a lot of parking to take those ugly, unsightly, above grade service bases and put them below the gray. that is just an example that the full project has to as a whole work for. i do want to just be clear that there have been a lot of things that on the record today that are simply not possible to really explain or address, and respectfully, i have to say there have been factual misrepresentations today, and i do not like having to say something like that, but i do think it is important for that be known, but i do not want you to leave today with a misrepresentation. this is a fine project, and i think we will have the opportunity to prove the case to you on the right day when this is before the board, so i thank you for your time today, and i think you in advance for keeping an open mind about the project. president chiu: before the next

speaker, i want to see if there is any more public comment. if you could line up on that side. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is paul. i have lived and run businesses in the 8 centenary of for years. i have come to make two points that i do not think have been made adequately today. one is what i consider to be a hundred pound gorilla in all of this a bird in hand. the only place people at cash to do something with the parking lots that had on the embarcadero. the america's cup has changed everything. the port will be running over with money. they can no longer cry that they

are poor. the other point i want to make has to do with parking. i run two businesses, over the past 20 years, in the embarcadero area. there is plenty of parking under the embarcadero center. there is a big parking garage under the maritime center. i believe that the owners of those parking areas will tell you that because of the lack of adequate cities signage, those garages are on those lots, so the argument that we need more parking space i believe is a spurious one. thank you. >> members of the committee, my name is charles. i am only here to say one thing. this is not a private club. i read in the newspaper about a private club being on that side. i have heard it here.

members of the private club, they sit on the board of directors, and they occupy officers positions in the organization. this is a business. this is not a private club. if i had a business, if it had the word club in the title, it would not be a private club. just because this business offers tennis and swimming does not make it a private club. it is not a private club. it is like the hair club for men or any of these clubs that you can join. this is what it is. it is just a simple business, and the services it offers is open to everyone. the prices are less than the public swimming facilities on a per day basis. that is why it is so attractive, and that is why so many people do not want to lose the

advantages of the golden gate bridge tennis club for the average person, because it is available to the average person at a lower price, and it is not a private club. thank you. >> hi, my name is cameron. i am here to read a letter from toby. i am a retired planning commissioner from the 1990's. during that time, i was also a member of the waterfront land use advisory committee. we spent years creating a plan, which was adopted in 1997. subsequently, things have been established. for several years, i was the chair of the advisory group and am currently a member, so i do not speak for the committee. this seawall lot was designated as a mixed use opportunities site, and eight potential uses

were identified, including five that were part of the plan, and this includes residential housing, parking, retail job generators, and recreational enterprises. we are deeply concerned with -- not -- reuniting the city. 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. according to my personal priorities, i will list the benefits. pedestrian opening of jackson and pacific to the waterfront once again. affordable housing during a time of diminished resources. funds to repair historic buildings and running -- rotting piers.

things for children. and, of course, the construction. as you listen to testimony, they appear to be the driving force in the efforts to terminate the project. in general, the heights and views are not protected in the planning code. this rises above the waterfront with no stepping down to soften the image. this very tall building will be separated by eight washington. in fact, everything will load jackson street is above 85 feet. you will find that the average wage is 37 feet. the eight washington project consists of a team of aesthetically driven architects and planners who will provide the city with a remarkable development which will make us all very proud. there also accepted -- since -- acceptable of other things. we expect the same high-quality of washington -- of 8

washington. i am here to give you this binder full of letters, and i would like to read to you this is support -- to read to you the support. the san francisco bicycle coalition, the carpenters local 22, the chamber of commerce, a city car share, the american institute of architects, and there are many more local businesses, merchants, and businesses in these binders, which i will leave with you. >> mr. chair, mr. president, members of the committee. prior to my years of experience

with national issues, this was also as a 25-year member of the planning department and a five- year member of the planning group, so i have had considerable background there, and i currently keep my hand in as a quote interested citizen on the northeast waterfront advisory group, and as such, i have had the opportunity to participate in the planning of east of the embarcadero steady and many presentations and many comments pro and con of this project -- the embarcadero study. one thing i would like to say, i think that the members in this room are probably very concerned about the testimony they heard about the golden gate towers and how it has been finding ways to avoid paying higher taxes on the property and to get around the city rent control board, and i

would hope that the city would find this legislation in this regard. also, having said that, as was indicated, the golden gateway owner is not the developer for this project. the developer for this project has done a tremendous job on the east side of the embarcadero. they did a project that no one could have believed came out as good as it did. i do not think there is anyone in the city to has applauded their work -- who has applauded their work. providing retail that activated the waterfront. they had the primary financial backing from the california state teachers' pension group, and clearly, the teachers are not part of the 1% that people are concerned about, reaping

some of the financial benefits. i am a planner. i think from an urban design point of view, a transition from the golden gate towers towards the waterfront, these projects would provide, would be a very desirable thing. the urban design plan never contemplated the removal of the freeway. my first day at the planning department, coming to the planning commission meeting, we are going to be doing something historic today. the planning commission adopted a plan that day, in the planning department has carried it forward with the northeast embarcaderos study -- embarcadero study, so for these

reasons, i support the project, and thank you for your time. >> i have a couple of points and a couple of observations. this was one of seven suval lots that was the reason for supervisors request for a study. the six other lots are north of broadway and have a 40-foot height limit. this was in the dancer area. i have been on the citizens advisory committee from the beginning representing the preservation committee. and been through this project from the beginning of that i was against it originally. until the configuration of a building and i joined forces because it was a nice project

for the site. this is a developable site. i question shadows. maybe i am not informed well enough. this project is north of washington, the park is south of washington. is not the son generally not in the direction of casting shadows? one of my main causes and as a preservationist i am concerned about the port's billion dollar plus a list of creating on it sound. this has poured revenue like crazy. a comment about the rush

parking. 255 will service the ferry building. which brings up another lot. this is a fine development and this is the same development. i hope that in fact this does not become a problem. it is a terrific project for the city. thank you. supervisor mar: is there anyone else who would like to speak? seeing none public comment is closed. supervisor president chiu, , any closing

remarks? >> thank you. president chiu: as i said at the beginning, i thought it was important to hold this hearing today in part because there have been numerous public hearings with other city agencies. and planning, the port commission, we have not started that conversation here. the most recent public meeting was last thursday when the planning department voted to initiate a process to consider the site. i thought we have had not an adequate consideration of the community with issues that have been at the heart of the debate over 8 washgin -- washington. when i came into office the discussion at that time was whether and 84-foot proposal was an appropriate proposal versus what i think many folks

in my district wanted which was to seek a rezoning -- see a rezoning. i think a lot of letters in this book provided by the sponsor of the project are in support of what had been that 84-foot height project. we're talking about a project that is 136 feet. it is a different project and will have more conversations. these are issues i think we need to start earlier. within a few short weeks we will be considering this project in front of the board. there has been discussion about the planning department, the report did put out. while placer electric -- appreciate the work that was done by staff, i did not think it reflected the input of many members of the community that participated and i did support a separate process that is embodied in the community

vision report that has been circulated. there are a lot of interesting ideas in this division that have not been part of the process and the project we're talking about. i thought it was important for us to begin this conversation. we're going to continue it in the coming weeks and i want to thank you and everyone for this conversation. this not the end of this, just the beginning. thank you. supervisor mar: if there is no other comments, let's continue this item to the call the chair. are there other items? >> no further matters. supervisor mar: with no other items, meeting adjourned. thank you. [gavel]