wonderful club improvements that the improvement brings. please approve the project and certify the eir. thank you very much. >> my name is brinded do. although i do live in the facility of the proposed project, i am definitely an active participant in the tennis facilities of the club. i like anything that improves the living, especially in our beautiful city of san francisco, but to destroy this exceptionally valuable open space, used by not only those who live and work in the financial district but by all neighborhoods in san francisco and beyond, would be a travesty in my opinion. families from all over the city better not necessarily belong to the club or are not members can bring their children for tennis and swim lessons. one thing that has not been

addressed -- there has been a good deal of comment about the existing club. not one person has spoken against the existing project. it was stated that the status " is good. we feel improvements should and could be made while providing a much-needed renovation and low skill development the site needs. thank you. >> i am in member of the green roof alliance, and i am here to establish our organization's support for the project. we ask you to approve it. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am michael taylor. i am a neighborhood resident, and the purchase of it at the athletic facility. i just want to say that this is about the destruction of one of the great athletic facilities. i mean, really, there's no

other place to play on the western side of san francisco for tenants. we are not going to accept playing at san francisco tennis club. it is like playing in an indoor, concrete warehouse. the outdoor element of tennis is very important. second only to perhaps the olympic club on the western side of san francisco. this is about the destruction of the athletic facility, and -- versus replacement of it with a condominium tower. members of the club are not opposed to development of the area. just not a condominium project. so what we would probably prefer to see is a modernization of the athletic facilities, maintaining

the tennis courts, modernizing the polls, adding an open space. perhaps providing underground parking for the parking lot adjoining the club. you can still modernize the area, develop it. just do not destroy the existing athletic facility. you are not benefiting the local neighborhood. the neighborhood uses the facility. the people who worked in the adjoining financial district use the facility at lunchtime. you cannot go across town to the san francisco tennis club constantly back and forth. additionally, the bay club, located more on the northeast side -- it does not provide good tennis facility. this is a great tennis facility.

i strongly urge you to reject the environmental impact report and pursue further different alternative development. thank you. >> [reading names] >> i am here to read a letter on behalf of totally blind -- toby levine, who could not be here today. "i am a retired planning commissioner. we spent six years developing a plan for the waterfront. that plan was adopted by the commission in 1997. subsequently, adviser groups were established by the court threw out the waterfront here for several years, i was the chair of the advisory group and am currently a member, though i do not speak for that committee. in the waterfront land use plan, see wall lot 151 is designated a mixed use

opportunity site, and a potential units were designated, including five of the eight washington plan. these include public open space, residential housing, parking, retail jobs generators, and recreational enterprises. the waterfront design and access plan, also approved in 1997, is concerned with the issue of reuniting the city with its waterfront. the original committee may not have dreamt that jackson and pacific streets could reach the waterfront, since they were blocked by an impenetrable wall. the current plan removes the wall and makes it possible for residents and workers from the nearby neighborhoods to access the waterfront. this may be the most important long-term feature of the plan. i will list the public benefits according to my personal priorities -- pedestrian opening of jackson and pacific to the waterfront once again. 33 units of affordable housing during a time of diminished resources. funds for the port to repair historical buildings and rotting piers. in a public park for children. parking for the public since

they will soon remove the parking raj at howard street. substantial an ongoing revenue for the city, and, of course, the construction employment. as you listen to testimony, you will note that had appeared to be the driving force for the termination of this budget. the golden gateway tower east directly across from 8 washington rises 270 feet above the waterfront with the stepping down to soften the image. this very tall, double loaded corridor apartment house will be more and dental by the step down a bit from a building here everything around is below 35 feet. if you average the house over the entire site, you will find the average reaches 37 feet. this is not a gigantic, i- blocking project here the project consists of a team of esthetically driven architects and planners who will provide the city with remarkable development which will make us all very proud. they are also receptive to new ideas to improve the product.

