report will come out, the fifth of january, you will get the eir comments and responses a week earlier, and you will have the usual 1000 pages of stuff to read, and you have a problem. >> thank you. >> kobe levin. james dench. thomas ryan.

>> good morning. it is nice to see you today. i am a retired member of the planning commission from the 1990's. during that time, i was also a member of the waterfront land use advisory board that has just been discussed by previous speakers. we spent six years developing the mandated plan for the waterfront. the plan probably does need to be reworked. it has served the port commission well over the years. the court decided to establish advisory groups up and down the of waterfront. i was the chair of the first advisory group for the northeast waterfront. i am not a member of the committee but not speaking for the committee. -- i am now a member of the

committee but am not speaking for the committee. 351 was designated as a mixed use opportunity site. eight different uses were identified, including five better now part of the washington plan. these include public open space, residential housing, parking, retail job generation, and recreational enterprises. the waterfront design and acts as plan was also approved in 1997. it is deeply concerned with the issue of the united the reuniting the city with the waterfront. that original committee may not have dreamt it was possible that jackson and pacific streets could reach the waterfront because they were blocked by a green wall. the current plant removes the wall and makes it possible for residents and workers from

nearby neighborhoods to access the waterfront. this may be the most important long-term feature for the years in the future. there are public benefits. previous speakers do not seem to see them the same way i do. i think perhaps the most important public benefit is the opening of pacific in jackson to the waterfront. housing -- affordable housing units will be developed as a result of the city requirement that the developers contributed to the affordable housing fund. >> 30 seconds. >> you will find in the comments i gave to you that there are several other important public benefits, including the funds

for the city and port. the last point i made is that these are exceptional architects planning the development. i think it will be a bright spot for the city. thank you. >> i will keep calling names. lynette loishell,. >> good morning. i rise to speak in opposition to this resolution which are viewed as the first step in the destruction in what has been a long-term plan for the northeast border from. >> state your name for the record. >> paul ready, long-term resident and san francisco.

many of you are too young to remember. i invite you to go to fontana towers. that was built before the public became aware of the possible destruction of public access and use of the north waterfront. your predecessors wisely took the opportunity at that point to say no more high-rises on the waterfront. this is the first step between market and the north waterfront. this planning commission is being asked to approve a project which is going to put a 150 ft. building right on the embarcadero north of market,

blocking the view from the ferry building, anybody looking to the west. what is the public purpose? the developer talks about all of the open space is going to create. that is going to be the argument you will get. every building has a march down the waterfront. they will say we will give you more open space. there's plenty of open space. if the port is not like the use of it as a parking lot -- i share their view. they do not need to put a building that violates the long term plan to keep the north and northeast waterfront will rises so that they are not blocking views as the building works its way down to the waterfront. this resolution purports to be

just a corner. if you look at the building from standing by the ferry building and look at it, it is huge. it is not a little building. [tone!] it is a huge building. they say we will open up the other space. i agree it would be nice if the tennis club took down the fence. the reason it does not come down is not because members do not want it down. it is because the owners of the property want to keep it looking like that so that they can say it is going to help the project. thank you. >> if you heard your name called, please start coming up to the microphone. >> my name is thomas ryan.

i am speaking on behalf of the waterfront for all. wfa is a grass-roots coalition of san francisco residents committed to the project of engagement of water activities and development. we strongly support a proposed project in believe it is a meaningful opportunity to continue the revitalization spurred by the removal of the freeway and renovation of the very building -- ferry building and piers. it will provide numerous benefits to the waterfront and city. it will renovate existing facilities and replace the parking lots and green fence with a vibrant waterfront community of residential housing, new retail and and restaurants, belowground parking, and three new public open spaces. this is the final piece of the

ferry building waterfront area. this is a good example of the kind of responsible development that can occur with the support of the commission. >> thank you. >> i am and landscape architect and environmental designer. i am a certified green professional. i am here to voice my support for the eight washington project and the green earth alliance. the green earth alliance is an advocacy group for green infrastructure. it is made up of architects and others that strive to promote environmental, social, and other benefits that green infrastructure provide. san francisco has long seen itself as a leader in green innovation and sustainability.

it is. the green innovation is being undertaken by other cities to address their aging sewer systems and co2 emissions. they are now leading the way. i feel 8 washington represents an opportunity for the city to reassert itself as a leader in sustainable urban design. we believe that this project will provide many benefits to the city including covering buildings with green views from the adjacent properties. it will provide energy benefits by reducing energy usage in the buildings by up to 50% by the insulating factors of the green roof and walls. it will be an effective method of absorber in co2 emissions -- absorbing co2 emissions.

