our commercial partners, we have a contractual obligation to provide parking spaces to the visitors. not to the office workers are the owners but to make sure there is accessible parking in the way of short-term, hourly parking. in light of a shrinking supply of parking in the vicinity, you see highlighted in red a number of utilities -- areas that are being focused on. office users and commuters downtown in some cases are going away entirely. to the tune of 50% of the parking will be going away or potentially going way in the next few years. going on to the public realm, this will be a dramatic change from the existing commissions -- conditions. there will be a new residential

building on that first block. the second block will have the rebuild club and have the living wall along the embarcadero and have a green roof. it is important to notice -- to note that this is where the sidewalk is smaller than the 15 to 17 feet that was proposed. that is important. this is one of the key ones that was featured. these are some views of the project from the public realm. i want to go through. this is on the building side. this is responsive to the design and architecture of the bulk held buildings across the way and this would be positive.

there is a new private recreation rebuild. it will more than double the swimming opportunities and space along the waterfront of this location. and there will be enhancements to the public realm. these shots were taken to demonstrate the better street program. these will go through that process. we're talking about opening the new corridors. and providing a new park at pacific broadway. looking at the overall view of the project. i wanted to go through the physical public benefits but the economic benefits. it is important to note all the things i mentioned in terms of physical design and public uses are important but so is financial wherewithal in the form of money to the port but money to the city and other

amenities. this is a chart we put together to explain the overall public benefits. we believe these sources are on the order of $144 million. first is the discussion of affordable housing. inclusionary housing exceeds $9 million. the developer has agreed to additional affordable housing. there are other impact fees. transfer taxes and other sources of funding to the general fund. there is tax increments generated by this project flowing to and through ifd. there is port payments, both onetime payments and ongoing payments of $15 million and more. it is important to note to that there are other built values in the project. there is port lands, the value

of which will: $12 million. this involves other lands that are counted as new trust lands. the value improvements to these parts plants. this is a revised #the supervisors have not seen before. u.s. mint is in the process of valuing the park and there is ongoing park maintenance. that is $2.60 million. this is a low estimate. this is a challenge to build new parks and be responsible for the cost of their maintenance in maintaining into a world-class standard is a challenge we are glad the developer is partnering with us for. there is the underground parking course that will allow us to have visitors to have permanent parking. the developer has a value of $16 million and the rebuild of the aquatic and recreation club will

be $12 million. we think --ofrúx were part of te public benefit package we have put together in this regard. it is important to note there are some asks on the table. one is to -- how to split the ifd funds. so the city would participate in the $2 million to the $5 million, the accretion of this public amenities and the developer would front all the money and pay $7.70 million. there will be other ifd funds. 60% would go to the general fund and the balance totaling $16 million bonding would go to support other needs and other port needs. i am done with my presentation

and i'm available for questions. supervisor mar: my hope is that this will be discussed further at the budget committee hearing on wednesday. >> that is correct. president chiu: i have thought these issues would be discussed on wednesday. i appreciate you have a new numbers to present to a sense the appeal a couple of weeks ago had raised the issue of from what will understand, the total revenue from this project is expected to be half a billion dollars or $479 billion -- $479 million. it appears to have a lot in it and i appreciate sense that i raised these issues and it does seem as though there are numbers we should look at if i could get those numbers. the question about parking. there has been a lot made about the fact your department has

asked for a 400% increase in residential parking. when i do the math between what you are contractually doing and at the parking ratios, we could move forward with a parking rise that is smaller than what we have today. one example is we could take off one level of parking, one-third of the parking that exists there given this is supposed to be one of the transit-richest neighborhoods in the city. also we know that parking is not a money maker for the developer. it's typical parking spot costs 100 tricky thousand dollars per spot. this is not a place where it is in the interests of the developer to see parking year. can you explain why you feel a need to have the parking garage that is the size? i know you make assumptions in here about what you are

contractually provided to -- that you provide to the ferry building but they will sue the city over the issue and regardless of the parking signs, if there needs will not be satisfied, how do you think about your parking situation, given the context of that lawsuit and the obligations you have at from portside. >> the parking first on the residential side and the public side. the residential side, the parking in this project of 127 units -- parking spaces, that was an analysis done by planning staff about the suitability for this kind of project in this location. we were supportive of that development in coming up with a 0.92 ratio for this housing. other condos have been built in the downtown area including on

downtown property. we were supportive because we think having a certain amount of parking will increase the value of the units. since we're participating in the value and we want this to be a feasible project to allow this to happen, what we were pleased with the developer and the analysis could confer and reach a consensus of the number of 127 spaces. there is currently up to 255 public spaces program for this crash -- garage. it exceeds a bit. president chiu: what is that number? >> what is 150, parking to the ferry building and 125, -- 25, 175 total. we seek permanent covenants. we are making sure those are parking spaces regardless.

