not coming. i think you're looking at a case-by-case basis that's really important. that's sort of what we came up with when we were trying to come up with a policy in our publy affairs committee when we were determining what to support. size and configuration of the building, it's important to have a street presence. if you want retail on the second floors and above, you have to go through the lobby to get up there. there's no signage. it's tricky from building to building. is it facing union square park. before that, it was office on the third floor and above. we would like to continue being part of the conversation and we would really be pushing for more flexible. >> thank you, ms. flood. >> any more public comment on this? seeing none, we'll close public comment. >> i've got several different thoughts on this. i agree that the number one thing is for san francisco to keep active and vibrant with

pedestrian activity and long with transit and keeping people on the sidewalk and moving. i want to make sure from my personal perspective that we do everything we can to give small business a chance to keep opening in san francisco. i love this idea of the data that shows that san francisco retail is still thriving. i think we are probably doing better than most in the country, but i think some of those who are in the landlord business and maybe in the retail business, feel the pressure of filling space and feel the pressure of filling awkward space. some of the foot plates are very large, and some are teeny tiny with no elevators in them. i always throw a little bit of caution when we put out policy that covers blanket sort of every building possible. there are different scenarios. if you draw a rectangle of a skinny, small building in union square that maybe has a gallery on the third floor and hair salon on the second floor next

to a very large -- any one of the macy's or neiman marcus buildings, how you fill those floors are two different things. the one size fits all makes me a little bit nervous. i think we're just on the cusp of seeing where retail is going. i think we're on the cusp of seeing how retail gets shared with restaurant. i think we're on the cusp of seeing how it gets shared with office, how it can be used in the day time and flipped at night. i just came back from denver. there was some very cool, big industrial buildings that had multipurpose. they're a brewery, a hotel, a coffee shop. people are coming in and using those spaces. that's ingenious. i think we need to keep as flexible as we can with all

these policies to allow for that creativity to come through. that is pretty much what i had, but i want to hear from other commissioners as well. >> thanks. commissioner moore? >> i'm delighted to hear a positive report. i was actually fearful that the numbers would be trending down further than they actually are, which is basically just proof that small retail, including the type of shopping mall we have with union square, many people say they're thriving. in that particular structure, i think it's european, and you see it went down. i would like to caution us that the incredible amount of construction that is going on simultaneously, literally on every corner of our retail

quarters, as well as downtown, have incredibly strong negative cycle in how we move through the corridor. i speak about that from my perspective as a downtown resident. i speak about it from the experience of foreign visitors who come to san francisco and say what's going on here. what most people comment on, the ones who have been here before and repeat visitors is that i see not as strong a coordination between the construction industry of how to minimize the negative impacts, not only how we circulate through downtown, but what the construction sites are not offering to us. they're basically noisy. they are dusty. they are negative visually. traffic is impeded all the time by trucks moving, hammering of

piles, et cetera. i think we need to do better coordinating the multiple activities with creating a more attractive in-between downtown environment. i speak about that from the standpoint of i was in munich last august. and downtown munich, the most active parts of their downtown are in the middle of rebuilding part of the extensive subway system. moving to what is basically a construction site ten times larger than what we're doing with our subway was actually a breeze. it was fun. one could participate in seeing certain aspects of construction. one could deal with bicycles being parallel with one on the sidewalk or the right of ways that were dedicated to that kind of combined movement. one could see traffic flow with street lighting being coordinated.

and it was easy, including how one moved below, rerouted subway stations, et cetera, et cetera. i think we owe it to ourselves to look at that as we move forward because we're changing downtown as we're grow. we'll continue to have major construction projects, it would be proportional to our success to retain retail and create our downtown, including our neighborhood corridors as livable and attractive environments. as we are now targeting our corridors for higher density, we have to look ahead. construction will not just disappear. it will actually intensify. i think we need to pay stronger attention to how these various departments coordinate and how it all becomes one solid operation of everybody being on the same page of what construction does and what it

shouldn't do. [please stand by]

