discussions, given that there has already been quite a good opportunity to do that. i just wanted to put that out there and see what you have to say about that. >> as you know, there are a number of complex issues and a lot of logistics involved in terms of how to accommodate the hotel operations. the parties have met to talk about some of the specific logistical issues, and have exchanged correspondence in an attempt to reach agreement on some of the other issues. but the reality is these things do take some time. we are working on it. supervisor cohen: so how much time do you think you need it? -- need? >> i would ask for a month. supervisor cohen: ok. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you. again, to the chair, i am still

not convinced. what is it that would happen between now and a month from now that could not have happened in the last month? >> to be fair, i think we were hampered somewhat by the intervening holidays, which did take a lot of people out of commission, so to speak, so that the correspondence back-and- forth was not as speedy as was hoped. we had difficulty putting together a face-to-face meeting, which is what i think is actually necessary. supervisor campos: thank you. i am still not clear on what the difference would be. thank you. president chiu: further questions, colleagues? at this time, thank you very much. why don't we hear from members of the public if they wish to support the appellant? please step up. each member of the public has up to two minutes to speak. >> ♪ 8 no fires shine if moma is

gone only darkness every day no fires shine without moma find that moma home. no sunshine when it's gone only darkness every day i know, i know, i know, i know i know, i know, i know, i note no sunshine without moma ♪ president chiu: other members of the public, line up in the center aisle if you wish to speak on behalf of the appellant. >> this is regarding fire station. i am representing the company at 944 folsom st..

this will help improve the vicinity and will bring hard working groups of firefighters to our community. we are a green building, and use natural air ventilation in our building. we have the administration's tough, marketing, and customer service department constantly using phones with open windows. signs and that our windows would be a hardship for our business. noise is a hardship. we want to know what a negation for the sirens when the fire engines are coming out of the building. thank you for the support. we support the relocation and would like to let everybody know that we are looking forward to the quality community relationships. thank you. president chiu: thank you.

are there any other members of the public that wish to speak on behalf of the appellants? seeing none at this time, why don't we go to a presentation from planning. >> good afternoon, supervisors. planning department's staff. several jones from the environmental planning division and kevin died-- guuy join me to answer any questions to the rezoning items that will be heard as separate items following the eir appeal. the issue to date is planning commission certification of the final environmental impact report for the museum expansion , firehouse relocation, and housing project. the objections raised to the board are related to the eir's project description, the evaluation of visual impact, and

concerns related to site access and circulation. as our repeal response states, these issues have been addressed sufficiently in the final eir. the staff has indicated the response is adequate. the appellant has not presented substantial elements to the contrary. the appellate clem's this is not accurate because the final expansion design may differ from these dramatic design analyzed in the eir. proposed height, masson, square footage, location, and open space access matched those described and analyzed in the eir. the level of the project description the tilt is typical of eir's prepared in san francisco. the staff considers its sufficient to understand the physical attributes of the proposed museum expansion.

the appellate claims that the expense would -- the effect of the east-facing windows of the hotel would be considerable. the question is whether this would adversely affect cnet resources. the eir analyzes the affect on views from a public vantage points, such as your balbuena -- yerba buena gardens. it would not significantly alter public views. the eir discloses the potential for the project to be visible from nearby buildings such as the w hotel. the eir did not find this significant. the client claims that we did not analyze transportation events, such as access to the

porte-cochere. the eir describes existing circulation to the mid-block area, and illustrates in graphics and text how to access would occur from natomas street under project conditions. specifically, the project details but 14.5 ft. tall vehicular access tunnel and a driveway on howard street, similar to existing conditions. during the roughly two year construction, access to the mid- block area would be temporarily eliminated. the eir outlines two options addressing the loading and delivery operations from either a temporary third street center or a temporary ruling on howard street. either option would fees a

bleak allow access, but would not result in significant environmental impact. to the concern related to fire station operations at 935 folsom st., the product description has as part of the operation of that station signal pre-emption at sixth and folsom. it has been indicated by the fire department that the policy will be not to use fire signals when exiting are coming back to the fire station, because signal pre-emption would allow signals to clear the traffic along folsom st., and the use of sirens would not be necessary under those conditions. the planning department's position is that the eir sufficiently analyzes the pertinent secret issue. after carefully considering the

draft eir written comments and testimony, we have not heard anything that alters our conclusions with respect to the eir findings. staff respectfully recommends the board uphold the eir as adequate and complete. this concludes my presentation. staff is available for questions. thank you. president chiu: any questions to planning? ok. seeing none at this time, why don't we hear from the party of interest? you have up to 10 minutes for your presentation. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am here on behalf of the real party, the san francisco museum of modern art. i am pleased to participate in this important hearing to further efforts to more than doubled gallery space, enhance public in the ministry to functions, and provide a home for the collection of contemporary art.

in 2010, the board unanimously approved a land transfer for this project, and fire station relocation, contingent on the action today. the planning commission certified eir november 30, and the commission is scheduled to do it and a consideration of the museum design on february 2, more than three weeks from now, plenty of time for us to continue to have consideration of this appeal. i will speak to it, and then the director of the museum will add a few words. there is no merit to this appeal. the eir is adequate, complete, and attractive. it was prepared in compliance with the requirements of ceqa. it analyzes each of the issues raised. between the initial study, draft eir, and comments and responses document, the eir comprises over

