>> good morning and thanks for your patient during the delay. i apologize for being late. this is a special meeting of the san francisco planning commission for thursday december 8, 2011. before i take role, i want to remind all of us to turn off our electronic devices that may sound off during the proceedings. roll call. we have a full commission. commissioners, the item before you at this special meeting is 8 washington street, a case to the us and 7.0030 m.

it is a consideration of intent to initiate. >> good morning, president, members of the planning commission. the request before year is for an initiation of an amendment to the general plan in relation to the 8 washington street project. the project proposes to demolish an existing surface parking lot and existing golden gate swim and tennis club, would create a new club, residential buildings containing 145 dwelling units, ground-floor retail space is approximately 20,000 square feet, and 400 off street parking spaces. map 2 within the general plan indicates the 84-district applies to the entirety of the project site, have never, several of the buildings at the southwestern portion of the project site would exceed the

existing 84-foot height limit. the sponsors proposing to amend the map to show a limit of 92 feet at one portion of the site and 136 in another portion of the project site. the remainder would remain at the existing 84-foot height limit. procedurally, the planning code requires initiation of a general plan amendment before the amendment can be considered at a future public hearing before the planning commission and more supervisors, along with other record in tenement actions. the initiation does not constitute a recommendation for approval of the amendment, nor does it constitute an amendment of the progress associated with the amendment. future hearings would consider the design and special uses of the 8 washington street project. i should also not the department has drafted a special report and is in the process of preparing comments in response, and the file eir would be before you for

consideration at a future public hearing. staff recommends the commission approve the request initiation in order to enable future consideration of the proposed amendment, as well as other entitlement actions associated with the 8 washington street project. phil williams and of port staff is here to answer your questions. the project sponsor wishes not to make a formal presentation but are available to answer questions you may have, as am i.. thank you very much. >> open it up for public comment at this time. we have a group that requested a block of time. if you are ready, now is the time. >> thank you, madam president, commissioners. i am with the loyal opposition today. you have seen a lot of details

at a washington, but this is the big issue. do you want to raise the height? spot zoning for one project, when it contradicts one major city policy that has protected the waterfront for over half a century. what am i talking about? we have had a city what consensus for 50 years to protect the northern waterfront from these kinds of high increases. why? we can see the results. we have protected the water from all these years. so if you are going to improve it 50-foot increased on the embarcadero, it would be for significant public benefits. what would it look like? maybe it is for lots of housing, but housing that is affordable to middle-class families, families that need it now, the family tried to stop from leaving the city. and we know that is not the case -- i will talk about that in a second. maybe financial benefit for the city?

and that will not happen. maybe it was to heal the wounds left from the freeway ramps at broadway and washington, but in fact, it puts a wall on washington and puts a 400-car parking garage into it. maybe it is for lots of new open space. does not do that either. maybe it is the only way to remove a major blight like the freeway ramps. the ugly green fence? that is put up by one of the owners of the property, one of the parkers. in washington does none of these a million things, so what does it do? it built condos that cost that2.5 millionto $7 million. -- $2 million to $7 million. on top of that, mr. fu is a

partner in the spirit he will be making millions of dollars selling the land. he has been systematically converting rent-controlled apartments in the golden gateway for years. so we are going to raise the heights for the two benefits. housing for the half percent, and are going to reward somebody for taking away the red- controlled house in the middle class family in the city are crying for. so why? revenue? i would plead with you to read the port term sheet. it is robbing the city. let me show you how. if you can see this on the overhead, this is the site. one of the major claims is they will raise $40 million through infrastructure financing. as you can see, 20% of the site is owned by the port. 80% is owned by the city.

if you read the term sheet, they are taking all the tax increment. they are taking a $40 million. they are entitled to aid, they are taking all of it. it will go partly to public improvement, but mostly for the cruise ship terminal, which they already have funding for. they have increased the transfer tax. the real reason that it is a problem is it -- there is a better way to raise more money faster, and it was in our alternative plan which four groups work on. we looked at all the sea wall lots. we said to people, there has to be revenue generated uses on some of these things, recreation. there was a consensus on three of those seawall lots for hoteliers. for seawall lot 351, for a bike, transit, andtail center, that by itself, would not generate as much as this project.

