fee benefiting the city today? i hear a lot of people talking about the benefit the private club is giving the city today. then i hear talk that a private club will not benefit the city in any way. the bureaucratic stall tactics and hurdles by the developers in the city create a stagnant and no-growth situation. parking has been discussed about parking for the ferry building plaza. it has been discussed about removing parking from the existing design because it does not need so much parking. how do these things balance out? the parking and unit costs all increase the costs overall, bringing in more tax revenue for the city, much needed tax revenue. the exchange of seawall lot 351

is an existing surface parking lot and a private club. we are exchanging an existing parking lot for a brand-new park just north of this new development in exchange for six tennis courts. a brand-new park for six parking lots -- for tennis courts or a parking lot underground. that is the exchange. raising more revenue through i f p's enter taxation and all of the benefits being given to developers of low-income units seems to be more of a benefit to the city and what is existing on the spot right now. i urge you to move forward with this and bring this before the rest of the board and continue to allow this project to move forward. thank you. >> good morning, good afternoon.

my name is john stewart of john stuart company. our company has been involved with the affordable housing maugre then i would like to remember, or can. i'm here to look at this project and it shows a benefit yielding 34 units. he will see the developers also upped the ante to $11 million. this translates into $323,000 per unit. how can that possibly comport with the number of 34 units at 25%? you should dismiss your director of the mayor's office of housing, which i do not recommend, because i think he is doing a good job. i think any moh executive will

be able to leverage more than that. you are spending $320,000 per unit, you are getting zero leverage on housing. what ever happened to the tax credit? they were usually covered in our deals from 30 persist -- 30% to 50% of the transaction. you would never agree to a project where you have that much money going in per unit. you are going to be able to provide affordable housing for something between $100,000 to $200,000 per unit, depending on whether the developer gets 4% credit for 9% credit per different programs. i have just talked to several people. b. will be able to provide -- you will be able to provide affordable housing at a much

lower rate. unless something is really wrong at moul. -- moh. you do not have 25% here. you have double that amount. i am on the housing trust fund committee that the mayor sent out. the cover is there. $11 million is a lot of sugar and we need it. chairperson chu: thank you. next set of speakers, please. correct good afternoon, supervisors. my name is maarten -- >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is marvin. our group is responsible for a number of projects along north beach. fraguli, the language arts project at the intersection of broadway and columbus.

-- particularly, the language arts project at the intersection of broadway and columbus, and the completion of the lighting project in washington square park. our main project is the rebuilding of columbus avenue to make it the boulevard it should be. all of these projects are working with other groups in this area to try to facilitate the successful completion of projects that we deem worthy. our group looks at 8 washington very welcarefully. the rev eight architects working on our board, including those working on the waterfront development plan since its inception going back 30 years and more after the collapse of the freeway on the embarcadero. we deem did very worthy we have identified a number of community organizations who are in favor of this project among feel it is a worthy addition to the city. we have not looked at the

numbers. that is really your job. when i was in business, which i did for a number of years, we would do a cost-benefit analysis. it is very simple. is it worth the endeavor to get into? there are tens of millions of dollars that are accruing to the city and to the port. i would urge you to fill out your obligations to be sure you squeeze every nickel out of the greedy developers involved here. and i would make -- i would urge you to make sure it that the greedy beggars on the four do not get any more than they deserve and that the city gets -- on the port do not get any more than they deserve and that the city gets as much as possible. but we would urge your support of the project. thank you. >> hi, brian brown again.

my executive summary would be very quick. it does not include a one forecast for jurisdiction. like the puc is to san francisco and like a wholesale is to the south bay, you cannot build the type of development. 8 washington fifth eminently into the category of buildings that must put -- fits eminently into the category buildings that must prove we have water. and we do not have that in san francisco. recently, the general manager came to you and said there were diversions and so on. that they could not meet their contractual obligations under the 2009 water agreement. that is an interesting agreement. between 1984 and approximately 2008, we used 86 million gal. of

water and the peninsula used 163 million gal. of water. this book, which is required by the water and management planning to mock the state says two hundred 39 million gal. per day. at that time, there was not as much attention paid to global warming. at this massive summit, which was negotiated in secret, a week before it was passed, they said they could supply two hundred 65 million gal. of water per day and they will give 800 -- 80 million gal. of water to san francisco. they were going to cut sbac from 86 million gal. of water from hetch hetchy to 78.

we do not have the water for this project. the main underpinnings of state required, reliable forecasts is the arab and water management plan. -- the urban water management plan. there are four sections, including section 610, which says that a builder says, if you do not have reliable water, you cannot build it. let's see, verification of sufficient supplies, senate bill two hundred. i say you cannot do this project unless you go back and do a proper availability forecast. it is illegal under state law. thank you. chairperson chu: thank you.

