please recommend to the board authorization of the trust exchange. release the other agreements and adopt the general plan findings and the modification to the ifd. it is time to move this project forward. as you have heard from many speakers, the benefit cost analysis shows a great benefit to the city, a great improvement over the very unsightly parking lot and substandard club that is there today. thank you. >> my name is bob iverson. i am an architect in the city.

the rose colored glasses of the port -- i guess numbers are not that important. they say the pool is twice the size when it is 100 square feet smaller. i guess numbers do not really matter in a discussion like this. this is our last opportunity to work on the waterfront and create a wonderful space. i feel this project is shortsighted. it calls for a financially stressed, self-serving port. there is a small self-serving development company with many tax breaks. it does not provide, as the tagline, a real attachment to the waterfront. look at this -- a wall of buildings with an insignificant path and a small, shadowed water

park 15 feet from a busy street. it is a dull project with condominiums and oversized raw edge. it will not create an attachment to the waterfront. it provides benefits for the three involved partners. you are asking the people of san francisco to believe they are reconnecting with the waterfront and will reap benefits from the wealth created. it will only benefit those closely associated with this project. finally, we have heard the process is taking too long. it took 25 years to do the yerba buena gardens planning process.

it took four may laurel -- mayoral periods for mission bay. they are saying seven years is too long. it is a process created with a northeast embarcaderos study based on the proposed project, which is ludicrous to me. it is a myopic and self-serving plan. i really believe the remaining port properties should become park properties, the development move back to the edges. it will create a wonderful future businesses along the waterfront, as well as for the businesses across the east side. that is good physical and financial long-term planning. that will be an intangible we can work with. look at the details. do not let the port squeeze every drop out of this part of the city. chairperson chu: thank you.

jennifer warburg, wendy lester, brandon dunnigan. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is lee radner, friends of golden gateway, the fog groups -- the fogg group. we have been opposing the project since the beginning. my family and i raised families on california, and then on del mar in height ashbury. -- haight ashbury. when i retired on a fixed income, a middle-class citizen, we moved into the golden gateway center. we sold our car. we found the transportation

center of excellent, the shopping, and the recreation center, which we joined the day we moved in, and still belong at a very reasonable rate. now we find, due to the landlords' movements, we are going to be thrown under the bus. most of the people in that area our seniors, but the landlord has seen fit that he should go ahead and intentionally rent many of the apartments the become available to corporations on a very short-term basis. my floor alone, we are eight apartments, and i only know two of the people there, and they have not been there more than three years. in addition, as was pointed out by president chiu, he is a silent partner of the developer.

also, he has manipulated the property taxes under proposition 13 to probably the tune of $30 million. also, he is selling off a piece of land that was committed to the community activities of the community, which will no longer exist in the sense that we know it now. the odds are we probably will not afford it. you and the supervisors wish to honor this type of saturation and reward the landlord. it is beyond me. in addition, i might say finally that the proposed fitness center, which will be greatly enlarged -- we reduced the outdoor recreational space by more than 70%. we live and walk within a

reasonable district and can find 22 fitness centers. many of them are under water. with that, i think you not to pass this present situation. thank you. chairperson chu: thank you. kevin? >> my name is andrew. i am a resident of san francisco, and a candidate for district 5 supervisor. i am speaking in opposition of this project. it was brought to my attention by a colleague of mine who rides her bike to the golden gate health center. she swims in the pool every morning. she is a great resident of this city. she is very concerned about how this deal was struck and whether there are benefits to the city. i think it strikes the wrong

course for our city, when we are struggling with france that are skyrocketing. people cannot live here, cannot afford to live here, yet we are building condos for the 1%. i lived in florida for 10 years, so i can tell you something about building condos on the waterfront for rich people. it does not create vibrant communities. it blocks your waterfront. it creates a lot of absentee owners and condo owners, who will not create a vibrant community. actually, the golden gate club is a vibrant community. we are replacing a golden gate community with something that does not speak to san francisco. i am concerned about the president -- the president of the height of the building.

i think it sets a dangerous precedent for building on the waterfront in the future. i think there are other ways for us to develop our waterfront than to sell out. i hear a lot of people saying the city needs the money. but i do not think we need to sell out our values in order to get the money we need. i urge you to reconsider this project and take a step back. think about other ways we could develop the waterfront. thank you. >> good afternoon, and thank you. my name is jim cunningham. i am a resident of the area where this product is supposedly going to be built. i thought i would give a resident's view of what this is about and not about. it is not about a recreational

facility that replaces a very adequate existing facility, which is actually four times the size of the one proposed. it is not about a playground, which is not needed, because a better one is already approved to be built. it is not about retail facilities, for which there has been no adequate feasibility study, and which are not really needed and may or may not make it. it is not about tearing down a green fence, which is an eyesore, which everybody in the facility agrees is an eyesore. but it is maintained in its current form by the owner of the property. it is there so people supporting the project can say they should get rid of this green fence. it is not a problem about open space.

