project, and i urge you to move it forward. chair mar: thank you. >> hi, my name is alan marke. they originally considered the development of eight washington and also simply called for the combining of the ports land with the golden gateway land. although the regional project design complied with the 84-foot limit, over the last 1.5 years, a lot has gone into public planning to meet community desires. making the height limit the issue. this is nearly twice as tall.

it is more difficult to sell. how -- this is providing one to one parking. the 100%. the parking as well as affordable housing. and lastly, more housing, more density, and the ability of the families to stay here.

>> good afternoon. after spending years, i offer my unqualified support for the proposed eight washington project. i will not dwell on the many other public benefits of the project. its consistency or its outstanding architectural design. instead, i will discuss the role it will play in making it the truly renowned urban boulevard. i am really proud of what we accomplished our partnership with the city and the port of san francisco. the waterfront is remarkably different, in large part of it because it was built on our shared values and regulatory processes to attract and mightn't developers. the result is an attractive, vibrant, and every grieving landscape that is being built on

san francisco's historic years along the embarcadero. -- historic piers along the embarcadero. both sides of the roadway, some have this. in other places, other structures forming the boulevard. this project will replace one of these with a beautiful structure that will complete the frame with the others. and on the other hand, any change is measured by its possible flaws. whatever its flaws, this will replace an unwelcoming design issue with architectural excellence. therefore, in your consideration, i urge you to recognize that among its many benefits, it will achieve a major urban design benefit.

chair mar: thank you. mr. floras? >> thank you, supervisor. manny flores, the union. is this a perfect project approved by no means. but it is a pretty good design. it is a smart design. i encourage you to approve these amendments. i really hate to lose this one, because in the words of coach harbaugh, -- thank you. chair mar: thank you. next speaker. >> actually, the coach says who has got it better than us? wu has gotten better than us?

-- who has gotten better than us? i am here representing a consortium of construction companies based in the bayview hunters point, and this will be for developers and owners to drive opportunities, and we believe that supporting this project would have a direct and positive impact, as they have a business role and are dedicated to hiring local baby residents. as you know, this has suffered disproportionately, and we believe this is one of the positive projects that would help with the crime rate, and we would ask for your support on this project. >> -- chair mar: thank you. i am going to call a few more names. [calling names]

>> i would like to thank the supervisors for a meeting today. i am a little confused i am in this proposed development. i thought that the reason we were here was to consider whether to propose an exception to the 84-foot height. that, as i am sure that president chiu can say here, came from a lot of wells fought discussions about what that height should be. to talk about whether there should be a cafe or a parking lot, how expensive the condominium should be, i am going to put that aside. my question is why should this group, represented by high paid lawyers, have a right to say that the city of san francisco should amend this hiked? talking about tangents from the top of the trans am building

down to the ferry building, down to the anbar derryl 1 -- down to the in bardera -- the embarcadero 1 and the deli, the only reason is money. if they want to make this 84 feet, 83.5 feet, i do not have a problem with that. thank you. chair mar: next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is tobi levine, and i am here in support of the project. you had course 101 on 8

washington, and you know more than most of the world knows about this particular project, and i wanted to know what i could say that you have not heard, and i was on a board back in the 1990's, ahead her -- 1990's, and we had a mandate for the waterfront, and it was completed and approved by the port commission in 1997 and you all in 1998, with amendments that have occurred since the ruling documents for the waterfront, and i take a look at the waterfront what the people

who put the document together initially basically had in mind, they had public open space, retail, job generators, and recreational enterprises. of course, that is what we have at 8 washington. secondly, right after that plan and came into being, then came the waterfront design. and this kind of elaborated this plan. and this is the importance of one day reuniting the waterfront as a whole, and so with those two documents, both of which come from the 1990's but are still important today, i think you have got every good reason to vote in favor of this plan. thank you. chair mar: thank you, ms. levine.

