this afternoon. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am an attorney. what you have here is the redevelopment map for the lower embarcadero, the lower market street redevelopment area. will we now think of, and this is golden gateway. and this is the freeway. when the city started this area in 1959, they delineated this area here as residential, north of washington street, and the freeway ramps were a really big factor when this was developed. the city tore down the area along the embarcadero, and they tore down the ramps, but the freeway system is a system that basically used washington and clay and broadway and samson and battery to move traffic on to

the embarcadero freeway, and they just wore them down. they did not go back and look at what changes needed to be made. this included start walls all along washington street. there was a director who was very familiar with the original heights. he is going to talk about that. when this area was developed, these buildings along here were developed -- what everyone recognizes. what happened in 1976 is that the city wed preprocessor along with the return of an agency and planning department to say how do we develop the area north of jackson street. this is now but you know as the gateway commons. when that happens, the city, the return of an agency, the planning commission, and the board of supervisors change the

height limits from all of these blocks. the planning department changed it. this shows that there are two laundered 75 feet high. the city abandoned it in 1974. a former director will be talking about that. there are two other people that i want to introduce. the city attorney will talk about housing, and bill will talk about shadows. thank you. president chiu: we have a number of formidable representatives to make presentations, and we have someone who used to be with the planning department. >> supervisors, thank you for the opportunity to speak on a very important issue. president chiu: if you could

pull the microphone under. >> does that do it? great. the third time i have appeared in relation to a proposed project since leaving as director of city planning, and even then, one of those times, i was an advocate for the octavia boulevard project. mcdonald and i designed it. that could be discounted because we were interested parties. i will only talk about three issues briefly. height. as has been mentioned, for over 40 years, you say 50, but 40 years plus, since the san francisco urban design plan, it has been city policy to decrease hiked toward the waterfront. so that people in san francisco could see and enjoy the meeting

of land and water and to be able to see the city and the hills. if you are going to change that, then at least do it as part of a new comprehensive citywide urban design plan. do not do it as one of these ad hoc things, which is what this is, regardless of what they say. all along the way, by the way, note the levi strauss development not so far from this development. i originally, there was supposed to be high-end of buildings there, and they have taken away some views of the waterfront and taken away the views of the tower. we have put some very strict conditions on these.

these views are all of -- all there. all of the rest. levi strauss, we can build with in that. i do not think anybody is sorry about that. add hot -- ad hocism has had an effect over the last 15 years. the bridge, i would hope everybody would agree, is a san francisco icon. that huge building on win con hill, -- on rincon hill makes it impossible to see the bridge when approaching unless you want to get in an accident. or, coming off of it, it is

almost impossible to see the city from it. so much for an icon. the tower, i think people would agree, is an icon. why would you take away something went and ability to do away with this of the tower? why would we do that? it took an earthquake to make it possible to return the views to the ferry building. there were in the studies. we did them before. are some of the views sacred or not? do we care or not? what about shadows and open space? ms. somera will speak to that, but studies have shown time and time again that some in san francisco, especially open

spaces and sidewalks are really important and objectively immeasurable on human comfort. it is really important in the city more so than other places. why allow development that would cast shadows on the park across the street? president chiu: if we could just wrap it up? >> i will. i want to and on an absolute truth. i want to show you one of the absolute truths. it will be economic to build with in that law.

if they can be broken or changed, then all of a sudden, it will not be economic. it is called grade. -- greed. president chiu: our next speaker, ed. >> thank you. i think it is important that this golden gate swim club was seen as necessary 50 years ago because there was a great deal of high-density housing being built on the site. that need has not changed. the commitment to that open space, it and i do not want to

use the word open space without saying active recreational space, has been challenged. this is the fourth time. three previous times, prospective developments have come forward and wanted to remove the recreation area. in june of that time, the mayors and the board of the redevelopment agency and the executive directors, like me, opposed it, because that commitment was made, and it seemed that it was working. and it has worked incredibly. since 1968, this facility has served the golden gate residence, has provided recreational opportunity to downtown workers, and most important, for families with children. thousands of children have

learned to swim there, and thousands have attended the summer camp, so it is a priceless facility that very few cities have downtown, and the charges are affordable to lower middle-class families. it is not the olympic club or the california tennis club. this is within reach of the middle-class family. we have heard a lot of talk about the importance of keeping families with children in san francisco, and this is the kind of facility that helps do that. and i do not think the city

really benefits. we make short-term economic benefit from this project if it goes ahead, but i think the destruction of this successful in the central recreational facility is really not worth that kind of exchange. thank you. president chiu: thank you. our next presentation will be from our former city attorney. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am malize. i am here today to speak against the 8 washington street project for a number of reasons. first of all, and i think, president to -- president chiu, your remarks in your opening remarks about this would be a change on the waterfront, and

for years, those who live in san francisco have found it to be gospel, if you will, that the waterfront be open and accessible. this project does not do it. moreover, there are others waiting in the wings to follow suit. i can point out that i think it is against the public trust doctrine, and you will hear other issues, as well, on the shading of parks, but the point i would like to make is that there is such hypocrisy in this project. because it is being presented as a change for the better. something to clean up the area. and yet, the fencing and the area that is a part of this project has been kept purposely, purposely, in a decrepit, ugly fashion, and now you have the same odor coming to say, "hey,

if you give me this great height limit, it is going to change the height on the waterfront. i will clean up the front." to me, there ought to be a code enforcement action. so it is height and bulk. it is change that we will see, and i do not know about you, but i do not want to live in the miami beach area, but it is also a certain amount of hypocrisy. there is a tenant in a law that when you're asking for a favor, you come with clean hands. there is nothing clean about the way in which that property has been kept, so i do not think it is a very good idea to reward that kind of behavior with the change that is being proposed. supervisor wiener: may i?

what are the projects that you think are waiting in the wings? >> i agree that there are those on howard street, etc., that are waiting to see if the height limits are changed. then they will be coming forward. now, that statement has been approved by someone. it is either spot zoning, or it is for everyone. it is private property. you are not increasing the height of port property. it is all private property. and if you change it for one, you have got a number of other projects that i understand are, indeed, waiting in the wings to see what is going to happen, and as i say, to, frankly, where i am coming from is the height and bulk that would change how people view and use the a embarcadero. we as neighbors are not a good

to any and all projects. i want to make that clear. in fact, there is room for improvement, as i expressed, but it just seems a bit of hypocrisy to say i am going to change it but only if you give me a change in the height limit. president chiu: our next speaker is the author of an ordinance. bill. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am bill. i will try to be brief. prop k was passed with 61% of the votes. the developers spent years of their life and millions of their dollars to work with the city, to develop the plan, and to build the building. they are going to win over a generalized belief that we should have some light in our

parks. they win every time, and they won every time when i was on the board of supervisors, and that is why prop k was put in. you might as well sell it, because people do not use it. the reason prop j came in is that we were going to change a park. building a giant building with the space on the corner. there were others. there is going to be another one on the garage next to the hunter view hotel, who wanted all of the views to that park there. cities last for centuries, and they last for millennia, and so do their parts, so if you take a little out each time, priests and, you do not have a park anymore. once you build it, it is not going lower later. that is the reality. and then getting the statistics,

and we get into all three of them usually in development, but if you take one or two% out, it does not sound like much, but they are really only taking it out two or three months of the year. it will always be in the winter months. really, multiplied by six, it is really 1.2%. 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 afo