the financing -- bond financing. wewe're in the final stages of that process and hope to have the project closed within 15 days. we have bond financing. we have state transit oriented funds, 4% tax credits, we have some money from the former redevelopment agency, tax increment fund. this is one of the first projects we're doing that has been transferred from the former redevelopment agency. we are happy to be working on it. again, we will close in two weeks, start construction. we have a two-year construction period and we hope to have the tco in april of 2014. i have pam simms here, who is the lead on the project.

and jennifer dole and lindsay to answer any questions. would you like me to submit that? the first one is page two, line 13. we want to add him or his designee the last one is page 511. we want to add a phrase, covenant or any easement. i will print out for you. >> thank you. it is on fourth street close to

a channel street in the mission bay area. >> beautiful area. this is an area that typically the mayor's office does not have a lot of projects in. all the sites are our site. we're working on them. it is a wonderful opportunity and a beautiful neighborhood. if you have any questions, i have other staff or could answer for you. supervisor mar: is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? we have two speakers. >> good afternoon. i am corinne woods, i chair the mission bay citizens advisory committee which will survive

the dissolution of redevelopment. this project is very important for us. we have been planning for years. it was complicated to put together the financing. we're looking forward to it. not only is it family affordable housing, i do not remember the number of units reserved for homeless families. we're also going to have child care on the premises. we will have a team room, will have a community meeting room, and it is pretty. we cannot wait to see it start. we have two projects right now. this will echo what is going on and please approve it. supervisor mar: thank you. >> thank you.

this is what we need. this is a fabulous organization that has contributed a lot to housing for which everyone should be proud. we do not have housing for fire, police, nurses, teachers, etc. that should be called personal housing. what will we do if we have an earthquake? call them in oakland and say, hurry up, we're having an earthquake because we do not have the key personnel here to handle it. think about it. this is your priority. please concentrate on getting them here. after you have these key personnel groups and you can consider other things but this should be first and that will take an awful lot of planning,

priorities, and attention. please direct your attention in the right areas. focus on that. that is what we need. that is what the people 1. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. is there anyone else would like to speak? >> if you're not nert trained, i would encourage you to. she offers a bit valid point. supervisor mar: i see other nurturing people here. if you want to speak to, please come forward. >> did afternoon. i am a member of the mission bay cac. -- good afternoon. we will be living across the street from the project. i should not sit across the street, it is across the creek

from the project. i would say that the neighbors are looking forward to the project. the mercy housing has been assiduous in making sure that the community ideas are part of the project and coming to the cac and speaking to us. we're familiar with the project. one point that has not been mentioned today. they're also very good at identifying and soliciting and obtaining ground-floor retail. as most of you know, mission bay is very weak in retail and we're looking forward very much to improvements mercy housing brings to us. we certainly support the project and hoped that you will, too. thank you. supervisor mar: is there anyone else from the public who would like to speak? public comment is closed.

can we approve the amendments without objection? thank you. can we approve this item without objection? thank you. ms. miller, please call items 5 and 6 together. >> ordinance amending the zoning map to change the map and classification. amending the general plan of the easter waterfront plan as part of the 8 washington street project. >> we're joined by president david chiu and we have a number of city departments that will present first before hearing public comment. we have every rodgers from the planning department, kevin gheiuy, -- anne marie rogers frm the planning department. the presentation will be as extinct -- assisting dess

possible so we can get to members of the public. >> we're back again today to present the recommended height changes to the general plan and the zoning map. this is where the commission began their consideration and proposal with these two ordinances and with the fundamental credit -- question of what is the proper height at this location. the commission went on to consider the other entitlements you have approved through the conditional use authorization and the planned unit development. because of the nature of the appeal process, this board was forced to consider the ceqa appeal and the cu appeal prior to looking at the more fundamental question of height. is that policy discussion for today. the project planner will review the general plan policies that led the commission to believe a height to change was appropriate. both ordinances make the same change. the first changes the height map

in the general plan. while it is changing, the commission would submit this change is consistent with existing policies in the general plan. the second is an associated changed to the map for the same area is our policy is that i have been part of the city. as existing for work at least as early as 1947. hills should emphasize height and the downtown plan discusses the creation of a human built downtown mound that should emphasize this downtown activity center. it is the natural.)1( shape of e city's hills that we are seeking to emulate. after mr. guy discusses the actions, jonathan stern will speak for the port. >> good afternoon.

