places demands on services. in other words, it will bring in the need for more employees in various areas. what we are not dealing with this is providing housing that is affordable to the middle of the population, the people who will most likely be providing services, which is the underserved area of the community. where the eir is deficient is it fails to look at opportunity costs. in other words, if i had a certain amount of money, do i spend in building a highly complex engineered garage to support luxury condos, or do i put it in developing housing that supports the broader population? from a financial standpoint, clearly, $2.5 million condos win the day, but from an environmental standpoint and a

net benefit to the quality of life in the city, it may very well be that using those resources elsewhere makes more sense. that is not considered. it is not considered part of the environmental impact, but we are making very significant decisions that by their nature force environmental impacts. in this particular case, they encourage far more transit from people out of the city into the city because they cannot afford to live here. thank you. commissioner miguel: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am deputy director of the san francisco planning and urban research association. we believe that this draft eir is complete. we believe that the proposed development at 8 washington is a significant improvement for key intersection on the city's northern waterfront. it presents a unique opportunity to replace a surface parking lot and private tennis club with

pedestrian-friendly publicly accessible open space housing, a renovated space-efficient club, ground-floor retail, and a much needed -- some needed underground parking. all these uses will be consistent with the surrounding area. according to the deir, the development proposed would not obstruct existing public street level of debate. it states that the proposed project would not substantially affect scenic vistas and cynic resources visibility for publicly accessible areas in the project vicinity. we agree with this analysis. incidently, when the project first came forward, i had the opportunity to visit the ferry building and look at the views tiered much has been made of this in this discussion, and as you walk along the embarcadero from the building and look up at the tower, the views -- a view

is actually obscured a variety of times by palm trees and other buildings. i do not view this as problematic. it seems to me that it is a nice thing when you are walking along the st. pierre finally, i would like to state that we believe that this project would radically improve the pedestrian experience on the western side of the embarcadero. as somebody who lives in north beach and walks the area frequently, i can tell you that the eastern side of the embarcadero is very pleasant, but the western side is not a very fun place to walk, particularly when you come to this particular area right now. you are confronted with a 14- foot high fence that is not very friendly to the street. it is not very friendly for pedestrians, and it is very unpleasant. i would assert from a pedestrian experience, this proposed project would be a great improvement.

i guess the boo is the new yay, perhaps. i would urge you to review our comments, and thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. commissioner miguel: thank you. >> good afternoon. i have lived on telegraph hill for 45 years. this draft shows that this project will have more open space than the city requires. i am in favor of moving this draft forward and making the waterfront available for all with more open space. it certainly is better than the

parking lot and the high fence that exists now. thank you very much. commissioner miguel: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am president of the golden gate way tennis association. our members live immediately adjacent to the proposed construction site, and i am here today to question the completeness of the draft report in two respects. first is to the impact of construction noise in the neighborhood, specifically with respect to pile drivers. the draft report shows that the davis building is located 60 feet away from the construction site just across drums street. the report indicates that there

will be 27 to 29 months of construction, including seven months of foundation work. there will be pile driving, and the piles will be on average 130 feet long. table one-three states that the impact of the pile driving noise will be significant unless it is mitigated. several mitigation measures are proposed, including pre-drilling to the extent possible, and use of state of the art buffering equipment. information i did not find in the report includes these -- how many piles will be driven? no numbers are provided. how far or too wet death would it be possible to pre-drill the holes for the piles? and finally, what is the number of decibels that would be generated by a pile drivers using state of the art muffling equipment? none of that information is present in the draft report, and

we ask that that information is available it be included in the final report. i have personal memories of pile driver noise from my childhood. i lived a few blocks from my construction site, and one entire summer for me was taken up by listening to pile drivers 8 hours a day five days a week. i do not want to repeat that, and i do not think any of my neighbors do either. the second area of possible incompleteness has to do with the scheduling conflict between this project and the america's cup. there is now a draft eir for the america's cup, and there are a couple of points in that that might be implemented into this draft report including the proposal to shut down northbound traffic on the embarcadero for some race days. that is shown in figure 6.9. secondly, there is a report of a possible chokepoint or bottleneck at the intersection of the embarcadero and

washington street. if that is accurate, it would have a significant impact on the construction site for a washington, and that probably should be headed to this report. based on the information we have now, our association is opposed to this. thank you. commissioner miguel: thank you. [reading names] >> thank you. i live in the davis building across from the project. i am going to address one area, the recreation section of the report, which is inadequate. in my work as a real-estate agent in marin county, one of

the first things that a prospective buyer was given where the ccnr's. they were very important, and they had to sign off on them within 10 days. we have no paper work that suggests how in the world the remaining public facilities are to be operated. the hours of operation. can have membership. will there be limitations on the use by non-resident members, such as exists at san francisco state, and other public institution with limited hours and reservation requirements. all of this is in the four-color brochure and in representations that have been made along the line, but we saw this in the bond crisis. we saw lots of people having big piles of paperwork that were not read or not completed or not signed. how do we know that people

