mr. susesman's report and there is a lot in there but i want to focus on what was said last week by mr. kel and he he -- kelly and at the tower -- well, it turns out that eps's own report uses four comparables, not one and if you look at table four of the report it finds that the average price for those four comparables for condominiums in the time period they were sold is over $3 million. now the other problem with the statement -- i see i have 25 seconds left -- is that at at millennium tower none of the projects that he is referring to that are below 27 floors are below 2,000 square feet. they're all below that. if you look at the report you see 2,000 square feet and used

as a break point so condominium above that are much more valuable and that is one of the critical flaw the report to begin with -- >> thank you next speaker. >> good afternoon supervisors. i want to thank supervisor david chiu has worked very hard over the weekend to bridge the gap. we're 25 feet apart and you're going to say what's the big deal of 25 feet? and i am telling you it's a very, very big deal. first of all i want to remind you if you look at the area there is nothing over 400 feet and this particular building which is going to be over 500 square feet is on the tiny floor plate of 10,000 square feet, half of the size of any building around there we think it's out

of place. we also think that the developer has a lot of room to go. you have heard from our lawyer. you have heard from various studies that we have done. he's going to make a tremendous profit. and 25 feet is not very much to ask for. it will be a real shame if we cannot compromise. i know you have said supervisor kim you're supporting this because of a policy decision. supported everything over 600 square feet -- or high rise buildings, top of market but i want to remind you there is nothing in that area. you're not going to support a 500 square foot building next to the ballpark for instance. you have to look at the surrounding area, but we are trying to compromise on this and we worked very hard to do this. it's a real shame if we

cannot compromise. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> hi thank you supervisors. i too wanted to echo what joe said. i wanted to thank supervisor chiu who has really worked hard to bring parties together and i know everybody's trying to jockey for position here and i just want to say that i too feel it would be a shame not to able to settle this. litigation usually takes on a form of its own. the ballot measure once it's in the hands of the ballot committee will take on a form of its own, and you know sometimes compromises that might be available today may not be available a week or two or even a month from now, so you've heard enough about how the litigation is going. i know we don't have to convince you

we're serious and we're going to do this. i am just hoping that either the project sponsor or this commission or the commission tomorrow will find the wisdom to do whatever is within their power, so that this doesn't go forward in a negative manner. i mean this is such a great city and this is a great project, but like joe said it does need to be done with the community at hand, and it needs to fit in the community and preserve our resources, so thank you very much. >> thank you and i also have a card from rick smith. come on up. >> good evening chair wiener and supervisors kim and chiu. i am margo braidish. on behalf of melynnium partners i would like to clarify our position with respect to the height of the project. given the substantial

public benefit package totaling $118 million of which approximately 15 to $20 million is adding as a result this process and was not considered in the feasibility analysis that you have seen. 480 feet is currently the minimum height that is agreed to in the package before you. as you know the project has been reduced in height from several times from over 600 feet to 550 and the current 480. at the same time there are many benefits and provide the benefits agreed to in the purchase agreement recently approved by the successor agency and the oversight board today and these include commitments with the department of finance which will have to approve this transaction pursuant to the

redevelopment law and the preliminarily basis for the project that we have received from the department of finance. millennium stands behind the package in the approved purchase agreement especially the commitment to provide a world class home for the mexican museum. we urge you to move the project today as proposed at 480 feet. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> hello i am rick smith. i'm a resident on mission which is across the street from the project. i am support of the project and i am grateful for the coming of the mexican museum and also for the community benefits negotiated. in particular the pedestrian study, the pedestrian enhancements and the care for additional open space. with that said thank you president chiu and the parties to continue to talk about this as i also care for my neighbors

in the four season and really want an agreement can come to so we can move forward with this project. thank you. >> is there any additional public comment on item number eight? seeing none public comment is closed. mr. ram, can you comment on some of the issues that we've heard today? >> thank you supervisors. i just wanted to clarify that the issue of the height in the district and frankly why the planning department supported the height that you have in front of you today. the three -- the two existing towers on this block are above 400 feet and the marriott and the four seasons are above -- i'm sorry? >> i thought it was at 397. >> the information was at 420 or something. >> (inaudible).