it will lower the impact of the source system and help to preserve the bay. the design is beautiful and can serve as an educational and community amenity that will be used by the public in general and an educational opportunity for green infrastructure for the public. >> thank you. lee radner, mason grigsby. >> good morning. lee radner with the friends of golden gateway. i will be brief.

can i have the overhead? there we go. thank you. you are looking at a view from the brand new and beautiful park looking right at washington street. the view includes the ferry building. the view on your right is what will happen when these massive buildings go up along washington with a stone wall right in front of the park. john king recently wrote an article about this project. i do not generally totally agree with john, but he did not

appreciate the heights. he did say the best part of the project was on the ground floor. it was a summer ago that we presented to you the a in the report -- a &d report that includes these aspects plus recreational space, the views, and the amenities that the neighborhood and people have now. we can live much better without 0.5% living in stone, glass structures that have no meaning for the middle class people who live in this city. this morning, i heard a report on the radio that middle-class families in this city have dropped from over 60% to under 40%.

having projects like this puts another nail in the coffin for people like myself and i would imagine just about everybody in this room. thank you. >> my name is mason grigsby. i am here to talk about a bigger vision than just this project for san francisco. i have been in this town for 50 years, longer than most of you. i have seen a lot of recreation being built in the city. i am now seeing it being destroyed. jack' scott's driving range was eliminated in favor of development. the japan town bowling alley was eliminated in favor of development.

in multiple tennis courts are deteriorated as we speak. over 1/3 of them are unplayable. think about the big vision of san francisco and where this takes us. i started when i got here at the age of 25 playing at the golden gate way. that club is responsible for lots of people in the exercise and recreation they can enjoy it while in san francisco. the flip side of the this is that the city has passed a regulation. that is great. we need to keep people healthy. we have a healthy san francisco law to keep people healthy. we have a signed to take the stairs to get healthy. the message you are sending is that if you want to be healthy, leave town. it will not happen if you are in san francisco.

think about the big picture of what is happening to the city. if you want to look at it as a place for families, kids, and seniors -- i am 75. i am in the same shape i was in when i got here when i was 25. there has been no deterioration in my help. it is because i started playing at the golden gate way. i would encourage those of you who want to stay healthy to take up tennis. i have to make one comment about the wall. is everyone seems fixated with. i have no clue what they do for recreation. please explain to me what the walkways have to do with anything. walking back and forth to the embarcadero does not help anybody get healthy. thank you very much. >> i live in the richmond district. i am a member of the golden gate waco. i am an avid supporter of this project.

that is primarily because of the middle-class residents, i am so happy to have access to the golden gateway club. i am very excited about the equipment they are doubling. the fitness facilities, and quadrupling the pool opportunities. a lot of people will be very excited about that. i really enjoy getting out of the richmond heading over. i appreciate the green roofs that will be there. right now for swimming, we change in one room with two showers and two bathrooms. we're climbing over each other. we are waiting for pools and time to exercise. this is going to provide ample space for lounge, deck,

swimming, kins --kids. there are cafes an important part in that will be next door. right now, we have 15 spaces. it is prohibitive. do you have to plan a perfectly to be able to go in and enjoy the club. the green roof is an amazing resource. it will be a beautiful thing for people along the waterfront to enjoy. it promotes the general welfare of our entire community by opening up the walkways along jackson and pacific, opening up the park, and bringing security and vitality to three blocks of the city waterfront. thank you. >> good morning.

i am bill hammond. i am president of the golden gate we tenants' association. i have asked you to maintain existing height limits and vote no on the resolution. the reason for the master plan and waterfront plan is to limit growth and development. new projects should fit within existing height limits. if you relax the limits for this property, another developer will be before you shortly with another request to increase the height limits somewhere else along the waterfront. eventual result could be a solid wall of high-rise buildings along the waterfront. if the height limits are not maintained, you may find you do not have a master plan, a waterfront plan. you have an illusion. please vote no on the resolution. thank you.