>> this with us really great. so i listen to the presentation and i don't -- you didn't break out second floor specifically for vacancy but what i got is our vacancies in union square are fairly low. we weathered this compared to other retail overall and fairly well but not only that but retail in union square has a really important space in the retail eco system of san francisco. and you can't go into every detail but i'm interested in

knowing what oewd uses to assess the health of the retail corridors it's more than vacancies. i'm not in your shoes so i'd be interested in snowing what that is. but i do think there is a synergy between businesses and there are some businesses or uses that can have a negative affect on the others. i want to be ultra careful to not mess with a good thing we have going on in union square. while i appreciate the comments of having the flexibility to make sure there are not vacancies with the evidence i've seen, i don't really -- other than anecdotally this building here or there i don't see an epidemic of vacancies on the second floor that would cause me

to want to act and possibly jeopardize what we have. that being said, the retail environment is change. we do want the flex ability to look at things in a case by case basis. we don't have an action item on the agenda today. but i would error on the sized wanting to -- side of wanting to preserve what we have and how important it is. i also think that and when we talk residential to office there's been a profound effect on retail in the union square area and it's temporary. believe it or not it will end some day they'll get it finished and i want to make sure we don't

let that and i saw what's going on a temporary basis. thank you so much it was great and i look forward to seeing how we proceed. >> commissioner richards. >> i think he covered it there's so much retail just beyond the commercial districts as well as the sea districts. one of the things that perplexes me and it sounds weird with this new microphone i can hear myself better and i don't like the way i sound -- we have a have a high [indiscernible] of 12% to 15% and we just got another notification of another business

going out of businesses but we're not seeing rents come down and our c.b.d. did a survey of why is that and they found contrary to what we would think would be an economic lens people should look through for the trusts and families that have owned the buildings have been paying since the '60s they're too much of a brother and stick a price up there and if they can't sell them it will sit vacant and i'll pull our c.b.d. survey and show you the result. they're still wanting $6, $7 a square foot and the other thing from a supply and demand and economic point of view what i hear from developers a lot of is let's take upper market again

the pro forma doesn't include the retail space. and so again there's not really much of an incentive they want to stick to whatever they want to do a lot of the spaces in any neighborhood are huge. anybody what wants to do this and take a risk without going bankrupt the rest of their life and sane -- sign a lease and the analysis around that and we had a go health being put on the ground floor by a guy named ryan kendall i said why do you want to go go health you're probably ruining the commercial corridor

and it wasn't in your pro forma and he said it was and he's the only person i recall telling me that. understanding how things get financed and what it does for the retailer doesn't do it for the retail i think would help us maybe craft some type of controls at least or at best creator require some smaller spaces. some of the best spaces we caught in my neck of the woods in the upper market are the small ones. 500 square foot and we had a bank of the west come before the commission and it's part of the c.u. for the financial services which was dead and required a 500 square foot spaces and they've doing well. a candy store, a cosmetic store and ritual coffee's in there now. these are what we need to do when we see these space and they won't want to rent it out to

5,000 square foot restaurants and we have seen 100 and 200 seat restaurants are not making money. the costs are too high and they're going out of business and we can talk about the different ones even ones that had a good following are no longer around. i think the other concern i had in terms of effect on small businesses we talk about with tenant displacement but i worry about business displacement and we went through this with the home sf and said if someone wanted to take up a one-story commercial space on the corridor and get a density bonus they'll displace the business that's been there forever and it's disruptive and they may never come back and we wrestled through that and now we have s.b.a.27 coming our way where i walked down my street and say

dead, dead, dead, dead -- all these places where we do have small businesses when you're constructing new structures the cost of the construction's going to require an enormous rent increase. can't go back to paying what you paying because it's an old building and needs work and a worry about that on commercial spaces too and i think it's something when we talk about s.b.a. 27 we see the amendments coming on it and when you look at the map every commercial corridor is on a major transit line. so are they all marked to go as well? union square say conundrum. the question i have is the overall vacancy rate is like 3% for union square? >> 4%. >> on the ground floor of the 4%

