as part of this project, underground parking facilities, including no less than 175 public parking spaces, a widening walkway, a distinctive waterfront design and presence, and a destination that appears to residents of san francisco and the bay, as well as visitors to outside the region. removal of the only curb cut on the inland side of the embarcadero between king and base streets, and a design that complements the national historic district. today's hearing is a major step forward in the continuing process of transforming the waterfront to the vision of the waterfront land use plan. the benefits of having this active new use on the waterfront will be enjoyed by many generations by residents and visitors alike. additionally, the product will generate stable and new revenues to the city and the region and pork. should you prove the product

before you today, the following additional approvals must be obtained before the port will convey the transaction documents and before construction can proceed. these include state plan's approval of the trust's exchange agreement, approval by the board of supervisors of the lease, purchase and sale agreement, exchange agreement, made this agreement, the issuance of building permits that allows construction to permit. beginning with the 2008 request for proposals, on the poor, working with this development partner, the city, regulatory agencies, and numerous stakeholders, has diligently pursued and shepherded the development of seawall lot 351. because of the importance of this site to the port and city, agreements before the port commission and public contained particular provisions to ensure excellence and integrity of design, construction, and management are part of it for this highly valuable location. through the provision of market

break and affordable housing, knew parks, expanded open space, retail, and inappropriate amount of on-site parking, seawall lot 351 project completes the vision for the ferry building waterfront area carefully delineated in a plan in the waterfront land use plan and so well expressed by the public- private investments of recent years at the ferry building, pier 1, pierce one-and-a-half, 5, 7, and a marketer roadway. it is a greater respect for these republicans. park staff respectfully requests that you adopt the ceqa findings before you, that you adopt the mitigation and improvement measures and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and finally that you approve the transaction documents and a schematic drawings and has it has been a privilege to serve as project manager on this project and i would like to take a moment to recognize the many dedicated people that have -- i have had a

plan to work with, posturing and nurturing the vision for seawall lot 351, from port staff director moyer, byron rhett, diane, brad benson, and catherine. collectively and tirelessly have shaped this project. from city planning, director ram, bill, kevin, paul, have been outstanding professional colleagues. from the recreation and parks department, lisa beyer, explain the nuances of shadow balances. then there is our development partners, san francisco waterfront partners led by simon and alicia, and their pets standing team. thank you for your consideration of this proposal before you today. i am available to answer any

questions you might have. >> thank you. can i have a motion to approve? >> so moved. >> public comment? we do have quite a bit of public comment. jon casey. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is john casey. i am a long-term resident of san francisco, although i am not a native. i am here to support 8 washington, because of the many public benefits it offers. earlier this month, i sat through the supervisors hearing. i arrive promptly at 1:30

expecting to be out of their at maybe 3:00 -- we will be out of there at 5:00. and then at 8:00 -- finally, it ended after midnight. fortunately, we kind of got what we wanted. but i wanted to say, listening to so many things -- i am not a young man. i listened to so many people who objected to this project, due to the fact that their health was not good, the swimming pool was there, the tennis courts were their and their arthritis would be helped -- on and on. i thought, we have got to look at the good of the city here. having lived here all these years, thank goodness the embarcadero freeway is gone. union square has been rebuilt the beautifully. stuart streets. all these things have happened over the objections of many

people. one thing that did not change was the building of the cable car -- rebuilding of the cable cars. gentlemen, this is not a cable car proposal. simply, the children who we have talked about, we have been told have the opportunity to go to day camp there at $100 a day right now, or you can be a member of the club for $5,000. maybe that is not true. anyway, the port will receive $100 million here. there will be a bigger and better outdoor pool and a new fed is building. >> richard. >> can we just ask that

whoever's lord keeps going off that you turn it off? >> thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the 8 washington project. i have been a member of the athletic club for quite some time. i have used the tennis courts but i'm speaking for the project. i also have a law office close to pier 31, but i am too lazy to walk. i use that parking lot that is currently open to the public. so i have a stake in the current position of the status quo, and what changes might be made. it appears to me, based on what i have seen and heard, the proposal about the specific waterfront partners and port is a vast improvement over the parking lots and tennis courts that now occupy the site. based on the work of this same

team -- and this side has been virtually the same for the last 40 years -- the question is, will it stand for another 40 years, as it is now in its current devolving state? based on the work of the same team across the street, i do not see it is much of a question about the kind of product they can and have produced to introduce a certain quality to the street. as the port staff has concluded, there are a substantial amount of funds that will be brought to the port and city, money that can be used to help other products on the waterfront. the opponents spin on this project has been that it is just for the 1%. the implication is that the status quo has been for the underprivileged. this is hardly the case. you have just heard some indication about that.

the current situation is a private tennis court, a private parking, -- i would just end as johnnie cochran might. the status quo have to go. >> thank you. after paul, alan mark. >> i am just a major that -- neighbor that lives along the waterfront that became interested in this about a year- and-a-half ago. i have attended a number of these sessions. i was very open-minded and remain so, but i do believe 8 washington is the right project, this is the right time, and we are stepping all over each other. we need to move forward with this. this is a good project for the city of san francisco. thank you. >> after alan mark, danny campbell. >> thank you, commissioners. i am a key part of the business

focusing research on residential housing in san francisco. right now, the drop in four states -- new for sale housing has been 70% since the peak in 2007. by the end of the year, the drop will be 80%. first quarter next year, up to 90%. the great thing about this is that it offers a lot of benefits, but the salient benefits are, one, a brand-new park, two, no maintenance costs, three, $11 million toward affordable housing, and we know there is no redevelopment agency. and number four, really, the dilemma of the parking building. the staff has been planning for decades for the use of the waterfront.

i think this project represents what has been intended and what was in mind. it would be a benefit -- an asset to the waterfront. it i strongly years the commissioners to support this, as i do. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. danny campbell, sheet metal workers. as i said before the board of supervisors. it was a great benefit to this city. on behalf of the sheet metal

workers union, thank you. >> thank you. >> my name is janet. i am a bay area native and an 18-year president of san francisco. i have spoken at meetings and britain -- and written on letters. i asked my statement be made as part of the public record today. we have tried to explain to you that there are numerous reasons why the proposal is not in keeping with the cohesive vision of our unique and world famous waterfront area. we have explained how it will ruin an important and close-knit san francisco neighborhood and destroy the recreational community and its assets. a parking garages is not what a transit reached the city needs.

