remain in the same color or palette to be used in the same construction. set backs and pedestrian scale will also be referenced. many of the buildings have a try the apartheid, meaning a base and a capitol. the appendix encourages referencing that facade arrangement when evaluating contemporary structures. >> can you give us an example of buildings in the downtown areas that are in comparison to this? >> the first one coming to mind is one kearney. it's the old hmm bolt safety building. where the restaurant is located there. that is a 1984 building

by two additions. the other one by charles more from the $1984 building by two additions. the other one by charles more from the late 1960s. >> thank you, i also wanted to acknowledge that kma is here as well. they are the consultant for the success or agency. i want to let members of the board know also if they wanted to ask questions. there are three different analyze on the fiscal fees ability of this project. i just want to animal -- acknowledge that it's very heart to predict that there is different ranges. i wanted to

give the board an opportunity to ask questions if they like. >> thank you colleagues. any questions. i have a couple of questions that i would like from the planning department. we asked if there are civil mitigation nebs to reduce the significant impact of the project. one of the issues at the heart of this is around financial fees ability. more than any development projects in front of us that two sides of this issue has brought out a war of competing experts with regards to financial fees ability. if i can ask the planning department, both sides, i think have presented fairly compelling cases as to why they ought to be viewed correctly. i'm wondering how does the planning department think back and get two perspectives to get your own sense of things. you bring ib your own experts to assess this. if there are economic

assumptions made and both have some basis in reality, handout you do you go about evaluating whether certain price makes sense if there are certain valuations given that they are both relying on different sense of data. >> planning department staff. it's not up to us. it's up to the decision makers. they have peer review. my understanding is that it provides substantial evidence for the decision makers. >> then maybe my question is to redevelopment. we just received today some documents from the appellants challenging a lot of the economic assumptions that were laid out by the project sponsor. i'm wondering if there is a response from redevelopment, john, the issues that were raised in this july

23rd letter around what they are disputing. >> office of community investment and infrastructure. to that point as miss dwyer indicated, the success or agency acted in their prieptary capacity to setforth all the benefits as the project has proposed at 480 with a hole host of benefits from affordable housing pedestrian, safety improvements. preservations for the historic building. so in evaluating the term for that project, the staff did engage an independent consultant to help us in our analysis of that. we did engage

kaiser associates to peer review the data as data for private sponsor an their consultants. >> my understanding that you were looking at 450 height alternative that had slightly fewer community benefits but try to challenge height versus the community benefits that are part of the package in front of us. >> what the success or agency did was to evaluate the eir and the analysis determined that the only feasible alternatives was the project that was proposed. the less than existing zoning was reduced and determined not to be feasible. >> there wasn't animals at 425

feet or 25 feet. >> we reviewed the range of alternatives and as we heard both through public hearing at the board, all of the related public benefits that were a desire not only a board members but of the community or commission and negotiated that as part of the benefits. there was no sensitivity analysis to suggest what about this floor, what about the floor. our purchases agreement, does provide if the approvals today at the board are changed from what is before you, that there is a process where we meet an confer. the developers have indicated that at 480 feet all the benefits, that is the project that they can deliver, that is the agreement that was approved by our commission, the oversight board and now the state department of finances is

reviewing that. the bay down of the garage bonds and the payment of $18 million that would make the city hold for a bond issued a decade ago. that is the package of benefits that we have before us to the extent that those regulatory prools -- approvals today is a different project. >> i know it's been a lot of work. from my perspective what's challenging about this project is that how to balance on the one hand the impact of shadows on open space with other benefits to the community. those tradeoffs are often hard to make. i do understand that the package we have in front of us is a significant package of community benefits, but as we have discussed before i was hoping there my might be a little bit more sensitivity in terms of height what could we

get and a way to resolve this. it's likely that these issues an appealed will be resolved in court. >> i just want to clarify that the parking lot in particular how is that going to be classified as a community benefit when it's being used as the developer? >> jessie's square garage, a number of years ago, the redevelopment with the commission with the board at the time, the board of supervisors approval authorized the issuance of tax bonds by property tax. those hotel tax bonds that were issued by the redevelopment commission went to pay for the garage which is still owned by the success or agency and the mexican museum. at the time the board of

supervisors as part of it's agreement to allow the success or agency to issue those bonds. the city wanted to be made whole. there were four tax revenues for allowing those bonds to be issues. so the immediate if fiscal benefit to the city. those garage bonds are paid on obvious with -- off with this transaction. the payoff is $25 million. when the garage closes, the bonds are closed. we are no longer drawing on property tax again fund dollars to pay down that garage debt and there is an immediate one time benefit to the city and the other taxing

