we believe it is not only necessary but it is, in fact, desirable, and that's it is compatible with the neighborhood. >> a lot of the public comment that we heard today from people that are opposing the project are concerns about the height and density. is there room with a lot -- within the project that you would be open to consideration of luring your heights. >> that goes to what i was making about the change, and the entity that is a thinking would be very difficult for us at this point to redesign the project because a significant change would require us to go back to the planning commission, and i do not believe -- this project has been in the works for many, many years. it would be a significant delay. i do not think that it is something that the project could consider at this point, and i would hope that the board would not be urging this on in terms of what we have gone through in terms of redesign.

supervisor cohen: can you describe to me the relationship between the proposed sidewalk and this project? >> excuse me? supervisor cohen: can you describe to me the relationship between the proposed sidewalk and this project? >> it might help if i get you a visual. supervisor cohen: one thing i am looking at is whether there will be setbacks, the whip. maybe you can describe to experience the pedestrians are going to have walking along the sidewalk. >> yes. i am sorry. i am seeing if i can get some more a specific data for you. mr. -- do you have -- that i can borrow?

the architect appears out of nowhere. ok. >> hi. i am market, with a group on behalf of the project sponsor. the project needs the sidewalk in the way that the city planning code and our conversations with the planning department have encouraged, which is that it has relief and recess at the base. there are elements of the building which come directly down to the ground, directly adjacent to and in some cases behind those elements are active public-oriented uses, things like restaurants, cafes, and so forth. there is a great deal of transparency at the base of the building. it is about 60% to 75% glass, so the public can see into the building, and as i mentioned, there are moments of relief, where the sidewalk is wider at some places. at its minimum, it is 15 feet

wide, and as it turns south along washington street, it gets significantly wider to allow for dining, increase landscaped areas, and things of that sort. in general though, the face of the project is near the property line on some sides, and, again, in accordance with city policy to activate does sidewalks with public-serving uses. supervisor cohen: tonight, we have run amok from my colleagues about the type of housing. people are very sensitive to the conversations that happened between 1% and 99%, and i know you have elected to pay the applicable affordable housing fees, as you mentioned earlier today, and maybe you can elaborate a little bit on why you choose an on-site option as

opposed to -- excuse me. to choose this over inclusionary housing. >> mary murphy. this project, the code of ford's the project sponsor an election on these matters, and as a matter of public policy, this board has considered these issues in terms of what is an appropriate way. this is why these afford these elections so that you can be flexible with respect to what is the best way to treated at the time the project comes forward. i would not propose to speak for the city, but i do believe in this time in particular, given the demise of redevelopment agencies at this moment in particular, having actual cash available for a housing fund

that can be used and could have a multiplier effect to use other tax credits and other available sources of funds to make the most out of that money, i would presume that would be a better option for the city, but with respect to this project as well, it is an election we decided to make because we thought it was in the best interests of this project. we think it is in the best interests of the city in that it gives us money at a time that is really in quite dire need of affordable housing funds, as i understand it. as we have heard, i think this project has chosen to try to respond to some of these concerns by putting in a little benefits by adding more on that, more as is required by the code. >> one last final question, mr. president and mr. murphy -- supervisor cohen: one last

question. it is the subject to local hire rules? >> all in the city are subject to it, and it is a condition of approval for the conditional use. we will be compliant with that. supervisor cohen: that is not local hire? >> chapter 83, and this applies to projects like this. local hire is under another one, and i see supervisor campos' ear pick up. these are applicable to public improvement projects, and this would not be a public improvement project, so it will be subject to a chapter 83 under the code. supervisor cohen: so i assume that they and company are committed to participating fully to the one source hiring?