purchasing a limited number of condos in a small site -- i have never seen a project like this where the public have access. you might find this in a community in the homeowners association where there was a golf course, and they needed to underwrite some of the expenses, so they had non-resident memberships, but you will never find it, i don't believe, in a compact residential situation. that a purchaser for $2.5 million might force the 1600 people walking in and out of their facilities. i do not believe that those homeowners would allow it, and i think the first chance at the developer left and the seller of the property was no longer around, they would exercise their legal rights to change the whole order document, which they can do under california law. i would like to see what legal

arrangement has been made so that the protections for the remaining facilities run with the land, no matter whether the current parties are involved in the project or not. thank you. commissioner miguel: thank you. >> good afternoon, members of the commission. in a prior life, i started up the environmental review process in san francisco and was an environmental review officer from 1979 through 1985, just as an aside. having read through the eir, i do believe it is largely an adequate, accurate, and objective. there are some points, however, which it could be improved. the final points about ferry building parking are apropos,

and the final should be as accurate as possible in that. on page four, we talk about: terrace from telegraph hill looking se. this is one of three places from public areas where it is possible viewing the ferry building. the other two are on the altar street, which is a short, dead- end street. one can also see the ferry building, and i think that is in -- that is an important view. then, on page 4h3, where it mentions sue bierman park, i think it would be worthwhile to mention that bought two or

three, which is the one next to one maritime plaza, has been discussed as being able to accommodate four tennis courts or three tennis courts and one basketball court, which potentially could be funded by the eight washington, having inadequate recreation in the area. on pages 4h 10-12, the eir concludes that the project would not create the need for physically altered parking, would not have a significant effect on all opportunities. i concur with the. then, on page six, 24, and 30, where we talk about the alternative, which is to develop only eight washington, and the alternative at the environmentally superior

alternative, it does not include the fact that those alternatives would have aesthetic impact compared with the proposed project of a more abrupt step down from the golden gate with center tower to the embarcadero, and it would not contribute to the visual interest and improve the pedestrian experience along the embarcadero. i think that should be included in the environmentally superior alternative. commissioner miguel: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am president of the barbary coast neighborhood association. we represent 5000 residents and businesses all along the northeast embarcadero. two words come to mind when i read the draft eir -- incomplete and inadequate. first point -- will not change

the character of the neighborhood? are you kidding? this development will totally forever ruin many of the iconic views and aspects of life along the embarcadero for tourists and citizens alike. gridlock is already common on the embarcadero, particularly at the intersection of washington. the traffic portion of this study is totally inadequate, addressing such issues as pedestrians walking along washington, blocking the ingress of cars going along this massive parking garage. that is not mentioned at all. the garage itself is literally blowing away the city's transit policy. at this minute parking spaces to an area that is already under such threat is not clearly delineated in the eir.

water displacement issues -- when you put a garage down that far, the water is going to go somewhere that is being displaced, likely into,garages near residential buildings. the demographics of the project -- $2.5 million, $5 million, $7 million -- who knows how much the penthouse will cost fear not considered are the car trips of house leaders, dog walkers, caterers, dry cleaning trucks, plant watering services -- the many services that super rich people demand and get in their buildings not covered. finally, i would like to read to you the city's host and a new agreement of the america's cup. the city will use all lawful means to restrict noise and debris generating activities on public works and large private construction projects in areas

reasonably approximate to the event during the america's cup. this is ground zero for the america's cup not covered in the eir at all. thank you. commissioner miguel: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i live on polks street -- pulled -- polk street. i am sending you some views that were part of the original planning of the golden gate way. my objection -- i find the draft

eir and adequate in that it does not address how the significant use of coit tower and san francisco are going to be acquitted. they are very important for tourists to orient themselves by. this is a huge mass of a building. it is like bringing back the embarcadero freeway. it has that kind of impact. also, they have begun planning beginning with the demolition of the produce market. here is the first version of the golden gate way, and you can see that there are no large buildings -- everything -- all the buildings are related to each other in placement of each other.

