the eir is an informational packet. that information is accurate and objective, and they have come to reasonable and appropriate conclusions that are supported by substantial evidence to the record. i want to touch very briefly on those three points. with regard to the information that is provided, the final eir consists of the initial study and the responses documents. between those three pieces, the eir has addressed every relevant topic in the guidelines that we need to address with regard to project impact. it includes land use, traffic, air quality shadow, and noise, cultural resources. recreation impact on the visual impact. all of those are addressined in the eir. it also analyzes construction impact operational impact, cumulative impact where they are relevant to the project. we believe it is very complete and the road with regard to the topics it addresses. in terms of the accuracy of the information, athe eir has been assisted by of very experienced, qualified consultants. we have brought in technical experts

the eir is flawed. it does not point out that the state lands commission in order to approve this what must find that sea wall lot 351 is "relatively useless." that finding cannot be made. the public resourced code cannot be met and i will ask that my remarks on that be included in the record. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am here to speak against this eir not only for myself but for my late father. as a founding member of the telegraph hill trawlers, he spent 40 years to protect the scale of the waterfront. my father along with many other concerns san franciscans pushed for the height limit which still stands today. he said he did not want san francisco to become like manhattan. the developer is requesting that the planning commission vote to urge that the board of supervisors approved and out the zoning in height limits from 84 feet up to 136 feet. my father worked hard for the benefit of everyone, not just for high and developers are those that can afford their creation

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.

the eir fails to adequately adjuaddressed the subject. our coalition of volunteers were able to save a san francisco tennis club from becoming condominiums several years ago. we are in the same battle now. i have submitted to all of you a specific comments about the eir and deficiencies. the document i commented on this not even include the current proposal. keywords i want to mention here from the eir, loss of the site would be temporary. temporary is not correct. the loss of the tennis courts is permanent. how can anyone say or vote the eir is adequate, when all of the statements do not apply any more. lastly, what about roads? this of -- specifically, policy 2.11, support of recreational facilities that provide a community benefit. i do not understand why the eir does not address this with regard to impact on the neighborhood. if you vote yes, which you are going to do, you will be creating a gated community for 134 super rich people, and as a bonus, you will be creating a wall of wealth along the embarcadero. and you think the existin

the question is whether the final eir is adequate. if they are not on any score, we cannot book to certify it. we have a 17 member board, we have 600 members as part of the telegraph hill dwellers. we have been around since 1954 and it is with particular venom that i hear a lot of folks bring up the name telegraph hill dwellers. they are entitled to their opinion. this is not about creating jobs or housing, is not about how many tennis courts will or will not remain. what this is about are the deficiencies of the i r. there is this failure to analyze the impact of surrounding projects. there is not one mention of a huge project at broadway and in market barrow. that on its face makes it the eir deficient. without that analysis, it is a huge problem. the america's cup, in our exhaustive letter, we said, if you have to analyze a temporary and long-term effect of the america's cup. the comments and respondents said, temporary is temporary, you don't have to look at that. what do we know? that is not acceptable. the analysis is an imprope

i urge you to certify the eir. thanks. >> i will call some more names. -- i will call some more names. june, terra angela, toni. >> good morning, commissioners. i am at 21-year resident of san francisco. i am here to speak in favor a 8 washington of the project -- i am here to speak in favor of the 8 washington project. the private the way club is not disappearing. the developer is building a new $12 million fitness facility and four new polls. secondly, and most important for those of us who cannot afford to belong to the private club, it opens the project to the public. the proposed project is dedicated to public space. 8 washington opens up the eastern side of the waterfront to all san franciscans, including wide landscape areas along the embarcadero and jackson street, about 20,000 square feet of restaurant and retail space, a new 4500-square- foot public park with various facilities for children to play. the project as onto many public parks and recreation facility is located nearby. the eir says there are 10

