new housing on our precious water front, which needs a major zoning variance. you will be opening the floodgates to the developers. you can be sure there will be others lined up against him. this is a really tough decision for you all to make. i know that. you were given this job to make tough decisions. thank you. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. my name is george haymaker. i am a member of the golden gate way tennis and swim club. a lot has been said this morning and afternoon about the great deal the city gives up and the very little the city gives back. i think that is all of it, and the reason why every neighborhood association from telegraph hill to the benefits

of this trip are opposed to this project. let me personalize this is a little bit for you. my wife and i our senior citizens. she is unfortunately not here because she is debilitating arthritis. the other form of acceptable exercise for her is a warm water pool, where she can exercise, take water aerobics class is come and exercise by herself with the help. -- with my help. the only place it is available anywhere in our neighborhood is the gold way -- will the gate tennis club. if she does not have that facility, in many average class citizens who need a place to exercise and have a healthy environment, what will happen to her the the at least two years that the club is destroyed? what happens in the long-term?

we do not know what the club will be like in terms of its policies. we do know for two years she will not have the opportunity to work out, her mother -- muscles will atrophy further, and she will become less mobile than she is today. what is the trade-off in the public interest in favor of rolling this club? where are the benefits other than the profits for the developer? i cannot see them come and i have looked at the eir carefully. i hope you will look at the public interest, which is the thing of which you are charged. >> steve stone. dave osegood and barbara stewart. >> good morning. my name is arthur chang. i am a member of the northeast

waterfront group. i have been with this project for the past three years. i used to appear before the park and recreation commission. i find that i can talk to both of you directly. i am here not to speak so much as all of these passionate neighbors have talked about this project, but i am here to talk about what this meeting is for, which is to certify this eir as a final document. i have the assurance that this is not the last event. is of this as final as it can get? ultimately the issue will probably be resolved in court. i see that happening here. i sent the planning commissioners, whose email i

cannot seem to work, i must have something in the wrong place, but nevertheless, the beef i have with this final eir, it is lacking in credibility. it does not abide by the code, the code of seqa and disregards the guidelines. i do not know how many of the planning commissioners have read the whole two volumes, but i know mr. miguel has, because he was well represented in the comments he made. i concur with his eloquence. to contribute eloquence and design is something to be dismissed is absurdity. i think what is important that

this not be certified as final. all of the shortcomings. the law was created as a last resort for communities individuals to be able to respond to city-sponsored development. i call this a city sponsored development, because the planning commission and the port have made accommodations to the waterfront partners. sometimes i wonder who is pushing for this more than the developer? i find this to the department can do so. what is left for us is to really question this document before you certify it is final. i think the problem is it should be -- the correction should be made in additions should be added. i think the planning should not

-- >> it did ring. thank you very much. >> good morning. my name is barbara stewart. i am a demographer and have a long career in research and statistics. i was planning to give some of valuation of the research i wanted to report, but i think in the interest of time i will not do that, except to say the research is very extensive, detailed, and convincing. the research concerns sea level rise for the whole united states, but including small areas, such as the codes and looks at san francisco bay, and did particular, the embarcadero, and the location of 8

washington. the study predicts there is a probability of one-sixth of flooding at 8 washington within the next 80 years. one-six is a very high probability as persons who participated in russian roulette would tell you if they could. flooding of lower-lying areas would result in water flowing down the sloping interest -- entrance of the low-car garage accumulating in water up to 40 feet deeper. that does not mean 400 cars parked in the garage would get wet. they would be floating. as for being prepared, what

would be the reaction, and what should be to these projections? by lenders and particular, by insurers, and by the voters who see if there neighborhoods could be affected by projects such as this as well. my answer would be that the project this regard for the greater good of san francisco. it think you. -- thank you. >> good afternoon. i am with the ring, point favorite association. you were all san franciscans. i assume you all know where it is. we are in other segments of the community that is opposed to this project. definitely concerned about the height. another project that adds to the

canyon affect along the embarcadero, just like the restaurants and the ballpark and the fact that it is not creating housing for the people of san francisco. i would like to address some of the myths that seem to continue about projects like these that the jobs are going to create economic prosperity for the city and the tax revenue will bring in lots of money. the worst one of all, the developers do not seem to be able to stop complaining that there is this horde of opposition for every project that once to be built in the city. using up my street as a random sample, i have lived on howard street for 21 years. if you walk down howard street from the water going west, there are more big projects, either

built or in the works then you can count. there are scores of them. hi-rise office building, condo buildings, hotels. you name it. how many of those incurred any significant opposition? i do not think any of them did. there is even what people like to call the campus at first and how word. for a large office buildings. no opposition. so when you see a lot of people showing of to express concern, there is a reason for that. it is very disconcerting people seem to know what the outcome of this vote is going to be. it is time you start listening to the people. thank you very much. >> steve stone.

