-- brendan dunnigan. our children go to school with children at the golden gate commons. he supports this project, quietly. he would not come out in public and support it. why is that? he would be ostracized by those that live in that community. you have heard all the reasons why they oppose it. he believes this is the right solution in the right location. as a licensed architect who worked in the city and has been part of many residential projects. i believe this is an excellent solution. for the reasons you are here today, one is to approve the financial commitments. those who have come before you have already stated those reasons.

i am here to speak for those who do not speak for themselves. in that community, they would be ostracized. thank you. >> good morning, supervisors and committee members. good afternoon, and now. my name is jennifer warburg. we believe the proposed development would be a significant development to a key intersection of the waterfront. it will replace a service parking lot and private tennis courts with publicly accessible open space. there is street level retail and underground parking. the project fills the gap on the western side of the embarcadero with appropriate heights and generous public access components. additionally, the funds that would go to the city for affordable housing are

significant in the city efforts to create affordable housing funding. well change may be difficult, it is inevitable. it is our responsibility to major developments have a positive impact on the city as a whole. these projects and body integrity. this takes a site currently only serving paint club members and adds housing while maintaining the amenities for existing users. i ask you to consider all those currently barred from using the site on our common waterfront, who would benefit from the project's public contributions. i urge you to move this forward. thank you. chairperson chu: i have read all of the speaker cards. if there are members of the public who wish to speak but

have not heard the name called, please line up in the center aisle. >> my name is kevin moscatov. i am a tenured san francisco resident and a member of the tennis and swim club. i consider myself fortunate. it is ironic that the product opponents are claiming the project is for the 1%. we are dealing with a private tennis and swim club. i pay over $300 a month in membership fees. here is my bill, actually. just to give you an idea. what we are talking about is simple. eight washington would replace the private, expensive tennis club with a project that would putrefy the waterfront and provide countless public benefits. it is incredible the developer is able to make this project

work, given all the public benefits. we should not forget the developer is giving back 30 times more public open space than currently exists. i am puzzled but people are saying the project would harm the 99%. does that mean we have to lose private tennis courts? that is hardly an impact that would negatively impact the underprivileged members of our community. i appreciate all the bicycle parking will be included in this project. public parking is important. i am glad it will be underground and available to ferry customers. please let this project move forward. i think it is an excellent opportunity for our city and the residence. thank you. chairperson chu: think you.

-- thank you. if there are members of the public who wish to speak, please come forward and line up in the center aisle. otherwise, this will be the final speaker. >> sue hester. this is the project space. this is the land swap. this is what is in the eir. this is seawall lot 351, which has an assessed valuation of whatever million dollars. this is what the port jets after the land swap. part of it is already seawall 351. this is valued at $8 million. this is the skinny strip the budget analyst talk about. compare the valuation of a site

that is swiss cheese to that. that is a buildable site. the reason there are parks going in there is because it is the only way they can remove the public trust. i have to go through state lands. state lands and asks questions about what is happening on this newly-created site. it is a creation of state lands trying to get out of this. the developer is not being beneficent. right now, he has a site he cannot build housing on. the port cannot allow housing on it, because it is not a public trust function. they have to remove the public trust. at the same time, they have to increase the height limit dramatically on the site. all these public benefits are because the developer has to do them. he could not build all of these condos at the level he did. he actually had a project that had more housing units when it

was smaller. he got the height increases and reduced and upscaled the housing. this is an intentional decision by the developer. the planning department, the first time they saw the project, said this was underutilized in terms of housing. this is a transit-rich area. every step of the way, the developer reduced the size of the project. the actual application was filed last august, august 2011. this has not been going through the process for seven years. the developer may have been wishing this was going through for seven years. he did not even have site control until three years ago. mr. snow grove has been wanting this to happen for seven years,

but that is not the public process. you have a developer who is double dipping. that has been pointing out by the budget analyst. you need to go back require the first sale of the condos to be the transfer point where the tax comes in. the real world is that is the only place you will have a guarantee of transfer tax, at the first sale. they can be obscured. people will have huge incentives to not allow a second transfer, by doing a limited liability corporation and selling them like that, just like golden gate we did. chairperson chu: thank you. are there other members of the public who wish to speak on items seven or eight? any other speakers? seeing none, public comment is closed.

colleagues, we have heard the item. the port made a presentation. we have also heard public comment. the items are before us. supervisor kim: remaining issues that i think have come up previously at land use and among some members of the board is the issue of parking. i know that this kind of a light issue for many of the members, wanting to see a reduction in parking on this site, given that we are talking about an incredibly transit-rich area, with many muni lines giving access. we recognize there is an obligation by the port to provide 175 parking spots. at land use, chair mar said he would like to see a 20% reduction in commercial parking, giving what planning department has recommended.