it is sort of a laughable amount they are talking about. it is not needed. it is dwarfed by a suburban park. all these are really expenses the developers have to come up with to get approval to build a massive and extremely profitable apartment complex on the embarcadero. this is being developed by a wealthy and publicly connected developer, for corporate and individual buyers, raising prices up to $10 million. all of this would create a huge mass on the embarcadero, which i hope is not the beginning of making us look like miami beach, as the previous speaker said. i hope that would not be your

legacy. i would urge you to follow the example of your president, who is impressive in the extreme amount of homework he has done on the project and the details of who gets what. he has asked detailed questions and pointed questions on the issues, which has usually been totally ignored in their responses. and he has shown great political courage. i encourage you to so -- to show the same political courage, and reject this whole project. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is brandon done again -- brendan dunnigan. our children go to school with children at the golden gate commons. he supports this project,

quietly. he would not come out in public and support it. why is that? he would be ostracized by those that live in that community. you have heard all the reasons why they oppose it. he believes this is the right solution in the right location. as a licensed architect who worked in the city and has been part of many residential projects. i believe this is an excellent solution. for the reasons you are here today, one is to approve the financial commitments. those who have come before you have already stated those reasons. i am here to speak for those who do not speak for themselves. in that community, they would be ostracized. thank you.

>> good morning, supervisors and committee members. good afternoon, and now. my name is jennifer warburg. we believe the proposed development would be a significant development to a key intersection of the waterfront. it will replace a service parking lot and private tennis courts with publicly accessible open space. there is street level retail and underground parking. the project fills the gap on the western side of the embarcadero with appropriate heights and generous public access components. additionally, the funds that would go to the city for affordable housing are significant in the city efforts to create affordable housing funding. well change may be difficult, it is inevitable. it is our responsibility to

major developments have a positive impact on the city as a whole. these projects and body integrity. this takes a site currently only serving paint club members and adds housing while maintaining the amenities for existing users. i ask you to consider all those currently barred from using the site on our common waterfront, who would benefit from the project's public contributions. i urge you to move this forward. thank you. chairperson chu: i have read all of the speaker cards. if there are members of the public who wish to speak but have not heard the name called, please line up in the center aisle. >> my name is kevin moscatov. i am a tenured san francisco

resident and a member of the tennis and swim club. i consider myself fortunate. it is ironic that the product opponents are claiming the project is for the 1%. we are dealing with a private tennis and swim club. i pay over $300 a month in membership fees. here is my bill, actually. just to give you an idea. what we are talking about is simple. eight washington would replace the private, expensive tennis club with a project that would putrefy the waterfront and provide countless public benefits. it is incredible the developer is able to make this project work, given all the public benefits. we should not forget the developer is giving back 30 times more public open space than currently exists. i am puzzled but people are saying the project would harm the 99%.

does that mean we have to lose private tennis courts? that is hardly an impact that would negatively impact the underprivileged members of our community. i appreciate all the bicycle parking will be included in this project. public parking is important. i am glad it will be underground and available to ferry customers. please let this project move forward. i think it is an excellent opportunity for our city and the residence. thank you. chairperson chu: think you. -- thank you. if there are members of the public who wish to speak, please come forward and line up in the center aisle. otherwise, this will be the final speaker.

>> sue hester. this is the project space. this is the land swap. this is what is in the eir. this is seawall lot 351, which has an assessed valuation of whatever million dollars. this is what the port jets after the land swap. part of it is already seawall 351. this is valued at $8 million. this is the skinny strip the budget analyst talk about. compare the valuation of a site that is swiss cheese to that. that is a buildable site. the reason there are parks going in there is because it is the only way they can remove the public trust. i have to go through state

lands. state lands and asks questions about what is happening on this newly-created site. it is a creation of state lands trying to get out of this. the developer is not being beneficent. right now, he has a site he cannot build housing on. the port cannot allow housing on it, because it is not a public trust function. they have to remove the public trust. at the same time, they have to increase the height limit dramatically on the site. all these public benefits are because the developer has to do them. he could not build all of these condos at the level he did. he actually had a project that had more housing units when it was smaller. he got the height increases and reduced and upscaled the housing. this is an intentional decision by the developer. the planning department, the

first time they saw the project, said this was underutilized in terms of housing. this is a transit-rich area. every step of the way, the developer reduced the size of the project. the actual application was filed last august, august 2011. this has not been going through the process for seven years. the developer may have been wishing this was going through for seven years. he did not even have site control until three years ago. mr. snow grove has been wanting this to happen for seven years, but that is not the public process. you have a developer who is double dipping. that has been pointing out by the budget analyst.