that is a must have to fulfill our contractual obligations. i am dismayed that you have different information that you're going to sue the city and the port. we were striving to not make that happen and doing our best to make sure we do fulfill our obligations and weekend reach accord with that party. -- we can reach accord with that party. president chiu: we will see how that goes. from a contractual standpoint, what you are required to do if you add the number plus what the site is zoned for from a presidential -- a residential parking perspective, we could actually reduce available of vulnerable parking in this parking garage. >> you do need even with the amendment i mentioned, two

levels. i would have to defer to planning staff to do that analysis. that is not my area of expertise. supervisor mar: i hope a close look at the budget committee for the ifd funds and the tax and ferment -- and command -- that is crucial. housing fees have gone up but more is needed. i am looking forward to that discussion at the budget committee as well. the last part is on the parking spaces. my hope is there is little room so we can reduce the number of public spaces. i appreciate all the work on this. president chiu: part of the reason why parking is relevant is if the developer did not have to spend as much money on parking, that will reduce the total construction costs and that could bring down other things, either provide additional benefits or think about whether or not this height

increase needs to be as tall as it has to be. supervisor mar: thank you. i have a stack of speaker cards but i was going to ask if the developer would like to see if you work or someone representing the waterfront properties? -- you or someone representing the waterfront properties? >> thank you. i think everybody has pretty much covered the subject completely. president chiu: if i could ask one question. you had said it would be able to get me additional information about your financial to give is a different picture of what this is. i heard before the hearing would not be able to. i have heard you have provided

some of my colleagues with that information saar would love to get that from you when you have an opportunity. -- so i would love to get that from you when you have an opportunity. >> i would be happy to do that. president chiu: that would be great. supervisor mar: i will karr the cards -- call the cards if people will start lining up. time pau7ol -- tim paulsen, other speakers. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am a longtime member of the golden gateway club and i thoroughly enjoy swimming there. i looked at the beautiful plants and this is a fabulous

proposed plan for the city. i have my own personal reasons for wanting to get this project through. as a swimmer, i think the new pools and the fitness space is a swarmer's dream come true with wider lanes, more lanes, a gutter system, a changeable lap lane, and on to the new changing rooms, a larger whirlpool and updated rec pool, cabanas, and firepits. i have seen other clubs with their improvements over the years and they do a beautiful job on just about everything they were gone. i have no doubt in my mind this will be a fabulous thing for the people of san francisco, for the club, the public in general to have this in this beautiful location on the embarcadero. the new aquatics center is complemented by the fitness

center that is twice as big and much nicer than the windowless fitness based on the first floor of the golden gateway apartments. a 40-year-old club needs some serious upgrading. 8 washington will rebuild our club and create a world class center befitting its location. club members have enjoyed nearly exclusive use of this location for decades. it is time to share this waterfront space with everyone else. 8 washington provides all the -- covers all the bases. it completes renewal of the waterfront which is also overdue. after years of planning and review -- president chiu: thank you. i >supervisor mar: neck

speaker -- next speaker. i am robin glick, i am a longtime san francisco resident and a bay club member. i enjoy swimming every day. second, i have no economic interest in this development. i am a lawyer. i do not have anything to do with the development other than i would like to talk about the fitness facility and how excited i am about it. 30 years ago, i created the mayor's council on physical fitness under george mosconi. i have been active with his counsel for 30 years now continuously -- this council for 30 years now continuously. i think it enhances recreation for all the people of san

francisco, not just members of the bay club. there is going to be parks developed there and people will be able to use this parks and will be able to use this facility for children's physical fitness. 8 washington increases the outdoor pools by 50% which is an important thing. adding a new lap pool, recreation pelt -- pool and importantly, a children's pool. it is true the tennis courts will be removed and that is unfortunate. the use of prime waterfront property four tennis courts may have made sense when the -- for tennis courts may have been made cents previously. it is time to improve these blocks. i understand it will be $1 million financing for affordable housing which is very -- i served on the redevelopment

agency for 11 years myself. it is no longer in existence and we do need affordable housing in the city. i strongly suggest this be approved. supervisor mar: thank you. mr. rattner. >> thank you, mr. chairman, supervisors, president to -- chiu. we decided not to put a majority of volunteers through another marathon hearing. they are aware the majority of the board is ready to approve 8 washington in spite of our offering alternatives that would improve the northeastern embarcadero corridor for residents, tourists, and the port. we are curious how several of the supervisors who voted said

they would work in changing the height and bulk of parking and funding for affordable housing. what they can do it in getting further concessions from the developer and board. our growing coalition will now put our energies and attention on the referendum on the november ballot so san franciscans can have their say about this outrageously out of scale, completely unnecessary, gated luxury development on our historical waterfront. thank you very much. supervisor mar:. mr. paulson. >> i will give a truncated version of what i said to the board last week. we represent tens of thousands of workers and over 100 unions in town, not just the building and trades workers but teachers