as ms. rogers was mentioning, policies within the general plan emphasize the importance of an urban form that slopes down toward the waterfront with a cluster of tall buildings tapering to progressively lower heights in the box toward the embarcadero. the subject property is zoned that -- if we can have the exhibits back out. for a maximum height of 84 feet. this is shown in map 2. this next exhibit shows proposed heights that came out of the northeast embarcadero study which was published in 2010. the residential portion would be constructed within two buildings situated on the southerly portion of the site with frontage along the embarcadero as well as washington and drum streets.

this looks as if you were looking back toward the project site, at the bottom center and right, back toward downtown from the water. the western rebuilding of front along drum street and washington street would reach a roof height of 92 feet to 136 feet. exceeding the existing limit of 84 feet. the ordinance would be required to reclassify the sites and allow the project to proceed. ordinances are before you accordingly to reclassify one area to 92 feet and another to 136 feet. at a hearing on march 22, the planning commission recommended approval of these changes. the project is over the site that fulfills the plan. situated in the tallest portions relating to the background of taller existing buildings within the embarcadero center and the golden gateway center.

you can see this sloping line that represents the fulfillment of the map saying that the downtown to bring to the waterfront will -- to the waterfront. we're looking at another perspective. west to east. you see the existing of the one maritime plaza and golden gate towers and the golden gate- washington project and you can see the effect of slowing down to the waterfront in terms of height. within the project itself, there is buildings up front along the embarcadero at to a height that is lower. the easterly building along the embarcadero is six stories. stepping down to five stories near the health club building. this exhibit shows the uniform existing height limit across the entire site.

whereas the next exhibit illustrates the step from a maximum height of 136 and the various taping -- to bring an scoping down to the northerly portion. the northernmost portion, the areas left of the public space, further enforcing the step map. the transitions in height scope the form in a manner that is sympathetic to the shorter residential, commercial, and boca buildings and preserves the legibility of the progression of taller buildings with any financial district to the southwest. -- within the financial district to the southwest. this is a helpful illustrative. the planning commission recommended the heights are appropriate because they queue off and implement a sloping

front of height. i want to reiterate the heights proposed are consistent. those are consistent with the recommendations of the northeast embarcadero study. that concludes my presentation. i'm available for any questions you might have. i would like to continue the presentation by introducing jonathan stern. president chiu: i understand the challenge of the planning department and to think about height being killed off the areaqx÷ or the height limits tht are the 40-foot height limits that are to the north in the residential areas. your department shows -- chose to justify the increase by looking to a commercial district. the question i have been asked is how do we think about this as a general policy for the department? i have read from residents and

-- in supervisor mar's district that this could allow for decisions around height that key off of the commercial street corner which has more height and bulk and i could be used as a way to justify increasing heights in the richmond or if you take sick -- supervisor cohen's district, you have height and density in mission bay and that could be used to suggest we could have higher heights in potrero hill? -- in potrero hill. >> i would argue the recommendations do queue of both. if you looked at the northerly portions, the northernmost portion has zero height because it is left as an open space. the health club is 35 feet and as you progress across the site, closer to the financial

district, that is where you see the scoping of heights increase. it is mediating and killing off the heights within the financial district -- queueing of the heights within the financial district. it does take both bookends of heights into account. president chiu: one question i have always had about this project is exactly what height we are to set that out as. a year and a half ago, this project was two 84-foot tall buildings and the decision was made to drop to 70 feet. one might suggest that kind of a drop in the front side should justify a 14 foot increase in the back but you are asking for an increase of up to 140 feet. how do you come up with these

numbers? should it be 200 feet or 120? how do you do that mouth? >> there is one exhibit i would like to refer back to. this is from one perspective. i think it is a useful one for the purposes of this discussion. if you look at queueing off both ends. starting on the high side on the one maritime plaza building. if you look at the theoretical line that is drawn here, you can see that the heights that are proposed for the project and requested for the planned actions are within that theoretical lion that slopes down to the waterfront and are the pri -- the appropriate heights to queue off of.

and then to the taller buildings in the financial district to the southwest. >> one final question. there has been some discussion about the decision by the planning staff to reject additional height at this site. this was at the time the height limit was dropped to 84 feet at the site. your department is regarded the study and analysis that was done at that time. could you address that and why was there no consideration done to wear your department had concluded differently on this project when we looked at this last time from a city standpoint? >> in terms of the analysis, that was done on the existing urban form and the relationships of the buildings as they exist today. these are the heights that were

determined to be appropriate for the site. limiting the height increase to a discreet portion of the site -- discrete portion of the site and the project is not taking advantage of the height that applies, along the embarcadero road frontage. every project and request for a height change would be analyzed on its own merits and the design was such as -- sloping down to the waterfront, receding into a lower scale procession of buildings. president chiu: thank you. supervisor mar: i am looking at the zoning around -- along drum street. this is for a footprint of 15,000 square feet and zoning is 7500 square feet.

