as representatives of traffic conditions for the area, so we believe this is a conservative analysis but overstates the impact traffic-wise. one last point, the appellant has expressed numerous concerns about the eir not addressing whether or not support is obligated to provide parking to them. that is not an eir issue. that is a legal issue. what is the parking supply? what is the parking demands? is there a surplus? who benefits from the parking?

that is important but not eir issues. they address the particular issues. >> they have to lay out the regulatory regimes that impact these projects. everything we are doing right now are regulatory questions that impact these projects, and the fact they did not disclose the city's obligations under this agreement seems problematic. >> the eir is obligated to talk about the approval process. this is a contract issue. it is not indicated in the

approval. it is a contract issue. they agree this is a legal issue for the parties to work out but not an er issue. >> thank you for your presentation. give one question but was raised i found intriguing was the relevance of prior eirs. we were talking about the 1970's, which was a long time ago. i have a question. what is the resonance of a document like that? what consideration should given emm?

>> it is on, but i am not sure if it is working. has correctly stated, the objective is to compare this project to this present environment. the eirs compared the project to the environment at the time. i am not aware of the standards have changed since the 1970's, so i cannot of pine to that particular issue. >> there was some reliance on significant view impact, so i am wondering if you can comment on

what that means. good >> i am not aware whether that particular analysis has changed since the 1970's. i am not sure if i can help you on that issue. >> of the analysis has changed, would that change the responses, exit maybe, and it may be that the city attorney would have something to arrivdd. i am not sure. good >> thank you. by its deputy city attorney. i would agree the issue is what the current setting is, what the correct description of the project is, and the comparison of those of se-- effects, so an

eir in a different setting with a different project would not be relevant to this analysis. but is something to be made by the planning department. those to change over time, and they have explained the standards they have used at this time. >> the last question i have is noted in the letter by the former city attorney, and that is the question of the analysis of cumulative environmental impacts and considering things like proximity to the ferry building, the cruise ship

terminal as well as other projects that are proposed, and i wonder if you can address that issue. >> the cumulative impact analysis was done for this project. it did include those projects you mentioned. >> thank you. >> any other questions to planning? why don't we go to the cu. >> my name is kevin guy. i am here to discuss the appeal. the purpose is to discuss the necessity of the project as well as compatibility to the neighborhood, so i will discuss three issues being raised by the appellant that are most closely linked to does our ability and

compatibility, so i am happy to raise any questions by the board. the appellant contends the increase height is inappropriate and this will set a standard for future locations. i would like to point out a height change proposal is for a limited area. that area does not front directly on to the embarcadero, so they locate the tallest portion set against existing buildings and the golden gateway center immediately southwest and to the west of the site. goothe residential building woud

be lower than the height limit. this would be a new open space, so there is a transition so that if is sympathetic to the residential buildings along the embarcadero, fulfilling the needs of the heights of the financial district down to the waterfront. and we do not believe it would set a precedent for height increases along the waterfront. any other would be evaluated separately on its own merits considering the character. this site is unique and located at the edge of downtown, in

addition to the neighboring buildings with a high of 500 feet. the second requirement is that it needs and planning codes. youwithin global district theres a maximum horizontal dimension of 105 feet and when hundred 40 feet for the building, so these are quantitative limits that are obsolete and do not scale and proportion to the size of the property proposed. acknowledging that a property may be difficult to comply, the planning code does a process that would allow exceptions to the limitations. in this case the sponsor is requesting to modify these to the plants development process.

the process is designed for projects on large sites that are developed at once. good >> can i ask you about the necessity of sloping down, starting perhapat 140 feet. you could haven' had the same if you read started at 84 feet. you would have achieved what you are trying to get out with these heights reduced the amount >> that is true. the-but is proposed, given the dramatic increment -- the height proposed, given the dramatic increment, maybe it requesting a height increase supportable by the planning department, and the commission made a recommendation

accordingly. >> you made a comment about how you do not believe this creates a precedent for miami beach- like development, but you're asking us to create a first- reclassification in almost 50 years. good >> but as the first when the commission recommended approval of spirited >> that may be creating of president -- created a precedent for how we built along the waterfront, right? >> i do not believe it would given the context of this. you do not have a lot of parking sites. they do not have the same context of being right of the edge of the financial district,

and those might make a height increase more appropriate to consider a this location vs. further to the north. good >> y 140 feet beaumont -- why 140 feet? >> any of those could have been appropriate from a design standpoint. the department felt it was appropriate to have a height increase of that location. returning to bowulk, the modification was found to produce a desirable character the merits the recent adjustment of controls. the purpose is to achieve a

secure your project is designed -- a superior project designed with allocation of the planning code, so the project meets old limitations by maintaining two separate buildings separated by a courtyard. they are articulated by vertical masses 35 feet in whicidth/our recess. the pedestrian run on this -- pedestrian realm is framed by awnings. it finishes with a glazed this thing from the lower floors, so these elements create an arrangement that breaks it into

smaller, more discrete elements. 1/3 and final concern i will address is that the project contains luxury housing and does not fulfil housing goals. housing goals are of importance, so let's review those. there is a need for a variety of sizes and locations. housing element specifically emphasized the importance of retaining existing dwelling units. these are set at a citywide level and do not mandate that each project deliver a dwelling units across the spectrum. the project will comply with the affordable housing program. i am available for further

questions you might have. supervisor campos: thank you for the presentation. i am still trying to understand some of the terms and the pieces of the project. gooone question i have is this issue of the locket we would be selling. i wonder if you can clarify what the fair market value is and what the terms are of what is before us. >> i would want to refer to staff on that particular issue.

