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. over the last 10 years, the merchants and farmers have put this back on the map. we need city hall to support this building. provide parking that the merchants can manage, and provide for validation. provide parking that is not at

the bottom of a high-end condominium complex, which is close and not five blocks away or several underground levels away. why is the city trying to rush this through before solving the parking problem. the city and county of san francisco and the port authority have an obligation to provide parking. thank you for your time. >> the next speaker? >> president shoe, i am the business manager -- we have two stores in the ferry building, one of which has been operating since the third building reopened in 2003. the 90 employees that we have in california, 13 of them are employed at the two stores.

this is a large portion of the employees -- and we also see the stores as important, in these particular locations to showcase local artists and foods and educate people about sustainable rent -- and the connection between everyday food. on behalf of the creamery, i am speaking out against this e.i.r. the objection is related to the availability and access to parking. this has been a critical issue, backed a decade ago. the port of san francisco would provide adequate parking -- we would not have selected this location. because the current project, this would eliminate valuable surface parking lots, the

service this building, and also the project is not -- addressed for the long-term issue in the short term need, i ask for you to reject this the are-- eir. >> i am the president of the harvey milk club, and i will advocate -- i have to move out of the city because i can no longer afford to live here. places like this -- that ignore the fact that 1254 rent- controlled apartments will be turned into short-term hotel use, destroying the housing that we actually need. i cannot find an apartment in this city and i can't afford to live here. many, many people can no longer afford to live in this city.

it is not affordable to people and i just started working at the aids housing alliance, where people are getting evicted from their homes and coming to see us and we don't have places to put them because we can no longer find the support of housing for them. this is the kind of problem that this kind of development creates. this is forcing out the people and it is forcing the city to choose who can stay here and who has to leave. many people who are active this to fight to keep this city as the promise that this has always been to the disenfranchised are being forced out of the city. this is just indicative of how this is happening. i ask you to please not support this. thank you. >> the next speaker? >> i am with the housing rights

committee of san francisco. it is interesting that we recently had another hearing in this chamber, not long ago, that soon francisco was building more market rate housing than we actually need. more market rate housing than we actually need. at the same hearing we heard that we are not building enough affordable housing, which we desperately need. i would say that not only are we not building enough, we are barely building enough affordable housing to meet the needs of working-class and poor folks in san francisco. given this, why would this board of supervisors even consider approving projects that will add 2.5 to 7.5 million-dollar condos, as my mother would have

said, are you nuts? san francisco needs 2.5 to $7.5 billion condos like we need a 9.6 earthquake. the condos are not bad enough, but it gets worse. golden gateway, one of the sponsors of this project, is going to convert hundreds of rent-controlled apartments to short-term corporate housing. this is good social policy? my time is running out. i would like to say, if you are serious about tackling the housing crisis, you will deny the permits and stop the perversion of rent-controlled units. otherwise you are sending a message to san francisco that this board of supervisors sands with those who profit off of the rest of us, and making the city

more gentrified and unaffordable for the rest of us. >> thank you. >> i am a fourth generation san franciscan. i am with the senior action network. where do i start? i think for the elders that can no longer afford to live in this city, like catherine gallagher says, she lived in a house for four years and lost it during the foreclosure crisis. i recently went to a hearing here, about the housing element, and we know what kind of housing needs to be built, and what kind of housing does not need to be built. from what i understand, the condos are going to go, anywhere from 2.5-$7.5 million.

you have hundreds of rental apartments that have been converted as corporate and vacation rentals, you have the rent-controlled apartments that are no longer available. from what i understand, the golden gateway project was for middle-class people. when the different entities were trying to call for limits on height, it was struck down repeatedly. i want to bring the spirit of my uncle, who worked so hard to build the international -- we're talking about the heart and soul and spirit of the communities. i am part of african-american and asian american communities to have been gentrified, and really hit hard by gentrification.

it has resulted in a black exodus, from this community, african-americans who have contributed to this community. this is a bad deal for the city. >> good afternoon. we strongly oppose this for many of the reasons that you have heard, and i will reiterate some of them. these constitute 7.5 million for the 1%, the wealthiest of the 1%. we do not need this housing. we need housing for working people, affordable housing and middle-income housing. we do not need luxury housing. rent is going through the roof, over 50% in one year. we need more affordable rental housing. we don't need developments like this.

in particular, in this project the developer has teamed up with the golden gate with apartments, the second-largest rent-controlled complex in san francisco. what we are looking to do is rewarding a landlord at golden gate way, who has been converting their rent control units to hotel units illegally for many years, taking hundreds of thousands of rent-controlled units off the market, a contributing cause of why rent is going up, and making rental housing much more affordable. we will be rewarding this team of partners for removing rent control units in order to build luxury housing for the super rich. we also fear that this is going to be part of gentrification, and further development at golden gate way, similar to the fight that we had last year.