>> yes, and it is actually part of our conditions of approval of the project as well. supervisor cohen: thank you. president chiu: colleagues, other questions? >> ok. i wonder how much time i have at this juncture? secretary calvillo: you have a certain amount of time. >> ok. when the exchange involves. the figure before you is from the eir, and it shows exactly what the exchange and tails. eir also describes the criteria that the port, this board, and the state lands commission will all use in deciding whether to approve the exchange.

president chiu: can i ask a question on this point? it is able esoteric, but there was a question about whether it adequately define the areas subject to the public trust and references the fact that there are historical maps. entitlements historically which made that areas subject the public trust, which means that we are not swapping public trust land for non public trust lands, which is what we need to do in the public trust. can you address that? >> the state lands commission has determined the plan that would be acquired by the port is not public trust lands at this time. president chiu: so the maps do not exist? are wrong? >> i have not seen the historic maps. i do not know what they say. but we have investigated this and have found that they are not public trust lands. president chiu: ok, thank you. >> a couple of issues raised by

the appellants with the eir. they have stated that eir does not potentially address potential impacts associated with sea level rise. as was pointed out, that is incorrect. there is actually an entire chapter of the eir devoted to that issue. it is a fact with sea level rise, there is an increased flood risk, identified as a senator and risk. there is an argument that the eir not even address this issue based on a decision recently issued by the second district court of appeals with the wetlands, so arguably, this is not a ceqa issue, but nonetheless, the eir does address it. impacts related to construction. there is a discussion in the eir of the impacts associated with construction techniques that will be used at the site to insure a seismic stability and the need to potentially de-water the site during construction. when these things came up, a

very thorough responses were provided. it was based on a preliminary geotechnical study that has been provided. the final geotechnical report will have to be submitted and approved by the city, and this is in compliance with the first district court of appeal issue lashed year. president chiu: and again, this issue with the dump trucks, 20,000 dump trucks, one every two minutes, a claim not to be significant? what would be significant? what would your standard be? >> i am not a traffic engineer, so put an asterix next to what i am saying, but the number of dump trucks that would be required to haul away, and they actually increase the number that would be necessary, said this was a revision in the analysis and resulted in an increase in dump trucks. planning staff and traffic engineers then look at whether that increase in dump trucks

would result in significant traffic impact. planning staff was quite right. dump trucks represent roughly -- each dump truck trip is about double a car trip, double the impact on the roadways, so the issue was with that increase in traffic assisted with construction, would be more traffic than when it is actually built out. we did a study at buildout and it concludes there will not be significant traffic impacts. the construction related traffic is less than the traffic that will be generated at buildout. it is within the envelope of traffic that was analyzed and addressed in the eir and found not to be a significant impact. if the dump truck traffic was an excess of the amount of traffic that would be generated at buildout, then you might have the potential for a traffic impact and would have to do a further study to figure that out, but the analysis indicates it is not more traffic than at

buildout. it is less, and the eir concludes no significant traffic impacts. that is basically the analysis that staff performed, and that is what the analysis shows. it was looked at. with respect to the ferry building, the focus here has been on the availability of parking to serve the ferry building. there was actually a very thorough response provided to this issue but planning staff. it is in response is 1.16 and 1.27 of the response to the appeal. when this project is constructed, it will actually result in a net increase in the amount of parking available in the area to commercial uses, like the ferry building. there will be an increase in the reservoir of parking in the area as a result of this project. now, it is also true that during construction, seawall lot 351 will not be available, and the parking garage will not yet be

constructed, so there will be an interim loss of the 105 spaces, and so planning staff, when this issue came up, ask the question, will that result in a significant impact, the interim loss of those 105 corps.'s bases that are now available to the ferry building, and planning staff concluded that the answer is no, there is not a significant impact associated with that. there are contractual obligations. we are not going to get in the midst of the contractual debate about exactly what those commitments are. that is for them and report to work out. the court indicated that they would be worked out so that adequate parking would be available during this and from construction period. all over the long haul, there is no question. this project helps the parking for this very building by increasing the reservoir. president chiu: could you address this risk if this does not get resolved is it does seem

a little odd that you have two parties that your client has not interacted with to resolve a major appeal and a lawsuit based on the parking agreement between those three, including the port? >> it is not a ceqa issue. there are not significant impacts with the parking situation. the argument is if there is a temporary lack of availability of parking for the ferry building that that was somehow create downward spiral leading to urban decay. there is absolutely no evidence that that might happen, and i submit that that is really a stretch, given how vibrant the ferry building is. now, on behalf of the sponsor, we absolutely hope the porch and the other work out their issues and that they are so invited -- satisfied with the parking provided to them. we do know over the long haul after the project is built, there will be more parking available for commercial uses.