next speaker. >> i participated in the northeast steading and the embarcadero steady, and out of that process, i started this organization to try to bring non financially interested parties together, whether that the people who were not homeowners or those who are not connected with the community. i think it is important to have more voices at the table. as part of the study, ultimately, it was decided that a bunch of 84-foot-tall buildings were not the best for the site. there is a presentation of how to step down plan is important. it is inappropriate because it respects the situation and makes a much better project. my group is particularly interested in the public benefits of this project. right now, parking lots and

fences. if you green light this thing, the public, everyone gets to benefit from the open space. the children's playground, and a much better pedestrian experience, so i urge your support. >> thank you. -- chair mar: next speaker. >> good afternoon. my name is richard. i have lived in san francisco since 1982, first on telegraph hill and then mostly on russian hill. i am chair of the russian hill design committee, and i currently sent on the board as an adviser currently. i am sure you are all aware that the proposal has gone through much process and scrutiny. i think we can aceves, and this

is as it should be. these waterfront sites are very precious to our city. i want to thank all of the city department personnel and officials who work with the developer to make project as stellar as it has become. the committee met with both the developer, the san francisco waterfront partners, and with the opponents. when we first looked at the developers' proposal, it was with great skepticism. historically, there has been a great deal of concern, especially since there was the removal of the freeway. those that are easy to embrace include the surface parking lot in favor of much better land use and especially the reduction. both the committee and board levels. my understanding is that this site is currently zoned for

buildings 84 feet high and that the developer can build. if they can consider this in this regard, i believe we can all see that providing a better transition from a much taller existing buildings makes great sense at this unique location. the concept of stepping down towards the embarcadero has long been promoted. in one sense, this would mimic the contour of the hills that defines san francisco. this would be some fear -- superior aesthetically. chair mar: thank you so much. next speaker. >> can we get this on the overhead, please? chair mar: yes. it should be there in a moment. >> that afternoon. dave barnett. i have been a 30-year resident of the neighborhood.

everything involves trade-offs, and while you are dealing with the height situations, supervisor chiu mentioned the streets and their wits -- widths, and this is basically an four-lane street with a divider. another is a four lane approaching north. it becomes two lanes in front of the golden gateway property, and one of the things that we have is the entire situation. this disposes of all of our garbage. we have 1200, refuse trucks and that sort of thing. the other thing is that the northbound street is used when the embarcadero is closed. now, the developer is proposed

janeiro washington street by 11 feet by taking out this center divider, which i frankly think is quite attractive, and the other thing is once that is done, the garage entrance and exit will be on this corner, and people will want to make a left- hand turns to go on to the embarcadero without going around the block. and we have two issues, the issue of the garbage collection and the activities. i think if you're going to grant an exception for height and bulk, it seems it might be appropriate to leave the streets the way they are, because they work quite well the way they are. chair mar: thank you. i have a couple of more cards. and i previously called a couple of other people.

those are all of the cards that i have. next speaker, please. come forward. it does not have to be in this order. >> hello, my name is irene, and i live on jackson street in san francisco. my objection to the project, well, there are many objections, but the thing that i am wondering about is that i thought lost 351 was under the trust forbade residential housing, and i am just wondering why there should be an exception to this, because we have many other seawall lots other than 351 that would be open to development, and if you make the exception for 8 washington

without a waterfront plan, for the seawall lots, what is to happen to our beautiful waterfront prove now, i know that there is a great deal of money involved, but that should not be the only consideration. if we give up plot to 351 without knowing more thinking what the future development will be, then we will lead a very -- leave a very sad legacy for austerity. thank you. chair mar: thank you. >> yes, i am jim chappell, an urban planner, urban designer,

with degrees in architecture and planning, and i have spent my entire career in this field, and let me just say i have no interest in this project. i have sat in the audience and of last dozen years as i never heard interests from a small group of people in uprose -- opposing this project. as a planner, urban designer, and public citizen interested for our city, there is no reason to not approve this and every reason to approve them. the existing uses for a buffer against a double decker embarcadero freeway and are totally appropriate for today's gracious embarcadero boulevard, and i would caution the board against redesigning and micromanaging every tiny detail of the project. you have one of the world's best designers, one of the

world's best landscape architects, and a developer with a terrific record all -- our waterfront. please do not try to redesign this project from the dais. that is a formula for failure. your highly qualified planning department and port staff have very competently presented the case today. the height limits, for instance, were set by the very public planning process. i will not repeat what they have said, but it is time to move on. please approve the zoning and general plan amendments and other findings and pass on to the full board with the unanimous vote of this committee today. commissioner torres: -- chair mar: thank you. next speaker. >> i thank you for the opportunity to speak. i am an urban planner and architect year. my office is at union with my

