learn about it seen and i know the faa is about commercial travel and not buzzing over your district. as one san franciscan described it the drone of the banner towing planes is a motor scooter on steroids. that's the noise pollution we're getting out of it and the visual is the outline and you will memorize it and four times san diegans said new. >> >> >> san franians have said no four times and because of america's cup this has come to the forward. >> thank you supervisors. i want to congratulate president chiu on your engagement and best wishes to you and i want to thank supervisor avalos for this. it's a chance for san

francisco to be a leader on this and i googled this and there is communities in louisiana talking about this issue and us to lead on this and take control of the air space and i know we are happy to provide whatever assistance we can to go through the process. you probably heard about the case the ninth circuit and the bioreform versus the city and county of honolulu and finding this ordinance was not preempted by federal law and air space is not traditionally devoted to advertisement and it's a regulated area so it's not the public square. banner towing is not public speech and with the first amendment and this is viewpoint neutral. even

though the plaintiff was abortion organization and this is neutral and you have specific tourism interest in this as well and it minimizes traffic distractions as well and the kiosks and the distractions and we are happy to provide assistance. i want to read a statement from catherine howard from the park alliance. they support this legislation as well especially because flights over golden gate park and ocean beach and there are other parts connected. in san francisco beautiful we are happy to work with and you neighborhoods with this opportunity. thank you. >> thank you. ms. rogers. >> hi alice rogers again from south park and i want to thank

supervisor kim once again for realizing this is also a neighborhood issue and not just a large corporate sporting event issue. we have spent years on the phone with the faa dealing with this issue and and linked with the america's cup, so we really appreciate the efforts of supervisor kim to make this a full time legislation. we would love it if there is a way to make it work out for the small businesses that are towing the banners. it's really the noise pollution that i've heard that the neighborhood is objecting to. one of our residents in mission bay who is

significantly affected has tried working directly with the people who are flying to try to work out different flight patterns, so they're not circling in a small tight circle, so anything that we can do for a win-win is great but we appreciate your work on this. >> thank you. is there any decial public comment on item number seven? seeing none public comment is closed. supervisor kim. >> i just wanted to say that our office is continuing our commitment to working on this and there are a number of legal complications we want to make sure we are thoroughly vetting and hopefully we will have a dialogue with the attorneys on this and the faa and we recognize it's important and other parts of san francisco as well and the noise and air pollution and of course the visual distraction to the pedestrians and bike iftds and

drivers and just a personal story on saturday i saw two planes carrying towing banners and i was curious what they were advertising for and both liquor and vodka and whiskey and questions the advertisements we're getting across our beautiful skyline and i want to make the motion to amend with the new findings that the city attorney articulated and on page three through four. >> can we take that amendment without objection? >> sure. >> the amendment is amended. >> and the motion to continue until next week. >> for one week. that is the order. madam clerk can will please call item eight. >> item eight is ordinance for the code to create the yerba buena center located at 706 mission street and mexican museum and residential tower project. >> thank you. we continued

this one week to provide the parties the opportunity to speak. today we do have staff here available for any questions. i don't think we have a formal presentation. that was provided lasted week. president chiu. >> thank you colleagues and first of all i want to thank the indulgence of the committee and the parties and my suggestion that we take a week to bridge the gap between the developer and the opponents and i asked both sides to come to the table to consider what i think is a reasonable compromise. as we know the remaining issue is the height of the building and impact shadows and parks and union square that are protected under proposition k and as you remember colleagues the difference was 130 feet and between the size by the project

proponents and by the project sponsor. again i want to thank both parties meeting this week and with me and let melee out the good news. the difference is no longer 130 feet. from my perspective it's 25 feet. i just want to give a little bit how we get to 25 feet. the proponents went up to 370. the project sponsor came down to 450 and the proponents agreed to 400 and yesterday i asked the two parties to consider a middle point of 425. the proponents were considered to that but the project sponsor is still at 450 so we still have a 25-foot difference between the two parties. as i said last week i don't think years of litigation on these questions are productive or a ballot box war is productive. i join people in the community that want to

build the mexican museum and as i told supporters i am concerned that we will spend too much time fighting about measure and years in litigation so that's how i see things from my perspective. colleagues again i am happy to hear other perspective but i am hoping between today and tomorrow or if we give more time we can get to a better place. it would be a shame if we can't solve this and i'm the external oft -- optimists and that's how i see it and i want to thank everyone and leave it there as now. >> if there are no additional comments i will open it up for

public comment. [calling speaker names] >> good afternoon. i am representing the market association and the friends of yerba buena and i will pick up where i left off and the economists they hired from ucla business school and eps on and kma [inaudible] associates, the two economists that have opined that that alternative is not feasible and want to give you copies of the rebuttal letter to the two reports i received last monday during the hearing and the rebuttal to the original report and the kma rebuttal to 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