certainly would not be unusual for the board to change the reflection of what s there. i presume it s around 45 feet. from your perspective the department would be okay with that if that would happen? absolutely. okay. you are saying because the redevelopment plan expired years ago and because we didn t know that here at the board of supervisors, we wouldn t have known to protect whats the height limit at that time. it popped up and that is what gave your department the justification for the recommendations that you made three 3 years ago that we up zone this site from 84 feet by 60 percent. too tower limit that exceeded the height limit was adjacent to the building. that was adjacent to the building was less than 45 feet in height. we referred to the existing zoning limit was 275, but the actual project proposed conformed with the overall massing of that district. the taller building was adjacent to the 275 -foot tower and the lower buildings. i understand from one d
golden gate commons, they incorporated the land from the tennis and swim club as part of the project. i have the plans that i don t know if anyone has really looked at since the planning department found the files for me a couple months ago. the plans for a conditional use and pud. they all have exhibit a plans, every single one of them and that is a definition of what you do. and so you have to look at the plans as well as the resolution to find out what they did. and the plans that are here and i have copies for the committee that i can pass out include the site of the tennis and swim club as part of the project. the recitals of full saying that we are not providing the typical amount of open space on the site because they were using the open space that is provided to the east to embarcadero and golden gate way. the plans that were approved are very confusing. they are really long. the plans that were approved as a condition of the golden gate way commons including the swim
we referred to the existing zoning limit was 275, but the actual project proposed conformed with the overall massing of that district. the taller building was adjacent to the 275 -foot tower and the lower buildings. i understand from one direction it was 275. what i m trying to point out and what was pointed out by these documents is the height would have been accurate it would have been more like 40 feet, so it would have been a different argument coming from a different direction. yeah. all i m saying that adjacent to the 45 -foot building, the proposed development was less than 45 feet. okay. i appreciate your perspective on this, we will keep working through this. with that, what i would like to do madam chair if we can go to public comment. i would first like to recognize if it s okay unless there are other comments that city staffers would like to make to recognize sue hester to speak as to the documents she has found. if there are other members who would like to
that is something that is still in effect. it erroneously shows this is 275, but more importantly they said how you analyze projects is you analyze them from the northwest coming down to the water front. you don t analyze them from the financial district. that is really important because the planning department when it looked at the heights and washed it and looking from the financial district, it was everything done contemporaneously from the height limit. the second thing that happened was golden gate way 3 was golden gate way commons. it s south north of jackson street. and when they were looking at golden gate commons, they incorporated the land from the tennis and swim club as part of the project. i have the plans that i don t know if anyone has really looked at since the planning department found the files for me a couple months ago. the plans for a conditional use and pud. they all have exhibit a plans, every single one of them and that is a definition of what you do.
inadvertent zoning. there are a number of plans that have expired recently because the plans were put in place in the 70s. the western addition, yerba buena, embarcadero, there are several that have expired. it might be helpful. in fact i would like to ask if you can give our office a summary of those plans and what accidental up zoning we might see with the expiration of those plans. so given what has happened is it your department s perspective that the height limit is 275 or should it be 84 or 40? i think, it seems to me that golden gate commons with the exception of the site along embarcadero, it certainly would not be unusual for the board to change the reflection of what s there. i presume it s around 45 feet. from your perspective the department would be okay with that if that would happen? absolutely. okay. you are saying because the redevelopment plan expired years ago and because we didn t know that here at the board of supervisors, we wouldn t have know