>> 430. maybe that's the difference of the height and the zone height limit with the mechanicals but i wanted to point out there is some discussion about this height being out of character with the overall skyline and we worked with the developer on the issue in the past and it is true that the original proposal was over 600 feet and we weren't comfortable with that because we feel it's important to maintain the urban design and stepping up to the heart of the skyline and that's what this height does and it steps up here and thousand feet at the transit center so again all of the heights are -- this height limit we believe is keeping with the overall design character and the heights in the immediate vicinity of this building. thank you. >> thank you. okay colleagues the item is in the hands of the committee. >> so colleagues given what i suggested before let me suggest

a couple of approaches. if it were up to me i would love to send this out at the 425-foot mark which is between where the two parties are and i am happy to support that with recommendation. assuming you're not comfortable with that send it out without recommendation today and encourage the parties between the next 24 hours to have a clean resolution. both parties are moved and at this point 25 feet a clean resolution of years of litigation and continued controversy over this project. now if there is no resolution by the time we need to vote tomorrow at the board and if we're forced to decide this up or down i don't know at this moment how i will vote, but again i am eternally hopeful. >> and my understanding is we have to put this out with recommendation given we have

appeal -- >> without recommendation. >> without recommendation. >> yeah. >> because we have appeal from the historic preservation commission that will be heard tomorrow and if we put it out it's without recommendation. is that correct? >> no. you could put it out with recommendation or without recommendation. >> oh i'm sorry. >> that's our advice. when a ceqa appeal is pending but not other land use appeals. >> okay. so this appeal is not a due process appeal? can you explain a little bit? >> sure. the reason for the advice on ceqa appeals is -- has nothing to do with due process issue. it's whether the board can take approval actions during the appeal process. >> and for the appeal and due process appeal so we have to do it without recommendation. >> on cu appeals and other

appeal there is is not a prohibition on the board -- on the committee moving with or without recommendation. >> okay thank you for that correction. supervisor kim. >> thank you. i wanted to clarify so i have an understanding where we're at and president chiu you said 25 feet difference but i thought i heard they're at 480. >> right now it's at 480 but according to mr. jeffreys there was a willingness in the conversations in the last days to consider 450. i would put it out that was the conversation. >> perhaps the project sponsor can clarify. >> thank you supervisors and i apologize that mr. jeffreys isn't able to be here but i am authorized to speak on his behalf and spoke with him this afternoon. currently myelin i

-- millennium is at 480 and we're not prepared to have that conversation today. >> i appreciate that and the conversations i had with mr. jeffreys i thought he was prepared or open to 450 feet and i am letting colleagues know the state and how truly close. >> and with participating as a participant and want to be mediator as the board of supervisors unless there is a resolution i would typically not -- even if someone were to say i'm open to that i wouldn't take that as their position or agreement to reduce the height unless there were an agreement and part of that agreement of course is dropping some of the

talk about a ballot measure so if there isn't an agreement i am hesitant to start chopping height off. >> i appreciate that and i talk to the parties and where they are and the difference is 25 feet and both parties understood i would be making that representation so i wanted to explain that to colleagues. >> supervisor kim, how would you like to proceed? >>i would like to proceed by moving this out of committee. to get it out of committee unanimously we do that without recommendation i am forward moving forward with that recommendation. i wanted to clarify my statement about heights. heights has not been the strongest consideration i have made in regard to developments in the district. it's a district that has a lot of height in comparison to the

rest of the city but what is important is that we mitigate for the height and density and in this project it's comparable to the heights that we approved last year for the transit district plan and ranging from 600 to thousand feet and the 600 feet is across the street from 706 mission street. as long as we do the best to mitigate for the additional density and there was a difference in 706 mission street and prior and they agreed to pay into a open space fee and mitigate for the additional shadows in the park and they agreed to pay into the fee structure as well so on a policy level for me it doesn't make sense to vote against this project yet last year support the transit center plans and i wanted to clarify that statement

