>> experiencing technical difficulties; please stand by ... i want to assure you as this letter reflects that the board is fully in support of this project. dear supervisors, as you know, the union square business improvement district is dedicated to the improvement of the building in [speaker not understood]. 706 mission and support this project e. the development of the mexican museum would be a major addition to san francisco and the neighborhood. the addition of additional residents would add street life and benefit merchants and other business ines in the union square area. we've reviewed the shadow studies relative to 706 mission and find any impacts on the park to be dee minute miss.

any shadowing of the park is a small area early in the morning and in winter. the union square business improvement district has devoted considerable work to improving union square. we would oppose any project we felt would harm the park. in this case there are limited negative impacts. thank you for your consideration of our position. sincerely karen flood, executive director and david needle man, president. copies of this letter will be e-mailed to everyone. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is matthew and i am president of friends of yerba buena. we support growth within this city. we support bringing the mexican museum to jessie square. what we cannot support is the greed of the project sponsor which seems to dictate the process that has been taking

place before us and destroying the beauty and resources of our city. we urge you to keep in mind the recent economic study that has been submitted from ucla's school -- anderson school of business, one of the most prestigious schools in our country. the report is truly an independent study and not based on a developer's own assumptions. he is only looking at the report and it determined that at 351 feet, the developer, the sponsor would make $150 million. somehow the sponsor wants you to believe that one of the most receptive business schools in our country has no idea what they're talking about. the economic report was submitted based upon their assumptions and the fact that the building is not profitable

at 351 feet is simply not true. the project sponsor wants you to believe that he will [speaker not understood] this building at 351 feet. he will build it. he will [speaker not understood] about $150 million. and we firmly believe a approach to this building done by this commission is a far better solution than possibly three years of litigation and a ballot measure that may never allow this project to get built. that is not what we want and i don't believe what anybody wants. >> thank you. next speaker. [speaker not understood], 755 market street. i agree and i concur with all the comments that have been made by my fellow resident and

neighbors within 755 market street. i'm concerned about the height of the buildings [speaker not understood] to be constructed. i'm concerned about the traffic. i'm concerned about the pedestrian safety in the area. however, i want to say that i along with my fellow residents totally support the mexican museum that is to be constructed there. we are members of other museums in the area and when the mexican museum is constructed, we certainly will be members of that as well. i just would like to say that if this project goes ahead and if i look out my window and i see this building going up and i see shadows going up over the areas that we have been talking

about and i see traffic congestion and pedestrian problems that we've been talking about, i would feel very bad if i had not come here to speak to you and express my concerns about this project. i would like you to consider all aspects of it. think about the financial side of it as being discussed also as far as the project is concerned. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is dave gonzalez. i'm a native san franciscan and an outside bar, i'd like to thank supervisor chiu coming to the celebration of long shore man. i'm former president of local 10. i have some notes, but i hear a bunch of stuff about the buildings not matching what else is there.

we're not the suburbs. this is san francisco. the buildings don't match. i don't know five buildings in any block this area of town that match. okay. it's an excellent plan. it's an excellent project. i don't know what everybody is concerned about the others. now you understand [speaker not understood] when we talk about foot traffic. our hiring hall for our jobs mostly in oakland is the fisherman's wharf. people get to where they need to go. i don't understand what the big hullabaloo is about. [speaker not understood] this is probably the largest group of people in this city, it's well deserved, it's been a long time coming. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is alex [speaker not understood], i'm speaking on behalf of union square life which is the ultimate [speaker

not understood] in union square park. we are in support of the 706 mission project and the benefits to the surrounding community. we feel the project does not simply negative impact the union square park nor affect the public enjoyment. ~ of the park. we are concerned about the project's threatening of the [speaker not understood]. [speaker not understood] which is a tiny sliver of the very early hours only four weeks. year and being used as a laughable excuse for legislation that will tie up progress in the city immeasurably. [speaker not understood] based on union square shadow concerns. we urge the committee to approve this project and encourage the opposition to not move forward with threats, to sponsor an unnecessary ballot measure that could be harmful to all of san francisco.

thank you for your consideration. >> thank you very much. next speaker. david elliott lewis here. certainly i support the mexican museum and certainly i support this project and have no problems with its height. i do have concerns, however, when you look at the total budget of what's being spent including entitlements, we're talking about over half a billion dollars. i'm not talking about construction, i'm talking about everything. a half a billion dollars for a project that's actually over 500 feet when you consider the penthouses and yet when you look at the percentage of money actually going to museum, it's pretty small. and i think of chair wiener's point about nothing being spent on transit impact fees. i know that's part of a bigger problem. that's troubling. so, if you continue to just approve these projects without having any provision for transit and this will create more need for transit, you basically kind of pushing the problem down the road and the problem of no transit impact

fees being paid out of a half a billion dollar project, that's really troublesome. at some point, you know, the buck has to stop and you have to say, wait, we need to fix this problem about no transit impact fees being paid on such huge expensive development projects. and i also want to salute cpmc on van ness. again, the developer pays very little for transit on that one. so, thank you for your time and i hope you'll address this issue in future legislation. >> thank you. next speaker. [speaker not understood] supervisor wiener, supervisor kim, supervisor chiu, my name is rosario [speaker not understood] director of mexican language at [speaker not understood] school that is saving the mission district and the city of san francisco for the past 45 years, providing work force development projects and health, hospitality,

