my session is we continue this item for at least a week and continue the conversation. >> okay. is that a motion to continue? >> and it that with respect to both item? to be continued and i'll support that motion >> i as usual will push for may 20th. i think we have a number of pieces we're trying to figure out the 1 hundred percent of

affordable housing piece and some of the pieces on data dumping. this is now going to be our second or third continuance we should have a two week continuance. that's my suggestion but we have 3 members on this committee - this is my suggestion >> i think following up with the comments of president chiu. i think a one week continuance make sense. i think president chu's legislation hasn't been secret and i think a one week continuance make sense and i'll support that motion >> and if i could add that you

have a newly part of our legislation and it will be - we won't have all our amendments ready by tomorrow. that again, that's why this takes time i don't know how an additional week is going to slow down something of this importance. so our amendments are not going to be ready until tuesday on the 14th. this legislation has been in 4 months across any commissions and bodies. i want to punish all parties to get the resolved issues. and with that i think it would be helpful to here from folks as soon as possible. i know i've working with the members of the community.

if folks want to let me know additional issues we'll precede from there. on the motion to continue we'll have the roll call vote. madam clerk please call the roll >> on motion to continue the items 3 and 34 until the may 20th. >> (calling names). >> the motion passes please call item 3. >> this is the seawall lot thirty. >> okay supervisor kim i believe you called this hearing so would you like to make

introductory remarks? that you madam clerk is there anyone in the overflow room?

okay. if i could ask folks to take their seats and if we could if you have a side conversation you can take it out into the hallway. we'll precede with item number 3. and supervisor kim you are the

member who requested the hearing. >> thank you. i want to thank everyone who is here today for this much anticipated presentation for the proposed warriors on pier 32 along with the development on the seawall lot thirty. i want to welcome the water front developer. and this is very exciting. i believe we have a member of the port staff here, too?. later we will have a member of the port i do want to welcome the warriors here and the architect and designer.

i know this will also be present to the neighborhood at large on pier 32 citizens at the 6 o'clock. this is a good way to get the feedback and tonight will be the pier project. we're embarking on the impact review and the approvals have not taken place yet we're working with the warriors on those sites. one of the most important parse is the design without further awe byu did you i'll invite jim and the presenters.

>> thank you very much for cale for this hearing. we're delighted to be back before you to present this next design. i first want to take a minute to congratulate the warriors theirs in the second game tonight. and for those who don't come to the meetings you can watch the game on tv. the k ac meeting is at 6 o'clock p.m. the design presentation will occur at noon on thursday the 8th and it's in the very building. the first it ration of the

design really kind of highlights the lot were first presented in november. and after a series of robust meetings with at spur and numerous other community neighbors there were a series of adjustments and refinements that have been made. we're going to introduce greg from snow head who is leading the design of the 3 architectural designer companies. >> thank you very much. does this microphone.

thank you very much we've been looking at a number of concerns and considerations that have been raised and we've tried to accommodate them. there are a number of designs this is just a brief representation of many of the subject we'll be covering tonight. before we start i want to point out another issue that's been driving our thinking. this little map of the waterfront areas along the peninsulas coast many of you are familiar with the orange dots from the presidio, fort madison and motorbike - there's a kind

of a little gap between the ferry building and the china basin is. if you've ever walked this part you know it's a long ways. there's sort of no place to clearly relax so placing a new fixture here at the primarily important location where the peninsula bends around the china basin is an interesting idea. it's commencement with other public facilities and can he recall facilities along the san francisco bay water front. so to briefly remind i there's

been a number of considerations to refine the projects and we've taken them into the new project. you perhaps recall the arena was in the water of the eastern end of the water site and we've pulled that back and other features of the plaza long is south side for the gathering of more space. we've widened the promenade. and there's a water taxi location on the far left side or west side of the pier. there's a fire boat sees. and then on the northeast corner

there's the possibility of providing a bay ferry assess. also to the east side of the pier there's birthing areas. we've provided slightly smaller retail to provide for space between the retailer itself. and we've lowered the - actually there were two towers measuring over a little over 1 hundred and 50 feet high and they've been dropped to 1 hundred feet high they've been lowered 50 feet and the other component has been raised 25 feet. and that's the residential

component to the south side of the seawall. there's a number of other impeaches. we've created a passage leading to the point here so it's not necessary to circumvent this part. we've left the homeland height low. a number of issues have been refined in slaip that have created a more comfortable atmosphere. what we'd like to say very briefly this this building is about the arena itself.

there's a great deal of emphasis on the landscaping and comfortable for people to move around the building. this is one of the early sketches showing you how the retail facilities frame this we have landmark that already exists here at the pier. this is an older sketch and this is the most recent sketch. we've held to the concept of framing that area. there continues to be a wonderful grand plaza that leads up to the raised platform and it's the entrance to the area. so it's a very liv