barbara stewart. and ernestein weist. >> i n jolt rosen bought. -- i am joel rosenblought. as of today, 44,000 tennis players from juniors to senior citizens and set francisco and the bay area are four days from the beginning of the united states tennis association team's season. we are the northern california section of the usga, the

national not-profit organization that is devoted to promoting a developing the growth of tennis. and i will use my artistic license and substitute recreation for tennis. the golden gate way club sponsored tend to swing 10 matches each in his first season. each will invite a minimum of eight non-club members and their supporters and families every weekend as opponents of those matches over the next 2.5 months. that means there will be a minimum of 1600 tennis players, have having no formal affiliation or membership to the club, coming to play tennis of the golden gate way. that is just one season. there are multiple seasons in each year. there will be combination teams that joined players of different abilities. men and women will play together

on some teams. teams for individuals in their 60s. and those above 70. then the club offers passes to invite non-members to play in hundreds of friendly matches or for tennis lessons. taken together it would be a conservative effort to save this private club in bytes 4000 people per year that are not members just to play tennis. i am not even talking about swimming. there is a lot of tennis played at the club. the planning commission and the responses about what happens to the of usta if the club is raised "the golden gate we tennis in club would not have a sufficient number of tennis courts to maintain certain tennis programs such as tournament play and club tournament. plain enough. fair enough. the evaluation of the plans to

replace the club with condominiums, the commission in its revised comments is not honest about what happens to the tenants under seqa. according to this, the implementation of the project would have a significantly bigger impact come only if the word to impact other ports negatively. there are 168 courts in this city. not all of those are playable, many are not. and i asked you to please take a look at the public courts you cite in this document and see how truly playable they are before you eliminate this number of tennis courts and this amount of playing for the thousands of people who play here throughout the year. thank you.

>> david stockdale and susan mccoulath. >> them, but afternoon. i am the proud creator of scary part open space jim. -- open space gym. the hide is obscene architectural atrocity. the historic view of the ferry building, and the public trust that says no housing there on. it is out of sync with the 40 foot height of the north waterfront with no setbacks.

it blocks the sunshine of all tenants on the south side and the side of my building, 440 davis court. it will no longer be sunshine there, and it will also block the sunshine on a very park. i know that. i live there. nobody talks about the accumulative affect of traffic off, the exploratory of, the cruise terminal, except for a. no study was taken. it is dangerous across there. it will destroy the club as we know it as a beautiful entity of open space entertainment and sports for people who need it. seniordo not destroy this beautl section of the embarcadero.

do not lie. go along with what their roles tell you, and make sure you do not put down a big box on the corner that makes no sense at all. it does not belong there. please get rid of this ugly thing once and for all. we are all fed up with it. the consensus is 99 percent against it. carry out the duties you are paid for to do the will of the people. that is what you're here for, and that is what you were paid for. [applause] >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i am the executive director of center for urban education about sustainable agriculture. we are a non-profits that operates the farmers' market at the ferry building.

i am here representing my board, stop, and the 120 small businesses, farmers and food are decisions that sell in the market and rely on the market place for a significant portion of their yearly revenue. we believe the 8 washington project is an example of the best use of this site and works well to stabilize and the neighborhood, residential and commercial character and that this area of the waterfront. continuing process begun a number of years ago. this process transforms the space from a club and parking lot from a multi-layered residents and creates more active public spaces for the shoppers, visitors, employees, as well as for local residents.

it also creates better access to the waterfront from adjacent neighborhoods, build the recondition club come at a new retail spaces at the additional parking to support the area retail, including the markets. admittedly, the short term also parking cannot be seen as a temporary problem for our business is. as long as there is temporary parking, it is very much welcome. we believe the eir as thoroughly analyze all of the uses and impacts, the traffic impacts, and therefore should be certified.

