recreational open space which is what we are sorely lacking in the city. the other comment i like to make, sorry about that, but every hearing that i have been too, and i have not been able to attend all of them, people said that this is a private club as if it is a horrible place where private things take place. it is no more private than the ymca that you have to pay to attend. and now, it is no more private than recreation facilities because of the budget crisis. the recreation department is now charging. i think the use of private, wherever it appears, is a of this attack on a wonderful facility that will not remain

have if this and will be closed down for three years. and a minor inconvenience. this development has been in better from the beginning. >> the afternoon, commissioners. thank you for listening to what the community have to say. i live in different parts of the waterfront here it i was a founder of the action group that was a successful producing the height of a hotel. we got the reduction of that. it takes one of the most successful projects and one of

the must controversial project to have ever done, taking anything from market street to broadway, bulldozing get all and building the iconic center and allowing a winner to build the golden gateway center and the neighborhood that goes with it. it was a significant struggle going back to the 1960's. the fact that it was approved, they proposed a recreational complex that supported the residential needs of this neighborhood. our esteemed center would tell you that she made a critical mistake by not selling this open space. the head of the agency will tell you that today, too. everybody knows that this recreational facility is very important for the success of

this neighborhood. taking the courts that are open to anybody who wants to play, you can make it one half of the size and would not have the issue of building a 14-story building for the iconic use of multimillionaires. there are so many things in this, and i have to read. in 1962, they maintained community facilities for a permanent nature decided to offer you spot a non-profit basis. -- decided to offer it on a non- profit basis. i guarantee you the people that will use that will be the 180 new condominiums they use it. they will never have a chance to use it again.

thank you for your patience. commissioner miguel: when you start talking, it will come out. -- up. >> my name is lee radner. friends of golden gate way. i would like to focus on the recreation section that starts out with the sentence, impact on the environment less than significant. let me divert here for just a second. he last year, friends of golden gateway started a scholarship program for young people, particularly in our neighbors of the chinatown area to attend a

kids camp. thanks to our supporters and the nations, we were able to send out a number of young kids who can't, and this year, we were able to expand that to include not only chinatown, but young people south of market street. we feel it has been a very successful program, and the closing out of this club i would be real such programs, and it would never come back if it were done at half the size and that is planned. 700 people have been attending this camp. we are now able to provide the space for a number of young people that could not come

before. no matter how many thousands of kids we have been able to support. you translate that into families. i heard a couple weeks ago that a number of you discussing why families are leaving the city. we recognize housing and education are important. very important. the recreational space and the limited space is also very important. taking away this area would be devastating not only to the community, but to the hundreds of families that live in this community. i was a little late today and i had some other young people to come, but we do have a choice. -- joyce, one of the members of

the kids can't that they were able to support. some of them are still over there until 5:00, so we could not bring them all here. [chime] thank you very much. >> i was one of the very earliest members of the tennis club back in the days when you could not get a core there to save your soul. it was a very carefully controlled grew. since the western athletic club has taken over, it is more diplomatic. i would like him of that it is often referred to as an ongoing commitment from the western athletic club to run the facility.

i see no direct evidence of that whatsoever. i will submit that in my comments. the many aspects of this report have here say in them without documentation. i object to there being no alternative. this project is driven by the bride. the need is leveraged. the size of the housing component is leveraged. it is required to keep it from popping out of the ground. it is wake because of the hydraulics under the site. they are substantial and the need that to get it down. the need for housing is driven by the extraordinary costs. i also could not find that. why do we have no data comparing that to a parking facilities on

dry land or even on the nearby lot. it would be perfectly adequate for this purpose. i would also like to address the issue of the way that when i first started reading the project description, this project was going to be a boon to housing. it does nothing to support equal access and diversity. it does not include any affordable units. any fee is not commensurate with the total value of the housing. the feat is a standard whether the product as affordable or luxury housing. that makes it more advantageous for this type of project to include affordable housing on site. i would also like to say -- i lost it. we will skip that.

the recreation facilities, is not referenced in this. they are being partly closed down. tools have reduced hours and the fees have gone up. when costs more to swim at the north beach will tend to swim at the pool at the golden gate swimming club. to what extent are these alternative offerings currently -- [chime] thank you very much. commissioner miguel: [reading names] >> the afternoon, commissioners. we believe that this project opens up the opportunity for a long overdue civic conversation on urban land-use planner environmental values. we believe that it provides a

map on increasing the intensity of land use in this area. we believe it is thorough, balance, and fehr. on the washington project, which opens an opportunity to have a more basic civic conversation. should the city preserve a surface parking lot on public land at this unusual location? and should san francisco be able to realize the economic value of this land? should it provide an economic subsidies to local neighbors that want to preserve the parking lot? that is, subsidize a private purpose. opposition to changing the surface parking lot from our friends comes from folks living in housing that itself displaced businesses and residences. does anyone actually think this

was a sand dunes before the golden gateway was built? and it is fair to assume that it employed driving lots of trials and to the ground. but in one of san francisco's delicious ironies, there is the narrative that the present use must be the last and best work on land use at the waterfront. no further changes allowed here, and not increasing heights and densities. we might again recall that this site is next to the tallest buildings. many 30 and 40 years old. it is half as tall as the immediately adjacent building, and by contrast, the washington project displaces no one, and certainly not a recreational use. it proposes environmental uses

and values that we, as a city say we applaud. that is opening access to the waterfront. activating the streetscape, subsidizing housing affordability as well as in the greatest of infrastructure. how do we compare these values against a surface parking lot for the benefit of public land? the actual opportunity cost of the choices here, we would like to know which of the city values more highly? private tennis courts, or below market rate housing units? thank you. >> i am here to speak about many portions of the eir.

