this would be, if you approve this, you are signalling to the developers them that they are still in charge. this is a movement that has been going on. this has to do with to is appointing new commissioners. i do hope that you will consider the cumulative impact of this and it should be addressed and it is your duty to notice and decline this project at this time. the only people this project would really benefit is construction workers. many people did not understand what is at stake. i don't think any of you have been appointed to keep

construction workers' jobs. it is much broader than that it is us residents. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the comment has been made that the waterfront is for all of san francisco and indeed the world and i agree wholeheartedly with that comment. under that standard, i come to the conclusion that those who say that it is a deficiencct eir are correct. the height limit increase that is being requested is one thing, but what is clearly been understated is the huge mass of mess, the vault and massive ness of this project. part of it will be higher than

the embarcadero freeway was when it was up. the wit of this project is as wide as a football field. the comment had been made by others earlier that this project sets a precedent for the future. the eir says there is nothing pending nearby. that is just flat out wrong. many of the same entities that are involved with this are also involved with a pending project which is before the planning commission that wld tear down 75 howard, replace all of that with a residential tower. that would be a precedent. along the waterfront, you will have a cumulative impact of not only a massive project at 8 washington but also a proposed

project at 75 howard. you move on a little bit, you have a restaurant that will be moved again at the corner of broadway and the embarcadero. all of which will impact the ferry building which is an icon and critically important as well as the exploratory of which it be a good project for the city coming forward. we can and should do better. this project sets a precedent and it will have a profound impact and we need to recognize that. i don't think that the eir does. i would like to comment on one point that was raised with regard to public trust, very quickly. the eir is flawed. it does not point out that the state lands commission in order to approve this what must find

that sea wall lot 351 is "relatively useless." that finding cannot be made. the public resourced code cannot be met and i will ask that my remarks on that be included in the record. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am here to speak against this eir not only for myself but for my late father. as a founding member of the telegraph hill trawlers, he spent 40 years to protect the scale of the waterfront.

my father along with many other concerns san franciscans pushed for the height limit which still stands today. he said he did not want san francisco to become like manhattan. the developer is requesting that the planning commission vote to urge that the board of supervisors approved and out the zoning in height limits from 84 feet up to 136 feet. my father worked hard for the benefit of everyone, not just for high and developers are those that can afford their creations. they do.

and -- thank you. >> i am a rushing hill resident. -- a russian hill resident. this is an integral part of the area. i'm excited that this includes 8 center that will serve us. the majority of members are swimmers not tennis players. furthermore, the configuration of the current club has used -- has blocked off other areas. this is not only for paying members. they will provide several service for the neighborhood. i understand that the club currently has 2000 members and that would maintain roughly 2000 members in the new form. the waterfront has become a

highly public and vibrant place and each side of the embarcadero. >> this has been a tough one for everyone, i think. additionally, we looked into the washington project was somewhat of a bias against it.

after meeting with representatives and with the san francisco waterfront partners and after a great deal of deliberation, the neighbors concluded that the current proposed development represents a better land use and will serve san francisco as a whole better than does the existing conditions. the specific aspects of the proposal which influence this conclusion include the reconnecting of the city to its waterfront, the increase the public open space, the creative means of stepping down of the building heights towards the embarcadero and the fact that the development will contribute to the revitalization of the area. please support the current version of the project. thank you.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i am a resident of san francisco. i would like to thank the staff for their effort. i participated in a number of community meetings. they went to great lengths to get input on this project and their work has resulted in a very good project before you that i wholeheartedly support. i agree with sickness and other supporters have made but i am here to address one issue in particular. i'm fortunate to be a member hand it is ironic that they're claiming that this is for the 1%. we're dealing with a private club. i pay over $300 a month and a membership fees. in fact, here is my march bill. this comes out to about $4,000 a

year. it is my understanding that the renovation has been a significant part of 8 washington. it will be vastly improved and will better serve swimmers like me. >> good afternoon,