i have witnessed the project evolved over several years and know they have delivered beautiful restoration of pierce 1/2, 3, and 5. i strongly urge you to support projects and the benefits that it will bring to all of san francisco. thank you. >> good afternoon to commissioners. i am the chair of the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. nine years in housing committee. i would like to read into the record the action of the general assembly of the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. voted on tuesday, may 18, 2011, and passed the following resolution -- where is the height and massing of the proposed eight-story mixed use luxury condo development at 8 washington street is in

appropriately scaled in relationship to the historic structures and in context of the port of san francisco and embarcadero national register of historic district and whereas the project is inappropriate for location along san francisco's waterfront at the edge of the embarcadero and immediately adjacent to sue bierman park and whereas the project would build a wall on the waterfront and a menace the pedestrian experience by blocking scenic views of telegraph hill and coit tower, thereby denying tourists and locals alike some of san francisco's iconic views, and whereas the project in combination with already pending projects such as the exploratory m and the proposed cruise ship terminal, along with the america's cup, would exaggerate an already problematic project in the transit situation, and

whereas the project is proposed to cast additional shadow on sue bierman park in violation of proposition k, and whereas a to require the destruction of a recreation amenity that is part of the initial development of the golden gateway planned community, and services to not only residents of the golden gateway, but all said franciscans, and whereas a serious failure to create a unified plan for protecting the historic anesthetic integrity of the ne waterfront and the port of san francisco's failure to update the waterfront and land use as required by the voters in 1990 and will lead to further and piecemeal approval of incompatible projects such as this one out and the appearance of one of the world spectacular

waterfronts. therefore be it resolved that the coalition for sentences could neighborhoods opposes the project at 8 washington street on san francisco's unique and historic waterfront. >> good afternoon. i am representing myself. we have heard a number of sincere people here today objecting to this project could have been whipped into a frenzy of fear about change. some people obviously have been staying up nights imagining problems and impacts. the funny thing is the neighbors will be primary beneficiaries of this project, taking a very ugly area that was built as a buffer against the terrible embarcadero freeway, and replacing it with a project that is worthy of the

gracious embarcadero boulevard that we have today, a project that will replace the existing private, for-profit health club with a new expanded health club. it is not going away. it is just getting better. the project is not a high rise. the tallest part is 95 feet lower than the adjacent closest golden gateway tower, one of the ugliest and most pedestrian unfriendly developments in the city. along the embarcadero, the project is lower than the existing 84-foot height limit. the urban design scheme came from the publicly sponsored ne waterfront land use plan study. that is what set the highest -- the public process. i cannot think of any project that has gone through more public participation than this one. there is no reason why this project should not go ahead and

malfeasance -- many reasons why it should. the benefits to the public are huge. $9 million to the mayor's office of housing for affordable housing, and as we have heard, this is virtually the only source of money for moh that we have today. an additional $5 million in initial revenue. $30 million to the infrastructure finance district. $83 million in resources. 3/4 of an acre of open space, and a superb urban design and architecture statement. furthermore, activated sidewalks, and a developer that has a sterling reputation based on their past waterfront projects. as a professional planner, i am absolutely confident that it is complete and accurate and should be certified today that the ceqa findings should be adopted, and all of the other approvals that

are on the agenda are appropriate and should be adopted today. this is a tremendous opportunity for the city, and we cannot let a small group of self-interested people derail it for all of us. thank you. >> thank you. at this time, i have no more speaker cards with me. there's anybody who's name i have call has not spoken, please come up. if there is anyone who would like to offer additional public comment, please come up. seeing none, the public shearing is closed -- the public hearing is close. commissioners? commissioner antonini: thank you. first, i would like to comment on but the -- the final environmental impact report. i think it is clearly complete,

accurate, and objective. i will talk to that part of the comments we heard that dealt at least to some degree with the eir. we heard, as both on the advisability of the project itself as well as the eir. there were comments made up on the shadow that might be cast upon the part that is being created in the future, which is spoken to in comments and responses, although i do not believe on the original eir that is necessary to speak to something you are creating in the future. it is not an impact on an existing resourced. but it is analyzed anyway. then there was a lot of talk about do is, that it did not adequately analyze the views. i think i did -- it did a very good job. particular reference is made to use from telegraph hill. there are a few pictures where it is really hard to see the difference between it being

