when you say it is 1.2% of the total annualized sunlight, in the winter, it is probably 2% of that. it only shades about one-fifth of the park, so then you multiplied it again. then we say it is probably for only half an hour. someone is saying it is 0.2 tenths. what does this mean. this means that people enter the park half an hour later, and each time you do that, you push back the time that people do it. people do not walk into a dark, sheltered park.

150 years. if we keep going, it will be an air shaft in another 60 or 70. we should not do this or build buildings that takeaway the public entitlement. president chiu: our next speaker, mr. paul. >> thank you. others have spoken about the need. we talked about this. what you may not know is that they are destroying this. they own the golden gateway. they own 80% of the site we are talking about. they are the only ones that are getting the height increases being asked for, so they are a

major partner. they are partners. you talk about the green fence, they have kept it that way to make the argument that the only way to do this is to do the project. the 1200 unit golden gateway to short-term vacation and sweet. how do i know that? there is the hotelization of the middle class rental housing. the picture on the front of very much looks like something else, and if you go to the executive suites or a number of the sites for short-term rentals on the web, these are advertisements. hundreds and hundreds of units are being lost, so getting 29 units a lot of this does not make up for what we will lose year after year after year. why reward this kind of behavior?

the same property owner is not paying their fair share of property taxes. another loophole, they have figured out a way to transfer partnership interests in increments less than 51% to avoid a reappraisal, so when they bought the building, and never recorded as a sale, he said they are paying property taxes based on an assessment in 1994 increased by one% a year. it may be legal. but it is not ethical, and it is wrong, and according to the whistle-blower who filed a report with the city assessor is to deprive the city of millions in property taxes, so, again, why do we want to reward this behavior? in the initial term sheet, the port wanted money.

this looks that all of the seawall lots. there has to be some revenue generating ones. some active. this does not require a planned trust, and for the seawall jon, like the one in millennium park, you will see how much as a collective group this can generate. i would be happy to answer any questions. >> the conversion of the units, how do you know that is being done again? and explain a little bit more about the loophole, where they are not paying their fair share of taxes, according to you. >> the answer is, we are not sure. saddam with your laptop and google -- sit down with your laptop. you can find dozens and dozens

of these that are being offered. the way to get around a lot is that the law says you cannot rent for less than 30 days. they ran for a year but then sublet. there is a need to change this. that you cannot read or occupy a unit for less than 30 days. that will take care of it. on the proposition 13, this is in the law, i believe. i am not an expert, but you can ask the assessor, because the assessor looked at the report. you do this with a certain percentage every year. no resale is triggered. this is a bizarre loophole. this is one of the most egregious examples of it. it is not the only one. i think this is happening statewide, i think the board of equalization should look at it. it would be worth millions per year for the state of california

and to cities like san francisco. thank you. president chiu: our next speaker is to talk about the things being discussed here. as people are waiting, i am going to announce that we will begin the second item, and we will delay the end of the speakers until after the second item is heard.

supervisor mar: president chiu,. if maybe the next speaker could go? are you ready? >> yes. my name is bob, and i live in the neighborhood. ok. i looked at this corner every day. this is the corner of washington and embarcadero. i love to the comment earlier. i would like to discuss a few points in two kind of categories. one is about open spaces being proposed, and the sec is through alternatives. through an analysis of the street space, i would like to point to the falsehoods of the wonderful imagery and the

statistics that they use, and also, to challenge the dogmatic approach that people are applying sustainable design and transit oriented development. they are missing nuances of these issues. i do not have time to go through, but i have walked beside. i have gone up and down the embarcadero and measured the buildings. they are claiming to widen at the embarcadero to 15 feet in their proposal. it turns out that that is actually 16 feet, said they are widening it. that is a good step. there is one building. here is an image of it. this will not be activated.

they are shoehorn in this building into the sides, and this is not what they were promising. they are taking 5 feet of this fence on the right and moving back. the image shows this. access to a pool without a fence? who has ever built a pool without a fence? it is very strong there. let's take a look at this. look at what they are offering. half of a tennis court. this already exists, but they are claiming to add all of this, but they are adding half of a tennis court. that is it. all of their imagery is just wonderful, but they do not have control over any of this, and this open space that exists. this chart alone needs a thorough examination. i do not have time. we can go around the site and do all of this.

