respond to end accommodate those things. the wearing in is not specifically cleared. the improvements in transportation connection there will be a function of the buildup of candlestick point and how that happens as part of that agreement with the city. hazmat talked about, these street improvements and cite specific improvements, which are improving the interchange function connected to this area, they will be phased in as buildings within executive park take place. is sort of a state and regional question. of course, the how and when their work develops, we do not know exactly either. because this is a private project that is not in redevelopment, we do not have the city public on this

realizing this stemming from this project. except for the transportation management command enhancements. other programs that have been doing that will be enhanced and internalized within the executive park. it is within the control of the operations. >> it gets complicated as you are dealing with longer-term movements and projections. we could probably talked to all our friends at mta can get more information. supervisor cohen: that is part of the reason why i am asking these questions. these questions have been raised

for meat. people watching in the comfort of their home, they would also be concerned with the transportation plan. knowing that there is a lot of san francisco that will become a major transportation hub, not just entering in, but carrying people down the corridor into the valley. just getting a dialogue to have this conversation is important. as we continue to move this project along, people are aware that this project remains flexible and that there are opportunities for transportation needs, as you eloquently put it, i wanted to extrapolate this from the planning department. >> the planning department was

very concerned about those issues. there have been a lot of changes happening as candlestick came into play as well. there is a lot of large movement. entitlements might be in place, but we are not talking about entitlements now. we are talking about the zoning fight -- framework. even given that, the way that the market has been the sluggishness in the market, the time frames for these budgets become speculative. supervisor cohen: that segues into my next series of questions. , and up, matt. [laughter] you are back on -- come on up,

matt. you are back on. >> but we do in every downtown fraud to a and we will be notified but a public hearing. the key difference is we are so -- assuming that the use in itself is a common data by the planning code and that we will no doubt on issues of design, there are criteria within an with design guidelines that are tailored to an incentive for 309 is the review process.

community members working in community groups will be notified and will have an opportunity to weigh in as they consider each incumbent. supervisor cohen: good answer. this next question has to do with public benefits. how should the delivery be approved? >> mostly we have talked about the dedication of much of the land. technically it will the public plan as it specifies that it is there to be experienced as you would any other public street. again, most of that delivery is tied to whenever the building comes in.

the planning code gets this explicit layout of what the streets and blocks will be. for each specific building what they use as development, they will be responsible for delivering the streets around the site. and when we leave and open spaces are similar to the building that comes first, they are immediately associated in

would be required to be developed. a line was established in the planning code that does not allow building within that portion of the site. able to realize then city elsewhere, providing the ability as we are not actually anticipating this portion to be developed. i should say that whenever the region the men's, the facility will be created. supervisor cohen: so, it sounds like it is something different. again, something that is up in the air that may or may not happen. back up is coming. >> one other element that is important, they are also

required to pay into the feed, which is then established. supervisor cohen: that is what i am looking for. >> as a part of the regional community, not just surrounding community, they are participating in creating facilities for that. the legislation that you've recently implemented raises possibilities for that program. supervisor cohen: do you know the feed? >> you can say what you think it is. >> i believe that it is $4.52. supervisor cohen: that is ballpark. supervisor cohen: would you like

a lifeline? [laughter] do not worry, this is a hearing. we will extrapolate. if you could narrow it down to the parts that would also know, how would this fell you be so fortunate to receive this? >> that proceeds me. i know that it was established about five years ago cufand i am not sure what it was. >> i believe that it was put in place along with another redevelopment project. something that we were not working on directly.

we were hoping to follow that history with you. i believe that it took place on the board in terms of how it would be applied. executive park has been around for a couple of years and there were discussions at that time that determined that this project area would be captured in that feet perimeter, if you would. those are discussions that probably have process on the order of five years ago, i would guess. supervisor cohen: i rest my case. that is where iambs. >> we are here to answer any questions you might have. our recommendation is approval with those amendments. supervisor cohen: thank you. colleagues? annie and comments or questions?

supervisor wiener: by these amendments separate? what should we do with the imf >> the proposal would move one of the tower of hand and entire blocks durable they have done environmental studies, so there is no reason to go back to planet from the process perspective. i do recommend that you continue with one week for additional public comment. you could send this to the board as a plan by sending it as a committee report next week. supervisor cohen: did you want to open it up for public comment? supervisor mar: if you would facilitate? supervisor cohen: i would love

to. first, i would like to call [unintelligible] >> by m the land-use attorney. i did not submit a speaker card because i did not anticipate de need to address the panel. the supervisor had asked excellent questions and if the public is entitled to an answer. first, let me say that executive park is not something new and it did not start in 2006. it started in the late 1970's. more than half of it was developed for a long period of time by one developer. from there are a series of condition approvals that

stretched from my left fingertips to my right fingertips. when the property was proposed for breakup and completion in 2000, all of those conditions of approval were carried forward and the owners of the property have cooperated in the costs associated with compliance on those conditions of approval. for example, the hillside parcels is the opens today's dedication for all of the acres of the executive park. one particular developer of storms that cost and put in the public amenities. we divided up other responsibilities so that the cost would be equal out. when one looks at executive park, one has to look at all of the 78 acres. we are subject not only to the mitigation measures proposed in the current eir, but those

measures also state we are required to comply with all conditions of approval that apply to the 78 acre park's. people need to understand that as it is very important. vegetating the hillside, putting in public improvements, all of that cost a lot of money. secondly, and the this is nothing that needs to be pointed out, as i think it is fairly significant, it makes these properties very attractive residential sites, the existence of the state park. back to when george and claude were primarily responsible for moving executive park along, executive park put up the first $1 million to turn the land over to the state.