there and not being there. you certainly can see the ferry building very -- there is probably a place of badly everywhere you can go with you can align yourself in a position, as was pointed out in the document where if you align yourself in a certain spot, the presence of the project will keep you from seeing telegraph hill -- coit tower as an example. but again, i think the analysis is complete and thorough. a lot of comments were made on other issues, which i will deal with in the future. advocacy's for a block height of 84 feet, which again is not something before us. it would not be advisable, and, of course, commons in regards to the golden gateway swim and tennis club. on a few other things that were talked about -- pile driving was address, i think, adequately. the construction impacts are adequately address.

also, sea level rise was analyzed and mentioned as a possible factor is that were to occur. the parking at the ferry building, which is an area of contention, which i will deal with later and the nature of that and why it is being argued is not a ceqa issue. parking in general is a ceqa issue. it was completely analyzed, but the fact that the ferry building ownership no longer would have the right to the parking as revenue from the parking at 351 see what 351 is not a ceqa issue. that is not -- and also, there is no intensification of use by the project's, changes that have occurred between comments and responses and the present, so therefore, unless there is an intensification of use that would have to be realized. in fact, the use is less because the project has become smaller.

there have been fewer parking spaces, fewer residential units. in that case, that is not something that has to be looked at again. i think the analysis of america's cup impact are adequate. it is a moving target, and unfortunately, the impacts are becoming less from unfortunate developments that have occurred in the last month or so. hopefully, we can avoid that kind of thing happening again in the future. that is, as i say, a moving target. those are my main thoughts about the adequacy of the eir, which i think, is extremely well done. very professional, as always. especially in this case, the project that has been going on for so many years. ever since i was first on the commission in 2002. it has been analyzed and over analyzed for about 10,000 years.

>> commissioners, please accept my apology. there was a request for a break by staff for just five minutes. we will pick up with commissioner commons. we are going to take a five- minute break. thank you. >> the rest of my comments. i can do that as quickly as possible. >> the operative word is quickly. >> i think it was pointed out that there was a lot of comment about people and the concerns about swim and tennis club and rightfully so. they enjoy it. however, the swim club will be enhanced rather than diminished. there will be 11 lanes rather than six, and one speaker

brought that up. i think it will be a much better club in a lot of ways. the indoor facilities will be better. the tennis portion of it is certainly a situation where they will have to avail themselves to other facilities, but western athletic club, an owner of the situation, will provide opportunities at the bay club and the san francisco tennis club, and that is something that is a private arrangement between members of the club and western athletic. it really has nothing to do with the project itself. that could always be worked out between the owners of the club and the club itself. if the members and ownership of the club decided on some other facilities for tennis, that is something they might be able to find. but i think the benefits of the project far out weigh that particular aspect. we know private views are not protected, and that is an important thing to look at.

the benefits have been spoken of. and the fact that we are returning 70% of the site to public use is a very important one. of course we did go through the ne water embarcadero neighborhood study and came up with heights that are very similar to what is being asked here. in fact, this is an excellent project because it has been sculpted to where the highest portion of the building is at the area nearest the very large structure of 270 feet on washington and drum and then steps down, as it should come to the waterfront and to the north, and it allows a space between the two parts of it, but open space, which is private open space as well as all the others. for those who tried to advocate for an 84-foot limit, you would have a block that went for the entire space. you would trade all this public open space for a longer, lower structure that would not be

nearly as well articulated as this one is. for those who spoke about the idea of having housing that would be of a different price range, again, if you want to try to be able to make this work and to get all the public benefits we are getting, you can only do it by convincing it into a less spread out, fewer units, and this has been done extremely well and allow for higher public benefits. of course, another thing that we can benefit, and we have brought this up before -- the possibility of the generation of a bond from the 25 to 30 million that will go to the port. that could help to finance the cruise terminal. i think that is really important because we have a lot of problems, and we need to be able to find sources of revenue. i think this is a very well- crafted public and private