how much is on the ground floor? >> that -- it says retail vacancy rate. >> my fear is logically and maybe i can do a reconnaissance survey of some of the buildings. the tendency of the ground floors is you'll have less vacancy the higher you go you'll have more. i think it's logical. so then the question i have is if i were to approach a build ong the third floor and wanted to do a retail, what do you think it would cost per square foot per month? >> in terms of lease rate? >> yes. >> that's a good question. i don't have that data here.

i just have the union square lease rate which 2017 was about looks like about $60 a square foot. >> that's per year divided by $12 and if i were to be coming into the third floor and a company that wants an office space would i pay higher than $5 a square foot? >> it's a supply and demand question depending on location and closer to transit or not it may command a higher rate but keep in mind second, third, fourth, fifth floor are generally less than ground floor. >> the retail rate was at $60 and the average office lease rate was $63. so they're competing similarly.

>> okay. that would be my fear. >> if i may interrupt i think to be clear i doubt we're getting $60 a square foot on the second and third floor for retail. >> no. >> we need to understand the rates and what types of businesses they do house and if we allow a watch repair or one of the small service kind of office retail spaces, if they go out of businesses are there other place for them to relocate to if you were to give a c.u. for an office space? i'd want to see strong findings around where the building is, how long it's been vacant and what was the good faith effort on the part of the landlord to rent like we had on the lohman's

space and gave us an understanding how hard it was to rent and if there's any businesses with leases to run out is there a place for them to go at that price per square foot. i like flexibility. i'm afraid the office pressure would put -- the office rate would put pressure on retail to go out of business. one other question the top five rates what were they? >> he -- >> that's put it in a lens. the best ones are -- >> these aren't all corridors just ones we're focussed on. >> we look at the neighborhood

commercial districts. >> in the city. >> about 24. >> if you surveyed two-thirds what are the best ones. >> would you like to know the lowest vacancy rates or highest. >> let's start with the lowest. >> lowest is west portal, noriega street, nowe valley and union street and pacific heights and chinatown. those are the lowest vacancy rates of the 24 we surveyed >> and the highest you said leland? >> the neighborhoods with the highest vacancy rates, leland avenue, visitation, valley, third street and bay view, broad

street and fillmore and the excelsior outer mission and we've actually worked or are currently working in all these areas because areas that have lower foot traffic that may have other issues access to transit or crime -- i mean, there's a lot of reasons we work in the neighborhoods with high vacancy rates and with a healthy neighborhood is in the eye of the beholder and we work with the neighborhood and set a strategy on what their goals are and in many neighborhoods it's not the goal they want to do other things. so we want to work with the neighborhood to set their goals and -- >> commissioner: that's great. commissioner moore and i visited excelsior during the recess and talked with folks there and they were actually saying there's a lot of development now happening on mission street out there, way

out there and some even on some blocks around it and their biggest issue was access to goods they use at a price they can afford and my worry is the bigger developments are like getting rid of a childcare center and put in a pub and i think that's a good approach you're doing for the highest vacancy rates. good work. >> commissioner fong. >> commissioner: this is a larger question we had and a conversation about retail and how the city continues to thrive and i thought about it. i think we need to make sure that we are not trying to social engineer retail. but give retail an opportunity to organically grow and be creative and when creativity comes first that's when we

survive. the other thing i want to make important is big business or medium sized business follows small business. if you follow someone who's owned a small retail store or stores plural in the fillmore area for years he along with merchants created a vibe of which the next generation and next level of retailer whether you like him or not the ralph laueren stores have come in and so to you need to support the small business operators and don't put them into a huge box but give them the opportunity to grow into space. the other piece which is very different than the exact topic we're talking about but when we see vacancies we see them on the new buildings in market street and there's tons. 8 octavia, right? developer get it wrong too and many architects are looking at

