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 network. i talk toi talked to dozens of s and people with disabilities who pay $600 out of $800 to live in an sro with no elevator. we are using space and resources to build housing the does not benefit people who have lived in san francisco their whole life. this does not make sense for brewhouse it using a loophole to avoid paying property taxes. that is money we could use to build more affordable housing. do not give them an exemption to build the wrong housing for san francisco. thank you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> my name is bob iverson. i have a master's degree in architecture and a master's degree in regional planning. we want a great project along the waterfront, but this proposal is not it. i argue the project should be at least condition with a 25 foot sidewalk at the embarcadero, and the height and bulk additions be disallowed. this has resulted in a stacked deck. aesthetics, traffic, and other concerns are dismissed because the northeast embarcaderos study the sudden for evidence of approval. why is this wrong? they cite the proposal for design guidelines. the eir sites the nes. the result is circular in dishonest. there are faulty design ramifications. all four sides of the condominium building, the developers portion decreases either the existing sidewalks, and borrow from the jackson street right of way, an element that are proud to tout, but lack the generosity to share. focusing on the embarcadero sidewalk, the proposal narrows the walk from 15 feet to 16 feet. since the nes uses this as a guideline, the 15 feet will continue all along the walk, including a kids' playground 15 feet from embarcadero traffic. this illustrates the sidewalk. the mission street entrance to the planning department is actually 15 feet. i wonder if they know that. the planning department wants a grand boulevard. because of the mess between circular references, the eir should be dismissed. it is an insult. look at the details of this project, as i hope you will see in the next few presentations. president chiu: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is janet. i live 2 blocks from the proposed site of the development. i am very concerned with a great deal of what is in the proposal. why would we replace amazing, affordable outdoor recreation with a 400 car parking garage? it is mind-boggling for those of us who love this city. we are average citizens, and do not understand what can happen with money and politics. i can honestly say as a bay area native, after living in san francisco for 17 years, it breaks my heart, but i would definitely move out of the city if the project goes through. it is a healthy social outlet, a huge part of my life, and a huge part of hundreds of people's lives. i am concerned the city is driving away families. i beg my friends to stay, to no avail. i live in a building with 67 units, and there are three children living in this building, all under the age of four. when they reach 5 and 6, they will move to the suburbs for the reason that we are taking away great outdoor recreational space for kids. district 3 is the greatest population density of any neighborhood in san francisco. it is the dances neighborhood in the country outside of manhattan, yet it has the lowest square footage per capita of open space. we want to cut out seven tennis courts and put in a parking garage. my building has 67 units and 30 parking spots. we do not need every unit in that multimillion-dollar building to have a parking garage. consider the buildings at the end of van ness. don't we wish we could go back in time and disapprove these eyesores from being built? we would all love it. we would all love it if that i sort is not there. thank you for your time. >> good afternoon. as a commuter to the south bay every day, the come -- the proposed plan to narrow the streets at the embarcadero are beyond ridiculous. as projected by the eir, these are sensitive intersections. any changes would cause traffic at peak periods, because there are very few roads off embarcadero at this area. the road is to be narrowed by 7 feet, and the sidewalk will be considerably smaller. president chiu: is there a projection? could you please project that. thank you. >> the developer rendering is completely out of proportion and very misleading. drum walk is 45 feet wide. the developer is increasing it to 38 feet, 9 inches. the rendering is greatly exaggerated. is 3 feet 9 inches going to be such a huge difference? the planned for raj with valet service is designed to accommodate commercial and fitness center guests. how is a valet service going to function, given the new single- line washington and from st.? will the cars to of on the street and took part? this area has 400,000 parking spaces and an excellent transit system. does the gridlock mean nothing? the developer must let the planning commissioner no he is misleading you and the public. he claimed to have conducted surveys among the public. i can assure you that not one of my friends here today has ever seen or heard of this survey. he has simply ignored all of the 2000 members of the gate with community. is this not the public? he is of the forging ahead, assuming this is a done deal, climbing the public are happy with this development. it has misled the planning commission, and is now misleading you. i urge you to look closely at the details of this development, because you will find many inconsistencies and false statements. thank you. president chiu: thank you. the speaker? >> good evening. thank you for having this meeting. i would like to ask you a question. i would like to start out with a ". the urgent question is what are you doing for others? that is martin luther king, jr. my question is not just to think about what you are going to do for one particular type of individual, who has the money to build a large project for a multimillion-dollar design that is picked out by a fancy designer. i would like to discuss with you, as an architectural designer, the focus i have done, which is concerns over the development of the parking garage.