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 today and this $11 million will multiplied many, many times. please recommend to the board authorization of the trust exchange. release the other agreements and adopt the general plan findings and the modification to the ifd. it is time to move this project forward. as you have heard from many speakers, the benefit cost analysis shows a great benefit to the city, a great improvement over the very unsightly parking lot and substandard club that is there today. thank you.

>> my name is bob iverson. i am an architect in the city. the rose colored glasses of the port -- i guess numbers are not that important. they say the pool is twice the size when it is 100 square feet smaller. i guess numbers do not really matter in a discussion like this. this is our last opportunity to work on the waterfront and create a wonderful space. i feel this project is shortsighted. it calls for a financially stressed, self-serving port. there is a small self-serving development company with many

tax breaks. it does not provide, as the tagline, a real attachment to the waterfront. look at this -- a wall of buildings with an insignificant path and a small, shadowed water park 15 feet from a busy street. it is a dull project with condominiums and oversized raw edge. it will not create an attachment to the waterfront. it provides benefits for the three involved partners. you are asking the people of san francisco to believe they are reconnecting with the waterfront and will reap benefits from the wealth created. it will only benefit those

closely associated with this project. finally, we have heard the process is taking too long. it took 25 years to do the yerba buena gardens planning process. it took four may laurel -- mayoral periods for mission bay. they are saying seven years is too long. it is a process created with a northeast embarcaderos study based on the proposed project, which is ludicrous to me. it is a myopic and self-serving plan. i really believe the remaining port properties should become park properties, the development move back to the edges. it will create a wonderful future businesses along the waterfront, as well as for the businesses across the east side. that is good physical and

financial long-term planning. that will be an intangible we can work with. look at the details. do not let the port squeeze every drop out of this part of the city. chairperson chu: thank you. jennifer warburg, wendy lester, brandon dunnigan. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is lee radner, friends of golden gateway, the fog groups -- the fogg group. we have been opposing the project since the beginning. my family and i raised families on california, and then on del mar in height ashbury. -- haight ashbury.

when i retired on a fixed income, a middle-class citizen, we moved into the golden gateway center. we sold our car. we found the transportation center of excellent, the shopping, and the recreation center, which we joined the day we moved in, and still belong at a very reasonable rate. now we find, due to the landlords' movements, we are going to be thrown under the bus. most of the people in that area our seniors, but the landlord has seen fit that he should go ahead and intentionally rent many of the apartments the become available to corporations on a very short-term basis. my floor alone, we are eight apartments, and i only know two

of the people there, and they have not been there more than three years. in addition, as was pointed out by president chiu, he is a silent partner of the developer. also, he has manipulated the property taxes under proposition 13 to probably the tune of $30 million. also, he is selling off a piece of land that was committed to the community activities of the community, which will no longer exist in the sense that we know it now. the odds are we probably will not afford it. you and the supervisors wish to honor this type of saturation and reward the landlord. it is beyond me. in addition, i might say finally that the proposed fitness

center, which will be greatly enlarged -- we reduced the outdoor recreational space by more than 70%. we live and walk within a reasonable district and can find 22 fitness centers. many of them are under water. with that, i think you not to pass this present situation. thank you. chairperson chu: thank you. kevin? >> my name is andrew. i am a resident of san francisco, and a candidate for district 5 supervisor. i am speaking in opposition of this project. it was brought to my attention by a colleague of mine who rides her bike to the golden gate health center. she swims in the pool every morning.

she is a great resident of this city. she is very concerned about how this deal was struck and whether there are benefits to the city. i think it strikes the wrong course for our city, when we are struggling with france that are skyrocketing. people cannot live here, cannot afford to live here, yet we are building condos for the 1%. i lived in florida for 10 years, so i can tell you something about building condos on the waterfront for rich people. it does not create vibrant communities. it blocks your waterfront. it creates a lot of absentee owners and condo owners, who will not create a vibrant community. actually, the golden gate club is a vibrant community. we are replacing a golden gate

community with something that does not speak to san francisco. i am concerned about the president -- the president of the height of the building. i think it sets a dangerous precedent for building on the waterfront in the future. i think there are other ways for us to develop our waterfront than to sell out. i hear a lot of people saying the city needs the money. but i do not think we need to sell out our values in order to get the money we need. i urge you to reconsider this project and take a step back. think about other ways we could develop the waterfront. thank you. >> good afternoon, and thank you. my name is jim cunningham.

i am a resident of the area where this product is supposedly going to be built. i thought i would give a resident's view of what this is about and not about. it is not about a recreational facility that replaces a very adequate existing facility, which is actually four times the size of the one proposed. it is not about a playground, which is not needed, because a better one is already approved to be built. it is not about retail facilities, for which there has been no adequate feasibility study, and which are not really needed and may or may not make it. it is not about tearing down a green fence, which is an eyesore, which everybody in the facility agrees is an eyesore. but it is maintained in its current form by the owner of the property. it is there so people supporting the project can say they should

get rid of this green fence. it is not a problem about open space. it is sort of a laughable amount they are talking about. it is not needed. it is dwarfed by a suburban park. all these are really expenses the developers have to come up with to get approval to build a massive and extremely profitable apartment complex on the embarcadero. this is being developed by a wealthy and publicly connected developer, for corporate and individual buyers, raising prices up to $10 million. all of this would create a huge

mass on the embarcadero, which i hope is not the beginning of making us look like miami beach, as the previous speaker said. i hope that would not be your legacy. i would urge you to follow the example of your president, who is impressive in the extreme amount of homework he has done on the project and the details of who gets what. he has asked detailed questions and pointed questions on the issues, which has usually been totally ignored in their responses. and he has shown great political courage. i encourage you to so -- to show the same political courage, and reject this whole project. thank you. >> good afternoon.