are here before you today on a very important issue. we were not an appellant, we stand in solidarity with our neighbors. with everyone you have heard from today to tell you that this eir cannot be certified. the spot zoning issue. you are being asked to amend your zoning map to allow for one project. this is unprecedented. the last time this issue came before this body it was 555 washington, and it was unanimously voted down. on that premise alone, the eir is flawed. you must look at what you are voting for and what president this sets. -- precedent thissets. the analysis is flawed. there is no rationale, except to

build a lot of luxury condos and sell a lot of condos. 2.5, $7.5 million prices. i was very discouraged to read an article saying that this a vote is done. i cannot believe that. i know this body is taking into consideration all the evidence before it. any man can go into battle when he is sure of winning. give me the man would be plucked to go into a battle he is sure of losing. this board must consider all the evidence, especially on the spot zoning issue. the 66-year resident trial attorney that could not finish his thoughts, he was talking about supervisors for open space. if you are for open space, you cannot be for this eir. [applause]

president chiu: thank you, next speaker. >> i am representing the tenants' association at 88 howard. i am an over 20-year resident of that area. i have some system and comments. i think this is too big, too close to the water, i live right next to the hotel. it is already on the present on the waterfront. this is going to be even worse. the fact that this is public land that is going to be sold as luxury condos, it goes against the grain of san francisco. i walked on the embarcadero significantly. the shadowing from this is going to be absolutely awful. the sun always sets in the west. it will be terrible. i want to echo the former mayor's comments.

we were lucky to lose the embarcadero freeway from that earthquake. this is a return back to just destroying it. thank you. president chiu: are there any other members of the public who wish to speak? ok. why don't we go to the planning department for your presentation? you have 20 minutes. >> good evening, supervisors. i am the manager of legislative affairs for the planning department. i am joined by our chief environmental review officer, senior planner, and project planner. i would like to take a moment to note that there are some ordinances that are related to this project that will not be enacted by any action you could take tonight. if the board chooses to certify

the eir and asia the conditional use authorization, -- and issue the conditional use authorization, you will year later -- you will hear later amendments. we would be happy to provide additional information if you have any questions. we begin first with the appeal of response. >> good afternoon. can you hear me through the microphone if i'm standing? good afternoon or good evening. i am with the planning department. i will make a few introductory comments. i will apologize in advance, i will jump around and address some of the dishes as i was writing them down. -- some of the issues as i was writing them down. almost all the comments have already been addressed and the package we have provided in writing. i will not address everything.

a couple introductory comments, the eir certification, it is not a project approval action. it is an informational document only. talking about the environmental impacts that could result from the project, ways to reduce or avoid those impacts. a vote to certify the eir does not bind you in any way in terms of a subsequent vote on the project. if you vote to certify its, you believe the eir is a sufficient informational document and the information is accurate and it comes to appropriate conclusions supported by substantial evidence. one other general comment i want to make, this is obviously a

controversial project. there is a lot of disagreement. controversy about the project approval, the information in the eir. with respect to the eir, the principal role is to disclose it. the eir does not need to resolve those disagreements, but we do need to inform the decision makers about them. as i indicated earlier, we need to come to appropriate conclusions with regard to ceqa impacts. getting to some of the specific comments. i was gone to address this in more detail, whether the public trust document allows for this project to proceed. i agree with her. this is an issue to be discussed later. i want to make the point, we have discussed this with our city attorney's.

we are very confident that this project -- the trust has been removed. it was not barred by the state constitution. the land commission agreed. this is not technically a seek what impact issue. it is an approval issue. -- ceqa impact issue. questions raised about cumulative traffic and parking impacts. the eir -- and very specifically talks about and analyzes the impacts from other projects. such as the cruise terminal as well as incorporating a general background. all the impact analysis in

regards to transportation parking impacts to take into account that cumulative analysis. the appellant and others have raised the issue of 75 howard. does produce came to place subsequent to -- those projects came to place subsequent to the eir being published. it is not a new project. it is relocating across the street and down the block. traffic is already incorporated into the analysis. that project was a cart -- was a part of our current setting. 75 howard is further removed part of the background growth, which is included in the project impact analysis. on parking impacts, both of those projects are outside the study area. what happens to the parking

there does not change the information or the analysis presented in the eir. it was not part of the survey area. the issue was raised with regard to the golden gateway eir from the 1970's. we did not address those in our eir and we did not believe that is relevant information. this eir is obligated to report on the impacts of this proposed project. the 8 washington street proposal on the current setting. the 1972 and 1960 -- 76 eirs were looking at a different setting. that information is not relevant to what this eir needs to present in terms of the physical and tax of the 8 washington street project.

>> that was an interesting comment you just made. they did involve project on the same site, a high-rise condos on that location. it is surprising to hear you suggest that it should not have been considered. >> my point is that we are looking at one project of 130 feet. we have looked at this project. what that eir found about four high-rise towers on this site, we believe it was not relevant to the impact of this project. president chiu: that's eir concluded that those buildings had a pretty significant impact, right? the conclusion they drew was very different than the conclusion that you are drawn today. >> the conclusion was different.