they even have their own. one with six tennis courts and two pools, as well as create small, boutique use. this is permitted. if you look at this, there is the embarcadero. the only difference is one has tall buildings. that is the only difference. washington street, the difference is that you could put something there that is more in keeping with the park like atmosphere. none of them, none of these proposals, not in chicago, not the miracle mile, has a condominium sitting in it. proposing it from the original development plan, they have what would be considered sustainable

design, a good use of new urbanism, and what they propose, all of this greenspace, and they intend, as well as housing, as well as a mix of housing and retail, that is good planning, and to take this away is not a good idea, especially when we are building more housing, and the need for this space actually increases. in conclusion, i would say that the developer always comes in. he is building it for 145 owners for a super wealthy people. i have heard people say, a wealthy woman in my building is going to buy one of these places, and she wants to buy a two better place. she cannot live in pacific heights anymore. this is versus the 2000 people plus to use just the tennis portion. tell me that that is efficient

versus inefficient. that is incorrect and misleading and misguided. you should find someone who is willing to go the extra mile into the project. thank you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> i am a san francisco attendants union, and i am here to speak out against 8 washington. this has shown the we have vastly overbuilt housing for the rich and wealthy. there is no demand for that. we have on develop housing for affordable housing and middle- income people, and what we do not need is more luxury condominiums that are going to go up to $7.50 million. housing for the 1%. what we need is housing for the 99%. this morning, there was a hearing on the acute rise in the number of homeless families. that is to we need housing for,

people who are homeless, especially families that are homeless, and that is a stark contrast. if in the morning, we're talking about the need for housing for homeless families, and then in the afternoon, we're talking about building condominiums for rich people, and i think we need to not be talking about condominiums for the wealthy. further, i think this project will in danger golden gateway. this is similar in many ways to park merced, in that it has a number of low-rise units, which i understand are up the zone, and i would anticipate that those are going to be demolished at some point, and we will see luxury high-rise condominiums built their -- there, and there will be a loss of many units due to hotelization.

this is being rented out to corporations, for their pilots' and their attendants back, and that is not only taking affordable rent-controlled housing for the people need it, it is also robbing the legitimate hotels from their business, and it is robbing the city from its hotel tax revenue. it is technically legal that they can do that, as mr. paul pointed out, but i think a quick fix in the lot to redefine the rental of less than 30 days, even if the rental is greater than 30 days, that is less than 30 days, it is a violation of the apartment conversion law. but nonetheless, we should not be rewarding golden gateway for these illegal conversions.

we should not be setting the stage for golden gateway to become another parker said fight, and we certainly do not need more luxury housing for the very, very wealthy. thank you. president chiu: thank you. our next speaker is john, and if he is not here, we will go to another. supervisor mar: i think he will be the last speaker, and then we would jump to item two and then continue. >> good evening, supervisors. my name is frederick. i would be categorized as an expert on sales on the north waterfront. i have had the privilege to represent 72% of every condominium sold north of washington, all of the way up to the waterfront, $1 million, and

i have also had clients to purchased at other sites, so i a provided for you in actual fact sheet based on what the costs are today, and these are interest rates from first republicbank and what it would actually take to buy one of these. it shows that if you purchased a condominium for $2.50 million, you have to put down a down payment of over $600,000, a total monthly payment over $13,000 per month, and you need an income of $469,000 to qualify for that. in addition to that, the lender would like to have three years of liquid ownership to support the property, so you will have to come up with $1.10 million to acquire the property. if you look at the high point that the developers suggested at several hearings, he is looking for a value of as much as $7.50

million. again, you are looking at a monthly total cost of $27,000 per month an annual income of $937,000 per year, including the reserves. $5 million to be able to acquire that $7.50 million property. i should point out that this represents not 1% but the extreme or luxury. if you look at how these properties are used in san francisco, people that afford these are extremely successful business people who have inherited a lot of money and really don't use it as a full-time residence. what we are propose to go do is basically eliminate it from use by the general public or the normal person who lives in san francisco. my second hat that i wear is i

am head of something called recreation of open smaces of the waterfront. there are 1400 apartments here and 2,000 people that have been using the swim and tennis club for over 30 years as their church and neighborhood networking place. that is going away. these people will not have a choice to use that. the condo owners will dominate that. you will take this neighborhood facility away and condemn this to the future of luxury property owners. president chiu: i wanted to thank the port staff and planning staff. colleagues, without objection can we continue this item until after the end of item number two? without, objection, thank you. moving towards item number two on the agenda. ms., miller would you call it? >> item number two, regulation of dog walkers operating on

hard property. president chiu: and the sponsor is "sportscenter" wiener -- is supervisor wiener. this will take a couple of minutes while we readjust here. we are not recessed. we are just going to begin in a moment.