partner. suffer me to go and the heavily on credentials, because i belong to that old gang of the elderly urban planners in the city who -- way back into this subject. i think 8 washington's project has been eloquently described by others. i have this to support your approval of the project. from eight non parochial process, as chair of the city design committee and a member there of the 11 years as the arts commission for civic design. i consulted to the city planning department on the city's original design plan and served on a board of directors for eight years and currently on their advisory and project review committees. i also served on the northeast

waterfront citizens advisory committee at the time of the preparation and the hearings or the north east waterfront. for the rebuilding of the embarcadero roadway and its adjacent often port properties, that process of about five or six years was long argued, agreed upon, codify, and is in the record. the project before you express's the city and port goals. i have a good deal more i can go into, but i think my time will run out. my parochial northeast credentials are being president twice, and i strongly disagree with their current position before you on the matter. as an affordable housing advocates, i have tried for a number of years to find colleague investors for the program and was unable to do so. chair mar: thank you very much

for comments. next speaker? >> supervisors, i am president of the jackson square association, and i represent the residence, the merchants, and others in jackson square. we very much support this project. we especially liked the fact that there is a trade-off. this is what the whole communities will benefit from. this is especially for the merchants in the area. we think that overall it is a win/win situation, for the city and for the arts community.

we hope you support the project. chair mar: thank you. it looks like this is the last speaker. >> party. i am charles. i am speaking on a narrow issue, which i think everyone agrees with, actually. the there are always trade-offs in medicine. obviously, the public will lose if the project goes ahead with certain things. the private sector will gain many things. we would have a replacement pool. there is no guarantee that anything will be built, for what is set aside for the pool area.

they would not be restricted to recreational use. there is nothing there. this is really a quite lovely design. this is to gain some support. i do not think at this juncture having both the eir and common sense, and the people who swim at the pool, all of us are agreeing that we should have a replacement recreation facility, that you should pass on this to condition any approval you might make with regard to the design modifications, condition that on a restriction so that the remaining area, where millions on resale, so there is quite a bit to it. that this be restricted to mitigate the losses that the public will suffer. chair mar: thank you.

if there is any other speakers, come forward. ms. hester? >> sue hester. you have references to a number of things today. the waterfront design and access plan. both of these had environmental review. if it has any reference that has gone through environmental review that says this should be, they should provide it for you today. there have been a lot to the embarcadero study, and they did not want to have a study that was not tested.

by eliminating the median, that study is taken as gospel, even though it never went through environmental review. when did go through the environmental review is the downzoning of the golden gateway. 1972 to 1976. the city changed the height limit for the golden gate way because they had the unfortunate experience of the buildings that had already been built. this downplays everything that had not been built them 84 feet. there were two eir's for that, and you have no reference to that, in the northeast embarcadero steady or in this case report, nor by staff. this went under the rug, because that study found that those

over 84 feet have an adverse impact because they violate the urban design plan. that is in the record on this case. the planning department wants to adopt that issue. ask them about that. >> thank you. -- chair mar: thank you, ms. hester. >> as lee radiner spare you, eight hours at the last testimony, they have decided to focus their efforts. but a number of you did say in the first round that you're going to increase the affordable housing. we will like to see how you will make that happen. but a couple of things quickly, we have heard about the great design. i have to say the developer has done some fabulous renderings.

the video in the eir, you look along the edge, and this is what supervisor chiu was talking about earlier. and you put a 70-foot wall next to it, that is what it looks like. this is a very little common narrow sidewalk. you could not move that 5 feet. all it would do is to decrease the interior by 5 feet, but it would make for the kind of elegant prominent we all deserve -- elegant promenade we all deserve. the developer increase to this, but since then, it has shifted. this has gone for the first sale to the second sale.

this is the fate -- same thing you talked about. this is over two years, meaning that the city will never seen as these. chair mar: thank you. is there anything else that -- anyone else who like to speak? >> it is whether or not we are going to lose a view of a giant, tall, a defense and gain more for san franciscans. an