nationwide numbers and square footages and taping -- saying 8,000 feet we'll put something in there but some can't afford it and there's pop-up stores and it's about being creative. i think as a city in combination this is not necessarily a planning department specific but need to engage with a futurist or futurists plural and we have many studies done with neighborhoods and groups within san francisco and i think that sort of gives a time stamp of where we are now and where we've been and i feel like getting on the front edge of where retail in the future of retail is going to go and even the front edge of hospitality and services and where that's going to go to help lead some of the answers to these questions. now, what we're talking about is not science. it's art and science. i throw that out because don't

be surprised if you see schools pop into some of the bigger spaces where there was a walgreen's. that's good and they're out and about >> we get mixed messages on retail, it's dying, malls are closing in places but the numbers show a different story at least in san francisco. and i've always remained bullish on retail and want to include it in newer commercial buildings. would you agree? mostly the numbers show low vacancy rates going up which hopefully they'll come down at some point.

i think retail is thriving in san francisco. >> i don't think we need to get historical exactly. we've read a lot of media articles and that's why we wanted to look at the numbers. there is an issue. you know, vacancies are ticking up a little bit, rents are high and there's pressure on businesses in san francisco. it's a concern, i understand the concern and the nature of retail is changing. people want experiences. our full report is on our website and i encourage all of you -- we have so much more in the report than we can talk about today. people want experiences now. their ethos are changing and going online to buy certain goods but going to the commercial district to have experiences and community and place making. these creative uses in the businesses we're seeing is to help create an experience and the merchant district do festivals to bring people to the districts, there's a lot of

creativity going on to help retail survive. but it's not just about retail, it's also about retail services. what ware seeing in the study is if you're concerned about vacancies have an open mind. maybe put stuff on the ground floor you previously thought was bad. maybe it's not so bad. maybe other types of uses where people get their nails done aren't as bad as you previously thought because that's what people go to corridors for, personal services. we have to be realistic what people are going to corridors for today. >> to commission fong's point we need to maintain a level of flexibility. you take ocean avenue and that corridor i'd say it's thriving now compared to what it was like years ago and it's a mix of new larger floor plate chain

retailers in additional smaller mom and pop retailers. i agree. we don't need to be rash and make big changes to our retail policies. there were articles about changing the formula retail rules i think they were written by brokers but i disagree. i think we're making the corridors thrive because it's a good mix of chains and non chain. can we set the bar lower for chains that are acceptable by neighborhoods and getting approval and maybe making the process shorter, sure, but i think the policy's working and creating the diversity in neighborhoods and when i look at the old home site we reject from a chain retailer and it's now housing with retail. i think that's great and where we should be heading.

i'm bullish on retail and don't think there's a one size fits all in commercial corridors and we should be flexible. the big issue with more professional services on the ground floor is design. when we see a health oriented service on the ground floor it needs to be better designed it's open and vibrant and people can see inside. we shouldn't have a commercial corridor where there's five of those but if there's one or two and feel active instead of posters or blank walls on the front, i think that would help. so i think this is a great report and opens our eyes to the successes that san francisco has had. on union square, i do think we need to look more deeply at the second and third floors. and see what the vacancies are

on those levels because i just think there are issues. the second and third-floor retail is not ideal. i know in union square we have different rules but they generally work where they're combined with the first floor. i know some places there are more service oriented retail on second and third floors but it would be great to get a broader understanding of the second and third level and second levels are different than third. some buildings are designed where the second floor's like a mezzanine and the third floors aren't. i don't think i'm prepared to make a decision or a recommendation on the union square question until we dig more into that data and see what the vacancy and rates are on the second and third floor. >> and we worked with union

