the ceqa findings conclude that with implementation of the required feasible mitigation measures, all significant affects on the environment from implementation of the project would be eliminated or substantially lessened. all mitigation measures identified in the final eir that are applicable to the project are contained in the mmrp and recommended for adoption. in approving the ceqa findings, the port commission determines any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable are acceptable to two specific or writing, economic, technical, legal, social, and other considerations scribed below under conclusions and staff recommendations. a brief overview of project benefits to the city and region. the project has housing, new housing for the city, 134 units, the project also funds affordable housing. $8.6 million will be paid as an in mou payment to the city's mayor's office of housing. additionally, the developer is contributing $2.2 million to fund -- an additional $2.2 million to fund housing in the city. the project has parks and open space, as discussed pre

specifically, today you will be us to approve the ceqa findings, including mitigation measures and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program based on an eir that has been certified by the planning commission and upheld by the board of supervisors. you will be asked to approve the prince the transaction documents consisting of the disposition and development agreement, purchase and sale agreement, the lease, maintenance agreement, and filing of the trust exchange agreement. since 2008, staff has been working toward the development of seawall lot 351 to fulfill the port's water from land use plan for the site and for this part of san francisco. previous resolution provide important background information about the port's actions regarding the project and related planning efforts as shown on this slide. in 2008, the port commission authorize issuance of request for proposals. in 2009, the resolution of the port commission awarded the negotiation and agreement with the selected developers waterfront partners to represent them today by simon and alicia. over these past several years,

'70s, i travelled around the united states, they would give the permits to mitigate crowd noise. i am here to support this application for the extended hours. >> thank you. >> thank you for having me. i am the owner and managing partner at the supper club of san francisco. we have the after hours permit and this has been a great thing. i think that -- for the monarchs, this would be a great step for the business model to succeed. the patrons will have more time to listen and dance to world class music. it would allow for increased time to go out and relax before they go out into the community. i believe this will greatly affect the neighborhood in positive ways. this has been a very big thing for the neighborhood. with our extended use, we do not have 300 people exiting the building at the same time. there is also less traffic and less congestion, and trying to get a cab at 1:45 can be a disaster. 30 or 40 people are out there, and i think that the biggest bang is a fact that there will be increased security. they have done an amazing job with nine cameras on the street, and now

my view is that this evidence has not been particularly useful either as aggravation or as mitigation. so i have been doing an empirical study over the past six years now to look at, introduction in criminal cases. it's equivocal at best. it sometimes ends up being aggravating, but so far it hasn't panned out. why hasn't it panned out? in part because science isn't quite there yet in that we're able to see some things at a group level, but being able to talk bay single individual to look at their brain and to understand the extent to which their brain differences contribute to their behavior is very challenging. there just isn't enough data for that yet. you can say things at a groupwide level, though. and so kent mentioned earlier the case out of florida in the sue presume court graham in which the court said the juvenile should be treated differently with respect to life without the possibility of parole. the same happened in simmons where the court has treated juveniles differently. it may be the case we can start to do that. we can start to categorize people. we categorized a grou

i want to move to the mitigation part of the project. that is going to be very, very important, particularly down towards market street and van ness. the neighborhood association provided the mta and relevant supervisors with a letter with keep medications we urge you to look at, particularly the intersection of page, franklin, and market, where you're going to see essentially, hopefully, a bicycle boulevard on page street and on franklin, not the one way -- on franklin, the one way is in dire need of improvements. we agree with the mta's conclusion in the document that in the long term, the traffic congestion in that corridor does not warrant accommodating more cars, but warrants by transit first -- a transit first approached. i also urge you to make sure the transit trains are not impacted. as the medications are not liberated, -- medications are not liberated, we need to take a good close look to preserve a cycle track. there are a lot of moving parts here. commissioner campos: thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> at the last plan

in terms of proprietary trading being disguised as risk mitigation, it seems like there basic things that create red flags. if a company said they are mitigating risk on a long position that is investments in credit and corporate bonds, by essentially taking a long position by selling insurance, is that a red flag that maybe this is not risk mitigation after all? >> that is something that we would raise red flags and have to look at. >> how about if risk mitigation is investing in hedge funds? would that be a red flag and this is an investment operation and a proprietary trading operation? >> that would be another area under general risk management that we would be looking at. >> a potential red flag? if a risk mitigation operation is making massive trades that are not identified with specific risks from aspects whether individual or aggregated, would that be a red flag? >> we would look at that and the other examples you have given very closely. >> if they are not tightly correlated, something red flag. will you support the loophole that is the banks have been arguing for so they ca

