members of the commission. i would like to offer bcec's staff support for the study. i think we can all be extremely proud of what we have accomplished here on the waterfront. in fact, bcdc regularly takes credit for the good work you have done here. [laughter] i think we have to acknowledge that we have only partly done the work. our goal is to reconnect san francisco to the waterfront. you have done a great deal of work here on the water side of the embarcadero. your executive director and i regularly engage in quality control assessment at the many restaurants along there. [laughter] obviously, i take my responsibilities more seriously than she does. what we have decided to do is look at and the determination of what this side of the

embarcadero should look like. what do we want? and then we went about doing what we said we wanted to do. the embarcadero was the same thing. we made choices. what do we want to achieve? we went about implementing them. we need -- we need the same thing for the inland side of the embarcadero. that would be the fabric that holds and nets the city together with the embarcadero and the day. in essence, what we have now is half of a well-dressed person, or a beautiful painting without a frame. we need to finish this. the study lays out the parameters for doing this. i recognize there is going to be a lot of controversy over some elements in that plan, the implementation of it. but that controversy should take place within the context of goals, objectives, and what we are going to try to achieve.

it should not stop the process because of controversy over individual elements. in fact, i think it will allow us to better address these controversies if we have some differences. on behalf of our support, i thank you. i congratulate you for your achievements. we engage in collaborative partnerships with the part, using your money to achieve our objectives. this is such a good idea i wanted to be here and step in early so that when it is as successful as it will be the weekend it credit for it. thanks a lot. president fong: angie corney? >> good afternoon. thank you for having me here. my name is andrew corney. i am diane professional -- a design professional at an

engineering firm in san francisco. i have a child here in san francisco. i wanted to commend the city on the plan. i think they did a great job. i think it is a great guide for the development of this part of the city. but there are two things i wanted to talk about today. first of all, i am originally from sydney, australia. when i look at the waterfront in san francisco and there is still a lot of work to be done. i did once when i first lived here -- when i first moved here took the walk along fisherman's wharf. i have not done that walk sense, because i do not think it is a nice walk. i do not think this plan will address that. there are not many places to stop and have a drink. there is not a particularly beautiful walk along that side of the harbor. i think this plan would go a long way toward improving that

as a great opportunity for the city and seaport, to approve the amenities. i think it could improve the quality -- the quality of the city. as a young professional who moved to the city, i think i am reflective of a lot of young people in the city. a lot of young people have moved here from other parts of the united states and other countries and called san francisco home. it is difficult for people like us to find housing in san francisco. there needs to be more housing in san francisco. this is a great opportunity to bring more housing into a part of the city where people could commute to work without a car. for those two reasons and for all the great work the planning commission has done, i thoroughly support the plan. president fong: jim chappel? i am sorry. if you can hold on to minutes, we're going to take a two minute

breakready? picking up where we left off, jim chappel. >> i am an experienced professional planner who has worked in community planning in san francisco for over 30 years. i am here today representing myself and thousands of people who have worked to improve san francisco's waterfront over the years. i do not need to remind this commission that the waterfront land use plan was adopted in 1997, after seven years of collaboration between all interested parties in the san francisco. it represents a viable framework for meeting the diverse needs of the port itself and all the others who would use and enjoy this unique city resource. thousands of residents spent

tens of thousands of hours over a seven year period to craft that plan. the current excellent nebraska waterfront study which you are considering today -- northeast waterfront study which are considering today it validates its sentiments. this most recent effort was begun in february 2009, a full 15 months ago. now, some people are suggesting this is not enough and we must stop and go back and do more planning again. this is highly disrespectful of the good effort of so much of the public over so many years, and it is gratuitous and beside the point. there are those people who want no change to anything, ever. i want to commend the planning department on a very thorough and democratic process, and an excellent professional progress. i ask this commission do

everything in your power to advance the recommendations of the northeast embarcaderos study, including its design principles and guidelines. this represents the will of the greatest number of the public and represents a good planning principles. do you have a card there for wells whitney? he had to leave, but he asked me to say we knew san francisco would also agree with these comments. president fong: dick lummock? >> good evening, commissioners. my name is dick flumack. i have been working in san francisco since 1965. when you were looking at some of the slides presented earlier with the view of the cityscape, there was not a building in

there i did not work in in one capacity or another. [laughter] so one of my original clients had an office here. this is 45 years ago, at one of the ferryboats when the port commission was renting the ferry boats as office space. the only one left now, i understand, is 27,000 square feet of office space. anyway, for 20 years i was also a member of the golden gate way tennis club, and drifted from there to windsurfing. so the waterfront is close to my heart. and i came here to support the planning commission recommendation for the nebraska waterfront study -- for the northeast waterfront study. it is first class. waste no more times on meetings

and study groups. we had to many of those, in my opinion. we do not need that anymore. in my opinion, you should approve that post haste so we can go to work in the construction area that we know how to build the buildings and enable individual projects to proceed. thank you very much. president fong: alec bash? >> good evening, commissioners. i am here to present comments for myself and levine asked me if i would introduce her letter as well. i think we have had some excessive comments on the plan.

