comments that allows us to proceed forward. if i could ask you to refrain from that, if you can give a silent and wav, that would be appropriate. mr. paul. >> if we graded the e.i.r. on math, it would fail. we talk about excavating the dirt for the underwater garage. we question is using math. if you can see this on the chart, we can get this up on the overhead projector. they crossed out 20 and put 94 the average number of trips. they crossed out 100 and put 200. they doubled the maximum number of trips. they crossed out 20 and they put in 90. the actual number went from

13,000, 17,000, to 20,000. this is one on every two minutes in the embarcadero. what would be significant, 30,000? and on the conditional use, we have the housing numbers. you all set to the budget analysts report. the only area we are meeting our goals is for this housing. you saw the chart, and i have this. we are at 158% with the market rate and above. this is the high end of the market rate. what they talk about is the 27 units. 27 units of affordable housing with 134 of these units. they don't build 27 unit projects. to pay for this, we need 500

market rate units. and if we want to hundred units, we need 1000 units. what kind of the city would this be. 20,000 people are low income, with these -- there is nothing for the rest of us. this is the kind of city you are setting us up for if you except this bargain. the only way to save this bargain is to replace these redevelopment's, and to double it. this is a distraction from the need. thank you. >> i have the power. and like to make these copies available.

my name is zane gresham. with the appeal for the planning commission, our client is a steward of the building, one of the great public treasures. and, a cherished public trust resources for the entire state. i have now been deprived -- thank you. lest we forget, the eop saved the pharaoh building after the earthquake.

it has spent $125 million to save this building and it will be investing a lot more to preserve them for the next 55 years. to persuade them to make that kind of investment, the city guaranteed, that they would control dedicated parking at 351. or its equal through 2066. as you can see, they kept their part of the bargain. they have transformed this into a jewel of the waterfront. all that they ask is that the city keep their part of the bargain. why is this decision before you so important? this is a great significance.

you will hear more of these later on. one reason is that this will harm the jewel of the waterfront, and this will eliminate all of the parking that would not only violate the city parking agreement, but threaten those that make the building what it is today. it is poignant in the middle of small business week. an ill informed decision would have devastating consequences, for the ferry building, and the community. if you accept this -- it would be made on terminally bad information. you can see, this affair -- fails with the environmental quality act, and it requires

that this be objective to provide full information about the effects on the environment, which this board and the public deserve. this cannot be the basis for any approval. our briefs and testimony today will make this abundantly clear. let me give you a few examples in the short andtime i have with you. this was promised for dedicated parking. they can only take the parking a way for development if the building is given equal parking during construction, and that calotte -- after construction. they will have none of that. this is dedicated for parking and it fails to identify, as a

must that providing equal parking is as critical for approval of the project, this does not provide adequate parking either before the construction or after. worse, washington would eliminate the dedicated building parking, just at the same time that another 1000 parking spaces illustrated here, on the waterfront are being lost. the 2011 parking study prepared by a well regarded transportation firm demonstrates that parking already is over constrained during the farmers' market times. remarkably, they even refer to three of the locations where parking is going to be removed,

as the parking will preserve the waterfront. if you consider the parking -- this will consolidate parking in a single rod, bringing buildings to a bottleneck in increasing congestion. it would not provide adequate parking. and there would be serious congestion. this does not adequately address the traffic and air quality, the safety for the parking issues. another thing that they did not tell you is that there are enormous effect for all of the projects going on around in this area. they do not look carefully at

the america's cup. all of these projects that are coming forward. if you have them on as it is required you must, you would see the tremendous adverse effects as they fail to do this. let me just go through another thing. this is something that they get wrong. the entire parking and traffic analysis from 2007. let's look to what has happened -- this does not reflect the dramatic changes in the area of the explosion of population. this has become stale and cannot be counted on.

this is not the true peak for this area. without any evidence to support this -- how would they know? they did not have the data and never tried to look at other time periods, when traffic maybe -- based on direct experience this is that higher levels. let me just touch on some other fatal defects. there are too numerous to go into in detail. others will provide more information. this skims over the impacts -- with the sea level rise, and the underground parking garage.

