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 that improves the living, especially in our beautiful city of san francisco, but to destroy this exceptionally valuable open space, used by not only those

who live and work in the financial district but by all neighborhoods in san francisco and beyond, would be a travesty in my opinion. families from all over the city better not necessarily belong to the club or are not members can bring their children for tennis and swim lessons. one thing that has not been addressed -- there has been a good deal of comment about the existing club. not one person has spoken against the existing project. it was stated that the status " is good. we feel improvements should and could be made while providing a much-needed renovation and low skill development the site needs. thank you. >> i am in member of the green roof alliance, and i am here to establish our organization's support for the project. we ask you to approve it. thank you. >> good afternoon.

i am michael taylor. i am a neighborhood resident, and the purchase of it at the athletic facility. i just want to say that this is about the destruction of one of the great athletic facilities. i mean, really, there's no other place to play on the western side of san francisco for tenants. we are not going to accept playing at san francisco tennis club. it is like playing in an indoor, concrete warehouse. the outdoor element of tennis is very important. second only to perhaps the olympic club on the western side of san francisco. this is about the destruction of the athletic facility, and -- versus replacement of it with a condominium tower. members of the club are not

opposed to development of the area. just not a condominium project. so what we would probably prefer to see is a modernization of the athletic facilities, maintaining the tennis courts, modernizing the polls, adding an open space. perhaps providing underground parking for the parking lot adjoining the club. you can still modernize the area, develop it. just do not destroy the existing athletic facility. you are not benefiting the local neighborhood. the neighborhood uses the facility. the people who worked in the adjoining financial district use the facility at lunchtime. you cannot go across town to the

san francisco tennis club constantly back and forth. additionally, the bay club, located more on the northeast side -- it does not provide good tennis facility. this is a great tennis facility. i strongly urge you to reject the environmental impact report and pursue further different alternative development. thank you. >> [reading names] >> i am here to read a letter on behalf of totally blind -- toby levine, who could not be here today. "i am a retired planning commissioner. we spent six years developing a plan for the waterfront. that plan was adopted by the

commission in 1997. subsequently, adviser groups were established by the court threw out the waterfront here for several years, i was the chair of the advisory group and am currently a member, though i do not speak for that committee. in the waterfront land use plan, see wall lot 151 is designated a mixed use opportunity site, and a potential units were designated, including five of the eight washington plan. these include public open space, residential housing, parking, retail jobs generators, and recreational enterprises. the waterfront design and access plan, also approved in 1997, is concerned with the issue of reuniting the city with its waterfront. the original committee may not have dreamt that jackson and pacific streets could reach the waterfront, since they were blocked by an impenetrable wall. the current plan removes the wall and makes it possible for residents and workers from the nearby neighborhoods to access the waterfront. this may be the most important long-term feature of the plan. i will list the public benefits

according to my personal priorities -- pedestrian opening of jackson and pacific to the waterfront once again. 33 units of affordable housing during a time of diminished resources. funds for the port to repair historical buildings and rotting piers. in a public park for children. parking for the public since they will soon remove the parking raj at howard street. substantial an ongoing revenue for the city, and, of course, the construction employment. as you listen to testimony, you will note that had appeared to be the driving force for the termination of this budget. the golden gateway tower east directly across from 8 washington rises 270 feet above the waterfront with the stepping down to soften the image. this very tall, double loaded corridor apartment house will be more and dental by the step down a bit from a building here everything around is below 35 feet. if you average the house over the entire site, you will find

the average reaches 37 feet. this is not a gigantic, i- blocking project here the project consists of a team of esthetically driven architects and planners who will provide the city with remarkable development which will make us all very proud. they are also receptive to new ideas to improve the product. i have witnessed the project evolved over several years and know they have delivered beautiful restoration of pierce 1/2, 3, and 5. i strongly urge you to support projects and the benefits that it will bring to all of san francisco. thank you. >> good afternoon to commissioners. i am the chair of the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. nine years in housing committee. i would like to read into the record the action of the general

assembly of the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. voted on tuesday, may 18, 2011, and passed the following resolution -- where is the height and massing of the proposed eight-story mixed use luxury condo development at 8 washington street is in appropriately scaled in relationship to the historic structures and in context of the port of san francisco and embarcadero national register of historic district and whereas the project is inappropriate for location along san francisco's waterfront at the edge of the embarcadero and immediately adjacent to sue bierman park and whereas the project would build a wall on the waterfront and a menace the pedestrian experience by blocking scenic views of telegraph hill and coit tower, thereby denying tourists and locals alike some of san francisco's iconic views, and whereas the project in

combination with already pending projects such as the exploratory m and the proposed cruise ship terminal, along with the america's cup, would exaggerate an already problematic project in the transit situation, and whereas the project is proposed to cast additional shadow on sue bierman park in violation of proposition k, and whereas a to require the destruction of a recreation amenity that is part of the initial development of the golden gateway planned community, and services to not only residents of the golden gateway, but all said franciscans, and whereas a serious failure to create a unified plan for protecting the historic anesthetic integrity of the ne waterfront and the port

of san francisco's failure to update the waterfront and land use as required by the voters in 1990 and will lead to further and piecemeal approval of incompatible projects such as this one out and the appearance of one of the world spectacular waterfronts. therefore be it resolved that the coalition for sentences could neighborhoods opposes the project at 8 washington street on san francisco's unique and historic waterfront. >> good afternoon. i am representing myself. we have heard a number of sincere people here today objecting to this project could have been whipped into a frenzy of fear about change. some people obviously have been staying up nights imagining

problems and impacts. the funny thing is the neighbors will be primary beneficiaries of this project, taking a very ugly area that was built as a buffer against the terrible embarcadero freeway, and replacing it with a project that is worthy of the gracious embarcadero boulevard that we have today, a project that will replace the existing private, for-profit health club with a new expanded health club. it is not going away. it is just getting better. the project is not a high rise. the tallest part is 95 feet lower than the adjacent closest golden gateway tower, one of the ugliest and most pedestrian unfriendly developments in the city. along the embarcadero, the project is lower than the existing 84-foot height limit. the urban design