we will be building it. president chiu: and i am jointly sharing your time on this. and legal issue and how it will be resolved? >> there has been discussion at staff level and preliminary discussions, but there certainly have been no conclusive discussions. as i mentioned before, the parking conditions in the area have changed. they have changed dramatically, and we had been reserving this issue until we knew when construction was going to be occurring. president chiu: thank you. >> the eir indicates there will be an adequate reservoir of parking available. it is just a question over what is going to be reserved for the ferry building. the parking exists. it is just a matter of securing it. again, it is not a ceqa issue. it is a practical issue that needs to be worked out.

i will not go into detail on the cumulative impacts. so that the cumulative effects will be addressed. they did look at a broad range of alternatives. a total of five alternatives were looked at, and as was indicated, the aim was to look at different potential configurations on the site in the event that the city ultimately did not approve a re- zone or that the situations with the seawall more different.

the significant and unavoidable effects are intrinsic to any development on this side. they relate to the potential for flooding in the event of sea level rise, and they relate to a cumulative traffic impact at the intersection of the embarcadero and washington street. not by virtue of this project but by virtue of some recommendations that were made in the northeastern embarcaderos steady to narrow washington street and eliminates some lanes. do we know that is going to happen? no, we do not, but if it does happen, there will be significant impacts associated with that in the future, and there are also some impacts associated and tenants, which are a byproduct of the fact that there are diesel engines rumbling through the city. this is nothing unique to this side. this is just something that is part and parcel with urban development. eir consider whether there were

alternative developments and concluded that none were feasible. ballpoint of the alternatives analysis is to inform our decision making, and this certainly does that. finally, with respect to recirculation, there is a claim that somehow the project involved in a way that deprive the public of comment. this has had to deal with the project described in the eir included four tennis courts, and the project as proposed today does not include tennis courts. the legal issue under one section of ceqa and under the heights decision that established this is whether the elimination of those four tennis courts resulted in a new signal an impact that had not been previously disclosed, and the eir is specifically clear about that. nope. the project evolved.

those tennis courts were eliminated but not in a way that gave rise to recreational impact, so staff is correct. we circulation is not needed under that section. so with that, we would be happy to answer any questions you may have, and we appreciate your time and patience, and thank you very much. we ask for your support. president chiu: colleagues, any further questions? bucket, at this time, why do we not move to public comment, going to those who support the project sponsor. i have a bunch of cards. let me read these. [reading names] if you could please line up on the right-hand side. >> good evening, supervisors. david with the local 261.

i am not here to threaten this body about moving out of the city if this project or the eir gets approved or not. i am also not here to threaten this body by stating that myself along with the membership that i represent votes in the city and county, which we do. i am here to speak on jobs. we are the laborers. we are the lowest paid craft. therefore we are the working poor. and i mention that because somebody mentioned or stated that -- they were questioning who are the families for eight washington. i will tell you who are the families for eight washington. the families for eight washington are the people that are waiting at home depending on

our members to go to work and bring home the paycheck and preserve the residency in san francisco, to put clothing on their backs and a roof over their head and basic necessities, such as food. so i am here to strongly encourage you to approve this eir and move this project forward. thank you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> supervisors, on behalf of some in san francisco, thank you for hearing us. you see all the members we have you. all of these guys are going to wake up at 5:00, 6:00, 7:00 to go to work. we need the work, so i urge you

to support this project. this means a lot for us to keep san francisco going. thank you. >> good evening, supervisors. my name is kevin, and i live with my wife and son near aquatic park. growing up, we cannot afford to join a country club membership, so i consider myself to be quite fortunate to now be a member of the golden gate swim club. it is amazing that they say this practice is for the 1%. it is a private tennis and swim club. it cost me an arm and a leg to join, and i paid over $300 per month. here is my latest bill, which i realize it just went to a $20. they spread rumors that the club is going away. it is my understanding that renovation of the club as always been a significant part of a washington.