president chiu: we are going to begin item number two. if people would take their comments outside of the meeting room, we would really appreciate it. thank you. the sponsor of this item is supervisor supervisor wiener: -- scott wiener.

supervisor wiener: cue close that door? people are like congregating. we are going to get started if everyone could please refrain from conversation. thank you very much. welcome, everyone, to the land use and economic development committee. thanks to chairman mar for scheduling this hearing. today we will be hearing my legislation. professional dog walkers who use city property such as parks to conduct their business. anest maded one third of san francisco households have dogs. dogs need space for exercise

including parks. i have fought hard to ensure dog access to our public spaces, including an attempt earlier this year. our dog population rely on a critical commercial service. professional dog walkers allow people who work to care for their dogs. dog walkers are with these dogs most days. they care for them. they walk them, and they are often like family both to the dogs and to the clients. dog walkers are a key part of san francisco's commercial support structure. they are small business owners and deserve our support. the purpose of this legislation is to set basic standards for professional dog walkers who use city parks and property. i work closely with a group of shareholders to drag legislation, including several

dog walker organizations, the spca, the neighborhood parks council and several city departments. since introduction i have received a very significant amount of useful feedback primarily from the dog walker community, but from others as well. i thank those who took the time to provide that thoughtful feedback both at the small business commissions, which is recommending the legislation with changes, as well as many e-mails. among other things, this legislation requires training through a formal program and apprenticeship. itemizing subject areas to be covered but not endorsing any particular kind of training or philosophy. there is a diversity of styles of dog walking, and this legislation does not choose one over any other. the legislation requires that

dogs be safely transported and that dog walkers have access to first aid materials. it requires dog walkers to carry commercial liability insurance. they carry one leash per dog on their person and keeping the pooper scooper law. they must carry that permit with them on their person when they work on city property. and then the topic that has generated far and away the most discussion, the legislation limits the number of dogs that can be walked at one time to seven. there has been some misinformation floating around i want to clarify. the legislation will not require each dog to be individually crated in each car. the director of animal care and control will set vehicle standards. the legislation was not drafted

by dog tech, which provides a dog walker training prap. some have suspected that dog tech helped draft the legislation, and that is not true. the legislation provides for an all tiff apprenticeship program. i do want to note i am introducing a number of amendments to the legislation. i want to note the most significance ones so that people don't come up during comment and say i should do something that i am already doing. these are from feedback, including from the small business commission. these amendments include changing the requirement that dog walkers wear their licenses around their neck to a requirement they carry them on

their person. i have changed the implementation date to january 1, 2013. i wanted to give plenty of time for animal care to do this. in addition, the director of animal care and control will have the discretion to extend the implementation date for up to six months if she determines that extra time is required. the amendments will require that in order to conduct an apprenticeship, in other words to teach another dog walker, the dog walker muffed at least three years of experience as a walker. you can't have a brant new dog walker train a new one. it lowers the threshold for dog

walkers into the regulated cat combore from walking four or more dogs to two or more dogs. i got feedback that it would be unfair to distinguish dog walkers and require only those walking four or more at a time to get a permanent, so it has been lowered to two. in terms of publishing the names of people who violate the ordinance. that will be limited to people who violate the ordinance three or four times in a 12-month period. in other words, serial violators. the big popic of discussion is the number of taugs. there has been a debate between six and eight for a while. the legislation compromises at seven, but i welcome feedback today for people to expression their issues on that.

and i look forward to hearing from my colleagues to see what they think about it. i will note that the golden gametime national recreation area and presidio trust have contacted me. they are going to be implementing their own dog walker legislation, and they end to cap the number of dogs at six. they have been very clear about it, and that is what they intend to do. with that i look forward to today's hearing. we have a few preliminary speakers. president chiu: so the amendments you will be proposing at the end, my understanding those are going to be present today, and they are substantive? >> they are actually not -- thank you for minding me of that. the committee is not able to

vote on the amendments today because of a technical error on the knowing of the fee aspect of the hearing. i will ask that the committee adopt the amendments and continue the matter to january 9th, trip i would imagine we would vote on the entire ordinance. but i believe we can adopt the amendments today. president chiu: thank you. >> i have zrinted the amendments, and i have copies of the amenitied ordinance. if you witch to speak in public comment, you should fill out a yellow card and hand it to the clerk, and we will call you. before we go to subcomment, i want to have several departments comment. first i want to invite up rebe