while we did not achieve consensus there either, i think our comments were taken into account in the work on the report. achieving consensus is an ongoing effort, particularly on the waterfront. to work by neighborhood design has the potential to add more players and texture to that. such efforts are always to be encouraged. i hope to broaden their efforts to engage all stakeholders in this critical area of the city, not only the community participants so far, but other businesses and institutions like the very building, design groups, civic-minded groups, and other important parts of the city. with regard to toby's letter, she says the study is a strong development for shaping future

development on the waterfront. the current situation must be changed. we have several blocks with a non penetrable fence followed by in slightly marks reject unsightly marks. she believes this should be accepted as it were the document that would present a guide to development of this important part of the city. she points out the report beautifully illustrated the emphasis on improving pedestrian access, which is excellent. the idea of a mediating damage to the area caused by the golden gateway is excellent. she adds your concerns about the long wall of the club to that. she encourages development of the design guidelines for the 25 foot height limit area in order to enhance the pedestrian

experience of that part of the embarcadero. she concurs that the current pedestrian projects need to be enhanced and made safe, and resources should be focused on that. she believes in developing open spaces tucked into existing development, mandating family size housing. that is not enough to make a child-friendly area. we need it child care centers, libraries, etc. she believes the current proposal for lot 251 is a reasonable compromise. that concludes her letter. thank you for your time. >> commissioner bill had to leave, but has submitted a letter for the record. president fong: brendan

dunnigan? >> good evening, commissioners. i am in licensed california architect. a practice here in san francisco in live here in san francisco. i am raising two children who are attending public schools. this week, they are attending a camp at the golden gateway tennis club. it is a great facility. those things will still be in place later. but i am here in support of what has been done by the planning commission and the planning department. it is to be commended. this is the final key, as many folks have said, in completing the waterfront, which so badly needs to be activated. the densities that have been discussed, i think, are appropriate. the need for housing has been clearly articulated by alan mark

and others. we do a lot of residential work in this town and definitely need to see more housing in the pipeline. it is projects like washington and others along the waterfront that would add tremendous housing. this is about the greater public good. clearly, this is that link between the ferry building and the fisherman's wharf that needs that greater public wharf and needs to be built into something exciting. i cannot wait to see it for myself, my children, and the greater public good. i fully support what has been presented to you today. president fong: paul iseult? patricia craig? >> good evening, commissioners. i am here representing a planning coalition.

i have a letter on ellen's behalf. we are pleased to submit comments supporting the northeast embarcadero study. these are guidelines for new development in the area. we are very pleased that the san francisco planning commission approved the study's recommendation at the hearing on july 8. we hope the port commission will do likewise and approve the study. it has many sound recommendations. the following are representative examples of what we see as useful comments. the sea wall should be developed and released from the growing limits. development should include neighborhood and city-serving uses on the ground floor. new development should provide the range of natural to poverty and surrounding communities. these developments should complement the character of

historic districts, but also represent the best of contemporary architecture. the sand francisco bay and waterfront industry are a major contributor to commerce, recreation, and the environment. the blake -- the bay planning commission have supported this process for many decades. it is an important foundation on which the san francisco planning department can build its recommendations. the thoughtful and visionary approach to ensuring compatibility of development and sustainability is a model for coastal ports across our nation. founded in 1983, the bay planning coalition is a nonprofit organization representing a broad spectrum of the bay of business and environmental entities. the 175 members include the maritime industry, local government, residential and commercial builders, labor unions, recreational users, and

professional firms. we request that you approve the study and support the planning commission vision. thank you for your time. president fong: kevin loskatoff? >> good evening, commissioners. i am here in support of the planning commission recommendations. i want to think staff for their work in creating a document that looks at the city and waterfront as a whole. i am a member of the tennis and swim club and enjoy the disabilities. however, this will bring about much-needed renovations while also surprising -- while also providing land for the greater community outside of as private members. currently, the only citywide contribution of the club is the

unfortunate wall that overshadows a large section of the embarcadero. is that a wall, a fence, or a combination? it is important to remember the civic responsibility our city has to the waterfront. the importance of this area and the need to replace certain parking lots with developments that benefit the port and city and create visible neighborhoods -- there has been more than enough public input during a number of meetings. i urge you to put it to use and move forward with progress along the west side of the embarcadero. if i may, i have heard a few references to an alternative plan this evening. i advocate you please not consider this plan was created behind closed doors, representing a special interest pursuing their own agenda. hundreds of san franciscans have made a good-faith effort, spending many hours attending meetings and submitting commons for a transparent study that considers the entire community's point of view.