-- a transit-rich city needs. the public has spoken loud and clear, but no one seems to be listening. we have tried to explain how there are alternatives that have no devastating impact on the area. we have explained why an exclusive and averages expensive residential housing does not comply with the public trust. you do not listen. we do not believe this is a good idea when you look at the details. it is illusory and much of the details have yet to be explained. but you do not listen. our lawyers have tried to explain how this proposal breaks past promises to the seasons of san francisco and why it should not be approved, but again, people do not listen. we have come to one conclusion, rather than engage in one more meeting and waste our breath

where we speak and no one listens to my speak on behalf of f.o.g. and those who stand up and walkout and conserve our energy and strength in the next battle. please know that we are steadfast and have plenty of fight left to try to save the beautiful northern waterfront area before it is too late. thank you. >> marion wallace and after that korean woods. -- corrine woods. >> i am in over 30-year resident of san francisco. i am against the proposal. it it seems especially important to increase the height limit at the waterfront in -- imprudent to increase the height limit at the waterfront in san francisco. once you do, it seems another

excuse to have an even taller development. this is dangerous for the waterfront. it also seems dangerous to plan and on land garage fell at the waterfront. that seems insane. how do they plan to uphold their agreements? what if it dissolves? there are already other opportunities in san francisco where the rent is too high and add that these trends are going to be too high, too. please come and vote against it. >> corrinne, and afterward, toby line -- levine. >> i have followed this project since the beginning. i went to every single community meeting on the northeast

waterfront planning study. it is a tremendous project. the developer has done an excellent job of rethinking it in every way that needed to be done all the way along. let's move it forward. thank you. >> after tobey, michael mckenna. sorry, i think it toby is first. >> good afternoon, commissioners. once again, i am tobey levine. i'm very tired planning commissioner and during that time, i was also on the waterfront land use advisory board. during that time, we spent six years developing proposition "h" mandate to plan the waterfront.

the plan was finally developed -- adopted by your commission in 1977. subsequently, advisory groups were established throughout the waterfront. i am currently the co-chair of the central waterfront advisory group. a lightcorrinne -- like corrinne, i have been following this project for years. it it seems like it is going to be a significant project for the port and it will be a beautiful addition to the waterfront. it does conform very readily with the land use plan. i have listed for you the public benefits, which people have been talking about appeared before me, the most important public benefit is the one that has to do with reuniting this city with the waterfront, that is, opening

up those streets that have been blocked and inviting people to come to the waterfront. this is something that was foreseen in the waterfront plan, and hopefully, can now be implemented. in so far as the heights are concerned, i think a very balanced approach has been taken with the beauty and balancing height throughout the project. -- in using the p u d and balancing height throughout the project. the waterfront will not be blocked. at the same time, the new -- the developer has contracted with a masterful and graceful architect, and they will benefit as for many years to come. thank you very much. please come and vote for all of the amendments that you need to

vote for today. >> thank you. >> tecate -- good afternoon, commissioners. my name is michael mckenna. i represent 2500 members working year in san francisco. i am also a native san franciscan. i began my career on the waterfront in the ship-repair industry. the changes i obscene -- i have seen in the last 25 to 30 years with the rebuilding of the freeway, the rebuilding of the ferry terminal, the development of south beach -- those were not communities until they were built. i have seen this project and what it through various stages of planning and boards of supervisors. to me, it seems like a great project. it seems like the height limits

addresses the existing height of the golden gateway towers, which began at the height limits in the first place because of the way they were built. and transitioned it down in the way that the golden gateway and commons and to add parking and access to the waterfront, it seems to me the best project in use for the areas that were made available from the freeway. and to have surface parking lot dotted along the waterfront is a detriment to what can happen here with the waterfront. i urge you to move this project forward and thank you for your time. >> after michael, dick glooma. >> good afternoon. in looking at this commission,

to my recollection, the only commissioner that has been a year from the beginning is commissioner lazarus. were you hear from the very start also? if anything, you came out afterwards because this has been going on for a long time. and i have been here from the beginning, too, talking on behalf of the project. i'm sure you have had the environmental impact report dropped on your desk and that had a chance to examine it. you know the planning commission has approved it and the board of supervisors has approved it and i asked you to approve it also appeared -- it also. you know this project is good for the city and for the port. it brings as long needed revenue. it excludes a nobody from the city. it brings affordable housing to the city. it actually provides an alternative that might prevent

displacement of neighborhoods by getting rich folks to buy here -- a place to buy here on the waterfront. it is time to approve the project. thank you. >> dick gloomack. if he is not here, that we move to shea emily. and after that, cameron steel. >> good afternoon. i'm here on behalf of equity office properties. for 10 years, eop has been restored of the building and has been dedicated to the waterfront. when eop entered into the release for the ferry building, it entered into a parking agreement, parking dedicated to

patrons now on lot fief -- 351. 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. time. i hope that is not the case.