the waterfront development is inconsistent with that covenant. a cabinet reserving 90 spaces for waterfront visitors were not satisfied -- satisfy the agreement. further, the project as currently proposed does not make any provision for temporary replacement parking during construction. course that did not meet with eop to discuss these matters until last week, and there's still no proposed that will -- proposal that would meet the city's long-term obligations under the parking agreement. it is discouraging this has remained unresolved for this long. for these reasons, the ferry building cannot support the project as proposed. it violates the eop rights under the parking agreement and is

premature for this commission to approve the project as currently proposed, until the city's obligations to provide the eop adequate parking are legally bound into the project. there is nothing in this project so important to warrant the breach -- the city's breach of the parking agreement. >> cameron. >> i'm actually here to read a letter on behalf of will travis. after spending 16 years as the executive director of the san francisco prompt -- conservation and development commission, i offer my unqualified support for the proposed project located on seawall lot 351. i will stress the role it will play in san francisco -- in

making san francisco's embarcadero a truly world-class boulevard. the waterfront today is remarkably different from what it was two decades ago, in large part because the city and the port and the cbc -- bcbd have been working together on this. the result is a historic piers along the embarcadero. some parts of the embarcadero have complementary structures. in other spots, chain-link fences and other nondescript structures are along the boulevard. this project will replace one of these with a beautiful structure that will provide exciting open public spaces at the foot of market street.

however imperfect current conditions may be, we have learned to live with them. on the other hand, change is measured not by its benefits, but it's possible flaws. whatever flaws in the embarcadero project has, if there are any, it will still replace a design blemish with architectural and -- architectural beauty. >> next speaker, please. and then veronica sanchez. and after that, nicklaus and o'neill. .wra sanchez speaking on behalf of the in lead buckman tuning -- and let boatmen's union.

you have seen me here many times in the course of this process for this project. even though our unions, the crews on the ferries -- and our interest is what happens on the waterfront -- we care about this project very much because it is the linchpin for phase two of the development of the downtown ferry terminal. we have spent a lot of resourced and interest trying to get the $20 million to get this project going. we will have to attract more state resources to get the ferrie project going. we need more docks for the new routes that will come on line for treasure island development and for emergency response. the project is the linchpin

because it provides the parking that will be needed for replace them parking, which is going to be lost from the project development and removal of the agricultural building. i ask for your continued support of this project and i ask for your vote on it. i hope we can finally get those docks going and use the scarce state resources finally for this project. >> thank you. niclas o'neill and then after that catherine o'neill. gregg's good afternoon, commissioners. i am an immigrant -- >> good afternoon. i'm an immigrant to america. a proud citizen. i'm sure you've heard the line, "paved paradise to put up a parking lot." i'm sure you are also familiar

with the film "chinatown" and the corruption in politics and how l.a. was built on it. it seems disturbing to see a similar process taking place in san francisco. i had dinner with a developer, a much larger developer than our gentleman here, in january of this year, who assured me that this was a dandy appeared in had not gone to the board of supervisors. -- a done deal. it had not gone to the board of supervisors. he said, forget about it. there's someone in chinatown that has the board of supervisors in her pocket. he did not say that she has the port in her pocket. but he said it was a done deal and we were all wasting our time. i hope that is not the case. this seems to be the last chance, last stop to prevent such a farce from taking place. it reminds me, i guess, on a

smaller scale of how in the last century, the 20th century, in venice, italy, they intended to leave enough canals so as to allow cars into the city of venice. i'm not suggesting this compares to that city, but the principle is contained. that is it. i would urge you not to vote to approve this project. i would also like to support some of the last things said about the very dodgy presentation in terms of parking. thank you. gregg's next step -- >> next speaker, please. after that, man mcguire. >> hello, my name is emse

isesme. me and my twin sister, who is actually at the pool right now with my mom, swimming, we have been learning to swim there since great months old. -- eight months old. it would be like closing down my home. i would like -- i would really like to not have that happen. i'm very much against this. thank you. >> thank you. and after nan, tim. but that is a hard act to follow. -- >> that is a hard act to follow. good afternoon, commissioners. i will approach this from a

slightly different angle. i have come to port commission hearings over the years and i'm always hearing about revenue. i think one of the reasons the port is having a real problem generating revenue is a very bad decision made in the '60s by the then mayor and his administration. a lot of people like mayor abierto because he was a nice guy. -- mayor al lioto because he was a nice guy. he made a bad decision that affected the operation of the port for over 50 years. you are about to make a decision and i have often heard that the deck is stacked and it is going to affect the city in a very, very bad way. and it is going to be your legacy.

