Turned out they should have followed mr. Smith recommendations. Mr. Sanchez my understanding at first there was one motion to continue that failed two to four vote and then the motion to take discretionary review and that was a 5 to one vote in support of the motion whether supervisors commissioner hillis and commissioner richards. One question were you present at this particular. No, not at this particular hearing and again, were representing the decisions of Planning Commission this is acknowledged as an unfortunate situation were in this preempt but the permit holder neatest to have theyre Due Process Rights replaced as well, so to add to the situation theyll refile the application well disagree and theyll bring it before the whole board to have a decision im available for its not quite due process they need a majority. So had this the b b m been done the commission would have taken an action on the pretty we would have denied it. We shove done it but the fact it wasnt done right no
At first there was one motion to continue that failed two to four vote and then the motion to take discretionary review and that was a 5 to one vote in support of the motion whether supervisors commissioner hillis and commissioner richards. One question were you present at this particular. No, not at this particular hearing and again, were representing the decisions of Planning Commission this is acknowledged as an unfortunate situation were in this preempt but the permit holder neatest to have theyre Due Process Rights replaced as well, so to add to the situation theyll refile the application well disagree and theyll bring it before the whole board to have a decision im available for its not quite due process they need a majority. So had this the b b m been done the commission would have taken an action on the pretty we would have denied it. We shove done it but the fact it wasnt done right now the permit is approved therefore confirms of that permit requires two votes. And the permit
Costs, to develop, and the ports property, particularly the historic piers. And there is a high expectation for Public Benefits in these projects, which drive up the cost of the project. The foundation of the water front plan has provided access to the capitol that the port would not have had. And also, a great deal of creativity from the private sector that comes through the public, private partnership, at the staff level we have worked to add Public Financing to the equation, to help to address some of these high costs. It did not address, the unique opportunities, the 34th americas cup and the exploretorium and these are the kinds of projects that present themselves that really the cities pursue, if they have become available and, so you cant hold the same kind of predevelopment planning process, and Competitive Bidding process for the opportunities, like this. And so, the water front plan does not articulate it, and a process. And in each case, when these projects have presented th
Seen the successes of having the people flock to the northern end of the water front and then continuing down. Here is pier 1517, the eastern phase of that pier, which was the parker caught in the warehouse at the time and, it was an operating warehouse, and industrial in nature verses now, the families and children that flock to the water front and enjoy, not just the Interactive Science Museum but all of the access and the views back to the city. Pier one, we are all familiar with the ports headquarters, buildings today, and the transformation of that sugar warehouse shed, which prior to the construction was a very important parking resource for the water front. So, it, and i am glad to say that it is a very functional change that i think has also benefited the public for as much as those base side Conference Rooms get used for very public meetings. Next door, piers 1 and a half, i dont know that the public understands how decrepid that facility was and it had been condemned and basi
Very public meetings. Next door, piers 1 and a half, i dont know that the public understands how decrepid that facility was and it had been condemned and basically left for dead before we put it together in the piers one and half three five, project opportunity that was improved by San Francisco water front partners. And then, moving down, obviously, the brandon street wharf and a new improvement that we are all able to enjoy. There were two prao ers there, 34, and 36 and both had been condemned are on their way there. And the removal of those piers was part of an arrangement that the Port Commission and the bcds Commission Set up to be able to focus the major public improvements for the Public Open Space and fill removal in exchange for being able to do the variety of land uses that we now see in the developments today. And then moving south into the southern water front, i think that the herins head park and the various layers of improvements that have taken shape down there. And for