closest to the golden gate towers would be at 136, and then kind of moving around the site would drop to a height, the low was tight with in the residential buildings would be a height of around 60 feet, and in the northern portion of the site, the health club, the maximum height of that building is 36 feet. supervisor mar: and then one of the other issues is whether or not it is incremental. split between the fund and the porch. are you able to reveal some of that information? the >> thank you, supervisor mar. supervisor campos had asked about the taxes that would flow to the general fund, and then

there is an amount of tax increment from property tax generated by this development. we're currently estimating about $3.10 million per year a property-tax would be generated and would either followed to the districts for the benefit of pork projects or to the general fund. the current thinking is that there are some projects that could be discharged as that flows through the ifd, before this is completely sold out, and after that, we are proposing that the port would be allowed to have the ifd, about $1.5 million, $1.55 million, and the issues began to keep, obviously the debt service for that bond, the coverage that grows modestly, and that all grows after that point and would go

to the general fund. that would start out about $1.50 million. supervisor mar: so i wanted to thank you for it least recognizing the pork meat for the increment, and it sounds like that is a better balance than there was previously proposed, and i strongly support as much as possible going to the general fund, but i know that the port has needs, as well. thank you. that is the extent of my questions. thank you, president acjhi -- chiu. president chiu: that was set at that height, as of my understanding, is because of the embarcadero freeway that is there. is that correct? >> that is my an internal understanding. i have not seen that kind of formally stated anywhere, but i have certainly heard that is the

case. president chiu: and then just to conceptualize it, while you do have the high heights in the financial districts, all of the parcels north of that are at 40 feet, right? >> i believe so. president chiu: collings, i just wanted to contextualize this, because we are looking at two depending on what you look at. as we all know, 1.5 years ago, we had two buildings, and then essentially the front building went down 14 feet to 70 feet, and be back building went up 52 feet. right? >> below is portion of the front building is at 60 feet, and the highest portion of the back building is 136. president chiu: and then there was some questioning about the green fence. i am not sure anyone here like that, but my understanding is

the fact that the green fence is there is under the control of the management of that company of the golden gateway, the financial partner in this deal. >> i believe that is the case. certainly, the green fence is there from invisible blockage from someone wanting to walkman block from the site, but even absent the green fence, there is no mechanism or improvement on the ground that would guide a pedestrian three that site. president chiu: and then one last question. i know that supervisor wiener was asking about one type of recreation space. we are talking about 90,000 total square feet of recreation space compared to about 20,000 square feet of open space the developer is planning to develop if we give the developer $5 million, right? >> again, i would defer to the port on those transactions.

president chiu: i have stated some facts, so there is no need for additional follow-up on that. thank you. supervisor kim? supervisor kim: how many units can be developed in this project? >> theoretically, the project could be even out. it could be squeezed and number of different ways. typically, you can have two 84- foot buildings that would net the same units. you could program the project with a series of smaller or larger units to increase or decrease. it is not so entirely dependent on the height of the building. supervisor kim: can you talk about more why the desirable project was a higher height with the same number of units? >> well, the proposal was ultimately for an increase tight

at a portion of the site, with the trade off from the design standpoint of lower residential buildings on the embarcadero, so that was actually rather than a height, that really better for fills this whole urban design plan of sloping down to the waterfront, so you do have a taller building within the overall plan, but it is situated in the back where the tallest adjacent buildings are, and then the height is reduced immediately along the embarcadero. supervisor kim: thank you. i will go to parking. what is the current number of publicly available parking lots today? >> on this particular site? i believe there are 105. supervisor kim: 1200?

how is that number expected to change in the next few years? >> there are a number of, as was mentioned, one of the products -- projects that is an early stages of a proposal would demolish the existing parking lot which contains 400 something parking spaces. that project is very preliminary at this point. pathe -- a given whether the spaces go away, i think the port might have a better idea about how many publicly owned spaces might be decreased. >> there is currently public spaces about 70 units that will go away when the downtown ferry terminal is expanded in the next few years. there have been other in that vicinity about 35 spaces behind that building and approximately 80 that went away when pier half

was declared structurally unsound. it looks like about half of those, 50% are going away or at risk of going away. supervisor kim: something else that they may be able to address, above a license that they have for 65 years with the parking lot, and i am wondering if that license promises foreign shores a certain number of parking spots and what they are and also it also promises control of the parking spots, not just a availability. >> supervisor kim, the parking green is a relatively complex agreement. let me do my best to summarize it. the parking agreement was

initially put in place for 2001 when the lease for the ferry building began with the lease, and it was further amended in 2003 when the building was prepared to open and operate. at the time, before 2001, it was contemplated that a new parking structure ebert -- either in control of the city or port would also be there with the opening of the ferry building as some project that did not come to pass, so at the time of 2003, the 150 station parking agreement was modified, accepting use and control of two specific sites, pier half and 351, and at that time, the parking agreement was not these specific sites assigned, even though it was deemed to be the way it was counted under the parking agreement that it was a little bit short of 150 spaces,

