>> we would like to get started again. i could get everyone back in your seats. the joint hearing of the san francisco planning commission and recreation and park commission is back in session. before we start calling the names of the speakers, the president has, as. >> good morning. we do have over 60 cards i am in here. while we are the public process in san francisco, we're going to go ahead and allowed three minutes for each speaker. if you find yourself sharing the same opinion or, of the previous speaker, we would not discourage you from not using your full three minutes. president buell and i are going to call three names. we're going to call them in batches. as the commission secretary

mentioned, if we could try to refrain from boos, hisses. calling the first batch of speakers. [reading names] >> i came to speak about what seems to be ignored, left out, not responded to, not just by staff, but by new commissioners. maybe that is because ceqa and nepa were passed before there was an americans with disabilities act. the most egregious example is what happened right here today, and all of you commissioners sat there and did not respond.

nobody turned up. nobody raised their head, nobody took notes. when staff said they were going to eliminate curved cuts, you were all motionless -- eliminate curb cuts. nobody responded. worse, one was actually holding a smart phone below the desk, looking at that, not looking at the screen. you're sorry trying to point out, there is more than just ceqa and nepa involved. i'm going to give some examples because i question whether there was proper, full, responsiveness on planning meetings about this. there have been two recent instances where i had made complaints about notices i am planning. so far, i am two and 0. do you know for certain -- are you sure, are you sure you are

sure that there was requirements in compliance that when there was a meeting notice, the people were told alternative format information would be available? that even for the blind, there could be a tactile map of some of this -- do you know that? with the language ordinance the city has about material being available in spanish and chinese, was that part of the notice? i bring that up because with the heron's head block of green walks, that was not the case. i got the mayor's office of disability involved. they are training staff. things have changed. i just got the notice yesterday. similarly, when there was a concern some weeks ago about public open space in a private building and where did notice was posted, the newspaper story gave examples. down at knee height and small type. that does not comply, and nobody a planning thought about it until i pointed it out.

those who oppose the project as well as those who sponsor it -- you're still going to ask you -- maybe we ought start talking about this. maybe we ought to go back because this was already cancelled and rescheduled once because of lack of notice. i bet there was not proper notice that included the disability access requirements and maybe language access requirements. you may have to redo this. >> thank you for having us here. i had a master's degree in architecture, master's degree in urban and regional planning and have been practicing architecture in san francisco for the past 10 years. the top architectural firm with much talent and vast resources, but i did not believe that their

skills can overcome two very problematic drivers of the plan. plain and simply, you cannot put lipstick on a pig. first, the pig. the planning department is pushing the idea of a hard edge along the west side of the embarcadero. like chicago's miracle mile, as we see here. this is, sadly, a bad idea since, in reality, it will actually create something even less generous than king street near the ball park between second and fourth street. there is a hard edge on both sides, not exactly a stellar environment, and certainly not the rear while. in actuality -- the miracle mile. in actuality, the planning concept should be the opposite, and there should be a soft edge along the western side of the

embarcadero. the existing recreation facility serves both this and other vital community needs. it is a perfect soft edge and a hidden jewel that should be kept. benefits far outweigh any of the -- and that the developer is marketing to you. asian neighborhood design has provided a wonderful example of how this can be achieved. second, the developers' exporting of the planning department and us by running with this hard edge and pushing it to the limit. they are sure warning the project on to the side, asking for extreme height and bulgarians is, shall leniency co-op in public space, and requesting various other concessions. but what do we actually get in return? the proposal needs to be examined for the details. as it has been said, god or the devil is in the details. the developer speaks of widening

sidewalks to 15 feet. the present condition at the port is 16 feet. they are widening this by -1 foot. finally, this is comparable to the hills plaza, which is actually 15 feet. it is the only space that is 15 feet. everything else is greater. finally, i would like to talk about the various streetscapes and such that the open areas that they are proposing and that we need to examine the streetscape open space alternatives for the community before you buy into this trophy wife, you better look at the details. thank you.

>> good morning. i live and work at front street at the pacific, just two blocks of the proposed site. and very concerned with a great deal of the developers' proposal. i am concerned about the character of san francisco. people make of the city. friendships, relationships. i can honestly say that after living in san francisco for all my adult life, and would probably move out if this development went through. we have put up with high prices, foggy summers, congested downtown, but the joy of the neighborhood and the community it brings to everybody far outweighs the benefits to the neighborhood. the facility provides me and everyone else much-needed exercise, great friendships, a healthy social outlet, and it is a huge part of my life.

i also love the fact that the center is open to not just members, tennis lessons, swim lessons, anyone who needs physical therapy are straining for an athletic event, anyone who wants to send their kids to kids can. anyone can come through. a city government that cares so little from it -- for its residents that would take away this amazing facility is a city i would not want to live in. the gateway serves children, the retired, elderly. if the city goes, there is the help of so many people in the city. the gateway is a true community center. there are tennis events, barbecues, kids' birthday parties, and it unites san francisco in a way that a neighborhood can only do. i am also concerned with the fact that families are leaving the city in droves, as we have all seen recently in the paper. i live in a 67-unit building with three children all of the age of five, and i guarantee when those kids hit five, those

families will leave the city. replacing the golden gateway facility with a double jim and a playground -- jungle gym and a playground -- these are the things that will help people in the city -- we will already have those across the street. i have friends in a 30's and 40's, and nieces and nephews in the 20's and 30's who grew up in san francisco and went to the facility for a swim camp. i'm not trying to be dramatic, but this is what makes a city. please consider the hideous building that is now along the north of gear delhi square, the three buildings that go up and blocked a lot of the view. i'm sure the planning commission, if they could take back what they did to the area, they would take it back. i hope people will not look back if the facility goes away and asked how they could have

let that happen. thank you so much. >> after these next two speakers, [reading names] >> good morning. i have been a member of the golden gate way for 25 years. it is my home away from home. it said that we're here today talking about the potential demolition of a one-of-a-kind facility to replace it with yet another high end complex, adding to an already congested downtown location. on the proposed plan, narrowing from st. is a big concern because currently, as he's very sensitive to traffic disruption. at those intersections, the projection is that of another building were added, it would create gridlock at peak afternoon traffic since there are very few escape routes in the area.