there are pieces of golden gate with that could be demolished. there are pieces of this that could be right for further -- further demolition. we resent losing rent-controlled for condominiums. we ask you to deny this project. >> the next speaker? >> i am grace martinez, an organizer for san francisco base. i urge for you to vote no on this. i have worked closely with a lot of families losing their homes to foreclosure. they are being denied modifications because the banks will not modified based on the current market value. golden gateway has avoided paying taxes because they have been using the old property value in order to pay their property taxes, which are about

$30 million. this is irresponsible to let a development like this move forward, considering we are in a budget crisis and need the revenue stream, and we have people losing their homes who cannot afford a $7.5 million condominium. even those building this would not be able to live in these luxury apartments. we should figure out of these developments are for people who are living and working in this city. >> before the next speaker, let me call up betty trainer, benedict, jazzy collins, brian bass singer -- basinger and bob iverson. the next speaker? >> i am here on behalf of the 500 seniors that reside on the

north waterfront. they have been using the tennis club as the recreational church. i use this because this is basically -- it relies on how people use this club. this is very special and it provides swimming and loan activities, and it has been a place where people network for over 40 years. demolishing this and making this much smaller probably only for the people who can afford these condominiums would devastate the future, aunt -- and it takes away the way they enjoy this neighborhood. i asked you to consider how you will displace these people and how they live by what their future is about. i can only say that this is the way my father passed away. we moved him from senior housing.

he was distraught because he had to move from his home. and the only place he could live was with all of the seniors, he died. i can give you the names of people living in the golden gate center who were promised to use of this for gratuity when the we development agency got the rights to this area. it would be a shame to displaced as for the benefit of a small group of very wealthy people. >> the next speaker? >> i am debra benedict. the senior housing action corrupt -- collaborative. i am with the state organization, with california at delivery rights. i am wanting to mention a couple of things. i started with the conversation with a good friend of mine,

discussing the fact that we would call our supervisors. one thing she told me was that she was working in a temp agency. she was working for this corporation and the man who is in that building, which is in the embarcadero mentioned -- this is several years ago, that the building had sunk 5 inches. imagine how much further those buildings, at washington, were going to be sinking. gravity and landfill. bradley is going to affect every piece of property down there, and the rising waters that are inevitable in the global warming as a result of our human habitation are impossible to predict an impossible to stop. let's let gravity deal with this, and sink this project as far as you possibly can.

i would like to say that -- it makes me angry that the people at golden gateway have transferred this property with little nibbles of sales of this property, to look -- to the developer. they have stolen $25 million of transfers money from the city of san francisco. just think, when the nonprofits come to ask for money, that 25 million could be useful to you, to keep services for those who need these services. i ask everyone here to reject this project and to contact -- to close the loophole, which, unfortunately exists. >> thank you very much. the next speaker. >> hello, supervisors. i am on the board of senior action network.

we oppose this project because we represent low income seniors, and people with disabilities. there is not enough housing in san francisco for this population. any new senior housing, this says thousands of applicants. the city keeps approving this kind of high-end housing that we see here. we need housing in san francisco, but why not housing that the workers to build this can live in? not at 15%, but at 100%? this is the review of any common sense. look at the other housing models for the low income populations. >> cooperative housing in the

western addition. support that kind of housing, a kind of house and we really need. >> the next speaker. >> good afternoon. i am going to echo the words of the board member. the city action network, i also have a question for you. there are 11 districts in the city, and the majority of the condos, that this is being built, how many of your constituents are able to live there? how many of your constituents are able to afford to live there. i live right across the street from a shelter. i see this led out at 8:00 in the morning. there are people who look like me, who are low-income like me and afford to live there.

why are you building a country club for the rich, and not building enough housing for those who are in dire need. we ask you to come up with alternative ways. >> thank you. next speaker. >> let me get this picture up. i wrote a letter to my supervisor, and i sent a copy to each of you. i can only touch on one place, and to approve the project we had to conclude under state law, that destroying the club would result in a less than significant impact with recreation.

there is the striving club, with the tennis and exercise. there is a less than significant impact with recreation. the public courts are adequate. the elimination would not further degrade the public courts. the public tennis court closest to me. at their posts the street. this is deteriorated and this is dangerous to play on the court like that. certainly for older people. public tennis teams, they play at the club precisely because the city has been maintaining its courts. is the city going to spend the money to repair these courts? i say we should destroy this because we have these public courts. this is a distortion of reality. and the planning commission has failed to examine the

recreation before saying -- an alternative to the club that they propose to destroy. go out on the streets and look at these courts before you make a decision. let's have this debate. to change the zoning to raise recreation, and build this project on faulty analysis, this is worth asking. this is the most imaginative use of this space? is this the best that we can do? i think san francisco is bigger than this development. we can and must do better. thank you for the consideration. >> let me ask the following people to line up. ivan sharp, karen mack, mary baldwin, daniel delancy, phillip lay, and harriet fryman. >> good evening. jessica with senionr action jessica with senionr action network.