built so, please regret the proposals so little mexican museum can go forward >> good evening i'm virginia i'm with the buena aligns i'm here to speak no support of this project. we're asking you to reject is appeal we'll be talking about mitigating the safety and traffic issues. we believe this project will add to the district and be a great addition adding a lot of vibrancy that he ask for your support.

thank you very much >> supervisors. if there were enough time i'd happily go on about the wonderful museum. what is clear it's long over cue it the mexican museum have a permanent home. whatever the proposals of this project there was a indirect link of the amount of space and the finance. on behalf of those members who are latino and those who have looked at the reports that's the single construction industry i think they would be extremely proud to work on a project like that. with regard to some of the appellants points i note that

the other end of the block is the 44 story hotel building and many of those who testified on behalf of the hotel live on the opposite side of the hotel. it's a block of tall buildings. i note with the pedestrian issues are very real in that neighborhood is that the end of my time? >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello, i'm shawn smith i work in local 24. $21 million that's an eye-opening thing that's an

important culture structure we need this type of museum so we can have the historical area for our children the carpenters are asking for your support >> thank you. next speaker. >> good evening. i don't live in san francisco but i'm mexican, of course, and that's why i'm here. i'm fighting for my grand children. that would be important for the younger and for those who don't remember california was part of mexico. so i believe that we can have that museum i can believe that people have concerned about the

shadow on the streets. i wish i could hear about the construction of the bridge they are having a lot of problems and i don't hear so many people concerned about the - that i making and making they are good students right now so come on i wish to see people care about our curls i feel really attack my country. i had a question for you and everybody here in this room. and the question if we question the mexican museum can you have a question about the construction of the mexican

museum? because it's not fair i'm sure about most of this room is waiting about 3 hours and asking the same question and around and around and can you please stand up you all those who are in favor of this project please? thank you >> thank you. next speaker. >> thank you. madam clerk good evening. i live on the street 9 in san francisco and i'm here in front of you i'm in support of the mexican museum and i sky to regret the appeal and to approve or to you know the eir report.

and to me cultural heritage is what drew san francisco's we need to know every culture needs to know what they come from. i want my children to know that we mexicans and curls have been here for years and we happen to made contributions but we are kind of ghosts. we don't exist in san francisco as mexicans. the striving community after the 1950s on board way street it was completely destroyed when they moved to the mission.

our church that we built on the broadway and manson it's sold. we filled the chinese community for 16 years. now is that too much to ask to get a mexican museum it's about time about the extended shadows and the traffic. that's has to be done in a holistic approach thank you so much >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon. i'm angle activate i'm a

mexican. i'm here to ask for your support for the eir. we orange county to be able to enjoy the museum and the art. it will give us an opportunity to enjoy the exhibits that perhaps only we have seen in books or postcards. it's essential that our latino community will be able to come to a museum that is centrally located. give us an opportunity to enjoy this whether or not we have a long or short lifespan and on behalf of the? citizen latino

community we look forward to having this >> thank you. next speaker. >> good evening president chiu and members of the board. i'm the chair the building committee and the incoming treasurer of the board of trustees for the mexican museum. due to the great ambition of the community the long held dream to create a mexican museum is finally here. this is our direct partnership with the city. there's learning this great opportunity. we have an endenouncement we've

received commitments beyond $5 million and for the museum and the work around 25 million. we have great momentum thanks to your help to strive among the other arts at the and cultural programs. we're missing our voice and presence and it's something we're working very hard to achieve and be heard. we hope you assert the project >> thank you any other members of the public that wish to speak? seeing none i invite up the

appellants for a rebuttal >> you guys give 3 minutes each. >> we can set the clock for 3 minutes each. >> thank you very much for the search questions of the planning dependent on the department that was gratifying to my clients and me. on the shadow on union square issue the representative the planning department took this position that there's a hardline and there isn't. so for the eir so say there's a shadow impact on the square to be great and to say there's no following litigations i understood that to mean the

alternative is not feasible there's no hard lines between alternates and litigations are smaller ways to reduce impacts. so it's fundamentally confusing for this reading to say that and for the department to say the additional of 3 hundred and 50 feet they didn't say that they said it. there's a feasible measurable alternating to reduce shadow and it's up to the applicant in the eir to prove that it's not feasible financially or otherwise. there are court decisions that disagree with me and i think

those are not - for the record i'll state my objection to the eir for not putting in the feasibility to the shadow alternates. with respect to the shadow in jersey square if you look at the document it restates what the draft eir said. there was one day for that survey and it found up until 11 o'clock there were 3 hundred people and 345 people later. so what level where do you draw the line why is 65 people not significant and 3 had the and 65

people significant. that can't be arbitrarily to find that the square is not significant speaker the cumulative amount is not correct and i believe - >> thank you any questions to this gentleman? >> he needs to finish the sentence. >> it was a miss speaking the shadow aspects were found to be insight cumulative and the department said that the impact was significant and that was not true i think she was thinking of union square it was less than significant but cumulative significant that was confusing. i want to make it clear