i know you would like to have a nice legacy for the work you have done, and i'm sure you have done a lot of good work. but the city is headed in the direction of a city that welcomes in the super wealthy and the very low income. the middle class is being squeezed out. these units, 134, are going from $3 million to $10 million, it is obscene. i have been told by a fairly reliable source that the developer will make a profit between two hundred million dollars and $300 million. think about your legacy and what this really means to the city of san francisco. >> the next one after tim is wendy. >> tim on behalf of the san

francisco housing coalition. we have been coming to meetings on this for six years. in spite of the weeks of overheated rhetoric, what is before you is a very simple land use question. it should seawall lot 3 havret 51 be put into mixed -- 351 be put into mixed development as proposed, or should it be a parking lot? it is regrettable that ceqa is being misapplies -- misapplied and misused tuesday that a surplus parking lot is a higher environmental used and what is being proposed by this project. from our perspective, the $11 million in lieu of fee payment for affordable housing is highly unusual and is a lot of money. that can be leveraged two or three times, four times, to

subsidize housing at a time when affordable housing is collapsing. what is before you is whether to choose a land use that brings enormous physical and financial benefits to the entire city that this project as, do that or preserve a parking lot for the benefit of a privileged few? after many years of going through the process, it is time to move forward and choose right before the city. >> thank you. after wendy is brad. >> my name is wendy lesser and i work for sotheby's. i am also a mother here with my family. i support development and building all over the city. we have a limited resource here and we have such limited housing and inventory that i think the highest and best use for this area would be the project.

i also work on the port project that was very successful and it continues to thrive as a community. i am determined to keep my family here and my little boys are going to be enjoying the pool this summer. if we have to pull back and go to another pool for two years and go to another city, we're all for that. >> thank you. after brad, janine. >> good afternoon. i represent construction and development. i want to reiterate a couple of points that have been made that i truly believe from the standpoint that the opposition has had years to disclose and express their concerns and i

think the developer has responded in a way that considers and creates a project that is approvable. the challenges to the eir based on the open ended steady have been addressed. i think it is now established the project -- it has now is that the project as a good project, that will be of benefit to the city of san francisco as well. i'm speaking as a developer and standing up at a time that not too many developers are standing up for this kind of housing. by doing this, we are proving that we are still in business, and i welcome that. thank you for your time. >> thank you. after jeanine, dr. wong.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is johnny moss and i'm an architect -- jenny moss and i'm an architect in downtown san francisco. i am pleased to be here on behalf of the many individuals who have worked effortlessly for years to support the thoughtful development of the waterfront communities. without provocation, i am in favor of the project and encourage your unanimous support. there is no doubt this project represents sound planning principles, historic sensitivity, acknowledgment of open space requirements and connect to be with neighborhoods and the other parts of the city. at the end of the day, this project supports what many cities search for, particularly

san francisco, a template for creation of extraordinary experiences at the waterfront tempered by thoughtful guidelines regarding site design, building massing, and pedestrian access. to be sure, a tennis club and asphalt parking lot surrounded by green netting do not belong on san francisco's beautiful embarcadero. residents and visitors alike deserve the opportunity to find new and repurchased uses for the fabric. the waters that badge needs to continue with dignity and grace. -- the water's edge needs to continue with dignity and grace. two residential buildings now step back from the embarcadero with the views to the waterfront with the urban fabric preserved.

let's not forget that many units of subsidized affordable housing funded at offsite as part of this project. this project should be approved. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm a san francisco resident for many years and i am also an architect and have part submitted in the design and have several years. the public and many giveback of this project is great. it is preserving true open public space, which is really the public from an odd. we're talking about spaces that people can actually walk into.

there are no fees associated. it is public playgrounds for everybody. the club is not the going anywhere. the pools will the remaining. i have seen in the many years, many comments for the pub -- from the public asking for reinforcements to the sidewalk, asking about security issues, asking for things that will actually support families and middle income families. which is public playground -- that was one of the comments that came from my committee comments. i'm happy it got retain into the project. others comments about relocating, massing, and appropriate massing, we always forget -- i actually think this

project is under massed because i think we have to support an appropriate amount of density developing here. i think it is very appropriate. i think even a floor or two is very appropriate. i also hear comments about not providing residences for middle families, but the amount of money that we are getting will appropriately find more affordable housing units elsewhere in the city where it is more appropriate. i urge you to support this project. >> i was outside when this walk- out happened. unfortunately, i could not walk out with them, so you are stuck here in my comments. this port is totally

disrespected by the community. the fact they had to walk out says it all. all you have heard from is one special interest after another. it is embarrassing. i am embarrassed for my home town, like the last speaker -- before my home town. like the last speaker, some platitudes and some specifics. the height reason alone is enough to oppose this project. it is too high. you know the people of san francisco do not want their waterfront overbuild. -- overbuilt. i would also question storefronts. you have a bunch of empty storefronts along the street. is that what you want, like, down at the clancy? -- bill antti -- delancey?