square and looked at the available data and we have to do a survey to get that. it would be interesting, i agree. >> the rules are now if you want to do retail on ann floor you can do it but you can do it by a -- >> any use above 5,000 square foot or anything not ground sales and service use not open to the public. >> but a lot of spaces like the flood building, it's mostly non-retail above the third floor. when that was rule put in place? >> with the downtown area plan in the '80s. >> so i think if we get more detail on how much of that second, third and above space has already been converted to some non-retail use would be helpful in sorting that out

because while i'm bullish on neighborhood commercial retail i'm not that bullish on second and third-floor retail even into spaces that were built to have retail as you go upstairs in that complex it gets weaker and weaker as far as the type of retail and how many people are up there and it was built to accommodate those retail uses. >> i think a couple things. we'll work with oewd on doing a vare. -- survey it would be helpful. it's important to note that knob non-retail uses would provide a synergy with other uses. we're not suggesting every second and third-level is going to be retail. you can have another use that is not retail. >> i think those the uses like watch repair and things that are not as robust as they -- those

types of retailers if you look at the list are the ones that concern me more. [please stand by] . . this.

>> this is the appel of the preliminary mitigates declaration. >> hang on. before we present, commissioner fong? >> i just wanted to say that i sought the advice of the city attorney that i am not recusing myself on this particular item, but i have served on the golden gate park national everybo conserveancy. >> we're going to hear first from the city staff and then the appellant and then the project sponsor. >> correct. >> correct? okay. thank you. go ahead. so sorry. >> i'm lisa gibson, environmental review officer, and this is julie moore.

she's a senior planner, and she has roughly prior 20 years of experience prior to joining the planning department conducting environmental review under the california environmental quality act, and she has a degree in geology and a masters in psychology, and we're very pleased to have her working in our department, and again this is her first time before the commission and her first appeal of a project, so she's been very fortunate. >> good afternoon, members of the commission and president hillis. as you know i'm julie moore. joining me is wade griffith. the item before you is an appeal of the preliminary my gated negative declaration, which i will review to as the ceqa document prepared for the

proposed alcatraz ferry embarkation project. the park service will provide more details in its presentation. describe the principle appeals concerns5cje.ïgsirlçnç+mçç% [ please stand by ]. >>-gsh and(ue dnu ceqa +bdocument. 31 on ç as part of the

the park"t serviceswq selected concessioner and itsj partner, the golden,gxw( gate conserveancy, and the@ propose project would[ provide a combination ofelñç indoor and outdoor spaces and amenities for the public, including new boarding ramps and floats to support the berthing of up to three ferry boats at a time, in addition to the existing 18 to 22 existing alcatraz ferry trips perday. [ please stand by ]. >> -- install a new gang waalanding and float, and

construct an approximatelygz$h 1400 foot long pedestrian pathway?7çñç from the for the ç baker pier discovery museumsd as wellbp sausalito's primary concern is fort baker's pedestrians will travel substantially outside of fort baker and incur significant pedestrian and foot traffic. the planning department's responsibilities to these concerns are discussed in exhibit a of the department's

appeal response in the commission's packet. two days ago, on february 20, saws aleet owe filed a 134re789 to its appeal letter. we will briefly respond to claims within that new letter. sausalito claims that the ceqa document project description is not accurate for two reasons. first, sausalito states that the under lying project contracts between the park service and the port of san francisco do not contain limits on the frequency of ferry service to fort baker, whereas the ceqa document indicates that only up to two ferries perday on the weekends would operate, with a maximum of 40,000 visitors annually. in its citation of the concession contract and operating plan, the appellant ignores a few clauses within the draft operating plan that service to fort baker bust be in accordance with environmental documents. sausalito speculates that additional visitors would occur but provides no substantial

evidence to dispute the accuracy of the ceqa document and project description. the ceqa document project description used the best availablehcç information know this time and accurately describes the project that was submitted for review. thus, ferry sert consistent with that proposed in the project description. second, sausalito states that the capacity of ferry service to fort baker would convey more passengers than indicated in the ceqa document project 3%

