mooi -- i'm a former member for the stra central market of the tenderloin. i just wanted to speak today to really encourage the expansion and renewal of the central market community benefit district. the cbd and central market has really championed the existing arts organization in the central market corridor and throughout the area below the central market corridor and taken a great leadership role in connecting south of market and central market together. despite the fact that up to this point there have not actually been a lot south of market included. we include the arts organization that are in the south of market. one of the important things about having all of these organizations in the central market area is that these organizations are going to be involved with the

community in providing social services and connecting folks who are in desperate need of something that brings this em into heart of the community. i encourage the expansion and renewal of the cbd. >> good afternoon supervisors, my name is susie. i'm here to represent the tenderloin benefit drink as -- district community. as three adjoining cbd's representing the larger central market neighborhood, we do work on a daily and monthly basis to discuss how we can help to improve the neighborhood in the name of safety beautification and also promoting the neighborhood to let folks to know all the wonderful things that are happening in the market neighborhood. i'm here to support and encourage your approval for the renewal and

expansion of the central market cbd. thank you. >> good morning president chiu, supervisors, my name is bill mahar and i have been involved in central market for decades back to elliota failed attempt to put bike racks on market street. in recent years it's begun to change. most cafes, hulk er berry bikes are shown entrepreneurs and bringing something to the neighborhood. similarly shoernstein companies

revitalization of the furniture mart, coupled with the trinity property of new housing are beginning to promise futures for the district. the areas residents are protected as is the residential buildings in the area. without jobs, it's not much of an existence. this is beginning provide opportunities for employment for people who live in that area. mid-market is also the largest district in the city and their needs must be brought to mind and addressed. for all these reasons, i urge you to support the expansion, renewal of the central market bid and finally, while the bid structure is a classic public private partnership model, it's so the really the collaboration between the areas businesses, residents and property owners. i urge you to encourage them to

work together and find their own interest and own destiny and support their efforts an conclusions. i hope to renew the expansion. >> thank you, i want to welcome you back as a former member of this body. good to see you. >> good afternoon president and supervisors. my name is william thatcher. i'm a property owner in the two cbd's both north and south market street. i have witnessed the improvements they have brought to the market area. there is more to be done and that is one reason to renew the expansion. i would like to take a moment to recognize the two guides that are here if they can stand up. [ applause ] they do a terrific job in the

area, both for resources for the homeless and -- they worked hard to help us out there. i'm also the chair of the steering committee for the expansion and board member of the cbd. i hope you will support andt renewal and expansion. and join me in approving that. i would also like to thank supervisor kim for her support and everybody else that has worked very hard to get this done. thanks. >> madam chair, mr. president, supervisors, north of market and resident and neighborhood activist. north of market is a neighborhood that is in both

district 3 and district 6. if my representative is here on this board is going to give a whitewash of this situation and be absolutely optimistic about the situation, well, i will be the one and maybe talk about what maybe a little bit more reality. you know if the situation at 7th and market, block of turk street and million -- mccalls and market, if the cbd is the answer to that is, i would like to know what the question is. the question is probably what the cbd is to do. maybe the 50s, the 60s and 70s, maybe the

post 80s argues, i guess i question that dichotomy and if there is some other methodology. if there is something missing here. i know the right to tax any entity is solely the right of the people. you cannot have taxation without the people an approving it. that's this process to some extent. thank you. i guess i support it, then. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> hi, my name is michael nolt e. also a former founder of tenderloin cbd and i have been involved in the formation and other cbd's in the district area. our organization has some

members here. we are in support, the alliance for better district 6 is in support of the expansion efforts of the central market cbd. we believe that they have done a lot in the last so many years that they have been operating and we like to see them do it for another 15. we have thoroughly looked at the plan. the plan we believe meets the needs of the community and yes, our residents will still be attending their meetings and telling them what the residents feel or needed in the community and we will still be part of the community and we just hope that everybody has been stake holders at their meetings and i think that's a great part about all of this process of getting the stake holders of the community together and try to agree with some sort of plan.