commissioners. i am the former telegraph hill dollars resident. the question is whether the final eir is adequate. if they are not on any score, we cannot book to certify it. we have a 17 member board, we have 600 members as part of the telegraph hill dwellers. we have been around since 1954 and it is with particular venom that i hear a lot of folks bring up the name telegraph hill dwellers. they are entitled to their opinion. this is not about creating jobs or housing, is not about how many tennis courts will or will not remain. what this is about are the deficiencies of the i r. there is this failure to analyze

the impact of surrounding projects. there is not one mention of a huge project at broadway and in market barrow. that on its face makes it the eir deficient. without that analysis, it is a huge problem. the america's cup, in our exhaustive letter, we said, if you have to analyze a temporary and long-term effect of the america's cup. the comments and respondents said, temporary is temporary, you don't have to look at that. what do we know? that is not acceptable. the analysis is an improper to live impact analysis. secondly, is that it impact, there is a lot of big deal made in all of the comments about those hill dwellers or people in the hill wine to deserve their view.

that is not what we're talking about at all. we are talking about the view of corey tower that all members of the public enjoy every day and the eir admits that to be obstructed. that is a significant impact. you cannot just say, it is an episodic obstruction, what is the big deal? it is a big deal because a lot of city plans and policies specifically preserve the view at the hill. the lack of aesthetic impact analysis was another major analysis. there are several plans and priority policies that are in conflict with the final eir. the analysis resolving those is completely deficient. policies 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 will not be explained.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i am a 45 year city resident. i've owned property. i am a 42 year member of carpenters local 22 and in part of that time i was a builder and when you approved this, you can have real confidence in your planning staff, believe me. they give this a going over before you come in with any project and from what i've seen have done a very thorough job. you can have complete confidence in this and hopefully some equally good project will come out of it and certainly we do need the jobs and so the the

people that depend on us for living also needs to be working. thank you very much. >> i am here today representing the jackson square historic district association not to be confused with the jackson square merchants association that also supports this project. i've spoken to you before about the project which failed and i wanted to do a better job of introducing myself. i am not a developer, i am a salaried employee, a property manager. when i come to speak to you, i am only concerned about aesthetics and the way it looks and feels at night. this really concerns you with foot traffic and how comfortable people feel being on jackson square at night.

the 21st century version which exists only in my head and i hope to talk to you about that. our jackson square group, we are really support this because what it will do for the neighborhood and other people have said it, the value of that view down jackson st. is really important and i'm forgetting my other points. the main thing that i want to say, the people that have joined our group, they care about jackson square. thank you.

>> i am a resident of san francisco and i am a long-term member of the boys and girls club. i am here to support 8 washington and to represent my fellow swimmers. i wanted to correct some truths. i think the people have said it no better but i will say it clearly here, the club is not going away. we are just being asked to share the beautiful property with the rest of san francisco which seems fine to most of us. one of the reasons we are fine with sharing it is that we're getting a much better facility. four pools and instead of six lines, there are like 11 lanes. that is for lap swimming. there is a recreation pool, there is a kids pulool.

there is a whirlpool. everything is being left as is, much more lounge outside, places that you can still have to camp, it is still going away and while it is during construction, it is still not going away. this will provide may be support by the developer so that tennis players can go to the san francisco tennis club and swimmers can go to the bay club. i've talked to many of the swimmers and they unfortunately could not come today because they are all very excited about getting the new pool and enhance recreational opportunities.

i am writing to you as a long- term member of the tennis clubs and this supports the city. i support this because this will upgrade to the aquatic facilities and open up and renew three blocks of the waterfront for all to enjoy it. i urge you to certify the eir and give a big thumbs up. he is on to say how much it used for the polls and for families and for being able to enjoy recreation in this very special club. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is james cunningham. i am a member head of the

neighborhood association which represents residents and businesses along the northeast waterfront and i am representing that organization today. we are proud to stand with the many citizens and the neighborhood and civic organizations throughout the city to oppose this project. the project clearly conflicts with the existing land use policies and plans. we are particularly concerned with the attack on the long standing height limitations in place. the developer is proposing a 136 ft. high massive structure on the edge of the embarcadero which is the grand waterfront boulevard. the 136 height proposed is some 60% more than the existing limit. we view this as totally unacceptable. we're also concerned that approval of this project would open the way to similar attacks on the consensus not to raise heights along the northern