they acknowledged the acceptance of that. the terms of control were agreed to, and then further amended, to answer these questions, in addition to the ferry building, the parties would acknowledge that they could undertake during the term of this agreement the developers of seawall lot 3 251 as a building to serve the area or other uses developed in conjunction with this parking -- seawall lot 351 as a building. again, within this area as defined by the parking agreement, which includes most of the lots that we just mentioned and the court -- golden gateway garage. it also basically provides in this amendment that ultimately there would be 150 public parking spaces available for

visitors in the area, or at a very minimum, replacement in the project of the number of space is currently on seawall lot 351. that number is set at 90. supervisor kim: 90. in this agreement, does address control or just availability? >> if it was only 90, then i believe there would be no change from the amended 2003. if it is more than 90, like the full 150 that was contemplated in the original parking agreement, i think that provision of that 150 parking spaces and that waterfront area would trigger other terms and the parking agreement, where it is possible the parking agreement will terminate on completion, and so the matter of control is something i think the parties would have to work through at that time. >> and what are the plans in

terms of the temporary parking spaces during the time of construction? and also, if you can confirm, i remember reading that there are parking areas that are closed on saturday because there is less demand because the people not coming to office space, coming to work basically. is there any plans to work with those parking garages to potentially open up during the construction phase? >> supervisor, i think they planned for the exact -- the parking market is a very fluid market, and it respond specifically downtown to the job market, very much, very often, those parking garages are geared towards workers, and we did work with the parking garages in 2008 when pier half closed, and we got them to open up on saturday for the farmer's market in particular. i believe that is something that has sort of fallen by the wayside.

this response is something we would put into a temporary parking for this temporary closure during construction, working towards a permanent solution. we also, when part of see well lot -- seawall lot 351, there was something going to the garage, so i think there are a number of tools that were used based on the circumstances that would definitely work with this developer and others to work out the precise temporary parking plan. supervisor kim: my next question is on parking. a number of my colleagues and myself are concerned with a variety of housing in san francisco, and in particular what has come up is the diversity of housing for multiple incomes on the waterfront. given the concern, have you looked at the impact of affordable housing that could be linked to the contribution of this project? >> we have really in concert

with this project and other projects happening up and down the waterfront, we have become very aware of the affordable housing as a primary issue that we need to address once residential uses are built on or in this case adjacent to port property, so we are really exploring other options both on port property, of port property, and looking at affordable rousing for mixed-income housing as a use up and down the waterfront. specifically in this project, i think it is notable to say that the developer has agreed to voluntarily increase affordable housing on top of the fees that are required under the impact fee ordinance, essentially increasing the 20% fee requirement for 25% requirement, roughly. >> thank you. and then actually my next

question is back to parking, but this is bad to planning. if you could talk more about rationale, because there is a lot of concern about the number of parking spaces. what was the rationale behind allowing c3 partee ratio to apply to this project, seeing that while it is next to the c3, it is not within the district? >> the specific mechanism is the p.u.d., which allows response to requests modifications from certain aspects of the planning code, so that is more the means of how that gets requested. the project sponsor had originally proposed one to one parking, meaning one parking space per one residential zone unit. planning staff had indicated that we would be comfortable with a number of less than that,

and given the adjacency to the c3 district and sort of the same level of transit service, the kind of intense urban context, it seemed appropriate to queue up with what the restrictions allow. not that they'd c3 -- that the c3 -- they were used as a guideline, given that the project sponsor was asking for one to one parking. within the c3, the project sponsor is permitted to 0.5 spaces per unit and can request parking of of to one space per dwelling unit for larger units or 0.75 spaces per unit for a one-bedroom or smaller. supervisor kim: that is within

the c3? >> that is right. supervisor kim: is there a precedent for this type of parking allocated for this kind of a large development of >> i cannot speak specifically to other developments on the waterfront. i can tell you that other developments within the c3 district have been granted a one to one parking. we do not have a huge one in recent years but a couple of projects she might be familiar with our 77 van ness, the one hawthorne project, and those are one to one parking, and then the millennium towers was granted just shy of one to one parking. it worked out to be something like 0.93. supervisor kim: what was the last one? 0.93? >> it is comparable to the parking that was approved for this project. supervisor kim: how was that

determines -- determines, the 0.93 for the millennium? >> pembrook that ratio, essentially it 0.93. supervisor kim: i understand, but why that ratio? to transit rich corridors? >> understood. i cannot really tell you all of the specifics from a policy standpoint for the millennium, but again, the planning code allows the project to seek that if they include two-bedroom or larger units. they have more families living in them or just have a larger household size, where there is a greater likelihood of someone owning a car, kind of in a transit rich context. supervisor kim: the water market, another building on the waterfront priest >> -- the

water mark, another building on the waterfront? >> i do not have that. excuse me. i was just informed by ports that that that was a one to one. president chiu: ok, colleagues, any more questions or planning staff? at this time, i know that our stenographer's thinkers are about to fall off, so we will recess or probably about 10 minutes and come back to hearing from the project sponsor. [gavel]