does anyone on this panel think that bruno exo, the london whale, woke up each day trying to mitigate the risk from excess deposits existing between loans and bonds? >> that is a related area of inquiry at the occ. >> so you're inquiring, but you wouldn't argue that case? >> not necessarily. >> no, i wouldn't think anyone would, because he woke up each day as head of the strategic investment unit trying to make money for the bank, and so it's kind of a basic observation. small business across america and comptroller curry, i'll address this to you and try to ask you to keep your responses crisp so i can try to get through a series of questions, but across america, small businesses are trying to get access to credit, they are highly frustrated. the ability for them to access credit is essential to the recovery of our economy. does it do damage to have our banks diverting taxpayer deposits into hedge fund investments rather than making loans to families and small businesses? >> we at the occ, senator, are very supportive of small business lending by the entire spectrum of national banks

as the positions deteriorated discussions turned to corrective actions and steps necessary to mitigate and reduce the risks of the banks' positions. we in the federal reserve are conducting reviews in the bank and are sharing information with the fdic and other regulators. we are also undertaking a two pronged review. the first component focuses on evaluating the adequacy of risk. the second component evaluates the lessons learned from this episode that could enhance the risk management processes at this and other banks. consistent with our supervisery policy of heightened expectations we are demanding that the bank adhere to the highest risk management standards. we are not limiting to particular transactions at issue. we are assessing throughout the bank. we are using these events to broadly evaluate the effectiveness of the bank's risk management of cio function and identify ways to improve our supervision. if corrective action is warranted we will pursue appropriate informal or formal remedial measures. jpmc's national bank has approximately $1.8 trillion in assets and $101 billion

there is so much we could find around traffic mitigation. i am interested in seeing something like that come before the board. >> i think the port is amenable to such a set aside in perpetuity. i think there is fast need along the waterfront. as we emphasize the connections from the neighborhoods of the city to the waterfront through this process, we talked about washing ton -- washington in particular needing improvements. connecting the city to the waterfront is beneficial to the city and all of california. supervisor kim: thank you. supervisor avalos: i really appreciate the discussion we have had. there was a thorough presentation from the port and from the budget analyst, and from the project sponsor, as well as public comment. i am actually very concerned about whether we are receiving a project that has public benefits. we really deserve, especially when we are up zoning parts of the waterfront, and making land exchanges as well -- sometimes, i feel like i am peering into an ayn rand novel, like "the fountainhead," serving the elite.

not remember, but where we got 20 cents to 30 cents per car up to with a cap of $1.80 million to mitigate traffic that would occur on fifth and market due to the parking garage that would be built there. in this case, the developer has agreed to 50 cents per car surcharge, and it is for the life of the parking garage. there is no cap. this will continue to raise revenue. for dpw to reduce street skating on jackson street and for the chinatown master plan. a number of the other waterfront infrastructure that we may need. this will be a fund that will continue in perpetuity as long as the life of the parking garage, and i think this is an important game that was made in this project as well. finally, i think we need to look at what was currently on this site. if this was a public recreational center, i think that we would be having a very different discussion, but when we're talking about a surface parking lot and a private recreational center, really out of the needs of many of the folks who live here in the intercity, and we're not talking about displeasing residents or certainly not talk

as governor mentioned a key component of how we assess and mitigate risks in the institutions is the institution's capital levels and level of reserves and liquidity. in the case of jp morgan chase their capital levels and liquidity are substantially higher than they were at the beginning of the financial crisis. as i mentioned in both my oral and written comments they're more than sufficient to with stand the reported losses in this particular area. we are continuing to review as part of one of the two prongs of our on going review is what exactly transpired with the trading operation within the cio's office. and we are looking to make sure that there were appropriate limits and controls on those activities in that area and how they compared to other similar areas within the organization. >> it is important that wall street reform implementation is completed to enhance financial stability and reduce systemic risk. just to be clear doesn't that seem to be that the jp morgan trading loss was systemic? do you agree? and what do you believe are the implications on the wall street reform

. >> which of the two mitigated schemes -- >> i am sorry? i did not hear that. >> which of the medications -- mitigation stood your client favored? >> i have four pieces of paper i have looked out over five minutes. i do not understand there are two distinct schemes. >> one was the corner, presented to you previously. then he had a variation which added the little. >> we ask t make a mock up so we could take a look at what they had in mind. when we take a look out, we will know if it is satisfactory or not. they declined to do that because he was out of town and ms. burrell added birthday party -- had a birthday party. we can come up with a solution now but the answer is that either compromise would be accessible. >> just wanted to respond why we did not get back to them. it was over a month and they responded to the day i was supposed to be submitting my appeal. to delay that would have meant missing the deadline. it so happened we had already planned, and neither of us were available on the weekend. this is a modest approval for allowable.