entities for that $18 million to be rekoupd today. it would only be recouped after the debt is paid down and that is about 20 years. with this transaction we pay down the garage debt plus the city made hole one time 20 years sooner . >> i understand that, but will be garage no longer be available to the public. single family -- my understanding is that there is a -- the paid value of the garage of the property is worth more than the garage is worth. there is a maximum of 1-1 parking that was approved as part of the planning approval. and in the

balance of those parking spaersz spaces are available to the general public. >> got it. i just wanted clarity on that. >> thank you colleagues, any other questions to city staff. seeing none. why don't we go to the real party in interest, the project sponsor. >> good afternoon, my name is margo breadish. given the extensive presentations and briefings that you have already received i will briefly address some of the legal issues in the appeal. we do have our full team here today including historic research and economic consultants here to answer questions if you have any. we won't be making a full project presentation today. the hpc

property granted to alter for the project on may 15. we request that you uphold that action. the hpc is the expert's body with authority to make decisions with regard to historic resources. it reflects significant experience related to historic resources. this appeal raises no issues. i will briefly address the two main categories in the appeal consistent with the article 11 and the adequacy of the ceqa approval findings. with respect to article 11, substantial evidence supports the determination that the project is consistent with article 11. first, the hpc properly determines the article does not result and does not violate

section 111.6. neither does the integration of the billion -- building with the tower render the tower in addition to the height of the building. second, hpc project determined the project is compatible in scale with the erinson building and the historic district. the eir also supports these conclusions as well as additional information provided by page and other historic resource experts in support of the eir. panel -- finally the project will achieve that purpose by rehabilitating the national register eligible erinson building. for all of these reasons, the hpc found the project to be consistent with

article 11. with respect to ceqa, substantial evidence support ceqa findings with respect to approval of the projects. first the hpc adopted with respect to historic resources. the project would not cause substantial adverse impact to the erinson building, that the project would not cause substantial impact on the building and to any significant cumulative historic issues. second, the hpc properly adopted findings regarding to the project. i want to clarify what we mean by cumulative shadow impact. the eri established that it would know impact this. however in

particular the transbay project, the eir concluded because they are in a similar area and shadow similar open spaces, not just union square but other public open spaces in the event of the area would have a cumulative impact in which the project would make a consideration contribution. the project would make that cumulative considerable contribution. in rejecting the two reduced height alternatives analyze in the eir, the hpc found that even these alternatives would have a contribution to shadow an open space generally. also not only on financial reasons but also

based on other policy factors including failure to provide the benefit package, substantially reducing the density in an area that the city has targeted the residential development and the benefit of the project. the financial fees ability is demonstrated by the reports and confirm that and as you know their here to answer any question. since the reports have been prepared, there have been an additional $15-20 million added without any reanalysis of fees ability of those alternatives. so those additional benefits would only further undermined the fees ability of those alternatives. to address supervisor chiu's question, i will point out that there are limits to economic

analysis of feasibility. there are a number of variables that simply cannot be qualified when these analysis are done including what the market will look like when the project comes to market and frankly the risk you heard about of the initiatives and litigation and the cost that those could add to the project. i think it would be somewhat of an exercise to try to decide the economic break point that it would determine. the law would provide where there are experts that disagree that it's within the discretion of the board to choose which is reliable. finally i would like to point out that there is no new information in relation to the eir and the draft eir including

the shadow in the shadow budget for union square or information provided identify any new or more severe impacts or more mitigation message measures that would require this. the removal for the hpc would be proper. with that i would close that you respectfully uphold the decision of the hpc and our team is here to answer any questions. thank you. >> colleagues, any questions to council? actually i had one question to ask you based on your comments in terms of fees ability and analysis. i do appreciate the fact that full sensitivity analysis is difficult because you can't predict the future. neither side can predict what economical barriers might affect you in the future. we

are being asked to determine that. while you say we can't take that to a full extreme, we have to make an estimated decision. how do you reconcile in those two perspectives, you say it's rough to find the limits on the other hand we have to make a decision? >> certainly, as a lawyer and approaching that question which might not be exactly with the way the board might. i would refer to the ceqa statute. there has to be identified a range. the document does not have to look at every conceivable operation to a project. in this context, the eir has addressed the alternatives and fees ability of those alternatives and soundly within discretion of

