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 the public parking, our

commitment to the building and 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 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