there is nothing sort of stock in. they build back words and up. they do not come forward and build of -- they do not come forward and build up. after that, a student won an award doing this version, which is kind of an oscar niemeyer round building. so it seems to have sort of been influenced in the second version of what golden gate was supposed to look like. again, you see all the open space. one last thing i wanted to quote is when the embarcadero buildings with in in 1967, portman said in his presentation today that all the office structures would be so designed and located on the side that a

clear east/west deal is retained at the bay and around the very building appeared further, it is felt the lines of sight for view is high on the hills will tend to slide over the center building towards the bed. north/south views within center will be preserved through sharply hedge breaks in the structures. this is overall planning. this is not something stock in. everything was related to each other. thank you. commissioner miguel: thank you. [reading names] >> i have some handouts, just a brief period commissioner miguel: -- just a brief. commissioner miguel: you can leave them right there. thank you. >> i am a professional

pedestrian, working mother, and 13-year resident. >> this is the draft eir, which i agree is inadequate. it relies a bit on the ne waterfront study, which in my family and i brought my children here today. my husband is parking the car after getting them from camp. i and my family are in practically every meeting, and i have yet to read the comments and thoughts and sentiment. the community did not support the waterfront study.

at the time, there was financial consideration. the court was in dire need of money. it went into a non-competitive association to try to solve their manager problems, which are vast. i work at oracle. coming to the port will help relieve the financial pressures, and maybe they will rethink this noncompetitive financial process. but it is a money-making deal. we all know that. a few more facts to talk about -- this community we live in has the highest density of all districts in san francisco. i've been trying to live there with my family for 13 years. the least amount of active recreational space in all of san francisco -- you can say that this is private if you will, but it is reasonably priced, and is the only active recreational space we have.

my children, when they play soccer practice now, my son and his school -- they have to reserve space. they just cannot go out to any part and say let's have a thick of the game. all of the schools reserve space. this is not just a single problem here there's not enough in the entire city, and not enough where we live. they might play a little softer across the street, but there are no picket games. even though we just read to the park, there is no soccer space. wall space. a small space. name the sport, there's no place you are going to run around and get any kind of great activity going. so there's a big issue. are taking away what is very important to the community. there is a big omission -- [bell rings] commissioner miguel: thank you.

>> i worked at golden gate tennis and swim club. i have never heard one tourist say they really like a high rise, but what they talk about are the views, the ambiance, the water, the parks, the spaces, and the healthy looking people in san francisco. we have very healthy looking people. i went on to the website of the planning organization to figure out what i'm trying to say. the first thing i came about was one, they said the planning department places protection and preservation at the very top of its list of priorities. interesting because this is a club that is going to be demolished. second, improvement in the city as a place for a living by aiding and making it more healthful promise is pleasant and satisfying with representing good standards for all residents and providing adequate open

spaces and appropriate community facilities. the third point i found was that the established priority policies says our parks and open space and their access to sunlight be protected from demolition. here i have this health club that is going to be demolished propose. it is helpful. it is pleasant. has been there for 50 years. right now, if i was not here, i would be swimming with 50 other tenants. i live at market and castro. i go on muni every day and back to get there. i am not rich, but i am healthy because of this club. it is the only club like this in the city and in the state, and i am willing to say in america because it is in the center of urban development. you have nine tennis courts and two open pools. this is unheard of. you have the most amazing amenity right in front of your

city, and it is in danger. playland is gone. i'm old, so i can talk about it. what is in play line right now? you have to protect your city. it is all you have got. we do not have much left here. san francisco is promoting the destruction of a lively, along with, bribing sports community, and make no mistake -- demolished, and it will be destroyed. it is the only sanford cisco sports facility like it, like i said. it is a retrograde step demolition of a functioning and thriving community, and it goes against freethinking, but also goes against its planning guidelines.

innovators and town planning -- [bell rings] [applause] commissioner miguel: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am the founder and spokesperson for waterfront for all. we are a grassroots organization of san francisco residents committed to proactive engagement on the waterfront development and other activities from the at&t part to fort mason. the embarcadero has the potential to be one of the world's great boulevards, brimming of vibrant open waterfront. first and foremost, we should make better use of sea wall lots that are currently served as parking lots. while i understand how many people are here trouble with the loss of their private club the

way their community is today, there is a much better use for that lot. we should encourage land uses that serve as the transition of the day and the rest of the city. ideally, these uses would promote an active and publicly accessible waterfront. i will be providing more detailed comments on the draft eir, but from my initial review, i am convinced there are no impacts that out with the benefits of the project here the project is a meaningful opportunity to replace surface lots and the infamous green tennis ball with pedestrian- friendly publicly accessible open space with ground-floor commercial dense housing along one of our major transit thoroughfares. given the number of public and private recreation facilities in the area, -- i, for one, and a member of the gulf and club. i swim down there all the time. i think that the project sponsors' efforts to maintain

some of the club adequately addresses the recreation needs. i appreciate this opportunity to support a smart development, and i hope this development will serve as a catalyst to change and create better uses on the other surface parking lots as well. thank you for your time. commissioner miguel: thank you. >> i live at 155 jackson st. in san francisco. my focus is directed to park 4h recreation, which is biased toward concluding demolition at reduction of the golden gate tennis and swim club, in significantly impact the recreation in the project area. it is and -- if the development proceeds, the d