thank you. >> good afternoon. i am zane greshim on behalf of eop. eop has transformed the building to the jewel of san francisco. from out sick, adequate parking was recognized as essential. therefore, when eop entered into the lease they insisted on a parking agreement, insuring they would have 150 dedicated parking spaces for the oferry building. the project proposed by the port in san francisco waterfront partners is inconsistent, and the proposed

plan is inadequate and does not comply with seqa, a few of the major deficiencies. i am clear -- due to numerous changes made to the project by the project sponsor come inaccurate statements about the parking agreement and obligations of the port and the rights. transportation analyses based on outdated and incomplete traffic and parking data resulted in a failure to disclose, parking and transportation impacts. during construction and after completion. ignoring the project significant traffic and air quality impacts during the america's cup, and the virtual passant -- absence of analysis despite the obvious environmental impacts, particularly in an era of global warming and sea level rise.

and for these reasons come as well as those that many others as stated, the final eir does not comply with ceqa. it must be revised to provide adequate information and the recirculated to love the public to review this augmented information. eop respectfully request the commission take no action until the significant deficiencies are corrected. the serious flaws in the project are remedied, and the concerns of community groups and other stakeholders are resolved. and legally adequate notice of the proposed actions are given. thank you. >> danielle delaney, helen johnson, and roger wong. >> hello. i'm susan mccullough.

i am a longtime district 3 network. i am here today to speak on behalf of north beach neighbors and individuals. i think you hear a different point of view from me. no. pete shaorth beach neighbors supports the project. according to the eir, the project will provide three times out for recreation space, exceeding the requirements of the city planning code. we think this will reconnect to the waterfront issue you have heard from some of the people today. it is also an for the project sponsors have reached out to the community and have tried to make changes with their project. we think they have done a good job over the years and have been working on this for quite a long time. the inclusion of parking in the project we view as a positive aspect.

we think it is important for the residents and for the commercial projects and the surrounding areas. also, you have heard things about the fitness centers. the project sponsors have made it clear they are committed to the fitness center. the center is actually going to be larger in size, and we think that is benefit. i personally find office space very important, because i have been going through of with their be as a cancer survivor. my mother goes through aqua therapy as a senior. the fact that they will expand the business base to make it more state of art, multiple the picture pools, this is all very significant and will give back to the community. we think the new cafe will be something that will open up and reconnect the neighborhood. i encourage you to vote in

support of the project. thank you. >> my name is helen johnson. i am resident of the gateway. i am not here to talk about myself interest. i live in the village, and i love living there because for someone my age it has all ages, and it has been such a wonderful privilege for me to live there. i am most concerned about the social aspect. our society is in turmoil. we had all of these protests about the upper 1 percent. this project will be not only for the upper%, but many people from abroad. that is not about the breadth and more. -- that is not about the neighborhood anymore. in san francisco where freedom is so prized, keep that in mind

when you are making this decision. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is daniel delancy. i would like to talk with you today about how i feel the proposal would negatively impact the aquatics and outdoor recreation space available to the entire community. first, i would like to describe a few of the programs that are offered for kids, middle-class and elderly. while some people think of it as a tennis and swim club, is actually much more. gateway has a lot will come a smaller pool for exercise wear glasses, a large deck area and small pavilion. it is important to note that these host programs available to the public. the most noticeable program that

use these is something called kid's cam. kids can't serves over 700 campers and employs an additional 20 people each summer by providing activities such as tennis, swimming, arts and crafts. it has given $30,000 in scholarship awards so that children can envoy -- children from low-income families can enjoy these programs as well. these are the only fools and the city of san francisco but host year-round outdoor open swim. while the pools are a key part of the space, they're not only things utilize by the community. these bases are used for community events such as barbeques come at family gatherings, and fund raising events. there are few problems we see with the washington street proposal. first off, the proposal is very

vague. when it comes to the areas, there is one large pool not open to the community. it appears there would be no lawand the deck area would not be conducive to to that positioning. the next problem is the figures with regard to the existing outdoor recreation space are extremely misleading. in the 2006 proposal what you can see here is the proposal states there are 21,600 existing speed feet of outdoor recreation. fast forward to 2011, and the numbers have gone to 9000 square feet. i can assure you 10,000 square feet were not magically lost. what does this mean? if the proposal does go through come in negatively impact outdoor recreation facilities available. there would be a complete loss of kids camp. a complete loss of open swim and

other service is open to the public. diminished capacity of things like lawn areas. while this may seem that site something that would benefit a small number of individuals, this is actually utilized by the community for the full extent. thank you for your consideration. >> good afternoon. i am margaret, and i have for 47 years looked directly at 8 washington. so do other 16 other residential units in my building. between us is the district. the developers want height reclassification to 136 feet. why not 200? so much more profit