i respectfully request to move forward with that plan. president fong: matt harris? >> good evening. i am in north beach resident. i have been at most of the meetings and assure you that have been throw, productive, and balanced. at the last couple of meetings, nothing new came up. planning has done an excellent job of presenting a study that serves the best interest of the waterfront as well as the city as a whole. upon a recent trip to win as onerous -- a recent trip to buenos aires, i sought new buildings that blended and complemented the longstanding architecture of the city. seeing this all my strength and my feelings for positive growth. san francisco needs to be

encouraging development along the waterfront to ensure that the recent successes along the embarcadero can continue. president fong: is there any other public comment on this item? >> good evening, commissioners. thank you for your patience. it is now 6:30 p.m.. my name is fred allerdice. i am a professional real-estate broker for over 35 years, marketing homes, condominiums, that's a trap on the waterfront. i take some umbrage with the previous comment that the amount of inventory of 800 units is about to be depleted in san francisco. i have a number of clients that have purchased real-estate in the last 10 years south of market, in this area, of which

over 2000 are under water, meaning the value of their homes is less than their mortgage. the cannot sell their homes. they cannot do a short sale. they are basically up a creek. they would give their homes away today if somebody would take their position. those 2000 people would love to be in the market. it is not 800 units that have not been sold. it is potentially 2000 more just in those neighborhoods that cannot even become available. that is all over the bay area, all over the country. to make a preposition or supposition that another 180 condominiums need to be built based upon lack of supply to me is a fallacy. it is a real shame because of this part of the market. getting back to the golden gateway tennis club, i have been to these meetings for 20 years. 90% of the people who spoke on behalf of this project today,

and specifically washington street approval, are employed or have an economic relationship to the people at washington street. these people are here because they have potential economic gains for this project to be approved. that should be on the table. everybody should know it. there are reasons for them to have that position. there is nothing wrong with that. this is america. as far as the process of this plan, i have seen today that the project was proposed by the planning department to be 55 feet on the front and 125 feet on the back. that increases the size by another 40%. everybody knows the club will disappear and behalf. the vast majority of new club members will live in the condominium. the whole neighborhood knows the benefit of this club that over 3000 people have been using for 60 years. the green fence -- that was put there because there was a freeway there.

it is nothing to do with the aesthetics of it. you could remove that tomorrow and make it pleasing. i think you'll find as time goes along that the proposal has some very attractive parts to it. i think it is getting another chance to be at least exposed. thank you for your patience. president fong: any other public comment? >> good evening, president fong and commissioners. i have to comment on this other comment you heard today. you notice it is lopsided. the reason is i call people to see if they would come and speak. they said no, we are waiting until we can present the alternative study. i hope you will take that into consideration.

it was my understanding this was just an informational presentation and it you will be hearing the other side of the story in august. president fong: thank you. any other public comment? ok. the commissioners have questions or comments? commissioner lazarus: i would like to add my thanks to the planning department. i am not sure this was necessarily their idea. so we appreciate all the concentrated effort that went into it. i know we all hoped it would come to a conclusion sooner than it did, i expect there were reasons it took this long, to maximize opportunities for input. as someone who has no background or experience in design and planning, i appreciate the fact

we have a sister agency with the professionals who can assist us in doing this kind of a process and really helping to set of contacts. this was not intended to be about a particular project, a particular development, or a particular lot, but was designed to give us principles and guidelines we can apply as a backdrop as a set of standards making decisions going forward. i believe you have provided us with that. i also want to say i find it a bit disingenuous that as of two months ago there is some second or ancillary planning process going on, because you had this process underway for a year and a half. i know you came to a preliminary set of conclusions that were then revisited with additional public input. i very much appreciate what you have done. i feel it does give us any background we need to move forward as different things come before us.

thank you very much. commissioner brandon: i do not think i could have said that any better. i want to commend the planning department and staff for the numerous hours, time, and meetings that have gone into this study. we really appreciate your efforts and all of the knowledge and expertise you have given us to work from. a lot of work went into this, and a lot of good recommendations came out of it. we really appreciate the plan that you have given us. thank you. president fong: my thoughts are this is a comprehensive and well put together study. i believe there were five different workshops or the public had opportunity, maybe four with the port as well. there have been many opportunities. i know most of all of you by

first name from public comment or sitting at a round table in this room hearing about a particular project within the scope of this study. i did have the benefit of going online and watching last thursday's planning commission. i heard all the comments there. i heard the recap of what they are looking at doing. some of the comments were thepearl about pearls in san francisco. if you look at the work that is being done at valencia's street, fisherman's wharf, all public plan similar to what was presented to us today. the port is doing work on the blue-green way as well. i think this is a key spot for san francisco visitors as well as residents to have an opportunity to explore this area further. a bit of a side note -- i had a bicycle stolen in front of this

site. i had a friend's get broken into in front of this site. there was a stabbing at broadway and embarcadero a couple of nights ago. while there is no direct connection to urban planning and crime, it figures that in the dark area is not a great place to be. i think this plan, not specifically the sea wall, but all of the open spaces including lot 314 -- that is the corner of bay and embarcadero -- if we feel this is an important juncture, that one is more important from a traffic point of view. going straight to fisherman's wharf along the waterfront, are going left -- that is a key point. i am applauding the work that was presented and thank you. i want to clarify with the

director that there is no action to be taken. that is correct. >> that is correct. it is not that the port of.studies of the planning commission. it is simply something we could dissipate in. the item before you today is so you can hear all the details as the public has, and others according to the findings of the planning commission. i did hear there are some expectations that there will be another follow-up item in august. i am not clear on what that is. it is not something the staff is planning right now. at this point, we have not been invited to participate in any other discussions. hopefully, we will be, but as of yet i do not know what that is. president fong: we take this