i wonder if we could get a commitment from the developer on the production. that is something many of the members would like to see. we do not feel the need for it. i wonder if that was a commitment we could get today. >> madam supervisor, could you repeat the number you are suggesting? supervisor kim: hair -- chair mar said he would like to see a 20% reduction in the commercial parking spots. currently, that is 255 parking spots. i believe a reduction -- i do not have the type the letter in front of me.

not just the chair and myself, but several other supervisors said they think there is too much parking allocated to the site. i am wondering if you would commit to a 20% reduction to the commercial parking spots. >> the answer is yes. i believe, and must report tells me, that their negotiations mean they have to satisfy these requirements. but if that was part of a full and final comprehensive approval, we would. supervisor kim: that would be great. i think it is an important step, moving forward, at least 20%. i think roughly 200 parking spots, if that is something we could see, would make this plan

more amenable. something else that has also -- chairperson chu: if i could jump in quickly, a 20% reduction is roughly 204, roughly 200. i would like to see what that would mean. i know the planning department, in addition to the 175 spots, had indicated that 70 to 80 were necessary for the commercial component. i know you are willing to work with the city, but before we say that we are asking for the 20% reduction, i would like to see what that would mean. i think the planning commission had a reason for saying they needed 70 to 80. by dropping it 55 spots, i would like to see what that means for circulation and parking. >> i will be back with you shortly. supervisor kim: another

precedent that was set in another transit rich area was actually in mid-market. i know this was a combination of both retail and residential. there were a lot of concerns about bringing additional cars into an area where there is a ton of public transit already, encouraging people to drive instead of taking public transit, and acknowledging that having a parking lot would encourage some of that driving to occur. i know a compromise that occurred out of that was having a parking fee be assessed on cars when they parked, and that the fee would go toward traffic mitigation in that area. i know that was limited to that core of market street. in this case, that was a concern that was brought up both by members of the public and by

the board of supervisors. i am interested in seeing something like that get replicated. there is a ton of spree scaping -- streetscaping needed to open up access to the waterfront. it takes money to do that. i am interested in us working something out, in the meantime, to assess a fee like that that would go within a 1 mile radius of the site and benefit the traffic mitigation, whether that is bike lanes and other measures to ensure we are mitigating the cars coming into the area and insuring biking for pedestrians taking advantage of the transit rich area. >> we are in conversation with the port, so i do not want to speak up. they are in a delicate position. in principle, we support all

policies that support pedestrian improvements, bicycle access. we are aligned with the ports. it would be something we would look at. chairperson chu: i know with city place, there was a set maximum that was put into place. at that point, the net present value of $1.80 million. given the needs of the neighborhood, and given our commitment to opening up the waterfront, i would like to see it in perpetuity. there is so much we could find around traffic mitigation. i am interested in seeing something like that come before the board. >> i think the port is amenable to such a set aside in perpetuity. i think there is fast need along the waterfront. as we emphasize the connections

from the neighborhoods of the city to the waterfront through this process, we talked about washing ton -- washington in particular needing improvements. connecting the city to the waterfront is beneficial to the city and all of california. supervisor kim: thank you. supervisor avalos: i really appreciate the discussion we have had. there was a thorough presentation from the port and from the budget analyst, and from the project sponsor, as well as public comment. i am actually very concerned about whether we are receiving a project that has public benefits. we really deserve, especially when we are up zoning parts of the waterfront, and making land exchanges as well -- sometimes, i feel like i am peering into an ayn rand novel, like "the

fountainhead," serving the elite. i recognize the port has a lot of property that needs to get developed in restored. we have an obligation to make sure we are fulfilling that. the port does provide a great deal of economic activity that is an engine for the city. i believe we have a responsibility to make sure we can revitalize that as much as possible. we are doing a lot of that through work around the america's cup and the park bond that is going forward this november, which i will expect to co-sponsor. there are a lot of things we are doing. i do not see that this project is yet at the level we need to have, in terms of the public benefits. i am concerned about, when it comes to the public benefits

around development -- we have 5 million that is going back -- $5 million that is going back to the developer from the port. i believe that should come to the port, in terms of public benefits. i am concerned about the transfer fees. we are looking at the second sale of condos that is going to be triggering the transfer fee. i believe it should be the initial sale, similar to what was discussed around the america's cup discussion. i do have concerns, like supervisor came, about parking. i believe there is still a lot to get worked out about parking. it is great to hear there is some openness around lowering the amount by 20%, and consideration of an additional parking fee. it has not been settled. i would feel comfortable if we

would keep this here while we heard a real sense of where the direction is, in terms of discussions between the project sponsor and the port around that and other benefit issues. the thing that really drives me most -- makes me most concerned, is the levels of affordability for housing. there are projects around san francisco where we have done incredible up zoning to build luxury housing. but we have had mitigating factors of public benefits that go along with that development. i am thinking about ring: hill, which had a stabilization fund attached to it. there were fees for inclusion in rehousing that went forward, as well as additional levels of affordable housing on top of that.

