please approve this. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is michael mckenna. i were present local 6. i would like to state my support for this project. i think it is well thought out, well designed, with the lowering of the buildings. i understand supervisor chu's concern. 20 years ago, when the last study was done, there was a monolithic freeway that ran across that area and turned those buildings backwards toward the embarcadero, and i go there. i was at the port commission, and i know that if i can drive there, it is a back alley and a vacant lot. it is causing the light, and it is underutilized and does not serve the city.

this is a terrible use of our waterfront. our ability to get their, so as you come down along the embarcadero, we do not have demolished lots, and we need to move this project forward and bring more vitality to the waterfront that we have and bring it to life more. chair mar: thank you. i am going to call a few more names. [calling names] justin, manny -- >> that afternoon, supervisors. i am with the sheet workers. i am in support of this program. i urge you to move it forward.

this is to revitalize this portion of the waterfront. so we ask you to move this forward. thank you very much. >> get afternoon, supervisors. this is in support of the washington project. we believe this is a significant improvement. this has pedestrian friendly, publicly accessible open space, and aquatics center, ground- floor retail, an underground parking. the heights are appropriate for the area. the project sponsor has made adjustments for the design and scale of the buildings, and given the proximity, the scale of the project is modest and

appropriate. we would also like to note that these sites are responsive to what came out of the embarcadero design study, including as it draws closer to the water and nears the park. it is important to notice that 8 washington's proximity will encourage visitors to a bicycle and walk as opposed to making more car trips. this will help to reconnect the city streets. and this will include an improved experience. this is significant for the city's effort for affordable housing. on behalf of us, we urge you to support it. chair mar: next speaker.

>> hi, my9 bridget my name is bill. i have been here for 32 years. i wanted to states and numbers about land use and what you were doing there. sunlight. sunlight. there is space already. this will be reduced to 21,000 square feet in the aquatics center, which is a reduction of over 7% of where the sun shines. where did that number come from? and this makes it sound better

for presentation purposes. what does that tell us? you should look at these numbers that are being presented to you for judgment, and then there would be other types of representation like this. lastly, you get a chance to change the law to allow this project, just because you have the power to make it legal. it does not mean it is right. chair mar: thank you. >> i am appearing before you on behalf of the ferry building. this issue should not be before you. i will not repeat some things, leaving them for another day. today, i am here to talk about the continued failure of the

city to honor its obligations in connection with the proposed 8 washington project. for years, the legacy of the ferry building has transformed it into the jewel of the san francisco waterfront. and the city also had a parking agreement assuring parking to the ferry building and its merchants, dedicated parking that is now located at seawall lot 351. the projects remain inconsistent with that legal commitment. in essence, the proposal is to take that seawall lot, the dedicated parking, dedicated to

the ferry building, to build a project. support staff only recently met with eop to discuss these matters and still has not had a proposal to meet the obligations. we request the committee not act on the process at this time. there is nothing about this project that is currently proposed. for the breach of the parking commitment, risking the vitality of the building. chair mar: thank you, mr. grisham. there is one last card. if there is anyone else who would like to speak, please fill out mcarn and come on forward. >> i am a longtime waterfront watcher. i do not think i have to repeat

of the things about this step down, how attractive it is, how it totally concurs with the northeast waterfront planning study. what i want to focus on is the public trust land swap. it is extremely difficult for a site as small as this and as small as most of the waterfront northern embarcadero lot to provide the state lands of required public access, while at the same time having any kind of a financially viable proposal. because this project combines trust and not trust lands and provides a land swap that gives the state lands commission the public access, open space that is critical to the waterfront, it is something that is extremely difficult to do.

i do not think you have to worry too much more about some of the other northern waterfront parking lots. it is so critical with the state lands commission. this is a tremendous 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.