>> my name is bob iverson. i have a master's degree in architecture and a master's degree in regional planning. we want a great project along the waterfront, but this proposal is not it. i argue the project should be at least condition with a 25 foot sidewalk at the embarcadero, and the height and bulk additions be disallowed. this has resulted in a stacked deck. aesthetics, traffic, and other concerns are dismissed because the northeast embarcaderos study the sudden for evidence of approval. why is this wrong? they cite the proposal for design guidelines. the eir sites the nes. the result is circular in dishonest. there are faulty design ramifications. all four sides of the condominium building, the developers portion decreases either the existing sidewalks, and borrow from the jackson street right of way, an element that are proud to tout, but lack the generosity to share. focusing on the embarcadero sidewalk, the proposal narrows the walk from 15 feet to 16 feet. since the nes uses this as a guideline, the 15 feet will continue all along the walk, including a kids' playground 15 feet from embarcadero traffic. this illustrates the sidewalk. the mission street entrance to the planning department is actually 15 feet. i wonder if they know that. the planning department wants a grand boulevard. because of the mess between circular references, the eir should be dismissed. it is an insult. look at the details of this project, as i hope you will see in the next few presentations. president chiu: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is janet. i live 2 blocks from the proposed site of the development. i am very concerned with a great deal of what is in the proposal. why would we replace amazing, affordable outdoor recreation with a 400 car parking garage? it is mind-boggling for those of us who love this city. we are average citizens, and do not understand what can happen with money and politics. i can honestly say as a bay area native, after living in san francisco for 17 years, it breaks my heart, but i would definitely move out of the city if the project goes through. it is a healthy social outlet, a huge part of my life, and a huge part of hundreds of people's lives. i am concerned the city is driving away families. i beg my friends to stay, to no avail. i live in a building with 67 units, and there are three children living in this building, all under the age of four. when they reach 5 and 6, they will move to the suburbs for the reason that we are taking away great outdoor recreational space for kids. district 3 is the greatest population density of any neighborhood in san francisco. it is the dances neighborhood in the country outside of manhattan, yet it has the lowest square footage per capita of open space. we want to cut out seven tennis courts and put in a parking garage. my building has 67 units and 30 parking spots. we do not need every unit in that multimillion-dollar building to have a parking garage. consider the buildings at the end of van ness. don't we wish we could go back in time and disapprove these eyesores from being built? we would all love it. we would all love it if that i sort is not there. thank you for your time. >> good afternoon. as a commuter to the south bay every day, the come -- the proposed plan to narrow the streets at the embarcadero are beyond ridiculous. as projected by the eir, these are sensitive intersections. any changes would cause traffic at peak periods, because there are very few roads off embarcadero at this area. the road is to be narrowed by 7 feet, and the sidewalk will be considerably smaller. president chiu: is there a projection? could you please project that. thank you. >> the developer rendering is completely out of proportion and very misleading. drum walk is 45 feet wide. the developer is increasing it to 38 feet, 9 inches. the rendering is greatly exaggerated. is 3 feet 9 inches going to be such a huge difference? the planned for raj with valet service is designed to accommodate commercial and fitness center guests. how is a valet service going to function, given the new single- line washington and from st.? will the cars to of on the street and took part? this area has 400,000 parking spaces and an excellent transit system. does the gridlock mean nothing? the developer must let the planning commissioner no he is misleading you and the public. he claimed to have conducted surveys among the public. i can assure you that not one of my friends here today has ever seen or heard of this survey. he has simply ignored all of the 2000 members of the gate with community. is this not the public? he is of the forging ahead, assuming this is a done deal, climbing the public are happy with this development. it has misled the planning commission, and is now misleading you. i urge you to look closely at the details of this development, because you will find many inconsistencies and false statements. thank you. president chiu: thank you. the speaker? >> good evening. thank you for having this meeting. i would like to ask you a question. i would like to start out with a ". the urgent question is what are you doing for others? that is martin luther king, jr. my question is not just to think about what you are going to do for one particular type of individual, who has the money to build a large project for a multimillion-dollar design that is picked out by a fancy designer. i would like to discuss with you, as an architectural designer, the focus i have done, which is concerns over the development of the parking garage. the issues i would like to discuss are the good parking layouts. in looking at the planning buyouts of the garage, many of the spots are dead ends, and unusable. we spoke about the project earlier. the party itself is not enough. there is now a proposal for 400. in looking at the height and accuracy of the planning code, you would have to go down another 10 to 15 feet. that means you would have another hundred parking garages, which is not shown in the proposal. the initiative wait finding is also inaccurate. columns are in the way, and there are unrealistic, steep ramps. the other of but i would like to talk about is the accessibility for wheelchair. chapter 11 of the california building code says there should be enough wheelchair path of travel to leave the vehicle. right now, there is no clear height for the parking garage. the parking dredge also has mechanical rooms. that is a distribution of air