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 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. pid