>> the contribution of land in the land transfer has been valued accept 7.5 $6 million. and we will acquire land in excess of $8 million. goo>> my understanding is they e getting a land payment of $5 million. is that not the case? but i just mentioned the value of 7.56. it has a number of stanford components. -- the number of components. the first is the lambs. -- land.

we received a guaranteed payment of $3 million, and the ongoing payments escalated, we also get revenue from transfer fees from subsequent sales of condominiums built on the new project site and also from a park and retail establishments. the net value is around $14 million if you add them together. good >> of some point are you giving money back to the developer? >> can you repeat the question? >> my understanding is of some point there would be money given by four public improvement

costs, so i am wondering if you would talk about that. good >> the development agreement has the obligation of the developer to complete improvements. it includes provisions of public parking and various streetscape improvements. of these, there would be a partial computation capped at $5 million. goobut the answer is yes?

>> yes. one thing is the desirability of what was being proposed, and i want to make sure i understand the reasoning in terms of the need to create more affordable and middle income housing and were the fifth in what is before us. gooi wonder if you can address e because it is something we have heard your good >> -- something

we have heard. >> there are a number of policies. those do not mandate every project goes out on an individual basis, -- goes out on an individual basis, but those are implemented through the housing program, which allows them to develop new units, so this project sponsor has elected to pay the fee, and that would contribute to funds for affordable housing. good >> i appreciate that, and i think the amount being paid is significant, and i appreciate

that has increased, but let me get to a final question, which i am trying to figure out what we are going to do, but i guess the biggest concern with not just this project but in a project -- any project on the waterfront is this idea we want to make sure all kinds of san franciscans have the ability to live in the side of the city and a waterfront does not just become the place where the wealthy can live, and while it is understood in this case there will be fees but will be paid by the developer, what consideration did you give to this idea that you want the waterfront to be available as all home for san

franciscans of alsl incomes? clark'wife getting back to whate findings are, is the consideration of this is desirable. all of the various amenities the project is providing in terms of open space, those are desirable things. maybe this particular project does not provide housing we would like to see, but it is not necessarily feasible to balance

all of these within one project or enter a policy question about maintaining affordability along the waterfront. this is a very close to the financial district, close to a lot of amenities, which makes it a wonderful sight for housing, but to enter the question with one individual project about how we provide affordable housing on the waterfront is not necessarily something you can satisfy completely in each and every development site. >> i appreciate that answer, and that is probably the biggest question. i understand the benefits and an especially mindful of job creation that could come with

something like this, and i know that is a very important consideration, so wanted to get your thinking about that, because even though this project may not address some of the priorities, it certainly leaves us into a similar direction in terms of addressing those needs. supervisor wiener: i have a question as to how you evaluate recreation losses and gains as part of the process. the loss of the athletic club

for a lot of people hits the most personally. gooyou have any place that is gg to be dramatically changed. the tennis courts are going away. the pools will be replaced by other schools. goo-- pools. if you are taking away and adding, how does that get a evaluated? we know private properties cannot freeze in time. you have to keep this going forever. it is a complicated issue and a personal one for a lot of people. >> it is clear a lot of people feel passionately about this. impacts to recreational space

were emphasized in the eir. the change of shifting to more pool area, things like that, that is not addressed by the planning code. it is considered more of a program change, but it is not something the planning code addresses. supervisor mar: what is the estimated cost of the housing units at 134 units that would be created? >> are you referring to the sale price? i think it is a question to be answered by the project sponsor. i have heard anecdotal figures,

but it is a better question for the project sponsor. >> following up on one of the points, is the inclusion rehousing fee is being paid, we should be considering luxury condos as we calculate, and it seems it should be much more like -- much more than the $9 million, so that would be one concern to make sure we get adequate money for the inclusion are a housing feet. the other thing i want to mention is the pacific part, could you discuss how about offset the loss of the tennis courts and the aquatics center, because my daughter learned how to swim in that schoopool.

we paid for group lessons. it was affordable for us, but the prices went way up, and our swimming instructor lost the ability to teach there, so we were priced out, and my understanding is i think you have to pay a $1,000 initiation fee, and the cost is three times higher than the ymca, but it seems that is not successful to regular people and families right now, but it still might be accessible to golden gate where residents, and -- golden gateway residents. >> in terms of, the planning code does not regulate this issue of what occurs within the

health club, so if there are shift from less tennis or no tennis to a larger pool and a carrier, but is not something the planning code speaks to. the creation of a new public park area for anyone who wishes to visit, that was one of an benefits but led to our recommendation that we thought conditional use was a provable because it was a desirable feature of the project. but is one thing that contributed to that as well as the opening an extension of jackson street, reconnecting a connection that