it has been around for a while, but i am convinced they can be tailored to your needs. this document is particularly slanted. with the environmental settings and impact. the tennis courts and 52 private courts do not talk about quality. for organized tennis, there are only a handful of options. as well as the golden gate way. two of which are left over for the people moving into the complex. it also cites the fact that while the population will increase, a loss of recreation is not that important. the conclusion seems fairly odd to me. and with the housing, the san

francisco general plan and has an element who speaks of achieving decent and a suitable affordable housing. this document cites the 170 exceptionally expensive units fills this need. i don't know where a six to one ratio feels the need, but if a conclusion drawn by this document. parking. many of these people saying that parking is such a great need, they are citing as many as 520 spaces. we don't know if that is going to be the case. 1 per person and anti -- at the highly expensive units.

you can force their hand, but at the same time, the project sponsor is trying to achieve parking for his parcel across the way. not that many parking spaces -- and i disagree with that. the alternatives, the neighborhood design have come up with much more creative alternatives than the one cited in this project. there is one possibility. i think there is a much more creative solution to come out of this. i have some copies. [chime] commissioner miguel: is there additional public comment on

this item? >> i am an avid tennis player, i have a husband to a wife who as a swimmer. i am also a club member, this

private club hosts public matches for teens, her very young people, and very old people. the environmental report cites the recreation element. it cites the impact to recreation and that there are 153 public tennis courts. that may be true if you catch them. if you take the court in my neighborhood, it is not liable. i am not saying that it is not to my liking. people cannot play tennis on that score. the notion that this is a private exclusive club mischaracterizes the nature of the club. i encourage you, before you make any decision, to go to the club

on a saturday and see people like my seven-month old peoplbay swimming. and 90 plus old people. thanks. [applause] commissioner miguel: followed by john. >> my name is jim chapel. i have that at every workshop and hearing on this project over the many years it has been planning. i am a professional planner, and i have studied in detail. in my best professional opinion, it is adequate, accurate, and complete. as this document pointed out, the existing surface parking lot is inconsistent with the grand boulevard and transit line that has been constructed with

tens of millions of dollars of public money. this is exactly where new housing should be located. an area with good weather and good views. i hear individuals here today concerned that they will lose access to the existing private club. there is no way that 165 residential units can support operation of the club. the operator will meet their memberships in the future just as they do today. while i sympathize with a few of these individuals, and the fears of the loss of the club are unfounded. the benefits far outweigh the negative impacts. thank you. commissioner miguel: john?

>> in the afternoon, commissioners. i have a business representative. today, i am speaking on behalf of san francisco -- because they are having meetings, we believe that it is adequate and completed. commissioner miguel: is there additional public comment? >> i just want to quickly address to of the objectives of the project. the one has to do with housing. let me show larry -- let me show you where this number comes from.

it is the total development cost of the project. the $345 million/165 condos, it gets you above $2.5 million. that is what it will cost to build. i also want to address the revenue of the poor. it will cost the city money. down here is a picture of the site. they are proposing one of the major sources of revenues. it will generate $40 million. they are entitled the term

sheet all comes to the port. the environmental impacts are that if it ever comes to pass, if it were to happen, what recreation centers would have to be closed because of the loss of revenue? there are consequences to the economics of this project. those have to be addressed. the are other sources of revenue that they claim don't exist. it is the other big reason for doing this. i want to suggest a couple of things need to be added. this is the fourth attempt to develop, does of the site. they tried in the 1950's and 1990's. the letters from former directors saying that the

intention has always been to key the golden gate recreation center permanently their as community benefits. i would like to ask in the environmentally superior alternative, the developer has great rendering at his proposal. we're putting up a nice clear fences. it is part of the deal. this is his advantage to keep it ugly. [chime] please include that. >> hello, my name is jill tannenbau. -- tannenbaum.

golden gatway was the only place i could find to play tennis and swim and outside. people come to swim and play tennis, socialize, meet people, do things. it is one of the most exciting places in the city during the summer. i would leave the city, because i have nowhere to go. >> i am showing the area along

the waterfront. i tried calling of any -- up any eir that had an underground parking garages. there is no eir that has been developed with an underground parking garages along the waterfront. i tried. and the redevelopment has none because they were all done before ceqa. there was an eir for a hotel that does not have an underground rock. parking is in the form of a turnaround area. what you have a 420 carbon rod that has excavation of 38-40 feet. the entire area that i was looking for -- and there is no

soil drainage. this is going to be excavating into a site that is going to have 110,000 cubic yards of soil. you will have sea level rises. the elevation his 0.95-0.91. it is basically at sea level. the sea level is rising. you're building a gigantic bathtub for a 420 car garages. the building has to keep the

drug from popping up because the water level is so high. -- the garage from popping up because the water level is so high. there is no discussion of hydrology except for the archaeology of the old ships. you cannot find any of this. it is totally missing a discussion of the impact of building an underground garage with sea level rising and a water cable that is already very high. this is an environmental issue, just not there at all. no eir's have ever been done for this kind of a situation. commissioner miguel: is there additional public comment?

>> i just want to say that i oppose as is. bicyclist can get hit. the recreation center is really important. my life pretty much stays east. i guess most of the folks stay east. look north of sixteenth.