even if a shovel got into the ground next year, we would not see new product until 2014. i think this situation will be exacerbated late next year. there were 24 projects for sale a year ago. we're down to 11. most of those only have single- digit units left. i am an advocate of the project. i think it is well done. i made major walker in this town. one thing i do not do is walk on this side of the embarcadero at night. i feel is not that safe. i feel it is a real plus to the city and closing the missing link with the embarcadero. thank you. >> tim cohen.

>> good afternoon. i run the san francisco housing action coalition. we have supported this project. we believe it will bring enormous benefits to the city. indespite the controversy and redder, it is is simple land-use question. should it remain a surface parking lot or not? if not a parking lot, what should it become? >> the opposition to converting a parking lot comes from a relatively small group that are overwhelmingly white, older, and upper-middle-class that live in one of the most pleasant neighborhoods in the city. these folks are grieved and oppressed because new housing has been proposed for the neighborhood. it should be noted the housing they live in itself displaced an earlier generation of businesses and residents. it was not sand dunes down here with the golden gateway was redeveloped. many of the folks opposing the

project have lived for decades in mid-controlled house in -- housing. this is a curious platform from which to oppose new housing. it displaces no one unless you count private tennis courses. the accusation against the project is that it will become luxury housing, this is some of the most valuable land in northern california. on the other hand, through city decisions and policies, the city has said if land is developed for pricing -- for private housing, it must pay for a basket of civic duties. this would include rent to the city, fees to support subsidized housing, a privately maintained park, a new recreational facilities, in the walkway to access the waterfront, and a street scape on the side of the embarcadero that needs it the most. these are not small benefits nor cheap.

on the eternal question of tight, the proposed project is 1/4 height of the closest commercial building and 1/2 of the golden gate we center. this project is nestled among the tallest buildings on our skyline. is this not a good location for it? we would ask that the city use -- choose a land use alternative that benefits the largest number and not just those in a single neighborhood. we have never heard an argument on how the city would benefit from turning this project down. >> good afternoon. i would be happy to tell the truth about this project. it is a deeply flawed development proposal, the worst i have witnessed in 25 years of living here.

99% of the people are against it with good reason. they complain about a 12 foot fence. what is that compared to a 13 story building? it violates the waterfront land use plan that recommends connecting it to the bay. this is not connecting the land. it is locking the land. the view of historic buildings will be blocked. that is against the rules. nobody talked about these things. how about the traffic gridlock double enter and exit on washington street, a very narrow street with heavy traffic in all directions? you can hardly cross its safely even with lights installed. i defeated a garage for all the

good reasons. there is nothing that connects it. they also want to put entrances and exits on another street. that is ridiculous. that is why it went down. the fact that it is going to destroy the club is very true. i wish you people walk over to the club and see the most beautiful lounge area and a swimming pool constructed. they will slice of that away for the top of a roof that is not beautiful. they will destroy all of the hispanic dealings of it. the need is not for condominiums. it is for affordable housing. that is what families are moving out of san francisco. let's put of things that are sensible. the reason people cannot walk or do not want to walk on the west side of the sidewalk of the embarcadero is because when we created the embarcadero as a

part, and begged them to put sodium lights on the embarcadero and light it up so that it would be bright and inviting. they did not do it. that is the reason people do not want to walk there. we need that lighting. the character of the buildings it looks like mission bay. it is a disaster. we do not need this on the corner. where is the traffic study? you have gridlock now. you have exploratorium coming down the pike. that will bring more traffic. we cannot develop every inch of the city. it is not sustainable. thank you. >> next.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. it pains me as a longtime resident since 1964 to see the commission being asked to approve a project which is the first step in building the northeast waterfront like it is south of market. i agree with many of the things they are saying about what they would do to make that portion of the embarcadero more friendly. but to add a building which violates everything that was in the northwest region northeast waterfront plan -- northeast waterfront plan, to say you are just adding one building, but

this is the first step. if you approve this, what is the reason you cannot build another building like this on the corner of broadway? the next one on the corner of vallejo? suddenly, we're going to have the waterfront be nothing but high rise buildings. many of us would have opposed the golden gateway construction. at least it was a few blocks away. this is right on the embarcadero. you can talk all about how nice it will be. but what is going to happen if this project is approved? speaking only for myself, not speaking for fog, i understand the arguments as to why the tennis club feels it detracts.

clearly that tennis club could be there to deal with the problem they say is on the embarcadero without granting -- if only for economic reasons. there is no other reason for allowing a building to be built that close on the embarcadero. i respectfully request that you disapprove it. thank you. >> veronica sanchez. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am speaking for two maritime unions. the captains on the ferry boats in san francisco bay and the deck hands. both of our unions have been very supportive of this project from the beginning.