>> no, thank you i wonder in planning could respond to that statement. that makes a little bit more sense to me why it would be less than significant to a single project to cumulatively significant. planning department? >> supervisor kim the analysis discussed the conditions within each park or open space but the actual determination there's only one impact statement and it's in consideration of the overall shadowing that we made that determination. >> off all open space of public open space? so you didn't distinguish between the two squares? >> yeah, that's just not

correct. we could get the document out but everybody has to look at the document that's not correct and a can i ask why you interpreted that was the evaluation that planning had made? >> there's no statement that the cumulative shadows on jess square is significant. >> thank you. >> thank you. i too appreciated the clarity about the pedestrian safety and the eir that's clear the weekends were not looked at despite the characterized of this area including the senior population what we believe are major conference projects

between 20 thousand convention folks on this area but before this board is the eir complete and adequate. and when i have decisions made that trumpet the analysis in the eir you don't need that important standard there's no need to use rope analysis that doesn't fit the situation and as other specifies indicate we know their problems in this area that pedestrians have did the and it doesn't meet the rope analysis. i'm going to try to have a better answer than i did later. there is case law that says it's fine to use a plan and you look at the situation you can do a hybrid the whole idea so to

analysis hybrids and to meet the statute you have to look at cumulative impacts and mitigations. the guideline says that the eir is guided by practical and analysis. and here we don't have - but using this standard methodology that doesn't fit the area so the cumulative safety pedestrian traffic needs to be expanded. there are needs to be analysis of those special convention fences that are expected parts of the urban life and to ignore them does a disservice to the information that's before this board when it makes its decision

about the project and the mitigations that are appropriate. you don't have the mitigation because the eir is not adequate >> thank you colleagues any questions? let me ask again any questions to any of the members today? okay at this time this appeal has been heard and is now final that matter is in the hands of the board and one of the members want to speak before i make a motion >> so i do want tow appreciate everyone's time as i kind of devoted into eir position into the city. where we're going to continue

and expect to see that development which i actually support i really hope we as a city consider what anna rofblt analysis looks like. i have severe concerns about how we as a city study the impacts and it's not clear to one point our tipping point is which an idea is significant and when it's not. we as policymakers find it confusing and not able to get concrete numbers we saw this with the at at the light boxes that the response is highly subjective and that it's a judgment call. so why i worry about it because

we're planning real neighborhood where real people live i get to experience that on a daily basis but as a representative that has to have the e-mails and what are we doing to mitigate this dense neighborhood. i think the movement we're taking as a city we do patio need to grow as a city but i believe we're not being honest about the places we live and i know that shadow does matter because we live in a cold city. i don't want to use open space these that's notes where i'm going to be motivated to go out to a park if it's going to be shaded because of development. but we have to take the issues

into consideration of the shadows and citizens >> so moving forward as we have major plans whether it's moscone expansions and i hope we expand on that study it makes no sense while we look at only the quality and not the kwnltd matter. we have folks that are 65 and older some of the comments i saw were the folks who said they have time crossings the streets by the time allocated to them.

but i think the eir is an opportunity to really delve into that. the basis line again like what days we pick why we don't examine baselines i think we should have an answer for that or i think once we hit 20 days a year it's a typical event we should examine the baseline for. i look forward to working with planning as we move forward. i think the project in and of itself i agree is an impact of the overall things happening in the neighborhood. if this is kind of - i know often eirs are used for whether or not we like projects.

i largely like the projects and am supportive of the mexican museum i get that it has less of an impact than office but i think we should have done more with the eir. however, i think that sequa provides guidelines and i think we can establish more concrete ideas to help the folks understand. so i will motion is to move forward to approve item number 20 and cable 21 and 22. i also want to say that i understand we have a very lengthy process we're going to be moving to this has to go through 5 committees rec rec and

park and historic preservation commission and planning commission. so i look forward to the moving of this project i think there are some modifications that we can look at that you outside of the eir document. i think that the prop k concerns are very real and i'm sure that supervisor will talk about those and i think we should make the considerations and we can work with the vertical to mitigate shadows on the square. i think over ail jess square was the square i wanted to talk about if it's heavy shadows between 11 and 2:30 p.m. we have

to mitigate the shadows we can workout this in the robust movement and a thank you there's 5 people on the roster to speak. supervisor yee. supervisor kim pretty much stated my opinion of this which is that shadow issues are important we should - i mean i've grown up where everything is dense and i have such limited parking space and you're covering the park half the day is shade and there's only one park in the whole community it's a big issue. the pedestrian safety issue is

important to me and we really, really need to look at this issue more seriously. you know, i'm not real satisfied what the way we're approaching wants eir. i think it's adequate how the city planning commission is looking at it right now but i think two issues that supervisor kim brings up and i'm looking forward to seeing the developer address as we move forward. the shadow issue seems to be something that we could do something about certainly working with the city and not just the project itself but the city should take some responsibility about the pedestrian safety around the area but again may be one of the

few that group here and saw third street when i was growing up when there was hardly anybody walking you could say wow. what happened now. someone was joking that the only place in san francisco that has that type of density in terms of traffic and pedestrian and this was many years ago was probably on stockton street and chinatown. so we really need to look at those appropriations as we move forward and i'll be supporting the supervisors kim's recommendation. supervisor campos >> thank you, mr. chair i want to thank all the members of the public who have come out to speak on this item and phone calls on both sides of the issue. he also want to thank the

district specify, specify kim has spent a lot of time working with the departments on ail sides of the community on those issues. i also welcome the comments from president chiu. it was interesting to watch this proceeding. i want to say to the appellants that i appreciate the points that were made but it was interesting they kept referring 65 market which i assume there's something wrong with saying that doesn't mean we were not going to take our important issues into account. but at what point should the issues raised be dealt with through part of the sequa appeal

and at what point should they be dealt with with the subsequent approvals. even though there remains issues around the traffic and shadows the adequacy of the eir is there along the lines that was explained by supervisor kim. i also hope that in the course of this process as we're going through the remaining approval process that we use that opportunity for the project sponsor to have more communicationss with the appellants. i think it's important to have that dialog and i know there is an exception on the part of many of us that the issue around that i had safety and a traffic and around shadows that those issues