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 theres been a profound effect on retail in the Union Square Area and its temporary. Believe it or not it will end some day theyll get it finished and i want to make sure we dont let that and i saw whats 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 theres 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 dont 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 were 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 theyre too much of a brother and stick a price up there and if they cant sell them it will sit vacant and ill pull our c. B. D. Survey and show you the result. Theyre 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 lets take upper market again the pro forma doesnt include the retail space. And so again theres 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 youre probably ruining the commercial corridor and it wasnt in your pro forma and he said it was and hes the only person i recall telling me that. Understanding how things get financed and what it does for the retailer doesnt 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 its part of the c. U. For the Financial Services which was dead and required a 500 square foot spaces and theyve doing well. A candy store, a cosmetic store and ritual coffees in there now. These are what we need to do when we see these space and they wont 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 theyre 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 onestory commercial space on the corridor and get a density bonus theyll displace the business thats been there forever and its 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 youre constructing new structures the cost of the constructions going to require an enormous rent increase. Cant go back to paying what you paying because its an old building and needs work and a worry about that on commercial spaces too and i think its 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 youll have less vacancy the higher you go youll have more. I think its 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. Thats a good question. I dont have that data here. I just have the union square lease rate which 2017 was about looks like about 60 a square foot. Thats 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 . Its 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 theyre competing similarly. Okay. That would be my fear. If i may interrupt i think to be clear i doubt were 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 . Id want to see strong findings around where the building is, how long its been vacant and what was the good faith effort on the part of the landlord to rent like we had on the lohmans space and gave us an understanding how hard it was to rent and if theres any businesses with leases to run out is there a place for them to go at that price per square foot. I like flexibility. Im 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 thats put it in a lens. The best ones are these arent all corridors just ones were focussed on. We look at the neighborhood commercial districts. In the city. About 24. If you surveyed twothirds what are the best ones. Would you like to know the lowest vacancy rates or highest. Lets 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 weve 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, theres 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 its not the goal they want to do other things. So we want to work with the neighborhood to set their goals and commissioner thats great. Commissioner moore and i visited excelsior during the recess and talked with folks there and they were actually saying theres 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 thats a good approach youre 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 thats 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 whos 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 dont 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 were talking about but when we see vacancies we see them on the New Buildings in Market Street and theres 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 well put something in there but some cant afford it and theres popup stores and its 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 weve 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 thats going to go to help lead some of the answers to these questions. Now, what were talking about is not science. Its art and science. I throw that out because dont be surprised if you see schools pop into some of the bigger spaces where there was a walgreens. Thats good and theyre out and about we get mixed messages on retail, its dying, malls are closing in places but the numbers show a different story at least in San Francisco. And ive 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 theyll come down at some point. I think retail is thriving in San Francisco. I dont think we need to get historical exactly. Weve read a lot of media articles and thats 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 theres pressure on businesses in San Francisco. Its 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 were seeing is to help create an experience and the merchant district do festivals to bring people to the districts, theres a lot of creativity going on to help retail survive. But its not just about retail, its also about retail services. What ware seeing in the study is if youre concerned about vacancies have an open mind. Maybe put stuff on the ground floor you previously thought was bad. Maybe its not so bad. Maybe other types of uses where people get their nails done arent as bad as you previously thought because thats what people go to corridors for, personal services. We have to be realistic what people are going to corridors for today. To commission fongs point we need to maintain a level of flexibility. You take ocean avenue and that corridor id say its thriving now compared to what it was like years ago and its a mix of new larger floor plate chain retailers in additional smaller mom and pop retailers. I agree. We dont 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 were making the corridors thrive because its 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 policys working and creating the diversity in neighborhoods and when i look at the old home site we reject from a chain retailer and its now housing with retail. I think thats great and where we should be heading. Im bullish on retail and dont think theres 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 its open and vibrant and people can see inside. We shouldnt have a commercial corridor where theres five of those but if theres 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 thirdfloor retail is not ideal. I know in union square we have different rules but they generally work where theyre 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 floors like a mezzanine and the third floors arent. I dont think im 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, its mostly nonretail 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 nonretail use would be helpful in sorting that out because while im bullish on neighborhood commercial retail im not that bullish on second and thirdfloor 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. Well work with oewd on doing a vare. Survey it would be helpful. Its important to note that knob nonretail uses would provide a synergy with other uses. Were not suggesting every second and thirdlevel 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. Were 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. Im lisa gibson, Environmental Review officer, and this is julie moore. Shes 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 were 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 shes been very fortunate. Good afternoon, members of the commission and president hillis. As you know im 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. igsirlcnc mcc [ please stand by ]. Gsh and ue dnu ceqa bdocument. 31 on c as part of the the parkt serviceswq selected concessioner and itsj partner, the golden,gxw gate conserveancy, and the propose project would[ provide a combination ofelnc 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 . 