it is the linchpin for another big chunk of money to the region. since the late 1990's when i worked at the port, we were trying to get money for phase two of very terminal development for the additional births south of the ferry building. the money dried up. for seven years, there has been a tug of $20 million available from bridge toll money to fund the next phase of that development. how is that related to this project? why is washington street a linchpin for that funding? it is now designated to the water emergency transportation authority. it is because the project will replace the over the water parking that must be removed to get the ferry terminal expansion permitted.

we have participated in the process from the beginning, attending many community meetings. we are pleased by the improvement that the team has made to the project. i am a resident of san francisco. i live in the outer mission where we barely have any open space at all. what i have seen on the screen today is unbelievable. you are welcome in my neighborhood any time to do a project of this caliber. we would make you the grand marshal of our fourth of july parade in my neighborhood. they care very much. we look forward to continuing to see this project through the approval process. >> next.

>> i am jane connors. i have the honor of managing the ferry building for the last nine years. we know that the proximity of parking and management a parking is skilled -- key for retail businesses downstairs. my comment today is one question to the developer. one of our concerns is the length of the construction process for the project. it is estimated anywhere between three and five years. we would like to know where the substitute parking where the ferry building would be if the project went forward. that is a question for the port and the developer. >> next.

>> good afternoon. i am here today on behalf of the recreation and open space group for the waterfront. i have been the chair of it for 12 years. i want to thank him for his extensive efforts and for bringing to light the proposed project to replace all of the tennis courts with swimming activities. i also want to bring to your attention the length of the history of this project. there have now been four attempts to change it from the existing recreational space that was approved and granting the right to build this entire neighborhood back in the 1960's and 1970's. this recreational club was

deemed a significant aspect of the approval by the redevelopment agency to allow the golden gateway center, commons, park, is sector, to build on a -- beat out a number of other developers who wanted to build high-rises in the neighborhood. the vast majority of sentences since approved this. this project would reduce the existing open space by 70%. 100% is used for recreation. you are taking the vast majority of the way to build luxury condominiums and various other support things that do not enhance the recreational use for the existing neighbors. the 400-20 car garage will dramatically change the traffic flow in the neighborhood. -- the 420-car garage will

dramatically change the traffic flow in the neighborhood. it will triple the amount of traffic through the neighborhood. it will dramatically change the neighborhood. it is a successful neighborhood today. the people who supported it feel it is one of the greatest san francisco has. it has evolved dramatically with the ferry building rejuvenation and other things that have happened to the neighborhood. it has just begun. the very building, the america's cup proposal, teh explora torium are all highlighting the changes in the neighborhood. the city has not officially adopted the plan presented that calls for this plan to be done. it has accepted and review the plan done. it calls for something dramatically different to the neighborhood. there is an ongoing lawsuit that

claims the court, yourself, the city have not acted within the law. that is in the process of being appealed. that was supported by 90-- 19 neighborhood organizations and others. thank you for your time. >> next. >> good afternoon. i am the president of the barbary coast neighborhood association. we believe this project is still seriously flawed. number one is the parking situation in the garage. this project was billed as being a transit-friendly project. if it is transit-family, why is the developer need 420 parking

spaces? city policy is one car for every two condos. that cannot happen here. these rich, super-rich buyers are not going to settle for that. the developer wants twice as many parking spaces for the residents than the city allows. he will need to get special permission for that. next, america's cup. the agreement with the city says the city and port will do everything they can to limit and even the construction during the america's cup. i would propose that this project should not even be considered until after the america's cup is completed. there are going to be something like 400 loaves of debris coming out of this site on to washington, the embarcadero, right in the middle of the america's cup event if the timing as promised continues.

our association represents 5000 residents and businesses in the northeast waterfront, ground zero for this development. we do not agree with it. thank you. >> next. >> i am an urban planner representing myself. i would like to say that i support the testimony from spur. i have personally study the plans in detail. in my professional opinion, this is an excellent plan that should be approved and implemented without further delay. the project takes what is an embarrassing environmental blight a parking lot and chain- link fence and turns them into

vibrant, open spaces desperately needed housing, and an improved recreation flow. the project is a great benefit to the city, the port, and the neighborhood. the design of the building and open space is first rate. the track record of this developer is absolutely first- rate. the financial benefits to the port are incontrovertible. i listened to the opponents and a non-plus. the four-story building along the embarcadero is hardly a high-rise. the recreation club is not going away. it is being rebuilt. the city desperately needs housing at all price points. the plans are in full compliance with the public adopted plans for the area. i can only conclude that some people have decided that they will not like any plan. i urge the port commission to move this project forward at the