but if you look at them in the appendix, it talks about how much revenue we could expect from all four seawall lots. we are asking you to raise the height for housing for the half percent, and to get less money than our alternative would provide, if you do a comprehensive redevelopment of the sea wall lot. i have a hard time understanding how we can rationalize raising the height when there are better alternatives that do not require a change in the height, or the status and land properties. thank you. >> good morning. i am the president of the telegraph hill dwellers. in neighborhood association, one of the largest in san francisco, with more than 650 members. we are here today for two main

reasons. we are concerned with of zoning in the manner reposed. number one, we are talking about a dramatic 50-foot increased in the height limit on this project, which we passionately believe would open the door to potential up-the zoning to create high rises along the waterfront in years to come. those of you who have been around for some time know that there is a checkered past along the northern waterfront of bad ideas, the u.s. steel project with the skyscraper. that was shot down because people spoke up. there was a proposal to pave the northeast corner of the bay to create a walking mall, commercial area here that was struck down because people spoke up. the issue here today is up- zoning, scaling up by five

stories of space that is an historic district, makes no sense. the other issue is what people can see. my organization is often challenged, and in the interest of people who live in that area, we are there to protect our view. this up-zoning would destroy the views of those people that come to the ferry building to enjoy the view of coit tower. i stood in front of the ferry building just yesterday. although there are some pretty picture that the developers submitted, but in this project were built, nobody would be able to see coit tower or telegraph hill. people who visit, who live here, shop, would dramatically change things, the experience of people on the waterfront and attach them from the rest of the city. let me speak to three issues,

the waterfront plan being first. the waterfront land use plan was something mandated by voters in 1990. the port has had to abide by it i read it since 1997. this proposal raises the issue that the land use plan has been violated and this piecemeal change to it would be violating it once again. the plan stated that every five years, the waterfront land use plan should be in about a weighted. port commission should decide, on a comprehensive level, to amend it in every way. every five years since 1997. my math is not great, since i am a lawyer. not once has there been a comprehensive the valuation of the land from -- of the waterfront. it has been piecemeal, but no comprehensive citizen review. we met last night on the

america's cup here we are keeping ourselves busy, as are you. the developer in this case has said that the waterfront land use plan requires or supports this proposal. that is not true. i looked through the entire land use plan earlier this week. there is one single sentence that speaks to this parcel. on page 129, it says "explore the possibility of obtaining economic value for seawall lot 351 by combining it with the entries in golden gate residential site to provide expanded opportunities for mixed residential and commercial development." it says explore the possibility. but in one place, buried in the plan, is the plan promoted before our body and yours, that

the waterfront land use plan requires this change, and it does not. the other thing i want to speak to this public amenities. challenging the claim that this project provides significant new public parks, open space that would benefit the public. i understand that is one of your mandates. you can only approve this change, if you find it promotes public necessity, convenience, and welfare, including opening of the streetscape. we would urge you to scrutinize that closely. let me show you a couple of slides that make that point. this is a comparison of the existing site plan. this is the green space -- these

dots in the existing plan. this is the proposed change. another -- this corridor -- by opening up this very to public access, that is a huge benefit. that is already a public thoroughfare that the public has access to. that is not a significant change. let me show you another slide that makes that point. the drum street walkway. this is the existing walkway that i walked through this afternoon on my way home. you can walk through an access, if not recreant. this is the proposed change. while there is more activity, it is the same. there is more pavement, i suppose, but it is not expanded public access.

the other point, as we referenced to state land -- because like you, they need to find, to remove parts of 351 from the public trust, there would have to be amenities in its place for the public. the removal of parcel 351, a sea wall lot, would be substituted under the plan with three smaller parcels, none of which is anywhere near in size of the current parcel. the trade-off is questionable, since none provide a large-scale public park with a real access. we would encourage you to look at the claims that have been made about this being a part of the waterfront land use plan, the failure of the port in a comprehensive way, only in a piecemeal way, as proposed here, and challenge that, as well as the public amenities claim. thank you. >> sue hester.