i am not seeing something similar to this project. i believe it behooves us to get as much as we can. i believe there is a lot more that we can do. $11 million for the housing trust fund is a big portion, especially when there is nothing in there right now. in terms of this project, we could get a lot more out of it. i feel we should err in that direction rather than not. i would like to propose we keep this in committee to hear back answers on where things are at, and further discussions about the benefits, the policies. i would also like to get clarification between what the budget analyst has recommended, has noted, in terms of public

benefits, versus what the port has. i would not say the difference is extreme, but it is very different, how the port presented their peace and how the budget analyst presented theirs. i do not feel forward me -- a comfortable moving something forward, based on that discrepancy. i would like to have that discussion here in the budget and finance committee before moving forward. my support for this project is going to hinge on public benefits, especially since we are moving away from what is typically expected of projects developed in this part of san francisco. i would like to motion -- do we have a budget meeting next wednesday? i would actually be ok if we

wanted to do two weeks from now. i would motion that we schedule this to the call of the chair for either next week or the week after. chairperson chu: i know there is a standing motion. there is an amendment to the hole that the port has introduced that should be on our desks. this is cleanup language. there is nothing that substantively changes in this. if i could ask the port to come up and to explain the components. >> thank you. the amendment of the whole makes some factual changes in the record of circumstances that have occurred since the resolution was first submitted. it memorializes the ceqa appeal that was heard before the board and the see you -- the cu appeal.

it memorializes the court approval of the document on january 9. it memorializes resolution changes in the trust agreement with the land commission. finally, it adds some language regarding puc interest, specifically along easements in jackson st., for facilities they have in that right of way. that is one of many reasons that corridor is being preserved. chairperson chu: thank you. this amendment is not substantive. they are merely technical, and in some components to reflect what has already happened. do we have a motion to accept? supervisor kim: motion to accept. chairperson chu: without

objection. i think there were a number of -- i think supervisor kim spoke about unresolved issues with regards to the parking lot, and regarding a fee that would be charged on parking. that is something that would have to continue in conversation. there was a minimum annual guarantee rent to be included in the contract, and also the additional payment for the offset of lost parking revenue. is the port and the developer amenable to those changes? >> i believe there are changes that could be made to the underlying documents in the file between now and when the board of supervisors considers this item that will satisfy those changes. chairperson chu: it sounds like there are four very specific issues, including of the fee at

the parking lot, the minimum annual guarantee, and the lost parking revenue. is that correct? ok. these would all be amendments to the underlying document, correct? ok. colleagues, any other thoughts? supervisor avalos has indicated a desire to continue this item. any other thoughts about this? supervisor kim: my understanding from the budget calendar -- is there another budget committee that is scheduled for the month of june? chairperson chu: at this moment, there is not. we purposely left the first two weeks of june open, so the budget analyst would be able to work on the budget deliberations of the last two weeks of june. we had not anticipated a subsequent meeting next week for

the budget and finance committee. i would like to hear from folks about their thinking. on the one hand, there are unresolved issues that we articulated. at the same time, i do not want to drag this out further. i think we could come to resolution within the time it goes to the full board. i am not sure what a new meeting would do. i think some of these details could be hammered out. just like to get some thoughts. supervisor kim: i would be comfortable continuing this item, given unresolved issues. but given the calendar before us, i have faith that we will resolve these issues brought forward. honestly, i think if they are not resolved, there will not be the votes needed to support this project anyway. i think there is pressure on both sides to come up with something that is going to work,

in terms of creating a package which delivers public benefits to the city. actually, there are three issues that were brought up. one is the parking reduction, 20%, or 55 spots. the second is a parking surcharge in perpetuity that would go toward st.s -- streetscaping. i will suggest a 1 mile radius. i am open to debate. this will be impacting that neighborhood, and i want to make sure the benefits impact that neighborhood specifically. the benefit to connecting the city to the waterfront -- this could help facilitate that. we talked about whether we could consider a private club to be a public benefit. i would argue that you cannot consider that a public benefit. we are able to address some of

the gap we have. it is a requirement in public schools that you pass a swim test. i would like to see that hammered out. golden day wait is a beneficiary of this deal. -- golden gateway is a beneficiary of this deal. i would like to see them put some skin in the game and offer their pool for public use as well. i will have more when it comes back to the full board. i understand a lot of what the members of the public have said on this project. i would not characterize this deal as generous. many of the benefits that we are talking about in this deal are

benefits that are mandated in order to build on this site. when we look at other luxury housing developments in this city, and our office and a lot of time looking at other benefits in district 6, whether it was the millennium -- but we can argue about whether the watermark is luxury or just market rate, or 1 rincon hill. what is being offered in this deal is fairly comparable with the watermark. with millennium, we built 20% off site. rincon hill was a very different deal, so it is hard to compare those. there are clear public benefits that came along with building that luxury. an unfortunate truth in the city is for us to do public benefits, whether it is open space