in fact, it will be improved, and it will better serve swimmers like me you have to wait for a swim lane and deal with outdated lockers under essentially in a high rise with no lockers. -- no windows. members of the opposition, $2.60 million. this is one example. the truth is, this will give back 30 times the amount of public space than currently exists. does that mean we have to lose some private tennis courts? yes. i respectfully ask you to uphold the planning commission's support for this project. president chiu: next speaker. >> supervisor, the building and trades council. the gentleman referred to a planning process back in the first part of the 1990's.

that began when the embarcadero freeway in them. it took several years and involved a number of stakeholders, including the telegraph hill people. it recommended a mixed use development that combined see what -- seawall lot 351 and the golden gate side. u.s. is seen at the time that it recommended that the tennis courts go away. otherwise, there would of been a possibility of combining the sides. you have heard all kinds of bemoaning how planning has been ignored and how the heights are a problem, but the planning process at the time is being ignored by the very people who were doing the complaint. that is one thing important to point out. some of the arguments you ever, although you will not. up front, how does this serve the city? some of the arguments of talked about the difficulty of building. it was done and the embarcadero

center. the city itself did so successfully on the muni metro. this is not an unexpected challenge and is one we can deal with. we have also heard a great deal of issues about housing. this project will displace no one. this project will not gentrify a poor neighborhood. this project will not push african-americans out of san francisco. this project will not turn rent- controlled housing into temporary hotel units, and there are a host of other things that go on if i had more time, but i will ask you to reject the appeal of the conditional use permit and allow the project to go forward. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> hello, supervisors. my name is tony rodriguez, and i

am with a local. i have lived incidences, and all life and have been able to enjoy it. i have been able to enjoy the whole city, and i always thought i had a say in the city, not just where i grew up where i now live, in bernal heights. i always thought what is good for the whole is better than what is good for a select few, and you public servants have heard and received a lot of information on eight washington, and i would ask you to ask yourselves what is better for the city as a whole? jobs, tax revenue, money for affordable housing, a much nicer in bardera that everyone can enjoy, or to listen to a select few naysayers who advocate for no change or to keep waiting for something different that never comes, and as you to consider this. to improve is to change. thank you. >> good evening, supervisors.

tim on behalf of the housing action coalition, and we should first commend the staff for the excellent her roadwork and adam dunn in shepherding this proposal. they had done the city proud. for years, we have maintained that ceqa is broken and that it is a huge obstacle in addressing the environmental changes, but it is rare that we see as spectacular an example of the ceqa dysfunction as what is before you today. despite all the rhetoric, what is before you is a simple question, what should become of seawall lot 351, some of the most valuable land? should be changed or put into a parking lot? some have used the topsy turvy lot of ceqa logic that this is such a core environmental choice that the land should instead be preserved as a surface parking lot. our friends believe that any change to the adjacent swimming and tennis club is unacceptable,

so serving as a parking lot is environmentally superior option. the good folks who own a nifty parking business on this land believe that the project threatens parking and the use of cars. in fact, their appeal mentions their threat, which tells us all about their environmental priorities that we need to know, and boston properties, believing that the eight washington project threatens views of their offices have therefore decided that a waterfront parking lot is wiser land use. the two questions you have to decide is who gets to enjoy this highly visible public land and which use is the better outcome for the environment. we implore you to choose the environmental option that benefits the entire city and not just the privileged few, and i cannot emphasize strongly enough that a project that provides $11 million in funding for housing affordability in this city. thank you.

>> good evening. my name is dave. we are a nonprofit that operates the ferry plaza farmers' market at the ferry building. an institution which as been referred to quite a few times this evening. in my capacity tonight, i'm representing my board, my staff, and my 120 small businesses who rely on our marketplace for a significant portion of their revenue. we believe that the eight washington project is an example of the best use of the site and works well to well stabilize the residential and commercial character of the neighborhood and that the eir addresses the concerns. this project transforms this space from a surface parking lot and clubbed into immokalee residents, new customers, and creates more active in the public space for our shoppers, visitors,