and smoke -- president chiu: thank you very much. i think your time is up. thank you. next speaker? and there is a timer on the podium. you will hear a soft buzzer when you have a little bit of time left. i think it is a 15 second warning. >> good afternoon. i am an long-time san francisco resident. i would like to talk about the negative effect of this development on washington street. there are traffic concerns and a violation of the america's cup commitment. the developer claims that are providing more sidewalk space on washington street with this development. it is thought true. they claim 27 feet of sidewalk space, of which really only four is set aside as public walkways, and that is the minimum legal requirement. the actual walking space has been reduced from 10 feet to 4 feet. the rest is used for dining tables and trees. rather than admitting to the appearance of the minimum legal standard, that our obfuscating the facts. in reference to traffic congestion, the eir recognizes that the general plan of san francisco identifies washington street as a major arterial in the congestion management network between kern the street and embarcadero. traffic is developed in level of of service. a through d are considered satisfactory. e and f r unacceptable. today, washington st. is at lof d. in the eir, the impact includes the proposed project would have a considerable contribution to cumulative traffic impacts which are significant and unavoidable. anyone who drives the embarcadero knows what a relief it is to exit 2 washington street, especially during rush hour or if the giants are in town. it will become level f gridlock. my last comment is san francisco commitment to the america's cup and all the construction that is going to be happening -- i urge the supervisors to vote against this project. thank you for your time. >> hello. my name is mary baldwin. i have been a city resident for i think 20 years. i started playing tennis i think 10 years ago. we need more recreational opportunities in this city, not fewer. we are facing an obesity epidemic. surely, everyone understands that a diverse range of recreational opportunities is what makes the city a vibrant place that people want to live in. it is not enough to fill the city with housing. we have to have something for people to do once we lived there. golden gateway is part of a vibrant tennis community that spans across public courts. thousands and thousands of players come to the city to play at golden gate why -- gave way. golden gate with yields for the teams in itself -- golden gate fields 40 teams itself. we need to respect the fact that a city needs to offer a range of opportunities for all kinds of people. please respect the community that golden gateway provides, and please vote no on this project. thank you. president chiu: before the next speaker, i have just been apprised there are parents with young children here, in addition to one who is about to speak. if there are any, we would like to give them the opportunity to go sooner, rather than later. if you are disabled and also would like that courtesy, please feel free to wind up. >> this is my husband peter and my daughter anna. i have been living in san francisco for 10 years. we are members of the golden gate with tennis and swim club since 2006. she is 2 years old. whittaker to the club at least once a week. as you know, there are not a lot of open recreational places around this area. it makes a huge difference for us to be able to be part of this great community that is the golden gate way tennis and swim club. people know us. they know her. that always say, "it is ok. work out for a little bit. we will take care of her." it is amazing. when i moved to san francisco, i did not have many friends. it changed completely when i felt part of the community. please, when it is gone, it is gone. we are a hard-working family. we are middle-class. we cannot afford a club. if this is gone, we would consider leaving the city. it would be hard for us to stay in the city without a working club. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> hello. i have lived in the city my whole life. i have been a member of the club since i was very young. it is a place i have learned to swim. i have many fond memories. if it were gone, it would make an enormous impact on my fellow citizens. thank you. president chiu: thank you. >> carol mccarthy. i lived in north beach. 25 years ago, as a single mother, i joined on a salary of $20,000 a year. i have never been able to afford a home with an outdoor space in this city, but i have been able to enjoy this respite from cramped city living. this is the wrong solution. it violates 45 years of city policy in the northern waterfront, destroys out -- destroys outdoor recreation space, it does not affect the character of the neighborhood, and does not connect san francisco to the waterfront. it puts up a wall, blocking the use of telegraph hill. why are we giving away this land to the only developer who submitted a proposal to the rfp? ever since the developer established a relationship with the port, responses to the opposition have been self- serving. the proposal is outmoded, and eight blatantly reckless disregard to the quality of life mandated by the city's general plan. it does not look to the future. it is a developer who will profit from building luxury condos at the expense of low income families and the elderly. there are alternatives. the serbs agreed to local population. it can be upgraded. the design vision for the waterfront -- i cannot believe nobody is talking about this. it provides a comprehensive and feasible plan that promotes mixed use, makes a vital destination, and creates more jobs than a developer proposal. this proposal is a true community effort, not a behind the scenes planning effort. why haven't we considered alternatives? why haven't we looked at cities like new york in santa monica, who use sustainable designed to make the area's modern and vibrant? think, innovate, and consider alternatives. look at our neighborhoods as a whole, not just the few who stand to profit from the development of more luxury condos. president chiu: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is deborah smith. i have lived in district 2 for 13 years. i have a letter i am reading today from a young woman who could not be here, because she is taking her final exams at university. her name is karen duffy. she was a junior