this is only the first of the proposals to suggest increasing height. there is now a proposal for 75 howard st., about equidistance south of the ferry building as the site is north. there will be another one -- and it is the same development team, the same architect, attorney, same pr person. what we're asking you to do is question what is going on today. what is before you is an amendment to part of the general plan and part of the height. this section, the map for the plan -- this is the waterfront land use plan. you cannot quite see it here, but you can on your own. these sites are listed as 275, incorrectly. this area should be 84 feet. when the redevelopment plan was changed to accommodate golden

gate way, it was a major issue at the planning commission at the time. the entire three blocks of golden gateway commons was zone from 275 feet, to 85 feet. the planning department's -- commission had to recommend it because it was an amendment to the redevelopment plan. it went to the planning commission, but the planning department did not initiate the redevelopment to its own that spirit only in the redevelopment plan. if you look at this section of the planning code math, you have the same heights. you have the illusion that this site is surrounded by 275-ft parcels. it is not. these parcels are zoned. golden gateway common spirit 84 feet. you do not have an initiation for an amendment to your map today. you have an amendment to a

general plan map, and they are inconsistent. how are you going to make them consistent? i did not hear one word from staff on how they are going to resolve the inconsistencies in your own maps one says you were going to adopt one that would be defective. the waterfront land use plan has wrong heights in it for all of the golden gateway commons, so when you look at this, you say it is surrounded by 275. it is not. it is surrounded by 85 feet. how are you going to straighten out the mislabeling of these sites? how are you going to amend your own math? there is no initiation. what will happen is, the staff report will come out, the fifth of january, you will get the eir comments and responses a week earlier, and you will have the

usual 1000 pages of stuff to read, and you have a problem. >> thank you. >> kobe levin. james dench. thomas ryan. >> good morning. it is nice to see you today. i am a retired member of the

planning commission from the 1990's. during that time, i was also a member of the waterfront land use advisory board that has just been discussed by previous speakers. we spent six years developing the mandated plan for the waterfront. the plan probably does need to be reworked. it has served the port commission well over the years. the court decided to establish advisory groups up and down the of waterfront. i was the chair of the first advisory group for the northeast waterfront. i am not a member of the committee but not speaking for the committee. -- i am now a member of the committee but am not speaking for the committee. 351 was designated as a mixed use opportunity site. eight different uses were identified, including five

better now part of the washington plan. these include public open space, residential housing, parking, retail job generation, and recreational enterprises. the waterfront design and acts as plan was also approved in 1997. it is deeply concerned with the issue of the united the reuniting the city with the waterfront. that original committee may not have dreamt it was possible that jackson and pacific streets could reach the waterfront because they were blocked by a green wall. the current plant removes the wall and makes it possible for residents and workers from nearby neighborhoods to access the waterfront. this may be the most important long-term feature for the years

in the future. there are public benefits. previous speakers do not seem to see them the same way i do. i think perhaps the most important public benefit is the opening of pacific in jackson to the waterfront. housing -- affordable housing units will be developed as a result of the city requirement that the developers contributed to the affordable housing fund. >> 30 seconds. >> you will find in the comments i gave to you that there are several other important public benefits, including the funds for the city and port. the last point i made is that these are exceptional architects planning the development.

i think it will be a bright spot for the city. thank you. >> i will keep calling names. lynette loishell,. >> good morning. i rise to speak in opposition to this resolution which are viewed as the first step in the destruction in what has been a long-term plan for the northeast border from. >> state your name for the record. >> paul ready, long-term resident and san francisco. many of you are too young to remember. i invite you to go to fontana

towers. that was built before the public became aware of the possible destruction of public access and use of the north waterfront. your predecessors wisely took the opportunity at that point to say no more high-rises on the waterfront. this is the first step between market and the north waterfront. this planning commission is being asked to approve a project which is going to put a 150 ft. building right on the embarcadero north of market, blocking the view from the ferry building, anybody looking to the west.

what is the public purpose? the developer talks about all of the open space is going to create. that is going to be the argument you will get. every building has a march down the waterfront. they will say we will give you more open space. there's plenty of open space. if the port is not like the use of it as a parking lot -- i share their view. they do not need to put a building that violates the long term plan to keep the north and northeast waterfront will rises so that they are not blocking views as the building works its way down to the waterfront. this resolution purports to be just a corner. if you look at the building from standing by the ferry building

and look at it, it is huge. it is not a little building. [tone!] it is a huge building. they say we will open up the other space. i agree it would be nice if the tennis club took down the fence. the reason it does not come down is not because members do not want it down. it is because the owners of the property want to keep it looking like that so that they can say it is going to help the project. thank you. >> if you heard your name called, please start coming up to the microphone. >> my name is thomas ryan. i am speaking on behalf of the waterfront for all.