>> welcome back to the board of supervisors meeting on may 15. gooat this point it is time to n to the project sponsor. i would like to rassa

representatives of the project sponsor to please stand-up -- to ask representatives of the private sponsors to please stand up. >> i am going to speak as a public partner for the port and then turn it over to the private partner. the board of supervisors already out the questions are was going to cover, i would like to remind the board the court has been maintaining and hopefully improving for the city.

we are hoping through this project to continue the success of improving the waterfront also bringing needed investment to other parts of the waterfront, so that is the grandview. we think this helps accomplish those goals. we hope it brings jobs to the cities, and we think it is a project of brings the city to the bay, am going to hand it over to our private partner.

>> good evening, supervisors the project before you can best be described as of balancing. we have tried to take into consideration decades of waterfront planning, design of neighborhood and policies and goals set forward. the western side fordms the last needed these to fully realize the goals set forth in the 1997 waterfront land use plan.

mr. place over many years with surrounding communities and the court triggere. it envisioned open spaces and access to the bay. goowe are proud to have been pat of the transformation efforts. now we have an opportunity to finally complete the last piece of the plan for the area, combining the parking lot with surrounding land to create a mixed use development that will further increase access and enjoyment of the water. this spring is as stark truth of

balancing we did this brings -- this brings about the act of bouncing. this balancing ninth has resulted in a moderately skilled, beautifully designed makes use -- makes use -- mixed use development. it allows for urban recreation all over san francisco. to create a pedestrian connections with san francisco neighborhoods to the waterfront.

we are double the area of schools and the loss of tennis courts. with indoor and outdoor cafes, widened sidewalks, to obtain critically needed parking to inspect the adjacent historic district, and to withstand the test of time. this had to be balanced with an economic engine that would pay for these benefits. we chose a mixed use residential project that would allow a market rate housing, housing with a broad range of pricing, not a minimum of 2.5 million, as

some suggested, and an enormous amount of money, and $11 million to be paid for affordable housing. this is the project before you. in this balancing act, it is not possible to please everybody. this is san francisco, but we hope you agree the majority of sentences since -- san franciscans will be better served. the environmental impact report that was approved was started in december of 2007 and was meticulously prepared by the planning department and a team of the city's leading consultants over the ensuing

four years and three months. it is a complete and accurate environmental impact report. thank you very much, and i would like to introduce him. he will answer any questions you may have triggered >> -- you may have. >> i would like to talk about issues raised concerning the adequacy of the eir. a thorough analysis has been provided by planning staff. we agree with his analysis. i do not want to repeat what he said, but there are a few issues i would like to touch upon is the board has any

technical issues that would best be addressed by an air quality consultant, now is the time to ask. the zoning for the site is residential-commercial high- density. this is a figure on the overhead. there has been acclaimed the uses inappropriate because it is not recreational use. goothere are no land use restrictions that would pre slowed -- but would precluded the use here. all of the proposed uses are permitted. turning to recreational uses, there is a loss of nine private tennis courts associated with this.

new open space will be provided superior -- will be provided. one argument has been made and there has been a guaranteed of our recreational use by the existing club has been guaranteed. that is not accurate. the elimination of those tennis courts for ceqa purposes is not a significant impact. that is not to discredit the people who are sincerely displeased by the prospect of losing the tennis courts. we get out. gov -- we get that. it is not a ceqa issue.

this project goes include some significant resources open to everybody, not merely members of a private health club. i would like to talk about height limits. there was some discussion of that earlier this evening. the existing height limit is 84 feet. one of the entitlements requested is an increase for the maximum height for a portion of the site, and it would allow 136 points. the eir analyzes the impact and concludes it is not significant. the focus is appropriately on the existing environmental sexting, what surrounds the site of 550 feet, the complex

next door about 22 stories tonya. but as the existing sexting. -- that is the existing setting. on the screen is a depiction showing the project but was proposed that was found to have a significant negative impact on views. there were four towers proposed, and they range from 250 feet to to harvard 20 feet tall, much taller than proposed for this project and this site where my hand is appointed, -- is pointing, said the conclusions were for a different location in a different era.

is that binding on the board today? the answer is no. this is ultimately an arbiter on what is a significant impact, and you are not bound by conclusions of an earlier eir. earlier this evening there was some discussion of what the visual impact might be. this is actually a page from the eir, showing a visual simulation of the view looking to the north. this is the depiction without the project and then a depiction

of what the project will look like, and its concludes that is not as significant as headache impact -- aesthetics impact. there is an area on telegraph hill. this shows the top of you without the project and the lower part with it. staff concluded this was not a significant impact. it is about the board trying to decide whether to limit the zoning code. you need to exercise your discretion, and to save is not a significant impact is supported by the record. that is separate from the issue

of whether you wish to amend your zoning code. this site does stretch across the entire parcels, and the height limits to step down from 136 to 90 feet to 60 feet, and on the north said it is 0 feet because it is open space. we agree with planning staff conclusion. i would like to talk about the land exchange involving lot 351. good i am looking to the imu are referring to, and it is hard to discern what the view quarters are if you are looking to the northeast where water

from. in -- the northeast waterfront. i am interested, and it seems to me you could step it down in a different way, and it all comes down to what is necessary. are you the person that could answer questions around the financials of this project? i know a lot of my colleagues have questions. >> i am not sure i am the person who should answer questions. >> i have requested some answers and was not able to get any. my understanding is this will end in $470. good $470 million total, and if

you assume typical ratio is, my estimate is a total cost could be around $252 million, which means this is going to cease and 87% return on investment, which is awfully significant, and i want to understand that. >> i would like to return to the question about desirability. i think he explained very well the context. it talks about the accountability of the area, and the speak to the urban design issues. i think he did an excellent job of laying the dow tonight. i would like to bring to your

attention with respect to this use, the economics will be before the board at a later date when it's before the board, but with respect to a conditional use authorization in this district, i want to draw the board to the fact there are instances where economic viability is under the code. this is not one of those instances. in a conditional use section there are certain subsections and require the board before they permit changing use from our particular use, they have to look into economic viability of the project. that would be motels and hotels, grocery stores, formula retailers, so with respect to the issue before the board, that

is not co-mandated. it looks out urban design about transitioning to the 230-foot towers down to the lower towers. >> i think the reason it is relevant is i have heard from representatives of your team that you believe you need this height for this project. there is a dispute about what is an approach. urban form in this area. -- what is an appropriate urban form in this area. the issue of whether an 84-foot building with a 65 the forefront building, whichever is more relevant, the arguments for us

is whether this is what is required, so i want to understand, and i think what i understand is the fact. this is going to bring your client $407 million, and to me that suggest you do not need that height for this project to cancel out, and we could have a disagreement as to what form is appropriate, but i think it is important for what we are discussing tonight. >> let's get to your issue. i believe where we are out with this project, the project exists not only win thin the fiscal space but the recommendations but we move from the original buildings to this proposal in the study, but it also occurs

to of the context earlier. the parks and open space will be provided and in terms of the housing, if it occurs to done in the economic and -- it occurs to the economic context. it had been in consideration for many years of this point. we started this process in 2007. we have come all the way through this, and it works out a whole. good -- as a whole. each of these has a series of benefits andin terms of changinn at this point. one is that the viability of the pontiff is measured as a function of time.