situation. again, for those who speak about the fact that it should not be high-and condominiums, that is appropriate for the place. there is a place for everything, and if you want to help people with needs, you need to find people with resources to do it. the money does not come from the sky. it has to come from somewhere, and i think we could benefit greatly from these. we have fewer units at higher costs. they have two and three bedrooms, and i think you'd be surprised how many do end up in here and how many residents are full-time residents. in the benefits, i will not go over again. they have been brought up over and over. of course, the 30 million -- we mentioned the port could use as leverage for bonds. and then the parking issue -- we

start out with 1321 parking spaces. and a lot of these are being eliminated. they have to be. they are mandated because the port was the parking off of the peers. some have been eliminated already. even with adding back the 255 non-residential parking places, you will still have a deficit. you will have lost 941 from the 1321, and even adding back to hundred 55. for those who say this will increase traffic, it is not going to. the traffic is there already. all these uses are there regardless. you have a place to put the cars instead of them circling around forever looking for a parking place. i think the aesthetics are really good. i think the limestone and would is extremely well done, and it tapers from the higher spot to the lower spot. of course, many people brought up the fact that the same

5, and a think everyone will agree that was extremely well done, and i think we should expect a great project here. the jobs have been brought up. the opening specific to jackson and the embarcadero. we know that the shadow impact is minimal. that will come up in a later vote. it is almost so the minimus that almost nobody talked about. there was another, that intimates that somehow somebody was influencing our votes. no one influences my vote, and i kind of take offense to someone who might bring that up. i think for myself, and i think we all do. there are people on both sides of the issue, residents on both sides, and i think we have to be respectful of that. commissioner miguel: thank you.

i will try to not repeat those remarks, although i can associate myself with the vast majority of them. as to one of his last comments, that individual commissioner was joan woods, who was referring to the political influence of the commissioners. i have not heard from anyone who normally sits in this room or across the building in room 200. i, too, reason those types of commons. let me start with the eir. probably some four hours ago now, i appreciated mr. chang's comments that i had actually read the whole thing because i had. in doing so, at that time, when it was before us and the public comments were submitted a 13.2- page letter, and when the comments and responses document came back, i went down one by one and was very pleased to

find that they were all referred to an answer and in what i consider a sufficient manner. in the opening remarks, i too was stated that the eir was an informational document, and that is to be accurate and objective. many of my remarks on those 13 points had to do with the style in which the eir was written, and i have made this, on at least three eir's previously, that whoever writes them should get rid of their added its. they are not descriptive documents. they are factual documents. they should only contain factual information, and it is the style that i think is totally inaccurate, not the actual contents of the fact.

ok. i have to make a comment on something that was said by an old friend of mine, bob planthold, who was here early on who was saying that curb cuts would be eliminated. i know the curved cuts to which he referred. they are the 88 curb cuts that normally occur and should occur at the corners of blocks at the intersection -- they are the ada curb cuts. not what planning normally refers to as driveway curb cuts, that he probably would agree should be eliminated, as they are sometimes dangerous to people who are disabled, using walkers or wheelchairs. that is all i'm going to say on the eir itself. for the rest, for the project itself, i had an office at 16

beale street, that was put there because it was the best use of the area at it was the closest to supply goods to the rest -- to the restaurants, hotels, and everything else. we had to move traffic through the city and we put up a three- w freeway. we thought that we should get rid of the freeway after the earthquake. there has been constant changes

this area. it is not the same as it was then and it is not the same as it was back in the 70's. there were several comments to the gateway and to the housing towers. some of them, we love it here and some of them, this is a disgusting piece of architecture. the way that we view in this city also changes over the years. i like the line that there is a gatt -- gap-toothed nature to the west side of the embarcadero. i've expressed my dismay to the west side. this is a disgrace for san francisco as far as i am francisco as far as i am concerned.