you need to go back require the first sale of the condos to be the transfer point where the tax comes in. the real world is that is the only place you will have a guarantee of transfer tax, at the first sale. they can be obscured. people will have huge incentives to not allow a second transfer, by doing a limited liability corporation and selling them like that, just like golden gate we did. chairperson chu: thank you. are there other members of the public who wish to speak on items seven or eight? any other speakers? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, we have heard the item. the port made a presentation. we have also heard public comment. the items are before us. supervisor kim: remaining issues

that i think have come up previously at land use and among some members of the board is the issue of parking. i know that this kind of a light issue for many of the members, wanting to see a reduction in parking on this site, given that we are talking about an incredibly transit-rich area, with many muni lines giving access. we recognize there is an obligation by the port to provide 175 parking spots. at land use, chair mar said he would like to see a 20% reduction in commercial parking, giving what planning department has recommended. i wonder if we could get a commitment from the developer on the production. that is something many of the members would like to see. we do not feel the need for it. i wonder if that was a

commitment we could get today. >> madam supervisor, could you repeat the number you are suggesting? supervisor kim: hair -- chair mar said he would like to see a 20% reduction in the commercial parking spots. currently, that is 255 parking spots. i believe a reduction -- i do not have the type the letter in front of me. not just the chair and myself, but several other supervisors said they think there is too much parking allocated to the site. i am wondering if you would

commit to a 20% reduction to the commercial parking spots. >> the answer is yes. i believe, and must report tells me, that their negotiations mean they have to satisfy these requirements. but if that was part of a full and final comprehensive approval, we would. supervisor kim: that would be great. i think it is an important step, moving forward, at least 20%. i think roughly 200 parking spots, if that is something we could see, would make this plan more amenable. something else that has also -- chairperson chu: if i could jump in quickly, a 20% reduction is roughly 204, roughly 200.

i would like to see what that would mean. i know the planning department, in addition to the 175 spots, had indicated that 70 to 80 were necessary for the commercial component. i know you are willing to work with the city, but before we say that we are asking for the 20% reduction, i would like to see what that would mean. i think the planning commission had a reason for saying they needed 70 to 80. by dropping it 55 spots, i would like to see what that means for circulation and parking. >> i will be back with you shortly. supervisor kim: another precedent that was set in another transit rich area was actually in mid-market. i know this was a combination of both retail and residential.

there were a lot of concerns about bringing additional cars into an area where there is a ton of public transit already, encouraging people to drive instead of taking public transit, and acknowledging that having a parking lot would encourage some of that driving to occur. i know a compromise that occurred out of that was having a parking fee be assessed on cars when they parked, and that the fee would go toward traffic mitigation in that area. i know that was limited to that core of market street. in this case, that was a concern that was brought up both by members of the public and by the board of supervisors. i am interested in seeing something like that get replicated. there is a ton of spree scaping -- streetscaping needed to open

up access to the waterfront. it takes money to do that. i am interested in us working something out, in the meantime, to assess a fee like that that would go within a 1 mile radius of the site and benefit the traffic mitigation, whether that is bike lanes and other measures to ensure we are mitigating the cars coming into the area and insuring biking for pedestrians taking advantage of the transit rich area. >> we are in conversation with the port, so i do not want to speak up. they are in a delicate position. in principle, we support all policies that support pedestrian improvements, bicycle access. we are aligned with the ports. it would be something we would look at. chairperson chu: i know with

city place, there was a set maximum that was put into place. at that point, the net present value of $1.80 million. given the needs of the neighborhood, and given our commitment to opening up the waterfront, i would like to see it in perpetuity. there is so much we could find around traffic mitigation. i am interested in seeing something like that come before the board. >> i think the port is amenable to such a set aside in perpetuity. i think there is fast need along the waterfront. as we emphasize the connections from the neighborhoods of the city to the waterfront through this process, we talked about washing ton -- washington in particular needing improvements. connecting the city to the

waterfront is beneficial to the city and all of california. supervisor kim: thank you. supervisor avalos: i really appreciate the discussion we have had. there was a thorough presentation from the port and from the budget analyst, and from the project sponsor, as well as public comment. i am actually very concerned about whether we are receiving a project that has public benefits. we really deserve, especially when we are up zoning parts of the waterfront, and making land exchanges as well -- sometimes, i feel like i am peering into an ayn rand novel, like "the fountainhead," serving the elite. i recognize the port has a lot of property that