recently, not just in the last month or two, when folks were talking about closing state parks, the fight was led to keep it open. may i have more than three minutes? you asked about eight questions. supervisor cohen: this is a project sponsor, so he can make. >> the transportation questions are excellent questions that need to be addressed so that if everyone -- any one is in doubt, the doubt will be removed. we have proposed a project right behind us in 2005, at a time when the joint to build out of urby and upc would not require any regional transportation

improvements. we were looking strictly a project related improvements. coming along was and we were asked to step back -- coming along we were asked to step back. it has been six years and we are finally here. we will have to sit back and wait until the regional transportation plans are involved. upc made tremendous sacrifices to make sure that there is sufficient lift to accommodate that old expansion if it is required in 2030, as well as the bus rapid transit for the 101 interchange.

widening and putting it in, we are responsible. it is already in the mitigation measures and those improvements are anticipated by and 23rd e fella if the bill out happens. we have immediate improvements that will generate the impacts and there is the final set of regional improvements in 22 -- 2012. those have been generally plan without keeping precisely priced out. it is our obligation what is

before you today is not the trigger for a bill improvement and sponsors will not be able to quantify and that is not a calling card when you talk about providing long-range improvements. obviously, urby and upc are too small. but they are willing to pay their fair share in the they have the obligation on the nl. to give back to building heights and you know the

director and it was lost to residential. what you think? the planning department was an extremely enthusiastic. we were encouraged to go higher than we anticipated. we had about 240 community. by the way, the staff told us where to put the buildings and we said yes, sir. we want to work with you. in responsive concerned and you

people said you would lower the height of one of the towers. it was a response to the community. we certainly noticed before the planning commission, there was no neighborhood opposition. i did my homework working with three-bedroom units. at a minimum we will have 40% of two-bedroom and three-bedroom units. we have not gone to the point of designing specific units. again, that will be a fact right

now we are getting the on the load that says you need a minimum. but we have not indented is something they will look at. as far as public benefits, i address that earlier with open spaces. this is privately owned land as we do not have the benefits of public financing. i wish we did. it would make george's says that -- similar.

but we do not. i think that that pretty much covers it. when i tried to answer your questions. thank you. if and i have my lawyer with me. [laughter] clark may address you on some of the questions about planning. by m. fairly intimately familiar with the establishment of the feed. i negotiated the final language of the original and george has been a part of the bayview hunters part community for 30

some odd years and has a relationship with them. but has also been concerned about the wider community. when the community established the executive park citizens advisory committee, they invited folks and then money is meant to to is that -- execute the executive park.

understandably the members of the new and they sell very low%. and that it should be spent in bayview hunters point. back in 2005 we were optimistic that we could get through the approval process and we felt it was important to do so as quickly as we could. once the fee arrangement was negotiated, but we have concluded that we can live with and i think that the community, with that understanding at that time, was willing to let things

proceed. i think that you will hear from others today. that is how it came about. itit was a negotiated fee. the supervisor had a list of improvements she wanted it to go to. that is how that that became into place -- that fee came into place. i guess late last year, there was a question about raising it and changing its, and we worked very hard with the supervisor's staff, supervisor maxwell's staff, and at the end of the day, we came up with amendments that we as project developers felt we could live with and that the supervisor brought to the full board. again, i cannot speak for the community on that. i think that kind of coverage

that base. thank you very much. supervisor cohen: all right. thank you very much. >> supervisors, i am an architect. i wanted to elaborate on a couple of your questions. as mike said, the project has been in the work for six years. it is a gateway site. it preceded lennar. reconciles the a lot of the various individual planning efforts that have gone on. you look at the street grids, the connections to transportation, i know you are very concerned about that, but if you look at the connections, it is a real opportunity. also, i think in the open space, it really connects to a state park, which is really lost element in that area. i think there will be enough residents, and i think it will offer a couple of things that are unique. mike touched on the unique mix,

and i want to come back to your question on the tower, which actually is an interesting discussion. commissioner more -- moore, her look at the project, had great confidence and comfort with what we were doing. she said she wanted us to look at one thing, which was -- was there the ability to relocate a tower that was on one of the more westerly parcells, the more easily parcel. we said we would do the analysis, and that there was no problem, and the commissioner said she did not want to make a problem out of this. we were happy about the ability to do it, so that is what you see before you. as mike said, the height here, dealers talking about buildings of 250 feet in height, and we were able to look at what a model profile was, and we worked closely with the department on what the modeling look like, and in the end, i think they are

happy with what the neighborhood will become. it is a real opportunity. you have heard it from people in the community. they see an opportunity, after 30 years of being vigilant about what the opportunity was, that they will be able to do that. i guess the last thing i would say is you had this up before the commission. you rely upon them as supervisors and their guidance, and i think they have done a wonderful job on your behalf, so thank you for your concerns and your comments on that. >> good afternoon, supervisors. general manager at universal paragon. only a couple of points to add. to the question of upc's specific proposal and what was started in the rental impact review, regarding our program, our proposed program contemplates approximately 60%

of two-bedroom units, at approximately 15% to 20% of 1- bedroom studios, and 15% to 20% of 3-bedroom, again, to be more responsive to the marketplace at the time, each individual building comes in -- >> could you go through those numbers again? >> of course. approximately 60% of ticket we would-bedroom. and then approximately 13% to 20% of 1-bedroom or studios, and that approximately 15% to 20% of 3-bedroom, and again, those numbers would be responsive to specific market conditions as we come in for the permits moving forward. i have nothing more to add on the transportation planning issue. i think mr. burke and dressed it quite well. just on your questions about height and the original proposals regarding height