into either side of that corner, laidley street or fairmount streets. we have always had suggestions for the project, but we never had the plan until march of this year of this particular project in order to look at and make suggestions. we do have suggestions. we're not trying to take the project away. we're not trying to take square footage away. we're not trying to take the design away or anything. we just want to work with somebody, the architect, to medicate some of the mass of the look on this corner. -- to mitigate some of the massive look on this corner. thank you. vice president miguel: thank you. project sponsor, you have two minutes. >> looking at the montage they are speaking of, in relation to our house, it appears to be 8 feet. it is 4.5 feet. they must have made a mistake when they did the work and used

an old montage. this is not a monster house. this is a very modest house. it will be three bedrooms, two baths, very small. the planning department, working with them, we have done so much work and we have gotten this so they are in support of this and we're hoping this to get moved forward. most importantly, all these neighbors know what a derelict building this was. at the back of the building has termites and rot. the building has no buildings next to it. i have a four-foot backyard, nothing on either side, nothing in front. this building is not safe. it needs structural reinforcement. it needs a complete makeover. we just have not been able to have the funding to do it and we're waiting to get all of this work done. we're hoping and praying to get this move forward so we can move

on with our lives. thank you so much, and i appreciate your time. vice president miguel: thank you. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: thank you. in the staff report, it was noted, the commission, and adult thing it rises to the -- i don't think it rises to the level of taking discretionary review for the following reasons. the increase, 4 foot 6 inches, as told by the architect and shows and renderings we have on this plan basically raise the entire house is enough to make that a doorway entrance from a front, and that is the 4 foot 6 inch increase. there is a slightly higher area on what is referred to as a tower, but it is just an element on the corner that is architecturally very nice because it sets it apart.

i am not sure if it is 2 feet higher or not. even if it were, i don't think it is significant and all he has really done is brought out the additional third floor so you have the usage of the area where it was never a full floor. there were a lot of meetings, as evidenced by the testimony, where it started out much larger, and i think that would have been appropriate if it was that height. this is a height that is appropriate. design-wise, i like the clay tile roof and the windows, so i would be supportive of this and would move not to take d.r. and approve. vice president miguel: is there a second? commissioner borden: i will seconds. commissioner sugaya: to staff, i sent an email out requesting additional affirmation. the you know of that going

anywhere? >> i am not aware of that. commissioner sugaya: just requesting additional information in terms of drawings, elevations. what i am looking at is the elevation on one street that is 1 inch wide and about 1.5 inches high. i am looking at the other elevation which is about 1.5-2 inches wide at the same height. and i am being asked to judge this building based on those drawings. there are no contextual drawings or photographs provided in my pocket, which i asked for in my e-mail. the claim from the d.r. requestor that the upper side of the street may have taller buildings while the other side of the street are all populated with one-, two story buildings, i would have liked to have seen that. to place this entire project in

some context. i am sure the architect, sir, did you ever receive anything from the planner requesting that? no. which you would have certainly provided. [inaudible] commissioner sugaya: okay, thank you. the confusing part, i think, is the project's sponsor, rightly so, has challenged the accuracy of this particular drawing, but, you know, it was something that somebody spent some time on an outlet have seen -- and i would have liked to have seen something comparable from the architect to show the difference or least be able to say this was a true perspective or elevation. i guess my difficulty is i think

commissioner moore may have had certain issues, also, but there are only as though you are people here. i don't want to hold this up, but i did not have my mind made up. -- there are only four people here. >> typically that is on the d.r. commissioner sugaya: i know, but i asked for it. which does not make me happy. >> i will speak to the product planner on that. -- to the project planner on that. vice president miguel: i went out to look at the property, the disparity, and i had to drive around twice because it is a difficult corner to navigate, actually, without holding up any other trafficke. those who are standing in the doorway, that is not allowed.

please take a seat. it is amazing how small to what actually is -- it is amazing how small the law actually is. i have to say i do not have a problem with the project, although i agree with commissioner sugaya that having gone out to take a look, it was hard to discern what is the situation there. >> commissioners, you have a motion and second to not take the art and approve as proposed -- [roll-call vote] so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously. vice president miguel: i would move that the department, also

include continuous worke with te architect as to demonstration, etc. thank you. at this time, since we have been sitting since noon without a >> please be reminded that the commission does not tolerate any outbursts of any kind. if you have mobile devices of any kind, please turn them off or in the new position appeared finally, when speaking before the commission, speak into the microphone and state your name for the record. commissioners, we are on your 3:00 p.m. regular calendar item, 13, for case 2007.0030e, and 8 washington street hearing on the draft environmental impact report. please note that written comments will be accepted until