counselor for the kids can't of golden gateway for three years. i met benjamin connors in the summer of 2008. i was 13, and returning camp counselor. he was 7 and autistic. that monday, i received my group list. the week seemed no different from any other. my supervisor sullenly approached me and said i would be in charge of ben connors's group. he explained that ben was autistic and thought i might be up to the challenge. with no background on autism, i was bewildered, to say the least. then i saw him, a seven-year-old with a thick head of brown hair, scrawny lambs, pigeon toed feet, and squinty eyes that darted back and forth. i could tell he was different. i was nervous. whenever i was there anyone with special needs, my stomach did flips, probably due to my lack of knowledge. i did not know where to start, but i knew i would try my best. i noticed that ben had difficulty running. i continually asked him to benefit, and surprisingly, he did. he put his part -- his heart into every activity. through patience and conversation, i have to interact with his friends, and mediated and the conflict. my world view changed. i found sincerity and a genuine passion for life. he wanted new experience. the first time i saw ben smile, my heart melted. i realize that with the proper education -- president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> i am a homeowner in district 8 and a golden gateway member for monthly costs that are less than my cable, internet, and phone bill. when i first moved here, i knew nobody. i looked to two things -- community and recreation. as a data nerd, i have the facts and figures. in comparison with the census data, we see that this plan only excess profits the loss of our community. there will be more seasonal use dwellings, more vacancy, and 160% increase in rental vacancy rates, and more exits of families from the city. i also looked out recreation in the form of tennis courts. our city should have 400 tennis courts. it currently has 128. that is 32% of what they recommend. i wonder where the city is looking at building the other courts to make up the difference. the were the comments about the catchment area. analyzed households by zip code and from the following. 42 unique zip codes in the city. 16-200 or more member households. five zip codes have over 100 member households. this negatively impact what i look for in terms of recreation. i hope you vote no to the washington project. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> i would like to talk through the eight washington street proposal, and how it would negatively impact the recreational space available to our committee. there is a lap pool force from classes, and a lot of open space. it is important to note that there are programs available to the public, not just facility members. the most notable program is kids camp. it employs 20 people each summer, providing tennis and arts and crafts. children from low income families can enjoy these families. it is important to note that a key part of the space is things like a lawn used for community activities such as barbecues, family gatherings, and fund- raising events. there are a few problems i see with the proposal. first, when it comes to these areas, the proposal is vague. the pool would not be open to the community, and there would be no lawns or deck space for outdoor recreation. the changes to the existing outdoor space are misleading. the 2006 proposal creates 2,600 feet of outdoor recreation space. i can assure you that 12 dozen feet of outdoor recreation space did not simply disappear in five years. under the new proposal, there would be no kids camp been diminished capacity for fund- raisers and community gatherings. i hope this convinces you how these changes would be a detriment to our community. thank you for your time and consideration. >> my name is alan brodsky. i am a trial lawyer and law professor. i have lived in san francisco for 66 years. i am here to oppose this project. the first point i want to make is that this is not just any other project. this is a unique project. those of us who have thought about it a great deal find it clear that this project is the most flagrant twisting of, or request to twist, the building codes and other restrictions on developers that exist in the city. your vote on this project will be remembered, particularly with you as the people of your district to send you back to the board of supervisors. for example, scott wiener send out a fire asking that he be reelected -- president chiu: please direct your comments to all of the board. we have a rule to request the conversation with the full board. >> i did not intend to address our remarks to mr. wiener, but to make it about him. he sent out a flier. he said preserving open space. he is an advocate of open space. i asked -- how can anyone who is an advocate of open space support this project? the only other point i want to make -- i hope i am not repeating others that have been made. the evolution of this project in its present -- president chiu: thank you. >> sorry. i did not have a second in a -- a second minute. president chiu: we have the same time for everyone, but we appreciate your comment. thank you. everyone has exactly the same number of time. thank you very much. it goes by fast. thank you. next speaker. >> i am a resident of russian hill. i have been a member of golden gateway for the last 10 years. i will try not to repeat any of the other comments, in terms of opposing this. this does not mean stop development. it means stop this project. we actually are in favor. i am strongly in favor of some development to help the area been made modern and good for the future. it is not receiving investment today because of the tension everyone is under, and the suspense around what is going to happen. a couple of things concern me. they come down to transparency. so far, this project has shown virtually 0 transparency. it has morphed about a dozen times. each time, the developer tells us what he thinks we want to hear. unfortunately, it misses the mark every single tied. it violates city code for height. the cannot understand why that is not an issue, especially in terms of environmental impact. the inside the america's cup document, there were trying to slip in an approval for this project. interesting sleight of hand. lack of transparency. i hope that you on the board can see through that and reject this proposal. ha