and firefighters, janitors, maritime trade. and want to reiterate our labor council -- i want to reiterate our legal counsel, we do not weigh in on projects but we are unanimous in moving this tragic forward. i should note i was elected to this job, i am on my eighth year. if there is one constant i have heard about all the different policies and development project and the different things you have to deal with, one thing has always been on the plate. i believe there has been a thorough vetting of this project. a lot of work has been done. everything is ready to go and i am urging this committee to move it forward as well as the finance and the full board to move this forward. i know there are discussions about the community benefits pieces but i hope you get to a place where you feel comfortable about that. i believe this should go forward

right now on behalf of the labor council. thank you. supervisor mar: i will call a few more names. >> i am an architecture and urban design educators at california college of the arts. and want to make six points in support of this project. rarely do you have the chance to get a preview of the project sponsor's ability to deliver high-quality project in a given neighborhood but in this case, you have to do was walk across the streets to peers one and half, three, and five. this team needs to -- knows how to deliver. if your not sure, what further down and visit the amazing up

here 24 -- pier 24 photography center. every waterfront city has built quality projects. they provide a backdrop for access that is so important and vital to these unique cities. if there is one spot where you would build a building to transition to the edge of the financial district, this is it. it is the right place for this kind of project. third point is density. even though the zoning law loss 600 units across the entire site, the project includes 134 in order to give over blocks to win three to recreation and open space with heights below 35 feet. even though the zoning allows a 34 foot high roof, the project modulates its height and steps back from 59 feet up to 136. even though it eliminates

surface parking lots, it replaces that parking underground. the back is now the front like these other sites along the embarcadero. this has the opportunity to make the embarcadero and world- class boulevard. thank you. >> good afternoon. i object to this whole project because it is totally unnecessary. we have open space which i created at free parking we do not need it anymore. it is seriously flawed and violates all the rules and the height is obscene. we do not need 132 feet. 84 feet was out of line credit should go to 40 feet away the rest of the embarcadero has been set. there is no set back from the building. it goes right to the sidewalk.

it does not connect the bay with the land which is another violation. i could go on and on. the obsession with cost must end. we do not need the underground garage. i defeated a garage at carry part because it was not feasible. we have plenty of parking at the gateway. he even offered a parking space there, there is plenty of spate -- space in the gateway grudge -- garage. it isnot -- is not lucrative for the port. it does not need a jackson street entrance and exit because we have exits through washington and we have exits and access to broadway. we do not need that thing opened up to skateboarders and rowdies and all kinds of stuff.

we need the peace in that area. it is nothing more than a tenement. i will explain what a tenement is. it is a building smack up against another building. all it needs is a fire escape and we will have a tenement. only a high rise tenement. please reconsider this whole thing and throw out. it is not necessary. we can do better development at the corner. it is too congested as it is. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. i am here to express my support for the proposed project. as a local business enterprise and partner as well as a 20-year resident of telegraph hill, i am fully supportive of the proposal. the project design, excellence,

character, scale, and urban planner will considered and will be an important contribution to the waterfront and well-suited for the embarcadero. the architecture carefully supports the guidelines of how a city should step down to the waterfront. it offers a three tiered scheme that makes the transition from golden gate housing to the waterfront, embracing the recommendations from planning. this mairs how a land form states -- mirrors however landform steps back from the waterfront. because of the new pedestrian corridors, ground-floor retail, accessible open space, a health center, and underground parking, it will bring a much-needed urban vitality to the district and will strengthen our city as a walkable city. the city shares the galvanizing platform of sustainability in healthy living. 8 washington promotes a vital,

active, and healthy use for the waterfront. to support this project is to look forward rather than backward. showing our future as a bible, liveable waterfront city. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. next speaker. >> that afternoon. i -- good afternoon. i am a member of the board of san francisco architectural heritage. i am speaking as a active member of the architecture community. i have been following the development to see how the design would respond to the surrounding neighborhoods and to the character of the embarcadero. i am happy with the results and i would like to register my support for the project.

anyone who has walked along the western edge of knows that this section needs ground level uses, not parking lots. to live in it and make it safe and engaging for visitors and residents. the value of extending jackson street and pacific avenue to the embarcadero cannot be underestimated. from an architectural perspective, the height is in keeping with the character. a step down from the center to the waterfront and they provide the definition to the western edge of the embarcadero that it desperately needs. i wholeheartedly ask for this and i hope you will 2. supervisor mar: thank you. i will call a few more names. next speaker.

>> i am here to support the project as a design professional. i teach design at the university of california at berkeley and have been living and practicing architecture for several years. and lived in chicago for many years and when i moved to san francisco, i was surprised at how inaccessible to the public the waterfront was here. i feel that one of the highlights is it allows the public use of the park space and retail that will enliven the streets and the project. the addition of a public walkway from jackson street toward the bay makes the waterfront accessible. -- accessible to everyone and brings a high density in to a site with a lot of access to public transportation and allows easier commutes to work and