(applause) >> thank you, bcdc. so, those of you who don't know, bcdc is the commission that is responsible for protecting the bay, protecting the access of the public to the bay, protecting the fact that our bay had for many decades until bcdc came along, been encroached by developments that not everyone thought was appropriate. and i think it's so special that we are focused today on making sure that this very spot and spots around the entire bay are protected. one of the interesting design aspects of what we stand on right now is that this is built to withstand sea level rise because we know over the next 50 years, it's estimated anywhere from 18 to 55 inches worth of sea rise will happen because of our environment. so, i want to thank bcdc for that. i also, of course, want to add and echo my thanks to the voters of san francisco for approving bond measures in 2008 and 2012 to get this done. we know that this spot for decades to come will allow us to celebrate the history of our city, allow us to celebrate the ve

including bcdc and at the local regional and the state levels. also, with the sliding sea level, it will become increasingly difficult, to repair and maintain a port's piers. now, i will talk about the side and the liquidfaction issues. the ground below the structure resulting in sliding if you recall, joe's presentation, and the original coast line was somewhere along the western edge of the embarcadero and the space between the coast line and the existing coast wall is filled with soil, and several feet of ground and sliding of the sea wall, is expected, during the major seismic event and, although the flight risks associated with the sea level rise are expected to open gradually and either seismic event could happen any time, and the wide and spread chaos and destruction, and rebuilding, and this picture shows what could happen along the water front if we get 7.9 on the earthquake, a new building after the event will not be easy, it will be very expensive and it may take years. next to slides, shows enough time line of addressing sea level ris

there's a difference between transient berthing having to do with bcdc. marina comes with filling the bay. transient if you don't stay more than two weeks is okay. so, similar to what amy said, we've got transient berthing. we have an elaborate plan which i made in the first thing -- the first presentation to extend the seawall for the south beach harbor to create a harbor for large visiting vessels. we did not include it in here. i have alluded to it and said it will be the subject of working with the port travel master at the south beach harbor and exploring that with bcdc because it is in everybody's best interest to get on with the mitigated negative declaration. if you start putting seawalls in you need for proper berthing, moffatt and nickel who has done an extensive study for us, [speaker not understood]. >> any other questions and comments? i want to thank both teams for your presentation and thank you for coming back again. we really appreciate it. and this has really been greater detail and a wonderful presentation. we really appreciate you comi

there is an existing bcdc permit that is held by both the port and the leaseholder for this -- for the pier. that would need to be amended or possibly for the long-term project a new permit would be needed. we believe that our land use plan and types of use in particular the maximum feasible public access is something that bcdc wrote in place and this is something that can be permitted with the combination of uses. and perhaps most importantly we've been very conscious of making sure that we are proposing a mix of uses the right balance that will be consistent with the public trust. the historic rehabilitation of the building to secretary standards is itself a trust use combined with the balance of restaurant and retail as well as the new apron and the bayside history walk, we believe will allow the appropriate balance with the office space that is needed to make this project financially feasible. and we believe that we do have a regulatory strategy that will get us through a reasonable amount of time. matt walked through some of the economics of phase 1. phase ii, we have not yet subm

and you know, they have to have some kind, because they go to the bcdc, and down to the area and the david asked the same question, what are you going to do? lease it for 60 or 70 years? and we will have some problems, beyond 2050 for sure, and so, taking care of the problem, for the rise and the 2050, and it is is completely independent of what we are going to do for 2100. and 2050 solution, involves building short walls, you know, the curve walls a long the piers but the 2100 solution we are talking about building a new sea wall, which is completely different and we have to find, you know, you have to think about what are we going to build it in front of the pier or move it father out. >> and one thought would be as we look at the specific leases that will be, and that go up to 2050 or beyond, and i am just wondering as a portfolio, when we should worry about the charge or the reserve to build up, the funding and we are not going to fund it entirely ourselves but if we don't start building something and that could be called out in any leases a it is a sinking fund to help us addres

the third hiccup occurs because they need a regulatory permit from bcdc, bcdc staff gets 30 days to review such a thing, typically comes back with a list of items that then takes some period of time to be negotiated. a fourth hiccup is the standard indemnification clauses and the city standards for insurance. oftentimes they are very, very difficult for smaller tenants to understand and then get the requisite insurance in place. so, there's any number of places that hiccups do occur because as susan described, unlike the private sector, there are so many places that have impacts. if you add to that that a tenant might want to make tenant improvements, they're not usually knowledgeable of their requirements for historic preservation. so, there is a negotiation around, if you will, moving their vision into something that was acceptable for historic preservation. sometimes they want to have a person per square foot that triggers a requirement for a new bathroom or some other thing that we don't have in our old warehouses and that has to be built out and there is a negotiation around who will

there is an existing bcdc permit that is held by both the port and the leaseholder for this -- for the pier. that would need to be amended or possibly for the long-term project a new permit would be needed. we believe that our land use plan and types of use in particular the maximum feasible public access is something that bcdc wrote in place and this is something that can be permitted with the combination of uses. and perhaps most importantly we've been very conscious of making sure that we are

including bcdc and at the local regional and the state levels. also, with the sliding sea level, it will become increasingly difficult,

one of the things that's not mentioned is the bcdc waterfront plan is ultimately impacted by this project. the only discussion -- these things are determined less than significant and i believe the character in the discussion of the e-i-r is only referred to as land use. the impacts of these buildings is height, its bulk, its proximity to the bay, all of that impacts the character of this neighborhood and impacts the cumulative impacts of people going further and further towards the bay. the other point that i wanted to talk about just briefly is transportation and circulation section. it doesn't believe this project will have any cumulative impacts or any significant unavoidable cumulative impacts. this area of the e-i-r is it's wholly incomplete because it does not discuss the impacts the warriors arena will have just three blocks away. this project is considered on record as possibly providing parking for the arena, yet it's got one of its variants is for parking. and there isn't an adequate discussion of the cumulative impacts that this project will have on transportation in that area

we have bcdc, the bay conservation and development committee. >> there are lots of things -- >> there are lots of things to be done, but we are completely embracing the process. i actually think through the process it's become a better project, and when you think about a 13-acre site today is falling into the san francisco bay and transforming that into a world class arena and sports entertainment facility, and over half the site, six-acres plus of new public park on the waterfront that's going to bring people to the waterfront, we are incredibly excited about where we are at this stage. >> i wouldage you're driven by the sponsorship opportunities of moving into the city. i'm curious, new sponsors, you move into the city and we're going to buy up your suite. >> it would be untrue if i didn't tell you the interest level in sponsors' involvement with the warriors has increased with the idea san francisco could be in our future. we have a different setup than we do with the other leagues. we have two football teams, two baseball teams. you could split allegiances. we are the bay area's b