>> thank you, supervisors. and thanks for the care with which i've been listening to your comments this morning. particularly on the cisterns. i never knew the capacity existed because i'd never witnessed it before, to analyze things so carefully. i'm speaking on the transfer of public benefit of the $5 million from a list of public benefits. and in particular, the last public benefit, the sports center, as it is referred to. everything is fully documented that i have seen that has been presented. well, it is not all before you, as supervisor chiu pointed out, but everything is documented

except for the pool. to quantify a benefit -- to quantify the value of a benefit that is not documented seems to me to be an improper action. i asked you to consider that there are documents that show the court has an option for probably as many parking spaces as residents have. and while there is documentation on all of the other structures, it is mr. fu and not any of the parties to these proceedings, who is supposed to operate its recreational facility. and i have never heard mr. fu talk about it, but the only piece of paper that obligates him is generated by him and not accepted by anybody else. it sits in a file at planning and just said that mr. fu will operate this recreational facility for as long as he

chooses to. there should be no payment made to the developer or to anyone else until such time as we have the legal obligation on the part of mr. fu to run the facility. this has been overlooked. i brought it up over and over again. no one seems to want to take into consideration that the land that mr. fu islands as a result of this transaction should be restricted to recreation -- mr. fu owns as a result of this transaction should be restricted to recreational use. this is no more than a public club than the retail facilities surrounding it at the were perimeter. it is no more public and the homes that are being sold to the purchasers -- is no more public and the homes that are being sold to the purchasers

surrounding it. it is not as if the elected officers have any control over the membership. it is just a business. the college a club, but it is not a private club. -- they call it a club. but it is not a private club. >> my name is ernestine. this is a financially flawed proposal if i ever saw one on the waterfront. this has no relationship to affordable housing, which we need and must have. $11 million for a few units will not pay for the toilets in affordable housing units. it is peanuts. open space? we have a big part, a big open space next door.

there is no foot traffic on that part of the embarcadero, and there never will be. a condo will not supply it, because the absentee owners do not produce any money there but -- because they do not live there but one or two weeks a year. the violation of all the rules in the book to make the waterfront connected to the bay, that is going right down to the sidewalk. it is terrible because all of the other lots are set back. the reason all of the other behalf -- buildings behind it were built is because they were set back one block from the waterfront. putting another big building up next to my building is no more than a high-rise tenement. how would you like to buy a unit and look into your neighbor's windows? that is all they are going to see. it makes no sense at all. as far as that is concerned, you have an obsession with parking.

this place completed eight parking garages under the ferrie park building a years ago because it was not feasible near the waterfront. and if there is flooding there will have an evacuation program? give me a break. how will you evacuate raj three stories down? it would beat -- evacuate a car garage three stories down? it would be laughable if it was not so sad. it look around you. the transbay terminal will produce thousands of jobs. six surrounding buildings will go up around it, including condos. the giant lot 337, the warriors appeared 30 and 32 -- the warriors pier 30 and 32 will be

available the construction workers on these projects, they cannot even live in the city. please come reconsider and to the right thing. do not be bought out by all of these people that are just selfish and do not care about san francisco. do the right thing, but something more viable. we're not out to preserve a parking lot. we are out for good development and that is what we are therefore. [tone] chairperson chu: thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is steven. thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of the washington development. as a native san franciscan, i have witnessed over many decades the evolution of the embarcadero from a drag of the city blocks and years gone unused to one of the most vibrant areas. -- piers gone unused after one

of the most vibrant areas. the implementation of the plan at 8 washington will be a continuation of a necessary trend. the numbers you have before you concerning this project reflect substantial financial benefit in so many needed areas. total affordable housing fees, other impact fees and taxes, ifp funds come out court payments, of park lands for improvements and park minutes, and the underground parking garage and aquatics club. $145 million for the betterment of the city in so many ways. apart from the financial figures, the creation of badly needed jobs for local laborers and crafts people, the addition of reach of the element, and the adjoining park added to the

embarcadero is such a plus for this part of san francisco. i urge your support of 8 washington as a much-needed improvement to the underutilized parcel on the embarcadero. it has too much to offer not to be improved. thank you. >> my name is michael. i am with the construction and trades council. both the board and the city have -- both the port and the city each have their respective needs fact, both financially and other needs. but the port is an economic driver in this city still. certainly, not the economic driver it once was, but the economic record will be -- economic driver it will be.

it will produce jobs not just for us, but for others. well beyond the jobs projected from this individual project. the participation of the port and the city, their various participations are generically different. the city have granted additional hike in order to increase the amount of taxable property available to them. but the port is actually engaging in a land swap. that means a different structure of financing available to the port. it should be available to that port and to the city in this project. we ask you to allow it to go forward as quickly as possible with all possible advantage to the city and to the port, and to help us get back to work. thank you.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. i am a 46-year president -- resident of san francisco. i am entering consultant here in the day and in california and throughout the nation. -- here in the san francisco bay and in california and throughout the nation. i only hope that other ports could have a stunning developments proposed before them to address issues of public complaints and meeting the public trust. this financial proposal before you is a win/win/win for the city, the port, and the public community. the business model is the foundation -- the port business model is the foundation for the project. the structure provides support with the financial capability to

carry out its mandate under the public trust fund of state plans for environmental services, including environmental compliance and utility of rates. the public finance -- financial benefits overall, they are significant. particularly notable is the $24 million for parks and open space. i use the parks with my grandchildren and those are going to be wonderful. i spent a lot of time on the waterfront. the city is fortunate to have such a spirited and environmentally aware proposal that has a track record in other areas throughout the city. i urge your approval. thank you.