these include the bay area discovery museum, the caballo point lodge, transverse marina, battery yates and the coastal bluff or to watch to the golden gate bridge scenic vista point. in addition, if visitors wish to travel to sausalito by ferry, it would be likely easier fore these visitors to travel from the embarcadero to sausalito, as 12 ferries per

week end day service that route. so even if one were to assume that as many as half of all fort baker passengers would travel on a peak by to sausalito by vehicle, supplemental transportation analysis estimates that only 32 new vehicle trips perfort baker would occur, a total of 64 vehicles perday. this would represent less than 4% of the existing peak travel volumes on alexander avenue and sausalito, and would not result in significant transportation impacts. because the department did not identify any significant impacts on transportation, the department cannot impose any transportation mitigation measures under ceqa. the appellant indicates in the environmental document ignores significant noise impacts. first, persons at recreational uses such as those at fort baker would not be exposed to

noise for sufficient periods of time on health impacts and therefore are not considered sensesive restrictors. second, construction noise varies with construction noise phases and activity, and proposed construction work at fort baker would result in noise increases for a limited amount of time, while the proposed construction noise may be an annoyance to recreational users as fort baker, it would not result in direct frequency to be a health impact. an environmental impact report is prepared if there is substantial evidence that a project, either individually or cumulatively may cause a figure ad verse effect on the environment. the appellant failed to provide any substantial evidence to indicate that the proposed project would have a significant impact on the environment,nessing the.

[ inaudible ] therefore, preparation of an eir is not required. so in conclusion, for the reasons above, we do recommend that the planning commission adopt the motion to uphold the preliminary mied negative declaration. this concludes the department's presentation. thank you. >> hrt. thank you very much. so next, we will hear from the appellant. i have speaker cards for mayor cox and mr. freedman. welcome. >> thank you. we brought copies of the materials that we submitted. >> go ahead. >> okay. good afternoon. i am mayor joan cox.

thank you for allowing me to speak. i hope you've had an opportunity to review the materials submitted for thursday's staff report. we tried to get them in as quickly as possible given the large amount of information. we're here to request three things. one, continue the hearing of the planning commission to a date that's at least 30 days out or two adopt the additional mitigation measures that we've listed in our letter, or three, sustain our appeal and prepare the requested eir or sever the fort baker from the project. continuing the hearing is our preferred approach, and we believe it should be the port's and nps's preferred approach as well. unfortunately, as explained in more detail in the follow up correspondence we transmitted, we believe that the project description in the fmnd is inaccurate. we've given you concrete examples of that in writing,

and our counsel, art freedman, who will speak next, will share some examples with you here today. what you don't have in your packet and what is not available on-line are the master agreements upon which first the pmnd and now the fmnd are based. we believe these two flaws would render legally invalid any approval action you may take today. the inaccurate project description infects and invalidates virtually all of the fmnd's analysis with respect to fort baker, and we believe the failure to provide you and the general public with the master agreements upon which this environmental document is based prevents you from being able to legally approve the fmnd before you today. as i said in my letter to you, we are very interested, and

we've met a couple of times with nps, we're very interested in collaborating. we provided interested in the collaborative documents two years ago. it's unfortunate when nps was unable to adopt all of our recommended issues, that they didn't come back to us. we didn't receive anything back until december of 2017, which is why -- and we asked for more time to respond then, but we were not granted that additional time. and so we were forced to file this appeal. we got a revised traffic study last thursday. we've hired a traffic engineer to address it, but we would like more time to provide you with a balanced response, and we'd like more time to try to negotiate a valid resolution with nps, so that's our request of you today. thank you. >> thank you. it.