again, we hope it passes today because we want to have daniel have a good thing on his resume when he moves to los angeles. thanks. >> thank you. are there any other members in the public who wish to speak in support of the expanded cbd? let me ask if there are members who wish to oppose the expansion of the community benefits district? okay. if there is anyone else who wish to speak in public comment. le me propose that we close the hearing so we can begin to tabulate the results. i also want to acknowledge supervisor kim and the ballots are being tabulated. the public hearing has been closed but this item is still in front of

us. >> thank you, i want to acknowledge the work of our community and also i forgot mention our board member that are here today brian smith and president david, it's not just the services. it's the fact that this is a forum that brings the community neighborhood together. the form a lone will not bring the community together, but the businesses, that is the way to move forward. what i appreciate about the cbd and the concern is that they may serve one sector of our neighborhood. it's great to see that the cbd has been working with our seniors and tech companies. it's also great to have a conscientious of small business owners and someone who can make a lot more of this building and choosing to rent out to art

organizations and i just really appreciate that we have citizens such as that and of course all of our residents that volunteer with their time and also want to acknowledge the work that many of these made who have made an amazing enhancement of that neighborhood. >> supervisor avalos? >> thank you. i would like to chime in that there was a while back that i was a legislative aid and in 2007 we helped to establish the market district. i want to acknowledge and congratulations folks of the community to moving forward and moving on to adolescence or maturity for the cbd. one of the things that i was happy to hear is that there is still a high level of services for low income people that are part of

the cbd as part of the effort to make this community beautiful. i will look forward to voting in support of this. >> thank you, colleagues, are there any other comments? okay, with regard to the expansion, the department of elections will be tabulating results and we'll let people know when those results are in. with that madam clerk can be go back to item 33, 34. >> yes, mr. president, for the top way broadway benefit community district. the run weighted ballots was 56.6 percent with the return voting against district was 43.84 percent. indicating there was no majority protest. >> thank you, madam clerk.

colleagues given that there has not been a majority protest fieshlgsd -- filed, i would request we call the roll. this is something that i have been working or. particularly along the corridor for various businesses for what they have done and ask for your support on this. >> please call the roll. >> item 44, avalos, aye, breed aye, campos, aye, chiu, aye, supervisor cohen, aye, supervisor ferrel, aye, kim, aye, mar, aye, supervisor tang, aye, wiener, aye, yee, aye.

>> the resolution is adopted. as i said before, as soon as we get the results back for the central market cbd, we will announce them. madam clerk please call the final special items 47-50. >> the clerk: commission decision on a major permit to alter oh 706 mission street. as well as seismic up grades of the building. new construction. item 48 is the motion a firming to alter. item 49 motion to reversing the approval of the

historic preservation, item 50, motion directing the clerk of the board to prepare findings to reverse . >> a major permit is required to be demolition to a building or building in a conservation district which a permit is required. the hdc considers the design, texture, materials, color and other pertinent factors. section 1113 of the planning code detail these in related to considerations. for today's hearings we'll first hear from the appellants who have up to 10 minutes in total for grounds to their appeal. we'll take public comments on behalf of their discussions.

we'll hear from tenants following planning's presentation we'll hear from the project sponsor who will have 10 minutes to present and we'll hear from individuals who wish to speak on behalf of the sponsor and finally the appellants will have 3 minutes. if there are no objection to proceeding this way, let me ask supervisor kim if you have any opening remarks? without any remarks, let's go to the hearing. first to the appellants. >> thank you members of the board of supervisors. i represent the appellants in this appeal. i'm going to cease most of people time while i retail to look at the fees

ability with related to the ceqa finding. i want to make a point about the article 11 issues. you are being asked to consider that a building is being attached and to a conservation district where the predominate scale is 33 stories. think about that from a common sense standpoint. it doesn't make any sense and think about it more importantly from a policy stantd standpoint. you are being asked to nullify the scale of the zone 11 which is part of your zoning code. i will ask you not to do that because you will defeat a major article 11. this building is part of the process of destroying that character of

this conservation district. i want to give you one more letter to add to your stack which is a letter dated today and i'm going to turn it over for assessment >> good afternoon, board of supervisors, my name is eric assess man. i teach courses in finances and real estate and i work in real estate. i was retained to assess the eps report and the peer review that supported the project as proposed. i tell students in my mba classes that output model is as good as input. i tell them to make sure when there is assumptions when they play variables and how to numbers might change. i tell them the most important thing in any

model or fees ability is data, objective significant data. i tell them the data should be speaking for them as opposed to them speaking on behalf of the data. the eps reports violates a lot of these principal. they use flaws and some cases there is lack or omission of data and they cherry pick the data to result the outcomes and they have no sensitivity analyses. there is really' lack of consistency in alternatives. it critical when you look at alternatives to fees ability that you do apples comparison. i thought we would focus on the key variables which results on the output and conclusions. first is unit size. we have made a lot of the hey over the unit size. when you are building condominium size it's

tough to compare. it's going to be a 58 story tower. you build to maximize unit. any project is going to build larger units to maximize profit. i don't deny that it's the right square footage. in a high rise of 59 stories you can afford to have a mix of units or 47 strichls -- stories. you can have mixed units. the second is the right price per square foot. i was taught in from high school math, they are pull data from 1998 to 2013. for anyone to