in addition, the proposed plan faces the building against property line, which would mean that the curve has been pushed further into the street, thus shrinking from street by 9 feet. currently, the gateway fence is set back from the property line, and there is a 10-foot side walk from the property line to the curb. i am struggling to see that it is an improvement. another question relating to this -- has a developer thought about the gateway apartment maintenance vehicles that trail four or five wagons around the apartment building daily? these vehicles, along with the garbage pickup, always double parked outside the loading bay at various times, including peak periods. how will a narrower street cope with this? in addition, the proposal is greatly exaggerated. facts are that the width is 35 feet. the proposed with is 38 feet 9 inches to the new property line,

resulting in a three-foot, 9- engine gain. as you can see from the photograph, the developer is projecting a much larger image and in reality. the photograph also shows access to the call, which would not be allowed by any management. the security phone would be required for reliability, which would detract from the open, unembellished photograph that you see. the proposed development also offers the garage holding 400 spaces with valet service. currently, there are over 10 of street parking facilities with 10,000 self-part, + attendance spaces. do we need another garage, especially now, when we are trying to encourage people to use public transportation, and currently, the area has excellent transit service. it is not clear how the valet parking will work. will the cars be queuing on the street? where is the drop-off? where is the pickup? all of this is very unclear and

will adversely affect the streets with all the new traffic. who will control the street? if the commission advocates to the developer, surely this means he will do what is best for his building. thank you. >> hello. i would like to thank you for your time. i am and practicing architectural designer for 15 years and have some practical and it concerns. my concerns are from a neighbor and design standpoint. taking a look at the plans that were given to us, some of the

access that i have concerns with are the good parking/planning. i'll be talking about the layout of the garage, the accessibility for persons in wheelchairs. mechanical room, the quality of spaces. i would also like to mention the perspective is from a different standpoint. we listened earlier about sue bierman park and the perspective that was not really a concern on washington street. by looking at a good plan out -- and planning layout, in this particular three-levels of parking, i noticed that the last spot is a dead-end, which is unusable. a lot of these bases that they say are designed for the city and to give back are really not conclusive to the number of accounts that are realistic to the plan. additionally, the findings were

columns in the aisles -- there are unrealistic seats of the ramps making the planning of this not for detailed accuracy. again, the accessibility for people in wheelchairs, chapter 11 california building codes, asks whether the height and the number of buildings in this space is enough for the spaces that are provided. what is the path of trouble? in looking at some of these plans, there are really no direct planning from when you get off the car to walk through the path to actually get into the space to get to these new retail space is that they are discussing. the mechanical room is stacked three levels. those three levels are eventually going to become four levels, which the mechanical

room is right above the quarter retail store. my concern is -- hal is the a distribution intake and out? the mechanical room has a lot of noise that will be created on that corner. parking talks about clear heights, but suv's are 6 feet. with that two, it would be a total of 15 feet. right now, we would go with a structure of 3 feet, 6 inches, would be a total of 22 feet, which means it must become another level for parking. [bell rings] >> thank you. next speaker please.

>> hello and thank you for your time. i am here to talk on behalf of the golden gateway facility. i am a professional lives and works in san for cisco. i work downtown. first, i am going to talk about my personal community association with the club, and i would also like to talk about the impacts to washington street. first of all, i would like to say that since my living in san francisco, having membership access to the golden gate way recreational facility has had a significant positive impact on my life in terms of social access, i would say, as an avid tennis player, i spent probably three or four nights a week at the club, attending barbeques, tennis matches, and gaining access to friends and community. i appreciate that it is a vibrant community at the club, not like one of the country

clubs where you have to be approved to join. anyone can become a member. i would also said it is a safe, open space. living in south of market, and there is not a lot of green space. it has become midas factor back yard. i often call this facility a gem and an oasis and what a great thing for san francisco. in addition, and going to talk about three things that i think would be a problem. looking a developer designs, they talk about what a great improvement it will be on washington street. my three key points are i think it will impact the skyline negatively. i think the sidewalk proposal is actually a take away, not an improvement. furthermore, i think st. configuration will cause traffic havoc. the skyline and visibility will be diminished. if you look from across the park, you can see coit tower from the neighborhood, and it will be but it right up against the property line, and you will

have a huge building with a tall fence that will be taking away that visibility. i think that is a shame. i also think that some of the photographs -- on the online site, they talk about the not attract the fences, etc. i do not think that is a fair assessment because there are a lot of great proposals that could be a great alternative. secondly, with the sidewalk proposal, i am not coming to talk today as an architecture person or designer. i am an actuary by trade, so i think in the language of mathematics. looking at their designs with the sidewalk proposal, they talk about a 27-foot sidewalk. i do not think that is true. right now, there is a 10-foot walkable sidewalk. if you, it added to components, there's only four feet that is walkable sidewalk. the rest is either car that's, sitting space that you cannot walk through, or a restaurant area, so i think that is a area, so i think that is a problem.