and one thing because i am been accused of being too friendly or not friendly to developers and i want to be consistent in a district that has so much development and important as we move forward and as much consistency i can provide as a decision maker and policy maker is incredibly important so i will make that motion to move forward without recommendation tomorrow. i strongly think that dialogue is never a bad thing. i know many of us on the board want to avoid a ballot measure coming to the city in the upcoming years just regarding development, and i am curious to hear how a reduction of height will certainly impact that if it doesn't come below the height of the four seasons but i am sure i will hear from our constituents. thank you. >> president chiu. >> if i could make one comment on that and i will be

supporting moving this out without recommendation. as i said at the last meeting because proposition k over the years from my perspective hasn't been followed and the value embedded in it i have parks in my district that are shadowed 37, 39, 52% and i know that every additional height that adds incremental shadow in by itself may not appear to be that much but i believe it's important to be vigilant for this and the open space fee that supervisor kim mention side a portion of the community benefits and doing a bask the envelope calculation and 1% of the benefits we're talking about and i am not aware although i am happy to have a conversation with the developer whether there is something targeted to my district and union square given the shadows and i know they're on going conversations and i wanted to explain to folks why there is

important aspect of the policy and i hope that we can resolve this matter cleanly opposed to this playing out in the public sphere or the courts. >> so i support this project and i was obviously it's always good to have a resolution. it doesn't look like we're there. if we get there that's great but i think this is a good project for a variety of reasons. i came into this not entirely sure for a variety of reasons based on a number of things i heard. i did take a look at the shadow issues. as i understand it the shadow impact on union square is dimin mis. we have a process around shadows and the rec and planning and park commission had the required meeting and they considered it. i don't think that the shadowing of union square is really frankly the

issue here, and i believe that the trans bay tower is significantly more -- or has more shadow impact than this project. correct me if i am wrong, and i don't see that as a reason not to support this project. i agree there comes a point where a project can have pretty significant shadow impacts and that's something that we should be concerned about. i don't think that's this project. i am happy to move this project with or without recommendation. supervisor kim i am happy to defer to you whenever you would prefer given it's in your district. >> thank you. i plan on supporting this project but i'm happy to move this without recommendation so we have unanimous support for the board tomorrow. >> okay. so the motion is move it without committee without recommendation. is there is no additional discussion

colleagues can we take that -- >> as a committee report. >> thank you. and the motion is move without recommendation as a committee report. can we take that without objection? so ordered. madam clerk, can you please call number nine? >> item nine is ordinance revising the code for the yellow pages distribution pilot program. >> president chiu you are the sponsor of this long and winding legislative process. >> thank you colleagues. i appreciate your consideration of this ordinance. as you recall a few years ago i sponsored an ordinance and i appreciate your support of this, to limit the unwanted distribution of yellow page phone books in san francisco. as you remember at that time we based the ordinance on a seattle ordinance that had been supported by federal

district court case. since we passed the ordinance unfortunately the ninth circuit passed a case that uses logic similar to the citizen's united logic in attributing corporate first amendment rights and free speech to companies. obviously i disagree with that opinion but it's a controlling nineth district opinion and i am asking for your support. >> i am happy to support this two years ago when it came before us and once again -- what is it? twice a year and you see piles and piles of yellow pages in front of every building in my district and i know throughout

the city. i know the folks hold me it's like a dump truck and pores thousands of the books there and they should be able for people who want them, but just the dumping of yellow pages that happens throughout the city it's hostile to the environment. it's bad for our recycling system and i just -- i strongly disagree with the thinking that this type of pub occasion is deserving of what the court says protections and the court has done this to the speech and it is what it is. we are still bound by the laws interpreted by the courts so i am reluctantly

supporting this. supervisor kim. >>i want to concur for the supervisor and thank president chiu for your leadership on the issue. i know it's a long and arduous process and i am a supporter of prohibiting -- or having opt in program for the yellow pages distribution pilot program and confer with many of the things that were said. i am sorry we are not appealing this and the legal implications of keeping on the book and i want to thank president chiu. it was a lot of work. >> okay. any additional -- >> just a couple of comments. i want to make it clear the ninth circuit didn't strike down our ordinance but we were advised to go this way and we're moving this forward the same week as thousands of books have hit our door steps. as i said before if you pile up the books every