earliest possible time. thank you. >> are there any other speakers on this item? >> the west side of the embarcadero from washington street to where it ends is under the management of golden gateway and support. that is it. -- and the port. that is it. you are the people being trashed because of the quality of your spaces. the other owner of this blight which has also been trashed is golden gateway. that is part of the project. people that are trashing the city are using it as the

rationale for developing a massive project on schedule with the rest of the city. as was said earlier tonight, when golden gateway was developed, the company came in dangling the big enticement in the negotiation process. it used to be a lot more flexible. you could change the deal while going through negotiations. they got the site because they promised public amenities. it is like every time the city does a new community. everyone promises everything. you have had lots of promises in the last couple of years on redevelopment. you take it away when no one is looking a couple of years later. golden gateway wants to make

some money off of the site they got for $1. they got the entire site to develop because they promised a public amenities for the life of the project. the life of the project is still going on. public amenity was the recreation center. it is tennis courts and swimming pools. now you are being announced meet -- you are being asked to get rid of the tennis courts to cut a deal to do a land swap. that is what is going on. i find it frustrating that the only people who have seen these plans are the people that he got to show up on this. they say they love the new plans. there is nothing for the public. i asked staff about where the plans are. i was told there would be some here for the public.

there are not any. i would like to have a set of the plans. they're not available from the planning department. they are available to the people misspoke in favor of the project. this is a project that is going to have problems. it is going to go on for awhile. thank you very much. >> are there any other speakers on the plan? commissioners? >> there was a reference to open space. there is a little blurring of the green roof. the green roof was not considered part of the square footage of open space. i just wanted to confirm that. but that is correct.

-- >> that is correct. a question was raised by the manager of the ferry building in terms of substitute parking for the ferry building. have we made plans for that? what will transpire during construction? >> we are looking at that question. we have been discussing the issue with the very building management. support staff has been. we do not have a completely resolved yet. we're working towards a solution with them. we do not have an answer to that question today. the parking agreement between the port and the ferry building management does propose an area to consider for replacement parking should a garage contemplated. we are using that as the template to guide our discussion. i can answer the question she raised about the construction period. according to environment to review documents, it is a 24 month construction when a.

>> there has been a lot of discussion about giving up the tennis courts. was there no other option to maintaining the tennis courts? >> i should probably defer to the developer on that. >> i just want to respond to the question. the recreation center was never given to the developer as a public recreation center. it is a private club, one of the most expensive in the city. there are some skewing of the facts going on. the tennis courts were reviewed by the club operator. it is a commercial enterprise. it makes a lot of money. the tennis courts and swimming were reviewed by the operator and owner. we listened during the process to a lot of people.

fog does not represent 2000 people. they are a self-selected group. the majority of people in the club have expressed an interest for much better swimming facilities for all the people need the water aerobics, young families wanting swimming programs and summer programs. we have been accused of ending the summer programs. to the contrary, the aquatics center will encourage kids from all over the city to come. the tennis courts were deemed by a lot of people as a perfectly lawful use of urban land. take 7500 sq. ft. 42 people to play on. 7500 square feet will give you a couple of childrens' playgrounds. it was a decision taken by everybody. there are no plans available. it is in eir.

traffic has been looked at in a variation of eir. >> it is currently a private club. had there been some taxes or reduced rates for local residents? i seem to recall something along those lines. will provisions be made for some affordability for local residents to have access to the club? >> as part of an inducement to rent in the golden gateway rental apartments, the owner of the club discounts it by some percentage at the moment. we have made very clear that there is not going to be any preference given to the buyers. there will be just like everybody else. they can go apply to the golden gate and pay their money. we're not going to own the club. we have no right to pledge it to people. we're very interested in

helping. in a lot of the neighbors are very supportive of the project. they live in the same apartment units. they are keen to have the programs continue. before the opponent's suit this is a -- that is incorrect. the lawsuit is over. it was found not to be valid. we've reached out to many of the members who helped to design this. this has all been talked about over scores of meetings. we have a list of things we would like to work out for interviews, ongoing use, programs for seniors, cross-city benefits. there is a lot of stuff going on. we're very interested. we are neighbors. i have been here 42 years. we're very interested in having a happy community.

>> could you address the question raised in terms of what happens to the project during the america's cup and what your plans are during that time? >> we are actively involved in supporting america's cup. we are are active in trying to get it here. the numbers for construction and mitigation measures are all in the environmental impact report. broadly speaking, there are two phases. next fall,e will have the ac 45 boats. the big boats will be here in october of 2013. correct me if i am wrong. our excavation is six months. if we get through all of the process