>> good afternoon. my name is stuard gains and this is the first time i've ever testified for anything in san francisco. excuse me for reading this. i am a club member, who will enjoy swimming in the new pools under consideration. but more broadly speaking, and happy to call myself a citizen of san francisco. if truly, san francisco is that in one of the great scene and harbors of the world, one that ranks with new york, sydney, hong kong, and rio de janeiro. i have visited all of the cities and i have in each case with is how they have transformed their waterfronts into vibrant working communities. in my opinion, san francisco is about half their. the embarcadero with the starting point in their transformational process. it created the link between downtown and fisherman's wharf. the renovation of the ferry building and the opening of its food shops was another important

milestone. the next step has to be the creation of a vibrant waterfront neighborhood. by that i mean, a place where people will live an acre this magnificent strip of land to the rest of the city. as someone who comes here almost every day of the week, it is easy to observe that the embarcadero is used by pedestrians, trolleys and drivers as a corridor to go from one place to another. 8 washington is the perfect place to get this essential building of community under way. it does this on two key levels. first and foremost, it will benefit the entire san francisco community. public benefits include a 12 million-dollar product and fitness center. a new public park. pedestrian links to the waterfront from the rest of the city and parking from the ferry building. second, it will become the vanguard of a community of people who live on the waterfront. that is the best and most valuable use of this property. isn't it about time that the embarcadero included doorways to come home to?

id and it's about time the embarcadero at places -- isn't it about time the embarcadero at places where people could stop and smell the roses? this is about people living along the most scenic and spectacular location. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is bill ferrie. i am a long-term cow hollow resident. i am a user of the waterfront and nine in favor of the 8 washington project. i think it is -- i am in favor of the 8 washington project. i think it is a good use of valuable land. it clearly has attractive financial benefits to the city and to the port, regardless of how the funding is divvied up between those two entities. over $10 million for affordable housing, more than twice that amount in direct fees and payments. the $50 million of ifd funds,

again, depending on the timeframe you choose. but substantial in any case. increased parking, and incremental tax revenue from businesses and residents, plus, badly needed jobs. in the context of a port operating budget at $90 million a year, this is significant revenue. it is money the port badly needs for waterford -- waterfront improvements. and in the context of the city budget, there never seems to be enough. if the city portion of these funds should make a meaningful difference. finally, it seems unlikely that there are alternative uses, that this land can generate these kinds of returns. and we do not have to wait for years and years to recognize

this revenue. i urge your approval of the project. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. -- chairperson chu: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i am the executive director of the san francisco labor council. we represent the tens of thousands of union members in san francisco, not just building construction trades workers, but teachers and firefighters and janitors and public maritime workers. i will say what i said to the full board of supervisors as i did to the land use committee on monday, that is, that we are behind this project and are urging you to move this forward. it is clear that the community benefits and the financing and what has been going on between the city and the developer have gone to very deep levels. and it looks like there is as much diligence done as can be

and the last details have been worked out. we in particular are very pleased with the movement that put -- the significant movement that has been made to make sure that the money goes into the general fund to make sure those needs are being taken care of. it was pleasing to see those take place. i'm asking this committee to move this forward asap. thank you. >> ♪ the budget ferrie ♪ crossed the port with mercy ♪ has the city is the city i love ♪ ♪ you are all gay ♪ and this building is not a bad impact ♪ ♪ why don't you make it better ♪ ♪ make the birds same budget ferrie, -- ♪ budget ferrie ♪ ♪ cross the port with mercy

♪ because this port is the place i love ♪ ♪ and make it better today ♪ because i know that building is not a bad thing ♪ ♪ and make it better and make this the birds seem ♪ ♪ -- sing ♪ ♪ port town ♪ where all the water is bright ports ♪ ♪ town but ♪ waiting for you tonight ♪ the budget money is waiting for you ♪ ♪ port town ♪ port town ♪ make it better for you ♪ water balloon -- blue ♪ ♪ port town ♪ waiting for you ♪ >> i am jim chapel.

i am an urban planner and i do not seen. -- sing. i have no financial interest in this project, but merely the good of the city and county of san francisco. i have studied budget in great detail and i have scrutinized the budget package of many development proposals. i have to say that your port staff, you're planning department, your legal and financial experts have done an extraordinary job in advancing the interests of the city on this project. this deal is extraordinary. the benefits up to the city park without equal. i have never seen anything like it. i am part to give the impressed with the contribution -- particularly impressed with the contribution to affordable housing. as we have heard, there is no source for affordable housing