i would like you to explain it but -- the store fronts. just like the chicken and the hagge, who will locate a store on that street over there? -- the chicken and the egg, who will locate a store on that street over there? which comes first? are you activating the stores with the street, or will the streets bring the merchants? i think you have a bunch of empty storefronts there, and that is not good. one of the reasons this commission is so does respected, you know, i cannot help but bring up what he did at rinkven park. you are completely ignoring the promises that he made to the public to abide by their wishes, by the cac wishes on the new extension at rincon park.

what can i say? you need to start getting some public credibility again and oppose this project. >> ok. trudy? no, the other way is better. we can move it up. >> thank you for your time. i have been asked to present this petition on behalf of a lot of waterfront merchants, including many of which are located here in the ferry building. many of them are busy, as you know. it is business hours right now, so they asked that i could read this. it says, please approve 8 washington. let's move forward by approving

a vibrant waterfront community with housing and restaurants and retail with parking. i will read quickly some of the businesses that have signed onto this. quis ceramics, pebble donuts, mcevoy meat co., farm fresh to you, stone olive oil, lamarck, pier 23, hotel the tiley -- hotel vitali. thank you. >> thank you. any further public comment?

>> ssu hester. it -- i am speaking on behalf of falk. in a widening of embarcadero, you are narrowing the sidewalk 1 ft. from what exists now. no one bothers to check these things, but we have measured it. it is being reduced along your site. this is one of the first project that has the level rise. you do not address who bears the financial burdens when the sea level rise happens in your parking garage. are you willing to have wiped out positions? who will lose in that one? the entire design of the recreation facility is up and -- up in the air, and this is the replacement of the tennis and swim club, but the resolution was approved by the planning

commission and says that it is to be deferred, the entire soy name -- swimming apparatus. no definition was given. you are proving a p u d after it has already been approved. and the commission said that it did not apply to the port property on all of recreation. what is on the overhead is the port site. that the new port property after the land swap. that is a swiss cheese, weird sight. that is the site that you are bargaining for. none of that is covered by the planning commission on open space, and it says it is not. it was inserted at the end. you have a pud that focuses on

open space that you as the commission to take out of the resolution on the conditions of open space, and you're not putting them back. i do not see how it can be approved after the fact in this case. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm jim chappell representing spurt, the san francisco planning and urban research association. we have almost 6000 members now. i think i have been to virtually every community meeting on this project. i urge the commission to adopt the ceqa findings and approve the required transactional documents today. there are tremendous benefits of this project to the port and to the city. 134 dwelling units, all $11 million for affordable housing, essentially the only source for funding for affordable housing

in this city today. and parks and retail and appropriate height limits, reopening pedestrian corridors to the bay. enormous revenue to the port and the city. and beautiful architectural design and a superb developer with a great track record. the port staff has negotiated a very favorable financial agreement for the port and for the city. it is a significant project for the port, and i urge you to vote for all of the approvals today. the debate has gone on far too long. >> any other further public comment? commissioners, comments, questions? >> i will comment. i would like to start out by saying, yes, this has been a long process. i think this may have been one of director moyer's first

development deals when she started and we held workshops to find out what the community wanted, what the concerns were, and we bedded all sides. it was apparent from the beginning that regarded -- we vetted all sides. it was apparent from the beginning that this would never be a perfect projects, but it has come a long way from the beginning of the many years. i feel comfortable supporting this project because of what is going to bring to the waterfront. i've parked at sea wall lot 351 every day. i know what's can be at that site, and to have someone bring this opportunity to rise and provide the parking that is needed, provide open space, provide a playground, provide affordable housing, provide all of these benefits, i support the project. i want to thank the staff. this is a really important

project. they have done a lot of work on this. thank you. >> commissioner lazarus? rex this is the second longest tenured commissioner here. -- >> this is the second longest tenured commissioner here. i would reiterate what she just said. and i will save it is good enough for will travis, it is good enough for me. >> there are a number of people whose opinions i respect. when you reach an agreement, you know it is good when everyone is upset -- is the old adage. everyone has weighed in and no one is completely happy with everything, so we have come to a good point. but i know a lot of staff time has been put into this to be very creative on how to -- how the park can benefit from this project. project. i am pleased that we will be i am pleased that we will be