the board to choose the project to choose to prove an alternative. there is not in ceqa that says that you have to identify a break point. with the park commission in an approving ceqa finding for this project, did not base it solely on the fees ability which is a major part that they considered but there are policy reasons that were part of the reason for rejecting these alternatives and ceqa provides for that as well. it's not just based on financial fees ability but other quality factors. >> okay. colleagues any questions. why don't we hear from members of the public who wish to speak on the project sponsor. please lineup on the right hand side. let's hear from the first speaker. >> good evening supervisors,

john with the san francisco travel association and on behalf of the association, it is a pleasure to be here tonight to support the construction of one of the final components of what will complete the vision of creating a world class arts district one that can be enjoyed by residents and visitors alike. we know that cultural travelers make-up a significant segment of our visitors and contribute a great deal to our local economy. they spent $1.1 billion each year generate $1.78 million in local taxes. these include restaurants and

and local facilities including museum options we have. the proposed mexican museum will be a valuable addition to this broad range of cultural facilities, one that is different from other museums in the city. we hope that you will support the construction of the mexican museum and help finally committee the vision of creating the yerba buena cultural district. >> thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon supervisors. i'm here in support of the 706 mexican museum project. i very pleased the project includes this which is an asset to the neighborhood and with the proposed changes today facade is even a greater asset. finally with the historic buildings, it will be only a

figment of the imagination. this project will achieve that. so i strongly urge you to deny the atc appeal and let this project go forward. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> supervisor, i'm dwight long. thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on the proposed building. over the years our firm has had the pleasure to work with the architects on the historical projects of the city. after reviewing the erinson building, i can say that this is a great example of the way that the historic preservation process should work. to not only restore the historic beauty of the structure, but also to enable it's productive use far into the future. as you are all

probably aware, the erinson building is a quake survivor built in 1903 and we want it to continue. the development of this building of the terra cotta will be repaired and the large entry on mission will be reintroduced and elements such as the 1979 additions will be removed. and providing a new rooftop garden will greatly invigorate this corner. therefore i highly recommend your denial of this appeal of the hpc findings of the project. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, my name is eric broaders, born in san francisco. one of the things

that makes this city great is our historic buildings. i work in a building that had a historical upgrade 25 years ago. i feel that the upgrades for the erinson in the building does the same things which help reinvigorate. i support the appeal be denied. good afternoon, board and san francisco. my name is benjamin. i'm a city college san francisco city instructor born and raised here in san francisco in the mission district and graduate of uc hastings college of the law. in anticipation of this great san francisco mexican human finally being approved, i would love to share a story with you that

reflects san francisco's genius and growth. this past sunday here in san francisco in my cherry black 1966 lowrider. i cruised around a latino friend visiting from phoenix arizona. together we bumped salsa and oldies music while sharing these sounds. this man told me it would not be allowed in san francisco. latinos he told me live in fear. what a great day

it is, that i, a brown person, a latino from the mission district can greet you with courage here in our great city of san francisco. thank you for listening to our concerns. and i know you will favor a mexican museum here in international downtown san francisco where we can feel a pride of the constructions that we've been part of and also our own very place of art. thank you. always amor. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, i'm a former deputy director at the san francisco redevelopment agency, but more importantly the 17-year long director project director for yes, yerba buena

center. the benefits for the city of the 706 development are so many. it benefits the neighborhood including ways that it increase the vitality in the area, badly needed homes for san franciscans, economic benefit, preservation of the much discussed erinson building, complete the dream of the diversity of celebration of many cultures, art in this area. the mexican museum has been long been a building to share the finest collection of mexican art in the american with this neighborhood. adjacent buildings are similar in height, to saint rejis. i

thank you for your consideration and your favorable vote on this enormously important project. thank you. >> good afternoon president chiu and distinguished members and board of supervisors. my name is david de la tore. thank you for considering this and respectfully reject the appeal. today p many of our members support this district. your actions are critical to the success of our mission and object the first voice institution and to support the social benefit of our museum to the yerba buena arts district.

the mexican museum has worked long and hard with our partners with the city of san francisco to put the best project before you today. it is the culmination of many years of hard work. san francisco should be proud that in this community we have the largest collection of mexican, mexican american, chicano, latino and latin american art. we have over 14,000 objects of our collections. the fate of this collection is in the fate of your hands. your denial of appeal today and your approval will allow us to build a worthy home to draw millions to san francisco. this will not only advance the quality of life to the city but also add to the economic and sustain ability in san francisco. thank you for your support.