year it equals three pyramids and incredibly environmental waste and incredible cost for the city and discarding the yellow page phone books and there are smarter and environmental ways to do it. with it said the ninth circuit has spoken and we will proceed. >> thank you. any public comment on item number nine? mr. brooks. >> good afternoon supervisors. eric brooks san francisco green party andow city. i just want to make sure we put forward our thanks to supervisor chiu for doing this in the first place and as soon as you're ready to fight this again we will your back again. there are lots of us in the environmental and neighborhood communities are are ready to g don't be shy and let's fight this to the best extent that we can. >> is there any additional public comment on item nine?

seeing none public comment is closed. is there a motion to forward this with recommendation to the full board as a committee report? >> so moved. >> without objection? that the order. madam clerk can you please call item 10? >> item 10 is for the administrative code for the environmental review officer and determination of exempt modification. doesn't require a new decision under ceqa. >> supervisor kim you are the author of item number 10. >> thank you. so we're coming to the end of a very long ceqa journey that was initiated by supervisor wiener. this is the last piece of what i believe is a compromise resolution in terms of reforming how we put in place deadlines for exemptions and negdecks by the local ceqa process, so this is the final piece that our office had introduced in may that allows members of the public to both

present information and speak publicly about a redetermination of a ceqa exemption so this is a case where a project is referred to and the planning department and props by dbi or another agency state thrg is a modification to the project and asking whether that fits within the current exemption or whether a new one must be issued. members of the public were concerned at the time because there wasn't a clear definition of what a modification to a project was. since then we add language to say what it is which is great and members of the public would like a public arena and present information and for a determination if it fits under the same exemption so this is the language that we had in the

original legislation and amended through president chiu and the community advocates in a long discussion and we did support those amendments and i understand that supervisor wiener is making additional amendments on top of that contributing to this compromised resolution. i just wanted to support they want side this with 6-1 vote. the planning commission had a smaller commission unfortunately and they put this out with a three-two vote. >> okay. thank you supervisor kim. i will just say first of all definitely good to be nearing the end of our long journey with ceqa, and i was really thrilled that last tuesday the board unanimously passed the legislation that i authored and we have been working on for over a year with extraordinary and productive

public process. i think we ended with a good result and i was particularly happy that the heart of that legislation, the most important part, setting a clear deadline, specifically triggered by the encompassing the approval of the project and in the legislation on the day i introduces today and it was in the legislation as passed by the board. it was a huge be victory for public process. in terms of the trailing legislation although i have -- i don't think it's particularly necessary. i think that we have a system of modifications where the ero makes a determination whether one is required and i do believe that the planning department's recommendations are appropriate. i am willing to support this

legislation with a few amendments, and i'm willing to support it because i believe it will -- although it will allow people to ask the reo to reconsider and articulate a rational for the determination of modifications and not a new categorical exemption the way this is structured it will not provide opponents with the opportunity to delay projects by filing an appeal for every modification and we know even in a smaller project you can end up having quite a few modifications. if you had a project opponent able to appeal and use every modification as a ground to stop and delay the project that would be very problematic and frankly make

our ceqa appeal process worse than the one we have today so i am willing to support this as a solution to the ceqa dispute that we had, and i do want to briefly outline the three amendments that i have -- i am proposing, all of which are consistent what was intend by the author. the first is be explicit that the filing of the environmental review officer's determination that a project modification does not occur, will not in any way delay the permitting activity of a project. i understand from supervisor kim's office and also from folks in the public supporting this legislation that that is the intent that it will not delay projects and the amendment makes that explicit.

another makes it explicit there are no further appeals if the ero affirms her previous determination that the modification doesn't do that and that appeal determination by the ero is not further appealable and finally clarifying that the environmental review officer referencing the section of the administrative code that defines what the ero is, who the ero is and that is administrative code section 31 .05 and including the subsections so those are the three amendments i am proposing colleagues. supervisor kim. >> thank you, and so we did agree we did not intend for project approval to not move forward and we believe the legislation didn't do that but