argue that 1998 condominium prized data is relevant is absurd. we looked at a ton of data from 2001-2013 in all comparables. they made a lot in different resale and development resale. that's a really false comparison to me. if you look at the original developer sales they range from 1998 until the millennium sold out. the millennium one project was constructed in 2009. even though no sales, when you look at the 2009 sales is absurd. i would encourage you to look at my exit one. a picture tells a thousand words. the data is unequivocal, very probative and very powerful. the other last point i will make about the prices is they argue at the

peak of the market. which i laughed when i read that because if that's the case, why would they be selling units to the market. we base the value on the current market data. that's what you should do is the current market data. the data that i have even used is understated and conservative in prices that continue to increase. the third assumption has to do with the four plate size. the issue is is consistency. being consistent with the two alternatives with the project to propose, the two shadow alternatives, they themselves have agreed with me. the impact on the res dual value is $52 million. the project isn't feasible even with that $2 million adjustment. if you look at the other figures, suddenly it becomes feedable. ficht efficiency of design, any

project want to be efficient with the square feet as possible. that's common sense. modern high rises and developments are 80 percent. you talk to anybody who is doing construction in any urban environment they will tell you that 80 percent is the magic number. they use 76 percent, the impact is to reduce the shadow alternatives in feasible. they have cherry picked their data. finally the development return, they feel they need an 18 percent return. i feel it's an environment where construction loans are between 3 1/2 to 4 1/2 percent that they provide the information that requires a return. 15 percent is more than adequate given the risk of this project, urban airfield, san francisco, as tom said, use your common sense. we know this

is a relatively lower project when it comes to real estate ground developments. i would refer you to my last table 5 of my initial report where i run through the impact of all my change variables through the project residual. when you do that and look at those figures and even give the developer a return, the project for reduced shadow alternative is for $100 million. when you talk about a variable being high or low, when you look at the ultimate impact that the variability play with one another, this is a very profitable project when it reduced to shadow. i am sure if they were an approved if you an approved the 27 story building, they would still build it and they would make plenty of money and they would like to build it as high as they can. and i guess i will close with. again, they have made a lot out of my prices and

my unit sizes. i pulled the same data they did. if you look at their table 4 and look at the numbers they pulled out themselves in item of prices and as they relate to the size of units, my figures are lower than their report. >> colleagues, any questions to the appellant? >> okay, seeing none at this time let hear from members of the public who wish to speak in support of this appeal. any member of the public wish to speak in support of this appeal? okay. seeing none, let's go to the planning department who has 10 minutes for the grounds of the ch p's approving. if you can turn on your microphone. >> good afternoon, tim fry,

department staff. my comment are brief. that in sum the planning department recommends the board alter for 706 mission street. as you know this criteria, the commission uses article 11 and standards. these criteria are not predescriptive and they are meant to be in evaluate iv framework which many options can be weighed and many results can be chooed -- achieved to show compliance. it was in conform ance with the standards and an approved the project with conditions. to address just a couple of the appellants concerns in related to the addition, i want to clarify that while physically

and programally attached, the tower purpose is not considered to the height of the historic building. article 11 language to the appellants, this language is consistent with article 11 and the secretary of interior standards. they found in proposition with the project will be consistent with the standards and in location withous be located adjacent to the building to avoid historic materials that characterize the property. the tower will be located on a rear elevation that has already been modified by early or non-historic positions. they agreed with

this determination as the most logical position. finally to address the proposed height of the tour, there is nothing in the secretary of the standards or article 11 that dictate a specific height for a proposed tower. article 11 specifically acknowledges that there are a variety of heights in the district and article 11 goes further suggest that additional heights can be permitted above a street wall. the hc addresses to the tour and to the district and found the project to be in conformance. finally i wanted to mention if you do have any questions about the feasibility, kaiser is available to answer any questions. they were the peer reviewer of the study for the success or agency and they are also present to answer any questions. if you have any

specific questions about the projector our analysis, our machine of staff are also present to address those questions as well. >> supervisor kim? >> thank you, this question might be for mr. prior to. this is my first time on the board hearing an appeal of a meteorology -- major appeal to alter this building. >> deputy city attorney, marlena, the standards setforth in article 11 for determining whether to an pprove a major permit to alter, essentially the hcp and this body as an appellate body needs to look at whether or not the proposed new

construction and the changes that are being made to the building are compatible with the design and characteristics of both the erinson building and because this building is in the boundaries part of this building is in the boundaries within the conservation district and compatible with the major features and characteristics with the conservation district. more specifically, the project should be consistent with an appropriate for the effect using of the article 11 and that includes compliance with the interior standards which staff can provide more details in exactly how this come complies. this building is a category 1 significant building. the erinson building portion of the project. the procession has to be consistent with the architectural character of