>> that is right. in aggregate, the area ever -- proposed for rezoning is less than 20%. >> what is the square footage of the entire site? >> britney. 135,000 square feet. president chiu: thank you. if i could ask a couple of questions. we're talking about a 200% bolten increase. there were things i wanted to ask about. the project would widened sidewalks. this actually shrinks in size. could you talk about why that is the case if you compare it to the sidewalk? that is much bigger than the sidewalk you have which is

smaller than what we have today. >> with respect to the specifics of sidewalk dimensions and streetscape improvements and all that, those are details that are part of the overall concept proposal that is before the commission and was brought before on appeals to the board of supervisors. the details of those dimensions are -- continued to be refined to the building permit process of the building is approved. i understand there was some discussion about the sidewalk shrinking. that is not the case. the width of someone walking along the embarcadero is not to be shrunken and not something we would approve. in aggregate, the sidewalks on the integrity of the project

site are intended to provide more space for someone to walk through. the fact that one of the arguments was made, too, some of the physical features within the sidewalk would potentially restrict pedestrian capacity. in terms of st. -- street trees and furniture, that is part of a a complete street network and that is part of the proposal. president chiu: i am heartened to hear this. how do we have any assurance that this will be the case that the sidewalks are larger? if you compare what is in front of the park, and the site, it is almost a 20% reduction and that is in the designs we have right now. >> from i understand and of the

project proposal and the details we looked at, -- in the project proposal and the details we looked at, i respectfully argue that that there are people for places to sit and street trees and they're not being shrunk in. that is not something we would entertain or proof as far as the details to the streetscape process. president chiu: can we get more clear on this before tuesday? >> i think so. >president chiu: this court was supposed to connect jackson to the waterfront but it is blocked by the residential blocks the project down 10 or 12 feet into jackson right away. if this is supposed to open up jackson, why is it we are allowing the buildings to protrude into those right of ways? >> it is like understanding

there is no jackson street right of way. it is vacated and does not exist on paper. it is a physical amenities of the commons which would enable something that is not the case now. someone walking down jackson street proper to continue through the middle of the site to the embarcadero. president chiu: you do not view that as an important thing to connect the thoroughfares? >> those are being connected by the proposed jackson commons. we view that as an important amenity. president chiu: with the building's jutting into this path? >> i am afraid i do not understand what you mean by jutting into. there is a continuous, lanier pathway that would enable someone to walk from the west through the middle of the site to the jackson street wide of --

right of way extension and connect to the embarcadero where that connection does not exist. president chiu: i will speak with you afterwards. there are people who are willing to talk to you about buildings that are jutting into the walkway. thank you. i appreciate your comments. >> i am with the development staff at the port. i would like to use this to describe the public benefits and the reasons the port became involved with this project. one thing to note is from the beginning to the site that is different from the embarcadero as we started to read sculpt it since the freeways went down after the loma compretta --

prieta earthquake, this remains unchanged and the current site is 20,000 square feet. this is a private recreation facility that occupies that side and blocks the current jackson and -- and pacific streets. we're talking about combining the site and there is 28,000 square feet of public land in the deal and the balance of 105,000 or 107,000 feet of private land. this is what we're concerned with. we believe this is an important part of the waterfront and especially where the northern part meets downtown and it has been our goal to bring value to

the city and the port because we need that money to fix of facilities but provide public amenities and connect the cities with water. the first issue is the public connection. there is currently no connections through the jackson street and pacific street corridor. city street is a pedestrian walkway. pacific is also diverted on drum. one of the benefits of this project is it does provide new corridors for pedestrian access through jackson street. jackson street would be a 60- foot corridor between those buildings, a bigger than the 32-foot right of way easement on the private portion of the site. i do not think there is an easement on the public portion. this includes an extension. it is currently a walkway.

not accessible by shortening this corridor and widening it. it would be much better pedestrian and public connection. public open space is another focus. in the light blue -- these are privately owned but important public space. this would create public x straight space along the pacific parkway on pacific and broadway. talking about the entire program, we talked about the height and bulk of the housing proposal. 134 units. it has some parking spaces associated with it. that is a relatively small portion between jackson and washington streets. there is also an important public realm and public space. there are restaurants and cafes in the building for the

residential building but also assisted with private recreation club which will be built between jackson and pacific streets. this would be enhanced by its operator and looking at what constituents and users use. they have program and new program that is different from the tennis and swim club. as part of the bay area athletic club and network which has [unintelligible] for all uses. it has public parking. this is important for our commercial partners and elsewhere. it has spaces for car and bicycle parking as well. just pick up on the parking and just pick up on the parking and the public parking, our