7cnc from the for the c baker pier discovery museumsd as wellbp sausalitos primary concern is fort bakers pedestrians will travel substantially outside of fort baker and incur significant pedestrian and foot traffic. The Planning Departments responsibilities to these concerns are discussed in exhibit a of the departments appeal response in the commissions 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 availablehcc 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 departments 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 youve had an opportunity to review the materials submitted for thursdays staff report. We tried to get them in as quickly as possible given the large amount of information. Were here to request three things. One, continue the hearing of the Planning Commission to a date thats at least 30 days out or two adopt the additional mitigation measures that weve 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 ports and npss 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. Weve 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 dont have in your packet and what is not Available Online 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 fmnds 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 weve met a couple of times with nps, were very interested in collaborating. We provided interested in the collaborative documents two years ago. Its unfortunate when nps was unable to adopt all of our recommended issues, that they didnt come back to us. We didnt 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. Weve hired a traffic engineer to address it, but we would like more time to provide you with a balanced response, and wed like more time to try to negotiate a valid resolution with nps, so thats 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 youve 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 dont have that document in front of you. Theres not a reference to the clause thats been mentioned, and as a matter of law, it doesnt at all cure the problem that weve identified. What the documents say is that there must be compliance with ceqa, meaning, the ceqa project, which means that lets 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. Its 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, its 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 weve tried to do is weve 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 its 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 theyve 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 thats 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, well hear from the project sponsor next. Hi. Good afternoon. Thank you all for having us here this evening. My name is kerrie sarobin. Im the deputy secretary of Golden Gate National recreation area, and im here on behalf of our superintendent whos vacation this week. I want to acknowledge my colleagues both from the National Parks service as well as our partners with the port and the parks conserveancy who are behind the project here. We appreciate the Planning Departments very thoughtful plans to this project. The National Parks service supports keeping the National Park service em brkation port where it is and weve worked several years closely with the port faf to make this a reality. To and from alcatraz island, pier 31 1 2, we heard earlier discussion about experiences and that is certainly one of the highlights here. Its unfortunate that we do have this disagreement with the city of sausalito, who is a longstanding partner to the park, who weve worked with for many, many years, and this is around this proposal to send two boats from pier 31 1 2 to frisk in the future. The goal for the limited fort Baker Service is to provide an alternative transit option that would allow some visitors to avoid driving to fort baker. Our plans and our contract documents would limit the fort baker ferries to Weekend Service as i mentioned and carrie no more than 40,000 visitors over the entire year. The National Parks service did complete an Environmental Impact statement under the National Environmental policy act that analyzed limited Ferry Service to fort baker. The project considered significant input from sausalito. As part of that process, we also completed studies about endanger endang endangered species [ inaudible ] although limited Ferry Service to fort baker is analyzed also in the ceqa document and the Park ServicesEnvironmental Impact statement, the park service does not have fund being to initiate the necessary updates to the fort baker pier and does not anticipate having the funds to make these upgrades for several years. In other words this service would be in the future. San Francisco City planning completed a very careful reevaluation of impacts as part of the ceqa process. The summary that was just presented, and came to the same conclusion, that the project will not have any Significant Impacts. Based on this conclusion, we ask that the commission approve the negative determination. As you take that action, we would want you to know that the park service is committed to continuing to work with the city of sausalito to find common ground, and ideally economic rate that through a separate agreement, such as a memorandum of understanding that would really speak to our longterm cooperation and go that route, rather than through adding new mitigation measures or otherwise involving the city of San Francisco and further ceqa planning and analysis. We plan to okay. Thank you very much. Well open this item up for Public Comment. Is there any Public Comment . Good evening, commissioners. Ill be brief. Its been a long day for all of you. Im greg moor, ceo of the National Parks conserveancy. Ill begin by saying alcatraz is a pretty cool place. There been 1. 6 Million People that go there, and there would be more if they could fit them on the island. Trip advisor ranked alcatraz as the number one visitor landmark in america just recently. The added benefits of this project of course is alcatraz is essential to the travel and Tourism Industry of San Francisco, and alcatraz is a Good Community partner with the Community Access program that provides affordable visits for thousands of school kids and Community Members each year. Alcatraz deserves a firstclass gateway as a National Park and a National Historic landmark, and very simply, that is what this project does. We encourage you to give a positive review to this significant project, a project that improves the citys waterfront, that serves millions of visitors each year to our city and provides economic benefits to the city of San Francisco. Thank you very much for your time in considering this. Thank you. Thank you. Any additional Public Comment in considering this item . Welcome. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is vickie nichols. Im a 35 year plus sausalito resident. I wasnt going to speak, but since proponents spoke, i thought id need to speak myself. I agree with the citys evaluation of this. I think that and i have Great Respect for the park service. I sat on numerous boards. We work with them all the time. I think youre hearing that they dont have the funds to do this project right away, so i dont see what it would be delaying to get the information you need. I initially read all the documents from the first go around, the first letter, and there were some discrepancies. I would urge you to considerate least a continuation. I dont see how its going to hurt. Theres not a project thats directly pending in front of you. Youve heard from the park service. They dont have the money to do this at the moment, any way, so a little more time to get this straight, i think, would be to everyones benefit. Thank you. Thank you. Any additional Public Comment . Seeing none, well close Public Comment and open it up to commissioners. Commissioner moore . For clarification, i believe what is in front of us is really the alcatraz ferry embarkation project on the embarcadero in San Francisco. The aspect of the fort baker ferry is subset to potential other operational aspects of Ferry Service expanding into fort baker at a frequency which i believe is properly described, but it is not really the major thrust of what is in front of us. It has undergone through a large amount of work by planning staff, including the preparation of the draft mitigated negative declaration, and i am personally not concerned that any of the information that the city of sausalito, with due respect, feel thats missing, could not be picked up with a memorandum of understanding because i do believe that the park service very clearly describes what they intend regarding fort baker and operation they are concerned. Fort baker is quite a ways away from sausalito. The corridor which connects the Golden Gate Bridge by way of fort baker to sausalito is an already difficult corridor just to start with, but i do not believe that two ferries two ferry rides could really significantly tip the scale of what may need to be controlled by a completely different set of other circumstances not to be discussed by us today because theres no solutions or any proposals in front of us. I am comfortable with whats in front of me. I just believe in the spirit of many of the eirs that this department does, it touches accurately and consistently on those points that we normally examine. I do not see any deviation on its thoroughness, and i am prepared to make a motion to uphold the preliminary mitigated negative declaration, so that is a