a small price to could minimize the traffic, but they fell to consider any alternatives which sequea requires they must. so please, do not -- please do not make an informed decision that could harm the building in the waterfront. recognize that this does not meet the legal requirements of sequa. you should send this feir back to the planning commission and be certain that until the rights of the public to have complete and reliable information have been assured, that this board cannot legally considered the project. i thank you for your time. >> thank you. is there any question to the

appellants? i will ask you, one question, based on the last slide, where you talk about the fact that the final e a i l r -- the final e.i.r. does not expand. this was simply a year and a half ago when we actually had a project that was being considered within 84-foot height limit, that did not destroy all of the recreation space, using about half of this. can you talk about how the of contents were analyzed? >> there was at least one alternative which was placed there, which would have preserved and amount of the existing space, resulting in some construction of housing, that would not have been as intense as desired, but this

would have reduced the visual effect and it would have reduced some of the other traffic and air quality affects. this was rejected, and it was rejected because we did not see that this would be satisfactory to the developer, as this is described as unfeasible. >> one last follow-up, in the defects you refer to, you say that this ignores the rise in sea levels and there is no announcement of hydrogeology. if they did not understand the parking lot situation, can you describe what this project would entail? >> you are looking at the construction of an underground parking garage, 30 feet below --

which at this time, and in the embarcadero, is near sea level itself. there will be the parking garage with massive excavation, and most of that parking garage will be under sea level. as the sea level rises, as this is predicted to do and most of us believe will happen, this is going to put enormous pressure on the -- on the structure, and this is going to require a considerable amount of getting the water out, which then has to be treated, and then has to be disposed of, and it will require a lot of energy to do that. these are all factors that need to have greater consideration than they have here. other thing you will hear about later is because the sea level

rise, the substantial innovations of the waterfront area are quite likely to increase in frequency over the next several years. this is another reason to be concerned. the parking garages right on the edge of the embarcadero, where a major surge could flood the entire garage. with very serious adverse effects. >> we have a lot of public speakers. i would like to -- supervisor weiner? supervisor weiner: parking is an issue that has swirled around this project. i am hearing about some contradictions, we hear from a lot of the appellants that 400 spaces is too much and it needs

to be cut down and it will lead to traffic, an i am hearing from you that this is not nearly enough because other parking spots are being lost. i am hearing that we should maybe have more parking available, but you also say that we have business projects that will create an impact in traffic. in my experience if you have more parking, it may affect the parking impact. i understand that you have appellants with contradictory arguments, but i am little confused by these arguments. >> as president of the board requested -- my comments were directed to the environmental impact report and the adequacy of the analysis. the analysis of the parking and traffic issues, as presented, is

inadequate. i have given you a number of reasons. it is clear that the parking is a serious concern, all along the waterfront. it would have been more appropriate -- from my perspective, for this project to be considered with the overall parking solution for the area. rather than concentrating in an enormous amount of parking in just one place. this is an analysis that has not been done. this has not been gathered. that is the reason we believe that this is sufficient and does need to be sent back to the planning commission for correction. >> and is there any further follow-up? if i could just clarify one thing. one thing i have understood from

the conversation with you on this topic, is from the client's standpoint. his is not relevant because the parking solution does not address the contract -- contractual understanding between the building and the port. can you address this? >> the parking agreement, specifically provides that any replacement parking must be granted to the building, so this is inadequate to simply state that there will be a certain number of parking spaces that may become available for general use in the central waterfront area. but it would be required to meet the obligations under the parking agreement. this is dedicated parking, which would be provided for the management, and the use in

conjunction with the ferry building. the large parking garage in and of itself. a smaller parking garage, with the proper requirements, mike. >> unless there are no other questions, we should go to public comment -- the first speaker will be pam david. >> good afternoon. it is nice to be back here. i am the former director of the mayor's office of community development. i urge you to oppose this development. if i have learned anything is about the importance of community. the well-financed supporters, to belittle -- for the rich folks

to keep their club from a smaller group of rich people. i have been a member of golden gate way for a year. this is a vibrant and unique community, of different ages and ethnicities and income. we often talk about the plight of working families in san francisco. but we are about to sell off public assets, and destroying a precious resource in order to build ultra-luxury housing. i am not anti development and i support building more housing in san francisco. the question with projects like this, is what are the advantages against the disadvantages? it is in the interest of the developer to ignore the community that gathers here every day.