waterfront. this would compromise existing height limits to allow for high- rises along the embarcadero and this would be very bad policy. this is especially so when it is contemplated as in this case for a piecemeal up zoning for an individual parcels and not as part of an individual waterfront development plan. we're also concerned that approval would call for destroying and actively used outdoor recreation facility which has been an integral part of the neighborhood and community for 50 years. close to 2000 families are members of the club which provides very affordable and accessible recreation facilities to all members of the community at a very reasonable price. many members are longtime san francisco residents and a high number of children and seniors are among the active users. closing the club would disrupt a very popular summer kids camp that provides youngsters from

chinatown and other areas of the kennedy with scholarships to attend and enjoy the activities. proposing to replace this facility several years down the road is something that would have limited facilities and be about a quarter of the size and offers a very poor substitute for what is now available. therefore, we urge the commission to reject the many changes and waivers that are necessary for this unacceptable project to go forward. thank-you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. on this eir, is it solid? it is debatable but it is smart growth and smart development. changes good down there. we need it. we do nothing, nobody wins.

we do something, this is a win- win for everybody. we need that for the city and county of san francisco. this is important. i urge you to support the eir to move on to the full board. thank you very much. >> hello. i am an architect and a resident of san francisco. i appreciate the opportunity to speak. david wrote a letter and he is sorry that he cannot be here

today. "i am an architecture and design a decatur at california college of the arts. i had planned to attend the hearing to read these comments in person but now i am unable to do so given the rescheduled hearing date. these are the poinsettia want to make in support of this project. project quality. rarely do have a chance to get a preview of the project sponsors ability to deliver a quality project yet on this case all you have to do is to walk across the street. clearly, they know how to deliver quality at this location working with the courts and the city. if you think it is a fluke, walk farther down the embarcadero. the great waterfront city. every great waterfront city from vancouver to sydney has build high-quality projects along the waterfront. these projects provide the urban

backdrop for the street lights and waterfront access that is so important to the vitality of these unique cities. the understand that surface parking lots on public land along the waterfront are not enhancing urban design or civic life. there is only a handful that are able to replace the missing teeth of urban design that will complete the embarcadero as a great urban waterfront boulevard. if there is one spot where you would build a building to transition to the edge of the financial district, this is it. this is the right place for this kind of project. moderate density is the other point. even though it allows 600 units, this includes 134. even though it allows for the flat height, this modulates the height to step up back front to back starting from 59 feet. even though it eliminates an of

the surface parking lot, it replaces the places within the project. even though the most recent high quality housing has been -- style, this project delivers large a family sized units. not a single market rate housing project is decertified, this will be at a high level of all. the back is not the front. in light of this recent site, it would be wise to take stock of what has been gained by the approval of this project. there are tax revenues come

airport revenues come etc.. >> thank you. >> i am a mother of a longtime resident of san francisco. by a am a member of the club and both my daughter and i enjoy swimming outside at the club. actually, my daughter learned swimming there through schools that were able to use the club and have school projects there. i would like to ask you to certify the eir and approved the project because this greatly improves the club. it opens up a marvelous part of the waterfront for more people to use and enjoy. this

this project replaces the existing law school with a larger pool. it also recreationist -- replaces the recreation and children's pool end of the old world pool and at outdoor lounging and firepits. it is true that the tennis court will go, but tennis players will have access to the san francisco tennis club. there are over 200 public tennis courts struck the city, which is in line with the national guideline of one court for 5000 residents. the loss of private tennis courts is no reason to reject the project. i believe the eight washington project will live in the blocks of our city waterfront and make the site more interesting and accessible to families. a public park with children, cultural play areas, extra wide sidewalks, and many new indoor

and outdoor restaurants and cafes courts. as will become a place to stroll and lounge with views of san francisco bay. the project opens up a special spot that is now accessible only to paying members of a private club. it is time for us to share. not a tough job considering the wonderful club improvements that the improvement brings. please approve the project and certify the eir. thank you very much. >> my name is brinded do. although i do live in the facility of the proposed project, i am definitely an active participant in the tennis facilities of the club. i like anything