the mitigation aspect will be very important.the market octavia cac is very concerned about franklin and golf at market street. let me be clear, we are not interested in facilitating further automobiles in that corridor. we want to secure it for future cycle tracks and transit improvements, for optimizing that court or before the pedestrians. we want -- corridor for the pedestrians. we want to reintroduce the crosswalks that were removed in that part of town. the neighbors association has put together a letter and that we have distributed to the mta and supervisor olague, and hopefully supervisor kim, with a list of possible litigations that are transit mitigation. thank you for supervisor avalos: thank you very much for mentioning those crosswalks. crosswalks. i have walked them many times

in terms of proprietary trading being disguised as risk mitigation, seems there are basic things that kind of create red flags. if a company says it's mitigating risk on a long position that is investments in credit and corporate bonds, by essentially taking a long position by selling insurance, is that a red flag that maybe this isn't risk mitigation after all? >> that is something that we would raise red flags and would have to look at. >> how about if they are investing in hedge funds, private equity funds. would that be a red flag? >> that would be another area under general risk management at a minimum that we'd be looking at. >> so a potential red flag that would draw attention. if a risk mitigation investigation was making massive trades not identified from specific risks from specific assets, would that be a red flag? >> we would look at that and the other examples you've given very closely. >> okay, if they are not tight liquy correlated, a red flag. >> continue a hedge-fund style operation or you going to support closing those loopholes or keeping those loopholes? >> that's

so how is this going to be mitigated? [bell rings] it is clear that there was no community outreach. the mitigations seem to be somewhat inadequate. there should be at least sign niche, because they will also sell cigarettes. how are they going to address the cigarette smoking nearby? we would like to see them get a license, but we would like to see it better mitigated for the community thank. thank you. supervisor elsbernd: thank you. next speaker, please. >> if there are any other speakers, lined up along the wall. >> good morning, supervisors. i have another map here. you can see the open spaces. within two blocks of this area, you have plazas, parking lots, parks. again, somebody could go into target, by a six-pack, and then drink it anywhere they want. clearly. and we have people coming from all over the world to our city, and this is what we do. and they come for the restaurants that are being put in the area and other things, and we have a theater, too. so literally, you can go to target and then walked in with you

we will continue to do so with individuals, and make sure the mitigation efforts that will come forward really come to light in the next few years as the project goes forward will be very important for the neighborhood. it is something i will be focused on for district, too. i think this is the right thing to move it forward, and i will support it. commissioner olague: i really think will to stop for coming up to thiankful to staffr coming up to this. i want to take you for your efforts. and for those coming out to show their support for it. i fully support it also. commissioner chu:iu: thank you. i want to thank all of the difference stakeholders in moving to what has been described, and i agree, what is an elegant solution. i travel on this almost every day of the week, and we know the experience right now on the streets are ones of congestion during rush hour and certainly traffic and transit situation that leaves a lot to be desired, so i appreciate that. division is really moving forward -- the viiosion is realy moving forward, and i hope this gets done on time and on budget. one t

and to mitigate this with -- mta could build a five-story parking structure. that is my big concern and it is to the businesses out there. i have a business out there and i circled the block for 45 minutes or an hour sometimes to find a parking spot. if you are doing construction kalmade any alternative spaces like talk to the schools where you can open up a lot of people can park well you are mitigating this. when you're finished, let's have were parking and it will be a win-win situation on both sides. if we select a center alternative where the buses are running and boarding from the center, that means we can take those -- the space that is used as a bus stop on the side and convert that to parking. there is some positive forces in terms of parking supply that our work that may -- you have to look and see how that balances out. >> i will open -- any other commissioner comments? i will open this up for public comment. so, public comment on item number eight. >> good evening. what is being proposed is going to affect the businesses out there. as you all know,

mitigation, preparing this, response, recovery, reconstruction. and an overview were presented at the initiation hearing. if you have specific -- specific questions, ianswer them. there are very minor changes that have been made since the initiation hearing. and this is to address your comments as well as comments from other agencies. these changes have been incorporated into the draft before you ask exhibita. the changes fall into three categories. first, updated language for programs. second, minor map changes. third, some policy updates. one goal of the updated to incorporate information on current programs dealing with disaster preparedness, recovery, and response. since this document was released, we received comments from other city agencies with more updated information about their programs. we have incorporated that. this includes the earthquakes of the implementation program, which is a next step of capss. updated the information about the neighborhood emergency response team at known as nert. i apologize for t the typo. we headed the com

since that point in time, our focus has been on managing and monitoring the bank's efforts to mitigate or de-risk that particular portfolio with the objective of ensuring there's a soft landing of that particular position and to minimize both risk to the institution and ultimately to the dpoz it insuran -- deposit insurance fund. >> when do you think you'll finish your analysis of what happened and all this? >> we hope to do that as quickly as possible, and we also hope to use our findings to inform us as to what potential implications there are for the other institutions that we supervise and our large bank codray of institutions. >> thank you. >> senator reed. >> well, thank you very much. mr. curry, you have 65 personnel devoted to supervision. how many of them are in london? >> we have five individuals who reside or are housed in our london office. >> and they are responsible for how many institutions in london? >> they are responsible for any national bank that has a global operation, especially with the presence in london, like a london branch office. >> so how many would that be