It starts to. Then when you get to the project, theres that big jump up. And then a huge 348 drop back down towards the embarcadaro. So, say what you want about the project, but please dont say it steps down. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is jamie whitaker, [speaker not understood]. I sent an eightpage letter regarding the eir so im going to vary a little bit away from eir stuff. My apologies in advance. I think theres a lot of things to like about the proposed project. Eliminating a 550 space Public Parking garage [speaker not understood] the air pollution concerns mentioned earlier during Public Comment, there is a lot to like about eliminating that parking garage and instead placing residential building, residential dwellings. Regardless of the economic status of the people that live there. The mix of the units in the proposed building is also very attractive to me as a resident. We tend to see 90 studios are darn close. Its mostly hotel rooms where it brings on
Heights in the waterfront as we go into the political season. I dont think this is a time to be timid. Were going to hold back on that question and hope that discussions continue, but all in all this is a terrific use of land and want to see this move forward. Thank you. Good afternoon, president and commissioners. Michael mckenna, iebw local 6 in San Francisco. I just have to comment, too, on the use of the land and the heights. If you look at tapering down say from 101 first street thats being built and not 350 mission, it doesnt exist any more, Millennium Towers, there certainly would be a tapering down from Transbay Tower that will be going up at close to a thousand feet, the Millennium Tower at 600 feet, and this setback property thats setback in a way where the waterfront stretches around the front and the turn around the Ferry Building and into the ports, it definitely is not is more representative of the truth than what was testified earlier. And as far as the housing component
Negative impacts on the land use of this area. And that as to how its unavoidable is perplexing but im not here to address that today. Im addressing because you have an alternative that says it is unavoidable if you reduce it. In any case, what im here to talk about is the things it says where its not significant. Its less than significant. That is on its impact on the character of the vicinity and its impact cumulatively on land use impacts, and i believe youve got the downtown area plan talking about how this steps down. You have the urban design element plan. You have the Transit Center development plan. All talking about how buildings must be stepped down to the bay or reduced, in fact, it actually says where buildings should be along the waterfront. One of the things thats not mentioned is the bcdc waterfront plan is ultimately impacted by this project. The only discussion these things are determined less than significant and i believe the character in the discussion of the eir is
Talk about is the things it says where its not significant. Its less than significant. That is on its impact on the character of the vicinity and its impact cumulatively on land use impacts, and i believe youve got the downtown area plan talking about how this steps down. You have the urban design element plan. You have the Transit Center development plan. All talking about how buildings must be stepped down to the bay or reduced, in fact, it actually says where buildings should be along the waterfront. One of the things thats not mentioned is the bcdc waterfront plan is ultimately impacted by this project. The only discussion these things are determined less than significant and i believe the character in the discussion of the eir is only referred to as land use. The impacts of these buildings is height, its bulk, its proximity to the bay, all of that impacts the character of this neighborhood and impacts the cumulative impacts of people going further and further towards the bay. The