5:00 p.m. on august 15, 2011. >> good afternoon, commissioners. planning department staff and environmental coordinator for this project. this is a hearing to receive comments on the draft environmental impact report for case 2007.0030e. the purpose of today's hearing is to take public testimony or comment on the adequacy, accuracy, and completeness of the draft environmental impact report. there is no approval action requested at this time. the subject properties are located on the north side of washington street between the embarcadero and drummond street. the proposed project would replace a private health club facility and surface parking lot with two residential buildings and underground parking, private athletic club

facilities, and a park. the residential buildings would range in height from 48 feet to 136 feet, and with the underground parking would encompass approximately 575,000 square feet. the planning department prepared an environmental impact report for this project because it would have significant effects on the environment. the draft eir found that the proposed project would have a significant and unavoidable impact -- transportation impact under 2035 cumulative conditions and would also have significant and unavoidable impacts related to sea level rise and air quality. staff published the draft eir on july 15. june 15, i'm sorry. the public review will end on august 15. those who are interested in commenting on the draft eir in

writing may submit comments up until 5:00 p.m. august 15 to the environmental review officer at the planning department at 1650 mission st., suite 400, said francisco. staff is not here today to answer questions. comments will be transcribed and responded to in writing, and -- in the comments and responses document, which will respond to all verbal and written comments received and make revisions to the draft environmental impact report as appropriate. commager's should speak slowly and clearly so that the court reporter can produce an accurate transcript. commager's should state their names and addresses so that they can be properly edified and received a copy of the response for comments document when completed. after hearing comments from the public, we will also take any comment on the draft eir from the commissioners. this concludes my presentation

at this time. unless planning commission members have any questions, i suggest the public hearing be opened. commissioner miguel: thank you. i will be calling names as a group, but you can come up at any point if your name has been called. comment time will be the full three minutes. as you just heard, this has to do with the adequacy, accuracy, and completeness of the eir document, not the project comments themselves. that will come before the commission at a later date, all right? [reading names] >> i am here in my role as chair of the board of directors of

california walks. i question the adequacy and completeness of this, and i will cite as an example the transportation section. especially page 35. it makes an amazing statement, that there will not be any safety problems because, "pedestrians have the right of way." the audience reaction is appropriate. there's laws against burglary, arson, theft, murder, and it still happens. i made that because it is not meant to be a joke, but to point out there was no real analysis. the statistics provided talk of two cars or six people per minute, which amounts to 120 cars or 360 people per minute. what they did not figure out was how many pedestrians are walking across the garage on average during that time frame. the california traffic devices control committee allows for a walking speed of 2.8 feet per

second where seniors are present, which is everywhere. that is something that needs to be addressed. they say there is no danger to pedestrians, yet they also talk of the mitigation of an audible and visual device to alert pedestrians. if there is no danger, why have the device? and why is there not anything for car drivers coming out? you have to simply visualize the way underground garages are, that cars are coming up at an angle. there is often a central pillar between in an outbound. a driver coming out may not see somebody coming from the other side. there is often the fact that also drivers look across pavement while waiting for car traffic, when a lawyer, it means the sidewalk is block, which means the pedestrian has to go out into a curb or traffic lane or go down partly the ramp to get out of the car, or be stuck

between and in bound and outbound car. here again, that is not responsive. they say there is no danger, but i'm also going to point out state law -- statewide integrated traffic control system does not record collisions that are not in the street. driveways and parking lots are exempt, so you do not know from state data how many pedestrians are injured at an entrance. that is why this is incomplete, under responsive, and reliable, and just that one section of simple facts on file in practice now that i'm going to say what else is wrong. the top of muni having additional services projected, but they maintain they will be the current indiana level service now, even though the exploratory well not come in. there will be more pedestrians, but they are not counting on that. but they are counting on the projection of possible new any extras. but that is unreliable.

commissioner miguel: thank you. >> good afternoon. i am here representing a group called renew sf. we have been working on various projects in and around north beach. our largest project is a project to rebuild columbus avenue. but we have been embroiled in several other related projects all around the area. we have been watching the 8 washington square project since its inception, and one or other of our board members have been, i think, every public hearing. we note that the original project has been modified many times in response to community input. on our board, we have a number of world-class architects and planners who have looked at the project and at the eir and have

voted unanimously to support the project based on the fact that the mitigating items far out weigh any potential negative impacts to the project itself. on that note, i think i will just summarize, i'm at 48 san antonio place in san francisco. commissioner miguel: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. there are so many issues with this draft eir, but i will just talk about a couple and let the folks continue on. the things i want to talk about today are the talks about the project being transit-oriented. we have a statistic showing

that the more people and, the less they use public transport. these apartments are going to start being sold at $2.5 million and go up, so we really do not believe it is a transit-oriented projects. the other thing is that they mentioned this helps me projected city housing needs. we are wondering how the official can know how a project at this price point is going to help with any sitting housing needs except for the extremely wealthy. the height limits were raised last year through an approval of the planning department's ne embarcadero steady, without any eir reviews, so that is a real question for us. the planning department's argument is that the city needs a solid wall of developmental on

the embarcadero and that we need to allow this project to go through. it is a 136 height limit. this violates the city's urban design guidelines and the waterfront plans, so we are really questioning the ability once again of the. thank you very much. >> good afternoon. i am and activist representing thousands of people who are against this project. there is no need for an ill- conceived condo on this corner. it will block the historic view of fairy buildings. it violates the land-use recommendation from the department to connect the land to the waterfront. the base should be reviewed

every five years. has not been. washington street is a bit -- busy section that cannot absorb traffic now, plus the cumulative effect of traffic from pier 2729 exploratory m, etc. the garage capacity will inevitably add to pedestrians. this is the wrong corner to put up a huge building as such. there is a new york times -- and "new york times" recent article making extreme efforts to discourage car use in cities. we should learn from them. and suddenly, i do not know if you know about this, but families are leaving the city by the droves because there is no affordable housing. the amount of affordable housing given on this project is peanuts. it will not solve anything. the sea level rise is another question.