>> nan roth. >> there are some many things one could say. i have been active on the waterfront for decades. i was on the waterfront plan advisory board. i represented my neighborhood for many years as the chair of the waterfront committee. all of this strikes very close to my heart. one thing that was mentioned triggered a memory. the original plan for the golden gate way occluded two or three more high-rise towers on the site of what is now the golden gateway commons. it was only due to the tenacity and dedication of a notorious member of our organization who is no longer with us, robert cast, he doggedly hounded these

people until he got the height limits lowered. that is when it all happened. it was freeway. it was a very important thing. we also need to keep in mind the fontana apartments and the repercussions from that. also like to mention alan jacobs who was our planning director many years ago. he put together an urban design plan that won awards. it is world famous. it is taught in all the schools. one of the factors in the urban design plan was at the height limits dissent -- descend down to the waterfront. i was active in opposing the earlier proposal on the waterfront that is apparently coming back. that is the one they wanted to build up to 110 feet south of

mission street. this is just the beginning of the end. you have to think ahead on what this is going to trigger in terms of future development. this is a very developer- friendly city. there are going to be water from hounds. the port has made much about reconnecting the city with the waterfront. this does not do that. this is a wall, fenced in community. when you think about who will be living here, these are going to be the most expensive condos in the city. you have to keep in mind the fact that there is a growing one% movement of people becoming very aware of this. this is a very important site in terms of accessibility for the waterfront and the environment we want to create that makes people want to come to the waterfront. i do not see this doing that.

i would like to mention that i was one of the original members of the golden gateway chess club. we have no other facilities or other sites where this could be duplicated. the tennis courts were eliminated without warning. thank you. >> i am speaking as a reporter on waterfront matters going back to the 1950's. the waterfront has always been very important to me. i am echoing what nan and others have said. if this project is built, it will open the floodgates. developers will line the waterfront with a wall of high rises. thank you.

>> good morning. it is usually good afternoon. i am one of those engaged people who seems to show up. i am also involved in green building. i do a lot of research in the field. i always listen with interest when people talk about green benefits. i like to highlight the fact of the green building code requires a san francisco a strong green component. when you are building the most expensive condominiums in the city, what adds value is to hire gher leed certification. when i hear numbers, and become interested in whether they add up.

if you sequester the carbon from 2007 hundred 30 cars on those roofs per year -- 2730 karzai on those servers per year, that will be impressive engineering to hold it up year after year. if you take that green stuff down so that the way it does not go up, what happens to it? it will be decomposing and releasing carbon for the decomposition process. please pay careful attention to the actual reality behind some of the green plants use. sometimes they sound wonderful. the reality may not be there. i did have a more substantive comment about proceeding. the waterfront plan is to be reviewed periodically. it has not been. we have an interesting and

attractive plan that has been proposed by a citizens group that was presented to this commission. we have an alternative interpretation that was presented by a more official group that ignored a number of concerns raised. the net result is we have an existing plan, two competing visions. these lots are at the center of this. to contemplate introducing a zoning change before you never actually done a review of the area plan and made appropriate revisions strikes me as irresponsible in many ways. it encourages future zoning activities which increase the level of contention between the developer community and residents.

it does not do anybody any good. it costs money. it wastes time. i urge you to set a precedent that says if we do not have something compatible with an area plan, we will not consider it until there has been revision to the full plan. >> ernestine weiss. >> i created ferry park. this proposition will destroy it. this is the wrong fit for this quarter. there is no merit to it. we do not need condos. we need housing for key personnel like fire and police. no mayor has ever proposed this. nobody has ever done anything about it. it is a disgrace in this city.

if we have an earthquake, we do not have emergency responders. they live in the outer boroughs. the 84 foot height is out of date. this is outrageous that you even want to think about raising it further. that was satisfactory when the freeway was built. you have to review the waterfront focus plan and alamitos atolls upset of -- when used planned and change that. -- you have to review the waterfront plan and change that. the waterfront land use plan says to connect the land to the bay. this plan violates all of that. the historic view of the ferry building is violated. i am on the south side of the building. it will cut off all the sunshine on the south side. this is the worst proposal ever of the waterfront. how about an earthquake? if you build this high-rise

building right on top of my building and we have an earthquake, it will go right into my building. how about that? have you ever thought about that? the hearings we have had with the port commission, all of these communities were 99% against it. why are we even considering this? it should be defeated and put in the waistband. it has no merit. -- it should be defeated and put in the wastebin. has no merit. you should not be considering it. it is the wrong fit for this quarter. the underground garages ar wrong. the traffic patterns. it has the same proponents as the defeated plan. it is not feasible. to put an entrance and exit on washington, a narrow street, is insane