straight, gay, with children, and we find common ground. i understand that this is a private club but this provides access to non-members and i would not be opposed to extra access. this proposal leaves no room for compromise. it destroys a thriving and functioning, caring community. i ask you to vote against this project. thank you. >> before the next speaker, but me ask the following individuals to line up. gale gilman, steve mccarthy. let's hear from lee ratner.

>> thank you, president. supervisors, i am lee radnor. a resident of the golden gate way, apartments for the last 17 years. we have heard some very compelling and accurate testimony, and i would like to add a little bit of flesh to this. i presented to the supervisors almost 2000 and written petition signatures and 1000 on-line petition signatures, which are growing at 100 per day. these people, these thousands of people support the position

against this project, as do many of our allied community groups. these people who signed this represents the vast majority of middle-class families. youth and seniors, retired, and on fixed incomes like yours truly. many of your neighbors and friends, are listed in there. you can see visit codes covering almost every block in the city. to deny these middle-class citizens, the recreational needs in exchange for 134 high-price condos in a gated community. this is certainly not an honest tradeoff. it really becomes a travesty. thank you very much. >> the next speaker.

if >> could afternoon, supervisors. i live in north beach, with three concerns. i have spent the last 15 years in housing developments. as mentioned before -- san francisco is already at the crux of the filling the goals for this housing. task for 134 more units of housing, requiring a minimum income of pay half million dollars a year, as we price out individuals -- is deplorable. this is a recent article that shows in the bay view, rental prices are up 138%. this is rental housing. this puts to call how far reaching that this for the middle and come and upper-income

individuals in san francisco to reach the goal of home ownership. the second issue is about what is assessed to the waterfront. there are comprehensive studies done by the community, outlaying the whole plan for the waterfront. we should not be doing developments in a vacuum. in a fracture neighborhoods and heard communities, driving a wedge between the people of the city and counties of san francisco. this project is moving a forward without the input of the neighbors in the community. my third issue is around the height of the property. this is a high-rise, luxury property, with a conditional use demonstrated -- i urge the board not to move forward, to let it be known that this is a board that fights for housing

for middle-income individuals, thank you. >> the next speaker? >> good afternoon. i am one of the owners of the bookstore in the ferry building. i am here because the parking is so essential to the success of our business and the other businesses, and it is severely jeopardized by this proposal. this building has been one of the real success stories of the city in the last 10 years. this situation, they have been able to thrive with minimal parking. but we have to have some parking. this project would remove all of it. there is an agreement that the

port has refused to implement or come up with anything significant, saying that when this is all over we can reach an agreement. this is not good enough, to shut down all the parking for two and a half years would jeopardize every business. and there is no reason for this. it should have been done before this matter came before the board of supervisors. i am astonished that would get this far, without implementing the agreement to provide parking. the board should send this back. this problem ought to be resolved, and then come back here and we will talk about this. to ask for approval without implementing a parking program, a very minimal parking program, is really uncalled for.

thank you very much. >> thank you, the next speaker? >> i am joseph, and we have a small shop inside the ferry building. >> can you speak into the microphone? >> we have a small shop inside the ferry building. this is important for keeping my family here in san francisco and my employees and the future of my business. not having parking for customers will have a huge impact on our business, and the future of our business as well. i think until the proper commitment to the ferry building for parking has been addressed, supervisors should reject the report and the proposal. >> the next speaker? and while the next speaker is

preparing, i would ask the following individuals to line up. sarah short, john eller, tony robles. >> i am the general manager of the hog island oyster co. in san francisco. this is a small business, and we employ 35 proud san franciscans. we cannot do this without the parking for our customers. this is essential to our business. have you tried to fit on a muni bus with 50 oysters between your legs? this is supported by the academy of sciences, at&t ballpark, potentially, the golden state warriors stadium. and even city hall.