said it's best to fight on your feet. it is time for san francisco to have 24-hour secured diversity working. yes we can. >> are there any members of the public that wish to speak on behalf of the project sponsor in any language which you choose. okay. seeing none, why don't we hear back from our rebuttal by the appellant? >> thank you, president. tom again, one is that the public benefit being provided to the city is good for the city but they do not mitigate a significant i am mpact that

have a shadow in open square. only one of them shadow that. the adequacy of eir is before you. you have to find that the eir complies. what's happening here is interesting. the report is dated may 8th. 1 day after you deny the appeal and certify the eir, the source of the new information that there are in fact feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would reduce that significant impact of shadowing. you have to contend with the fact that you have an eir that ignore that issue, actually have that information withheld until the day after you certify. that's

why it's still before you. the e ir has not gone away. the building built in 1904 with two additions adjacent to it. that's not a slip of the tongue. that's common sense. that's how it's used in article 11. the planning department and the project sponsor have tried justify the hide of this building in terms of it's compatibility with the erinson building in the district by referring to other taller buildings in the area in the district. it is important to note that none of those were an approved subject to article 11 for different reasons. pacific telephone building has been there since 1925. it's a contributing resource to the district. the saint rejis was

built in 2004. so it didn't get approved under article 11. 33 new montgomery were approved in the early 80s. you are an approving a height that is higher than the predominant of this district and this building. finally it is interesting that kma, the last report i have gotten has attached to the letter. >> thank you, colleagues, any further comments or questions.

if not, this hearing is now closed and this matter is in the hands of the board. supervisor kim. >> thank you, i want to thank many of the members of the public who are here today. it's certainly always difficult for a supervisor when there is a disagreement amongst the resident in terms of a project that is being proposed before them. but representing a district with a lot of growth and a lot of developments, i think it's important to always look with the consistent lens when we approve or reject proposed projects. the sed for the project will be coming to us for a later part for the board meeting. specifically on the appeal of the major permit to alter, you know, many of you were here during the appeal of the ceqa or the document and i have a lot of concerns around

the adequate studies around traffic and shadow and open space or others, my concern is other spaces than others, my concern with working with the variety of agencies that we are really thinking about south of market where people truly live. a lot of the poets -- points in question that i ask in time is asking our city to be pro active how we build for this growth. that being said, we move forward with the eir as being adequate and i expect more for them to approve larger projects or our water front. within this appeal, one of it's, i'm really considering

hpc consideration around the erinson building and the major features of the conservation district. i believe hpc has done it's due diligence and will be making a motion to move forward item 48 and table item 49 and 50. >> we have a motion by supervisor kim, can we get a second? second by supervisor avalos. >> thank you, i want to thank all the members of the public that have been working on this issue for many many years. i want to take a moment to explain my own thinking about where things are. i happen to think that the issues involves in this appeal is quite a closed case. i know it's not a perspective from most of you. one of the charges that we are asked to make is whether there is a significant impact where we have analyzed all feasible

mitigation. the height of which the building would not shadow union square is 350 feet. the building proposed is 480 feet. i think you have heard that there is not a huge amount of shadow that will cast for about a half hour during certain parts of the year. proposition k was passed in the 1980s and since then we have seen shadows erode the quality of life in our parks. as a couple examples in herman and bow decker we have seen by the project sponsor zone 37 percent. in partner square, 39 percent of the available sunlight shadow. saint mary's 52 percent and 32

percent of union square is shadow. that's why i asked the partners to resolve their differences. i want to remind you colleagues for those who are not following land use. i think we came close to this matter. when discussions started about two weeks ago, the appellants in this case were at 350 feet, the project sponsor was at 480 feet, there was a gap about 130 feet that was attempted to be brinld. -- bridged. the two sides got close. the appellants were willing to consider a height that was 75 feet taller, the project sponsor was considering a height that was 35 feet shorter. they have come to 25

feet. we have decision in front of us on whether or not to cast the vote for the appeal. i plan to vote colleagues with the rest of thoun matter, but i want to state my vote is for the mexican museum. for an institution, i think all of us want to see built and all of us want to see done. but let me share my concerns, colleagues which is i think because we weren't able or haven't been able to bridge 25 feet, that is project that will be a subject of litigation because of this very appeal. this is a project that is likely to see at least over the next year a major ballot fight over shadows. that was something i was hoping to avoid. if we can't, so be it. i want to take a moment and explain the backdrop on this. i do think that both sides were