[speaker not understood], office technology, and graduated over 28,000 students, who are parents of our san francisco unified school district. as you may also know, i have been a member of the [speaker not understood] for 12 years. and i know how much time and work you have to invest, and i wanted to take this opportunity with everyone here speaking this afternoon to thank you for your work on behalf of our city. i'm here to ask you to take the necessary steps to make the mexican museum a reality. as an educator, i see things from the eyes of our children and young adults and, of course, the culture value of the mexican museum will strengthen their [speaker not understood], sensitivity, and self-esteem that as you know,

the children of our community needs so much. i know that you have to ask questions and do your homework, but at the end ~ i know you will support this project that will make the mexican museum a trust a reality. to the city, our children and to the latino community and to all of us. thank you very much. muchas gracias. >> thank you. next speaker. chair wiener, supervisors kim and chiu, victor marquez, i'm the general counsel of the mexican museum. i'd like to respond to a couple of things that have been raised. i ask for your indulgence, i may take up to 3 minutes. we have not had an opportunity to speak to some of these legal issues. i'm former president of [speaker not understood],

general counsel for seven years, national former president of the national bar association, the voice of the latino community throughout the united states. the current project before you is a culmination of years of good faith negotiations with representatives which have been completed on one hand the successor agency, the city through the department of real estate and the san francisco arts commission, and the mexican museum. on the other hand, we've had millennium partners. so, you had a number of very competent attorneys at the table negotiating with millennium partners and what we believe is an excellent deal. i have also sat with representatives of the city millennium park, representatives of the four seasons and under this roof. they did not want to negotiate in good faith, which is the legal standard when you enter into a room to negotiate. i can represent that to you and to the world. instead, what you have heard today is the same thing we have heard inside a closed room,

which is we want to make a federal case of this federal process and they want to threaten us with a ballot measure. that is not a healthy disposition, it is not a healthy attitude to move this project forward. the mexican museum has negotiated a good deal for a land value that has been the price of $15 million. we are getting $30 million in benefits which include the core and shell of the facility, which will be provided at no cost to us if it was built today. so, that will probably go up beyond the $25 million that we anticipate. plus an initial endowment of $5 million which will be broken up in three payments. i'll be done in 15 seconds. and then lastly -- >> mr. marquez, thank you. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. [speaker not understood].

friends of the mexican museum, which was started over a year ago to help the mexican museum in this process. i want to go back and give you a little historical story. in 1993, the redevelopment agency actually gave the land to the mexican museum. it took us years to finally get to the point where we could actually build something. in 2008, a proposal was put together to build with our partners the museum. at that time the height was 605, 605. in 2010, that was reduced to 5 20. and by 2012 ~ it was reduced again. in 2013, in may of this year, its was tree deuced to 480. this project has been reduced,

reduced, reduced. it's been five years now, okay. so, cost of construction goes up every day. this is a union job. second of all, you have the transbay plan that was approved by the planning department or the board of supervisors. it had buildings as high as 1,000 feet, 850 feet, 750 feet, you all approved those. they all created shadow. and yet shadow that we're talking about here at union square is 0.06, simple. the people who are here today who are opposing it, i thank you because i hear that they want to support the mexican museum and that's great. unless they got $36 million if they collectively want to donate, [inaudible] for us to

get this museum built. thank you. >> thank you very much. is there any additional public comment on item number 4? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> colleagues, this matter is in the hands of the committee. supervisor kim. >> we did actually ask tiffany from the agency to respond. >> yes, that's correct. ms. bohe, and the project sponsor would like to respond after. >> thank you, supervisor, chair wiener, president chiu. in term of the review process for the financial feasibility as president chiu articulated, our role as the public agency, as the representative of the public agency, it review based on our own independent judgment, whatever information is brought forth by the developer and its consultants. mr. lippe did articulate correctly, the developer hired economic planning systems to do

a financial feasibility to analyze the project alternatives that were in the e-i-r. one of those project alternatives, 351-foot height, that's actually less than existing zoning. as confirmed by the planning department staff, existing zoning is 400 feet. then as the public agency, the successor agency, we engaged kaiser marsten associates to vet the assumptions and conclusions of the eps report which was sponsored by the developer. we came to the same conclusions. we vetted those assumptions and actually with permission from the committee to have mr. tim kelly from kaiser marston soresction to walk through the scope of his review. since that time he has looked at the sussman report which has been talked about by a number of the sponsors to walk through his independent review of the judgment and peer review of the workout there. >> you mom