800 pages of detailed analysis for this relatively modest project. the eir determined there were some aspects which could not be mitigated with construction of the new fire station, but there are none with the museum expansion itself. we urge you to reject the appeal. the first claim is that the eir project description is inadequate and unstable because the final step method designed for the expansion product -- which give final schematic -- because the final shcematic designed for the expansion is not included in the plan. the final design demonstrates the height, masson, square footage, and materials -- massing, square footage, and

materials described in the eir. it is the same distance from the windows in the hotel and does not encroach on hotel property. it affects views from the same number of hotel rooms. the materials are exactly as described. accordingly, the claim that the eir project description is uncertain are inaccurate is simply wrong as to access, currently the hotel -- is simply wrong. as to access, currently the hotel uses a public easement over a portion of moma property. the second claim in this appeal is that the eir did not analyze the land use and transportation in parts that might occur, should this access route be unilaterally terminated. however, the eir did not need to

analyze the specter of possibility, because it cannot and will not happen for several reasons. first, the plans for the expansion have always included a 14.5 ft. tall vehicular passage between the street and the porte-cochere to retain its access road. second, the land acquisition agreement between the city and moma that you approved in 2010 required we provide an easement to the hotel over this area. thus, it will not occur unless and until an easement is put in place. third, the museum has offered to pay the revocable access easement. i provided a draft of the agreement to be a turning. fourth, the eir contains an apartment measure to make sure the area is managed properly to

provide access to the porte- cochere and loading docks, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. the eir adequately support -- describes access in a manner similar to current operations. because there will be minimal change to current operations, the eir concluded there will be no significant transportation impact with modification of the new block area. we believe our written order to record and a revocable easement removes any possibility -- an irrevocable easement removes any possibility. the next claim is that the eir did not adequately analyze construction in parks, particularly the temporary relocation of hotel access and valet parking. that is untrue. both the draft eir and the

comments and responses describe relocation during construction. because the number of trucks and valet parking vehicles associated with the hotel is so small compared to background volume, the eir concluded the impact was not significant. after the eir was published, the museum and hotel staff continued to meet. they have agreed on a construction scheme. by december 22 letter provides a detailed description of that to reconstruction. this plan was presented to staff on december 21, and mta staff think the plan is feasible and can be implemented. the plan is also described in the eir in pages 57 through 59. according to the appeal, the temporary relocation of the loading and parking routes are uncertain and inadequately analyzed. i would note the eir also

uncovered other elements of the construction, including noise, air quality, and other traffic. views -- the next plan is that the eir underestimates affects on views from guest rooms in the hotel. they claim the impact from the 200-foot tall building will significantly impact the 320- foot tall hotel, and therefore must be mitigated by a redesign of the expansion project. they said the is that the impact will be significant unless the expansion project be reduced from 10 stories in height to two stories. the impact on views from private guest rooms are not considered to have an impact. the eir and college there would be few in practice on hotel rooms from private hotels, but those are not significant.

the events in the theory that views from private hotel rooms are really public views, because any member of the public can rent a room. we submit that those views remain private, no matter who rents a room. guests are only there for a few nights at a time. even if the view is impeded, the index is temporary. the boot should reject this and uphold a longstanding policy that considers public views part of the environment, but not private views. this is no more than a tactic in the ongoing campaign to attract cash from sfmoma, despite settled law and years of ceqa analysis in san francisco. they believe views from the hotel are deserving of special protection and private compensation. for months, they have been demanding the museum paid millions of dollars for building a 200 ft tall museum next to

the 325 naoto, even though the current high limit is 320 feet. we submit this is nothing more than another step in ongoing efforts to bully the museum into paying a ransom. i include as an attachment in my brief a copy of the letter from peter wong to the chair of the board on october 12, 2011. in that letter, mr. wong clams expansion project will reduce the value of the hotel and $24 million, proposes that the museum compensate for the alleged impact, and threatens litigation to delay the project unless demands are not satisfied. it would be hard to find a more explosive or direct demand. nowhere is there concern about the adequacy of the e.r.. the eir is adequate and complete, and there is no substance to this appeal. the museum has submitted a

systematic -- schematic design that has a 14.5 ft. passageway for the hotel's benefit. we ask that you reject this appeal and not allow them to play this game, using the ceqa process to try to advance their private goals. let me introduce the museum director. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am the museum director. there is no question we are at a very exciting moment in the history of the museum with this expansion. i do not think there is any -- i am sorry. president chiu: thank you. your time is up. does anyone have questions to this individual? we can move into public comment. supervisor kim: if you could please finisher summary of the project. >> is that all right to do?