very genuine and wanting to see an end on this. unfortunately we are not there, i will be supporting the supervisor and her motion. i think i was a little bit optimistic and i do hope that maybe some day we can resolve the issues around the mexican museum. >> thank you, president chiu. >> supervisor campos? >> thank you mr. president. again, i want to thank all the parties that have been working on this project. it's also good to see former supervisor ma her in the building. i too have been hopeful and optimistic in seeing if it was possible for the parties here to come to an understanding that would address the concerns that have

been raised around shadows and still allow the project to move forward. i know that discussions have been had, i'm not sure exactly how different people would characterize where the discussions are at this point. i don't know if it's as close as maybe some of us hope it would be, but in any event, we are where we are and i think it's unfortunate that we have not been able to resolve those issues and we mayen up having to resolve these issues through litigation and a ballot measure. that's i think a very unfortunate thing. i don't know at this point that that's avoidable. that said. i want to say just make a couple of

points that go beyond the substance of this hearing even though i think it's very important here to that we look at these issues carefully and i will support the motion by the district supervisor and i appreciate the work that all parties have done to get to this point and this project and even those there is a difference of opinion with the appellant, i know i appreciate the fact that people are willing to sit down and try to find some common ground. that's greatly appreciated. i do want to say, though, that to the extent that we are on the verge of approving or at least having this mexican museum move forward. there is something very historic to that act and i can tell you that besides the specification of the issues before us on this appeal, it

has been a very difficult challenge for the community to move this project forward. i know that when i started on the board of supervisors and when supervisor avalos and a number of us started, this project, the project of building a mexican museum was really not something that seemed possible at the time. and i just want to take the opportunity to thank the dozens of people who have dedicated a lot of time over the years to making this project a reality who never really gave up on the idea that in san francisco, that started out as part of mexico that eventually a mexican museum would have a permanent presence and i think to those people, i want to thank them for never giving up on that dream because

at times, it really seemed like it was high in the sky. and so, the fact that we are here is because of the work of so many people. i want to thank the members of the community who have come out to speak, not only at this hearing, but at many many hearings. not only at the board of supervisors, but at the, you name it, the entity whether it's in city hall, outside city hall, and sacramento, people have had to come for many years to testify. i just want to acknowledge the historic nature of this vote and really thank people who have made it possible because at the end of the day, this mexican human -- museum, doesn't belong to anyone but the community. not just the latino community, but the

community that has the access to the amazing collection that this entity has been given. i think it's very exciting. thank you. >> thank you, colleagues, any additional discussion. let's take a roll call vote. >> avalos, aye, breed, aye, campos aye, chiu; aye, cohen aye, ferrel, aye, supervisor kim, aye, mar, aye, supervisor tang, aye, wiener aye, yee, aye. 11 ayes. >> motion is approved. >> colleagues why don't we jump to the related codes items that are attached to the yerba

buena center. item 66. it's an ordinance amending the planning code and zoning map to the yerba buena district locate on mission street. >> thank you, president chiu. this item was forwarded out of land use committee without a recommendation to give the parties to discuss the project as has come before us. we have not come to a negotiated compromise between two parties yet today. i will be supporting this project and this item and i want to go through briefly as to why i am. 706 mission as

many of you have heard many times will build approximately 198 residential units and a 35 thousand square foot museum. i know many folks on this board are supporting this project in particular because of the importance and the historic significance of finally bringing the mexican museum to the neighborhood. through redevelopment we have been able to build the museum of the african diaspora, the california historical society and the jewish contemporary museum and of course the museum of the modern art. these cultural institutions have been central to this neighborhood and it's amazing the turn around and change that's happened to the yerba buena redevelopment agency over the last couple of decades. we

would like to thank you for making the yerba buena neighborhood what it is. i just want to acknowledge both the alliance and the community benefits district in in efforts in moving this forward. south of market, it's definitely a neighborhood that is on the move and growing tremendous. i have a lot of concerns about the growth in the area. while i support the growth, i want to make sure we have the right mitigation and construction for this growth. i want to acknowledge who has been working with this office in finding ways to address the concerns that i have. height has never been a policy for me. if it is, i'm representing the wrong district. it's one that i'm supportive in the past as