i was intending to address that as well. those projects were higher. at 25 stories, those projects were taller. another thing that has changed since the 1970's, if you read that eir, it's fine significant impact on the views. -- it finds significant impacts on views. it talks about the impacts to and from the residential properties on telegraph hill. that may have been the standard 40 years ago, but since 1983, when i began doing this for the city, significant view impacts in the city are adverse impacts on publicly accessible scenic views. we would not call the blockage from a residential property is significant impact today. president chiu: could you tell

us where we could see a view -- of towards the northeast waterfront? there is nothing in the eir that clearly lays out what that view looks like. >> there is actually. i was looking to remind myself and that comment was raised. if you'll excuse me for one second. is the clock running? president chiu: we will pause your time for this. >> thank you. in the eir a, -- >> can you speak into the microphone? we are struggling to hear you. >> the draft eir at page 4b8 is

a view from the park looking north over the project sites showing the before and after. president chiu: there are half a dozen folks who have looked at that issue. i do not have that in front of me. >> ifrom the park, but there wan extensive amount of the graphic imagery, including the video, which was shown earlier, which was a small portion of fixeit. many of the other ones, we did

not describe and it does talked about a guy. -- talk about that. that was not described in the eir. >> let me ask you about height. you concluded this was not a significant impact. in what would it take for it to be a significant impact? >> we did not specifically say 60% change in height was not an impact. we look at what ever building the height is proposed. we look at shadow impact.

goowe look at visual impact, not just on the basis of height, but of building, a physical change related to that, and when we looked at that, for the reasons described in the er, the reasons were found to be very minimal on the northwest edges at the end of the dave. >> 84 feet is what is currently at. what height would be significant? >> without knowing the exact height, it would cause

substantial view impact to the rigors of -- view impact. and we would call that significant impact your good -- impact. >> this does feel like spot increase triggered -- increase. it is not the subject of litigation. >> the eir does not consider whether it is spot zoning.

that is not our issue. >> i would add to that and also referred to the city attorney, but my understanding is it is a legal term that refers june higher height, and i would defer to the city attorney hearing good -- city attorney. >> we are talking about spot zoning. what are we talking about in a particular point that goes up?

>> you can call it whatever you wanted. >> what would you call it? >> it would be wel however you choose to hear it. >> i appreciate that word. let me go to your definition. under section 6 it says under no circumstances shall there be any height limits. it seems you cannot do height reclassification, what ever you are talking about.

can you explain? >> it is difficult to understand, but a planned unit development can have certain exceptions. that is why you would have a later ordinance that would change the height limit. the board would also approve the height limitation, and if you feel it is not appropriate to approve height limit, they would need to redesign of a building, so it is dependent on this body changing height limit, but it cannot be specifically authorized. >> that is my reading, but it seems we cannot approve a

conditional use today unless that is later approved by the board. >> it would be contingent upon your later approval. >> we cannot approve the cu today. >> i believe your approval is contingent upon a later approval for reclassification. >> one of you continue. >> the next issue i was going to address is an issue we have already written about in the material we sent you, and it is here today. it has to do with how we could define less than significant impact with losses of tennis courts and in why we did not have to send that issue around for further comment.

good i want to be very quick. the eir lays out very clearly as the project modified over time the draft eir and project variants. the swimming pool moved through the roof, and it created an additional open spaces. all but is very clear. i do not think there is dispute about that. your >> right now the document refers to the march 22, 2012 plans. as you know, there are no plans from that date. the only plans refer to november

and december. give the plants kept changing -- plans kept changing. the public has a right to actually comment on a fix project, and when the developer decided to remove all the tennis courts after the final responses were published, to me that suggested someone does not understand how this project was changing. >> the draft eir talks about what constitutes a significant impact under ceqa with regard to recreational resources, if the project would cause substantial degradation of recreational resources. >> for the people here to suggest going from five tennis

courts to four tennis courts down to zero tennis court would be severe and degradation. good >> there is disagreement about that, but the ceqa threshold for significant impact is not close or convenient access. it is whether or not it is going to result in substantial degradation. they talk about how many tennis courts a city should have to serve its public. the standard of was incorporated into the recreational parks department was one tennis court for 500 residents. the present project with nine tennis courts, the ratio is one

tennis court to roughly 3500 residents. >> so now we are going down to zero. >> yes, and that would change through 3700. there is still an adequate supply of tennis courts so we do not expect degradation, but people who use these corp. said have close access to them are upset about it. they consider it a hardship, and it er -- the eir this closes the. -- discloses that, including our

explanation that it is not a significant threshold for significant impact. we believe we have disclosed that, including the disagreement, and explain why this would not amount to see what impact -- ceqa impact, while we have revealed it is not helpful to people who would lose access to tennis. the obligation is not to say whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, but to inform you about that. >> of the project have d not been initially introduced that would be one thing, but the public did not have our right to comment on that. did they change it after the final comments were due.

>> what they are talking about is recirculating the eir. the guidelines specifically addressed the issue of recirculation. that means you have a round of comments. you have responded, and you need to recirculate for further comments. ceqa guidelines have a strict standard for when that needs to occur. when there is a serious increase in environmental impact that has already been reported, or is the draft eir was so insignificant.

we do not believe that was reached. the public clearly has an opportunity to talk about the loss of tennis courts, and we believe that is conveyed through the draft. >> can we talk about alternatives you did or did not lay out some of this was not a project that -- or did not lay out? this was a project and still retain half of the tennis courts, and what we have is a very different projects with major height and reclassifications, and one thing that is clear to me that there did not seem to been a

component address whether this would actually meet the goals of the city. >> there are two alternatives. alternatives b and e, which develops only the washington site, so those are in the eir. it is an esoteric issue, but they are supposed to derive alternatives to the address and respond to significant impacts of the project. we did not identify specific impacts, so these were their

tune present region because of regulatory requirements -- these were there to present the region because of regulatory requirements, we looked at alternatives that address regulatory approvals of look that different permutations that would not need those, but we did look at different alternatives have the 84-foot high. >> those were arguments that were fairly easy to explain why they would not be particularly interesting, but there are plenty of other alternatives that would have met the needs of the neighborhood without massive exceptions we are being asked to look at today. >> can i ask how much time we have left?