ok. as i began to say, sfmoma one of the great museums of modern art in this country, and it is no exaggeration to say the expansion will take the cultural life of this city to a nother level, and make this one of the great museums in the world. i want to emphasize the civic role the museum has continued to play for the city. as i think we all know, when we moved to the current location in 1995, it enhanced the development of the soma neighborhood. expansion will further enhance the neighborhood. the trans a terminal will open soon, and sf-bound commuters will be thrust into the city west in the direction of sfmoma. the museum entrances will be an opportunity for the streets to become lively pedestrian zones.

i want to mention the public service we provide to the san francisco audience. we have approximately 650,000 visitors annually. fully 100,000 are free, through various free days and family free days. there will be a dramatic increase in our visitation. we will be able to serve the educational function of the museum even better, going forward. third, the economic impact of our expansion will be enormous. the construction project will employ an estimated 1150 union construction workers. payroll for those individuals is estimated at $56 million. the annual sales and use tax generated will rise to $1.10 million. we are proud of the innovative agreement with the fire department that will enable the construction of the first new firehouse in san francisco in many decades, at a better location with less traffic.

the fire department will be able to provide better service to the city. i want to emphasize that we have been responsive to many city agencies and community groups. with the fire commission, they unanimously approved the fire station in concept as well as design. the arts commission has unanimously approved the design. it has been before the planning commission on two occasions. the board of supervisors unanimously approved a land swap the nibbling this all to occur in the relocation of the fire house. we have also met with spar, the -- spur , the yerba buena, alliance, and all of our neighbors, including the family that owns the restaurant on howard street. with regard to the hotel, we understand they have concerns. we have pledged and begun to work collaborative lisa or construction will minimize --

collectively so our construction will minimize its impact on them. we are very grateful to the planning commission for the eir. thank you very much. president chiu: are other members of the public who wish to speak in general public comment on this? if you could please line up -- if folks could line up on the right hand side. any other members of the public wish to speak in support of the project sponsor? mix speaker, please. thank you. >> my name is lisa. i am the director of arts and culture marketing for the san francisco travel association, formerly known as the convention and visitors bureau. my job is to ensure the visitors are aware of the cultural offerings of the city, and to entice them to book travel to san francisco. our current research tells us

that in 2010 the total spending for visitors in san francisco is $8.40 billion. we learned three weeks ago that $1.80 billion are attributed specifically to those here for arts and culture purposes. national research by the office of travel and tourism and the americans for the arts tells us coltrane travel stay longer and spend twice as much money. , -- cultural travelers stay longer and spend twice as much money. this will add to the quality of life for residents and visitors. the travel industry is incredibly competitive. improving assets insurers we remain competitive. in 2011, after 17 years as a conde nast favorite city, san francisco is now second to south carolina. it will attract visitors throughout the world and will

attract -- and will keep us competitive with other destinations. we expect this to garner media coverage for san francisco. with the addition of the fischer collection, we expect this will be great news for quattro institutes and restaurants throughout san francisco. we greatly hope you will support this eir. thank you. president chiu: i want to welcome our fire chief to the podium. >> very briefly, i would like to support this project. the fire department has enjoyed a productive working relationship with the museum of modern art. a great situation for them, but i think a better situation for us and the citizens' research. we currently reside at 676 howard, a crowded, aged

facilities. we now have the opportunity to move into a state-of-the-art facility on folsom. we have an outreach with different agencies. supervisor kim has been particularly involved, as have other supervisors. we feel this is a win for the city and the fire department. we appreciate this project and how it moves forward. thank you. president chiu: next speaker. >> michael terrio. i will be brief. i think there was a thorough will buckle of the appeal. -- rebuttal of the appeal. in terms of the public view and affect of the museum, just as the original museum provided an enhancement to the public view, so the dramatic design will provide an enhancement. this is not a refrigerator box.

this is a handsome and dramatic building. we look forward to working on it. we remain fully in support of it. we ask you to reject the appeal. president chiu: next speaker. >> many floras, carpenters' local 22. -- manny flores. in my opinion, this is a no- brainer. it is a great project, obviously, a win-win for the city. deny the appeal and move forward. thank you very much. president chiu: any other members of the public wish to speak in support? with that, why don't we hear from the rebuttal from the appellant? you have up to four minutes for your bottle -- rebuttal. >> thank you, supervisors. christine griffith again.

i want to quickly address some of the points that were raised. he cited that the eir does show how access would occur. that is true. it does show how to access would occur. but it does not show is the impact of traffic on local streets, how garbage trucks and cars that would normally be in the valet area will be parked on already-busy streets. similarly, he cited that the design analyzed in the eir is consistent with the design recently released to the public. if the design was consistent, i wonder why the museum waited to release it until after the eir was certified. in fact, if you look closely, you will see the materials and design are different, and that does affect the visual analysis.

the easement referred to was not part of the eir analysis, and thus cannot be a negation measure or mitigating factor for the impact that should be analyzed in that document. the easement that of the moma has offered is not permanent and irrevocable. it's specifically allows unilateral termination. with regard to construction traffic, if the volume of trucks and cars were moving along the streets, it would be an insignificant impact on an already busy area. but instead of driving with the traffic, the trucks and cars will be stopped on the side of the road, blocking lines of traffic. that does have a significant impact on the local traffic situation. finally, contrary to the characterization, our appeal does raise