long as they are considering what might come along with it. i'm not saying the structure is adequate. we have a lot of congestion, we have a need for more space. this district has the smallest parks in the city. i hope that the city agencies can continue to work together. i just want to note that through this project, that there is a number of things that will be happening. first they will be committing to a 20 percent off sight affordable housing fee. higher than the 20 percent fee that we require but something that is certainly important since it's a redevelopment area and one of the issues was to build more affordable housing. it will of course contribute to other fees that it would normally have to contribute to whether it's a downtown artwork fee and of

course the court she will shl -- shell of the mexican human. another portion on our debt with regards to the garage. this is an issue that is much more difficult to grasp, but it was something that the city built and we used tax increment in order to support the garage when the fees didn't meet the obligation that we had. this will allow the city to release this obligation, the developer will take that on and also pay $9.3 million back in tax increment in general fund and money we had previously allocated. i'm very excited and this is a very legitimate concern with the steven son street upgrade. i think it's a very legitimate concern. it's

very dangerous to drive out of that alleyway when you are coming out of the parking garage or third street. there is a lot of visual clutter when you are coming out to see oncoming traffic. we also want to make sure that there is really good flow on that alleyway. so the developer has committed to $5 million on improving that alleyway and hopefully we can work on a crosswalk as well. the developer has agreed to build a new crosswalk dependent on the pedestrian study that it is funding today. i'm excited to see the outcome of the that pedestrian study. 3rd street is the worst corridor. for those of you who know that area, know how intimidating that is. there is a lot of work we need to do this. on something that i

have often heard from e-mails and constituents, this is more traffic enforcement officers. this is something that has been difficult to commit to. the developer has agreed inform -- to fund a pilot program to the yerba buena to just issue traffic citations on this corridor. i hope it will change the behavior of drivers that come through our neighborhood. the developer is also committed to 706 mission stabilization fund to share on the profits of the housing sales south of market. it's '706 mission stabilization fund to share on the profits of the housing sales south of market. it's continues to change as we have more individual, we welcome and

recognize a lot of families and we must support they need. this future fund will go towards helping to continue to stabilize this neighborhood. last, a big consideration for me in terms of the heights, president, after we noted that 706 mission wasn't paying into the same fee structure as buildings across the street that got additional heights in the sight district plan from the developer has agreed to pay the same square footage that our towers just across the street within the transit center district plan of $1.6 million in a one time fund to our open space and district really need those revenues and dollars for our kids and seniors. i will be supporting this project as it moves forward. just two more things that i will say on the height

issue. last year, i actually struggled really hard with this issue. because i thought if with building came down. it would still be a big project for this city and we can still build a mexican museum along with it. it the height wasn't a huge consideration for me, when we considering much higher heights across the street, transbay towers, fremont. nobody came out to oppose that plan. in fact it was a plan that had noah appeal. many of us were shocked that nobody opposed that plan. for a policy maker it's difficult for me no to say that shadow is really

important. i agree we need to look at shadow and space. no one wants to be in a cold park, no one wants to be in a shaded park. i want to recognize that as policy makers we need to realize what shadow open spaces means. it's really important to support this plan and turn around and say that. the second is the policy measure. i think it's difficult to when making policy decisions. if that is the case, we have to decide whether we want warriors arena in this city. the other thing that i think is difficult to

consider and weigh the battle box measure is the community will never be able to afford to put this on the ballot. i know that many of the folks we work with could now threaten to put something on the ballot as well. we have to do the best that we can in putting an equal length in the development as we move forward. i want to recognize our four seasons hoa. i think they have really giving given us a lot of data and worked extremely hard to come to a place where we can be happy with where we are at. i really want to commit to improving the pedestrian experience in that area, something that i heard a lot at the h oa meetings and looking forward to working on the

alleyway anchored . supervisor campos?

>> i won't repeat what set. i agree with his comments and i will be supporting this project. despite the fact, once again we have a major project link to this board that will have significant transit impacts and will wear anything in terms of transit impacts these. it seems every few weeks

we have a another project moving to this board where there are few if any transact that impact fees being paid. i'm grabbed the pain a number of very important impact these portable housing and childcare and open space is all very important, but again, once again, transit impact fees are basically left off the table. as a reminder the transit impact development the most likely will not apply. to this project. because it is accommodation of residential and nonprofit development which of the two major exceptions to which you can drive one or more mack trucks. so, it is frustrating that this keeps happening. we feel like i'm a little bit done kyoto