called holy stitch and i have pop up shops on 6th street and notice a big difference in being closer on the different sides of market street. i lend my support to this and my business manufacturers jeans and teaches kids how to retail them and seeing the formula retail stores it lends a benefit to my business via foot traffic, different variety of customers, sourcing, seeing what is new, all different things. i think one creative solution is maybe part of the restrictions for them would be -- at least in my eyes more collaboration with the local artists, brands, something of the sorts where there is more of a connection, and then they can be advocates and be on the pulse of the community therefore gaining the trust of the people and the participants of the

community and people like myself would have a shoe in and greater opportunity also. thank you for your time. >> thank you very much. is there any additional public comment on item number six? seeing none public comment is closed. supervisor kim. >> thank you. so i did want to make a motion to amend this legislation as under lined on page four. i think the intent is clear and if there are any changes from the attorney and quality as a result the effective date of this. >> >> resolution any establishment of formula retail and financial services, french finance services, restaurants, limited restaurantingses or pharmacies and facing with egress or in aggress on market street and 6th street to van ness avenue is subject to conditional use

authorization so i will make that motion. >> i move to support that. >> okay. without objection -- >> may i? >> sor. >> may i after conferring with planning staff instead -- just to make sure this is what the committee wants. if it read "as of the effective date of the resolution any establishment of formula retail establishments with frontage on market street within 6th street to van ness avenue that is a, b, c, d, or e and subject to a conditional use." does that fit with what the committee is -- with your intent and stay with the planning department's understanding? >> and frontage means visual frontage? yeah. okay. that works. yes. thank you. and i do want to thank -- >> so the amendment will remain

the same? >> the amendment as our city attorney as delineated. >> okay. so that's the motion then and can we take the amendment without objections? okay. it's adopted. >> i want to thank everyone that came out and great to have a diverse group as we explore market retail with planning. it's a new area as we go into the district and i want to recognize some of the nervousness that some of the business owners have and i appreciate their trust working with our office as we move forward. i think our residents want to see a unique neighborhood continue to grow as resident and workers move in and i think this is a net positive for san franciscans and i generally see this is the type of businesses that san franciscan want to shop and contribute their hard working dollars too, and second i want

to reiterate one of the comments by one of the residents she is interesting seeing us explore this throughout the area and south beach and mission bay area. i know a lot of the residents think they don't have unique amenities and similar to haight and valencia and see that along king street and mission bay as well and look forward to studying that with the planning department as well. >> okay. if there is no further discussion do we have a motion to forward this to the board with positive recommendations? okay. without objection that is the order. madam clerk can you please call item seven. >> item seven is ordinance amending the police code to prohibit aircraft, self-propelled, or buoyant objects and air space over the city and county of san francisco. >> and supervisor kim you are the lead sponsor of item seven. >> thank you. again a very

interesting land use agenda. the duplication of this item really came from supervisor john avalos that really also from the fact that our office fielded complaints about these noise and visual nusansz in the south beach, rincon hill neighborhoods around giant's stadium and how we can ban these activities around the city. i know this was originally for a ban above the air space for the america's cup and that authority and raised concern from our office and well can we expand this beyond the america's cup event when we fielded so many emails and calls of concern boo the nuisance and visual distraction and with

drivers and bicyclists and the pollution by the advertisers and to protect the distinctive appearance of the city so i have actually passed out also amendments to this legislation which i would like to make today and it's really just on the findings as brought forward to us by the city attorney's office changing the findings that we had introduced last week and then i will be making a request that we continue this item a week. the city attorney's office has spent a great deal of time reaching out to the faa to get clear guidance in terms of what the city and county of san francisco can do. they're kind of mixed outcomes of what we have seen when cities like honolulu and huntington beach have tried these restrictions

so we want an understanding and the office is interested in this legislation and banning the aerial signs in the city but we want to go about it in a way that is effective and right. >> okay. and i want to -- supervisor, i want to thank you for taking a method cal approach because in addition to -- i'm not a real fan of these aerial advertising but in addition to the federal law issues i think anytime you're effectively banning an industry it's important to really take it a bit slow and really be thoughtful about it and i appreciate you and your office are doing that. president chiu. >> thank you. because this item is in front of us i want to

echo supervisor wiener's comments and good to sit on it a week to deal with the federal rules and because of the similar thing with the america's cup and my understanding from the city attorney there is language we may want to substitute in tomorrow that is likely similar language for this measure to make sure that we deal with federal or ensure we're not caught up by federal preemption issues and i have draft language that i have prepared and plan to offer it tomorrow so i will quickly read it so colleagues that we know that we are walking into to state. in the exception section and 4902 and 4901 doesn't apply to a person of

valid certificate for this and covering our bases for the faa and i wanted to pension that and we. >> >> mention that and we will be talking about it tomorrow and next week. >> and it's a city wide exemption and for companies that got a waiver from the faa. we want to get a sense of the significant difference that will be and maintain status quo or give the city or county enforcement and jurisdiction over those that don't have the waiver and restricting aerial advertisement will be better than what we have currently and we will continue to explore this and our office reached out to the giants as well and there was concern they had their own faa

exempt yonz but they do not. they're not interested in one and in fact in the past they supported a buffer zone around ballparks nationally from aerial advertisements and so they will continue to explore this issue and be in discussions with our office as we move forward on this legislation, and we really look forward to continuing this conversation and dialogue with the public. we got a lot of emails and we encourage folks to reach out to us and give us individuals. >> thank you. at this point why don't we proceed to public comment if there are no further comments or questions colleagues and i have three public comment. [calling speaker names] >> thank you very much supervisor kim and supervisor john af loss for taking this

issue up. i am from san francisco beautiful and just back from hawaii and no advertising there on public or private property, not even in the airport and of course the aerial billboards were a nuisance so that's been removed. i would like to encourage -- we are very pleased by the initiative and the energy going into this. we at san francisco beautiful will bring our constituents up to speed and do what we can to move it forward with force. we offer you the resources of scenic america that dealt with the ploys of the billboard industry which encapsulate a strategy of often litigation fatigue. even when you do it right expect to

be sued and i hope the city stands tough. i am not sure why huntington beach or manhattan beach relinquished but honolulu hung tough and if there is a jurisdiction issue we will 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