>> good afternoon and thank you. my name is arrested freedman, and i wish to address some of the comments you've just heard today. the project that is before you involves several contracts, several complex contracts, including a master agreement between the national park service and the port, as well as a concession contract between the national park service and the ferry concessioner as well as the lease agreement between the port and the ferry concessioner, and these documents collectively authorize among many other things, ferry service from pier 31 and a half to fort baker for up to a 50 year period. the complexity of these documents and the 50 year duration of this document makes it all the more important that the ceqa analysis accurately defineses the project and adequately defines the projecp. even more importantly, nor does the public. the public is a partner in the ceqa process, and they, too, do

not have the project contracts to review and assess whether the environmental review is adequate. and it is highlighted by the comments today of planning staff that says to you, do not concern yourself with this assertion on the part of sausalito that we have an inaccurate project description because they reference to you a clause in one of the contracts that purportedly says there must be consistency with the ceqa analysis. you don't have that document in front of you. there's not a reference to the clause that's been mentioned, and as a matter of law, it doesn't at all cure the problem that we've identified. what the documents say is that there must be compliance with ceqa, meaning, the ceqa project, which means that -- let's turn to this first issue of issue consistency. the project description states that ferry service to fort baker would be limited to two weekend roundtrips. that is false. if you look at the documents,

what it says is that ferry service will be continued by an operating service of the national park service. moreover, not discussed in this fmnd, the documents also expressly authorize additional charter ferry service unlimited for conferences and other events. it's absolutely not the case that there will be ferry service limited to two weekend trips. when you have a clause and a document that says you must comply with ceqa, it's the project that there must be compliance with. the point of the planning commission staff person reinforces our point: the project must be defined in a way that sets in place these mandatory limits. under ceqa, what is relevant is what is enforceable and what are the terms of the project approvals? in this case, the contracts. if it turns out that the environmental review document is inaccurate, that is irrelevant. under these contracts, there is no limitation of ferries to two

weekend trips. another problem is the size of the passenger vessels. planning satis planning staff says that the reference to 700 person ferries and 500 person ferries apply only to alcatraz, but the concession is they must have two passenger vessels, two of them 500, two of them 700, so that means there has to be at least a fifth vessel. moreover, on the question of bicycles, the environmental analysis concludes that there will be no impacts of bicycles leaving saws aleet owe to fort baker because bicycles are prohibited from boarding the ferries at fort baker. in other words, this is premised on the assumption that the project documents prohibits bicycles. they do not.

the fmnd was just revised to concede that at present, there are no plans to include bicycles. no prohibition, yet the analysis of no impacts is premised on the false assumption there is a project limitation. that is a fundamental ceqa flaw. now, what we have tried to do is work to avoid delays, and so what we've tried to do is we've tried to come up with solutions to fill the gap or to bridge the gap between the inaccuracies of how the project is described to the realities of what the project is. so, for example, we have proposed that the project either be modified or a condition of approval, or there be a mitigation measure that provides no bicycles are allowed to board from fort

baker. there should be no reason to object to that. and that it's critically important feature to protect sausalito. in our appeal materials, you will see that sausalito adopted an addendum, and that addendum was identified a very severe crisis of congestion with tourists and bicycles in sausalito, and so we need protections to not have bicycles come from this project over the 50 year course of this project into sausalito. what we have proposed is to bring into alignment the assumptions of the environmental review with the project requirements. now, another concern of ours has to do with provide cars. a big concern is going to be fort baker, after they've utilized some features of fort baker, will want to use uber or

lyft to come to san francisco. a traffic study was performed that said that would not be a problem, but the problem is the traffic study assumes no more than two weekend trips of ferries, and that's false. again, you have a false assumption under lying the traffic analysis. what we ask is that you continue this hearing for two important reasons: one, so that the people and you can see the contract documents. and number two, so that we, with the planning staff, can work together to devise solutions to problems and make sure there are no significant impacts. >> okay. thank you, mr. freedman. mayor cox, we'll hear from the project sponsor next. >> hi. good afternoon. thank you all for having us here this evening. my name is kerrie sarobin. i'm d