the eir does look at that. in terms of the northeast study, all the eir says is not that the project is trying to implement a plan, but for immigrant -- but for informational purposes, we want to acknowledge that that study has been used. it was for informational purposes for the commission. it was not intended to state that the sponsor is trying to implement that plan but to let you know what that plan found. the project was analyzed, the height and density, not because it was trying to implement a plan, just because it was what was proposed and that is what we analyzed. lastly, in terms of the viewing impacts and the findings of less than significant, i want to clarify to people that the threshold -- a significant impact is where there is an obstruction or significant average impact on a scenic view from public places. the eir presents those scenic views both from the embarcaderos looking up towards telegraph hill and from telegraph hill looking back towards the embarcadero. the eir points out for both the te

i urge you to certify the eir and give a big thumbs up. he is on to say how much it used for the polls and for families and for being able to enjoy recreation in this very special club. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is james cunningham. i am a member head of the neighborhood association which represents residents and businesses along the northeast waterfront and i am representing that organization today. we are proud to stand with the many citizens and the neighborhood and civic organizations throughout the city to oppose this project. the project clearly conflicts with the existing land use policies and plans. we are particularly concerned with the attack on the long standing height limitations in place. the developer is proposing a 136 ft. high massive structure on the edge of the embarcadero which is the grand waterfront boulevard. the 136 height proposed is some 60% more than the existing limit. we view this as totally unacceptable. we're also concerned that approval of this project would open the way to similar attacks on the

the eir does look at that. in terms of the northeast study, all the eir says is not that the project is trying to implement a plan, but for immigrant -- but for informational purposes, we want to acknowledge that that study has been used. it was for informational purposes for the commission. it was not intended to state that the sponsor is trying to implement that plan but to let you know what that plan found. the project was analyzed, the height and density, not because it watr

the eir. thank you for your time. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am elizabeth, and i am here today to express my support for the project at 8 washington. as a local business owner in at north beach and partner with an architect group, as well as a 20-year resident of telegraph hill, i am so -- i am fully supportive of the proposal. the overall design excellence, scale, a character, and urban plan are well-considered and will be an important contribution to san francisco's waterfront. we share, as a city, the galvanizing platform of sustainability and healthy living. 8 washington meets this cultural need by promoting vital, active, and healthy uses to the coastal culture of san francisco. seizing a unique opportunity to reconnect our city back to its waterfront. 8 washington's thoughtfully organized program and urban plan strategies that include pedestrian-friendly housing, new pedestrian corridors, ground- floor retail, a publicly- accessible open space, the aquatics and health center, an

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,

i believe the eir says there would be two that come out. partly from the way that i understand about how cars come in and out, i think that there would be a back up on washington and i am not sure if it will extend into the embarcadero itself. it has been stated how much transit is around this project and how transit rich this area is and we wanted to promote the area. we're talking about the northeast of the embarcadero steady. this raises some questions for me. the main issue are really want to talk about is this question of who are rebuilding housing for. i know the social and economic consideration cannot always be considered. if they have a physical change, then possibly they can turn to the question is, when is something a change to the physical environment. the question of who gets to live in the city is a big one for me. a lot of people have brought up the $9 million. as the way that the project is proposed, this does not even meet the goals. the regional housing, the needs assessment, this sets up a number of goals within each inco

i think this is a patently false statement and calls into question the entire eir. section 240 of the planning code gives the planning commission jurisdiction over port property. there is also a city attorney opinion which is 86-05. it says that the above analysis demonstrates that even prior to the transfer of the port to the city, prior to the applicability of the city's police power to the court, under charter section 1.101, uses of poor lands were subject to the city's power for zoning procedures. i do not see how they can make this pattern statement that we do not have jurisdiction over property. -- over pork property. -- port property. we were previously given information. one of our hearings about the comment that the number of truck trips per day in the eir was responded to in the cnr document by upping the number of trips from 20 to 90. is that right? yes. also, that the peak hour trips would go to 200 trips per day. i have a couple of questions about that. those were just statements that were made. i do not think the actual numbers were then analyzed to se

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 t