136 feet is way out of the ball park. there are so many negatives there is nothing positive about this project. the very fact that the planning department has done an eir is grossly slanted toward the city. this should be done by an independent agency. i said that more than once. all the people who have taken time and effort to attend all the community meetings are against it. that is 99%. there are very few people who want this project. please take their advice. they know, they live there. i defeated a garage in fairy part because it was a foolish idea. this is the same thing over and over again. please do not vote for it. it would be a disrespect for the people and for the people you

represent, and you are paid to represent the people. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am the senior property manager of the ferry building. thank you for the opportunity to comment on this. for reasons i will review briefly, the draft eir is deficient because it fails to describe accurately critical fact and what -- ovitz or understate substantially potential impact of the project. for 10 years, eop has been a steward of the ferry building and responsible for restoring it. all the best the ferry building serve local residents, but it is a major draw to the city and major tourist destination. many patrons who shop at the marketplace must park near the ferry building. other patrons, including those with mobility challenges, are able to visit the ferry building

only if successful parking is available nearby. from the onset, adequate parking is recognized as essential to make the renovation of the ferry building successful. that is why eop entered into the lease agreement. it insisted that the court make a parking agreement to enter parking for ferry building and tenants -- 4 ferry building tenants and patrons. parking agreement grants eop the exclusive right to control the entirety of seawall lot 351 for ferry building parking while reserving 10 unassigned spaces for parking forecourt vehicles and visitors. parking agreement provided additional spaces, but in 2008, the court closed that here for safety reasons. see what 351 is the most highly used parking area for the ferry building tenets and patrons due to its close proximity to the ferry building, the availability of parking validation, and it's easy access and visibility

directly off the embarcadero. under the parking agreement, if the port provides the same number space is currently located at sea wall lot 351, then they may develop lot 351 as a parking facility to serve the very building area. the ability to take away the parking from eop is conditioned explicitly on the provision that they have equal parking that is temporary and permanent. the project proposed by san francisco waterfront partners that is the subject of this draft eir does not meet this criteria. problems include -- will be submitted comments, but we wanted to alert you to a few of the major deficiencies now. project description does not state accurately the facts about the parking agreement and the rights of the eop and obligations of the port. it's from the list of required approvals the obligation under the parking agreement to provide temporary and permanent replacements basis through the

expiration of our crown leased and parking agreement in 2066. the most glaring omissions and inadequacies is analysis of transportation and parking impact -- [bell rings] commissioner miguel: thank you. that is that it? ok. commissioner miguel: you can submit, as in writing, and just to remind everyone, there is no commission vote today. this is just a hearing to take testimony on the eir. >> good afternoon. i am the director of the educational nonprofit that operates the ferry plaza farmers market at the ferry building. our comments are similarly address to the transportation component of the eir, specifically the section regarding parking, where we find that the data is out of date and restrictive in its scope.

by its own description, most of the data dates to 2006 and 2007, only slightly after our farmer'' market had moved into the area. our business continues to grow each year. the number of customers accessing the area continues to grow, increasing demands on parking in the area. as noted in the eir, the pier half has disappeared, diminishing the total number of spots. there is one error that ashley is an increase. refers to the fact that 40 parking meters along washington street are used on tuesdays and saturdays by farmers' market vehicles. that is actually not the case. that is 20 spots only in emergency situations on saturdays only, so that is an update, but this also does not

reflect the fact that not only is our business increasing, creating what a man, that there are other businesses in the area adding to that demand. bringing more patrons to the south of the ferry building. so in summary, we just want to point out that this particular section of the eir does not accurately represent the current level of use and perhaps more importantly, the current -- excuse me. getting ahead of myself year. does not represent the current level of actual available spaces and the ever-increasing demand that we anticipate will continue to have impact.

so we want to ensure that this report clearly considers all the impact on parking when considering other planning that goes for the area, so thank you very much. commissioner miguel: thank you. [reading names] >> good afternoon, commissioners. i live at 2309 california street in san francisco. this is an area i'd go to regularly. most saturday mornings and occasionally during the week. i guess i have two comments. one is a very focused one. the report asserts that the view

of quaker tower from the ferry building is not considered a significant view in the waterfront design and access element and therefore, the fact that this obscures this building means it is not significant. i would argue that we should consider the fact that perhaps the waterfront design and access element is deficient in that it failed to identify what is one of the significant use from the waterfront and from the embarcadero, which is quite power -- coit tower. in a more general approach, i think we have a fundamental problem in the way the eir's treat housing development. we are talking about housing development where the units are expensive. i think $2.5 million is expensive in almost anyone's standard. so here, you are putting very expensive housing in a city that already has an adequate