an even deal. >> thank you very much. >> supervisor breed. >> thank you. thank you, supervisor yee, for your questions and pointing out the particular situation. i think one of the challenges i've had as a former redevelopment agency commissioner is oftentimes we talk about good faith. we talk about good faith in hiring. we talk about good faith in terms of development. we talk about good faith in terms of being a good neighbor. but, again, there are no guarantees. the reason why i didn't support this particular item is because there isn't any guarantee. and i do understand the business side of thing as it relates to receiving a large lump sum up front and discounting that amount and instead of the annual revenues that are expected to receive and taxes from this particular property because uc is exempt from taxes, but the taxes are tied to the particular property. the reason why i didn't support

this is because we don't receive taxes from ucsf. and unfortunately we have a significant amount of work that we need to do, whether it be infrastructure at mission bay, whether it be transportation needs at mission bay, whether it be housing in mission bay and i do realize there are limits to where this funding can go. but i just think that they should be paying the entire amount up froth or paying the entire amount over the duration of the 30 years. i don't see why it should be discounted because the city is not collecting property taxes in any other instance from ucsf and in this particular case our one shot, our one chance at collecting some level of significant revenue is basically turned into a deal. i think they should pay the full amount and that's the reason why because there are no guarantees that they'll move out of the space. and the fact that that's even introduced in any way to make an argument is just -- i don't

support that argument because we can't force them to do that. i think over the years the agency has had a great relationship with ucsf and working with them in the mission bay. it's taken on, just really become this incredible neighborhood. but now transportation resources are being redirected from other neighborhoods that are further on the outskirts of san francisco in order to serve employees and residents of mission bay. no, i don't necessarily have the data, but clearly we have to make sure that we are serving the entire city of san francisco and i think that every who is doing the development throughout san francisco should have to pay to support an increase in transportation needs so that various communities don't suffer as a result of an increase in the population whether living or working in a particular neighborhood.

so, it's the main reason why i didn't support this project. i think as a good neighbor, as a good faith effort that ucsf should have given the entire amount, whether it's over the course of 30 years or it's within one lump sum. i think that that shows good faith, especially since they're not obligated to pay the city any taxes nor are they obligated to contribute to the infrastructure outside of what they need to do to build their buildings. and i think that's what my big heest issue is about. i did not support this item in committee and i don't plan to support it today at the board. ~ >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you, mr. president. so, i also had expressed concern similar to supervisor breed relating to the fact that ucsf is not paying any transit impact development fees on this project. colleagues, you'll recall i carried legislation a few years ago to close or start closing the >> aye.

gigantic loopholes in the tidf because we were seeing projects coming through because they were residential which has a blanket exemption or because they were nonprofit which has a blanket exemption and these projects with significant impacts were paying nothing in terms of transit impact development. we're willing to try again to fix that when the transit sustainability program comes back to the board after the eir is done. in the meantime i'm very skeptical about any project that comes forward that has been negotiated that does not include transit impact development fees because there are projects that require extensive negotiation and tidf can be negotiated for a budget city team. so, when i first saw this i was concerned about that and considered joining supervisor breed in not sub poderthing the project. as i learned more about why the

fees come forward the way they are, i am convinced that we really are not able to extract tidf from ucsf that, in fact, the only reason ucsf is paying the fees that it is paying, the $32 million in discounted net present value, is because ucsf stepped into the shoes of sales force and because these fees were effectively reported against the property. so, you know, i don't think that there was a way to get tidf from ucsf if i thought that we could. i would be insisting that we do, but i think this is a very unique situation and, so, i will be supporting the project. >> colleague, any additional questions? okay, i understand we need to take a roll call vote separately on items 21 and 22. so, on item 21 roll call vote, madam clerk.

>> supervisor yee? >> supervisor yee he? ~ yee? >> item 21 is to separate the project, correct? >> yes. >> i just want to make sure i'm voting on the right one. yes. >> yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. there are 11 ayes. >> the resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> and on 22, colleagues, can we take this item same house same call? >> roll call vote. >> roll call vote. aloe

>> on item 22, supervisor yee? >> aye. >> yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? >> no. >> breed no. supervisor campos? >> aye. >> he campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen? cohen no. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tackv aye. ~ tang aye? tang aye. supervisor wiener? >> no. >> supervisor wiener no. >> the item is a doddthv. [gavel] >> i think we need to call items 23 through 30. >> item 23 is a public hearing of persons interested in the march 24, 2013 decision of public works approving a personal tent i have map for subdivision located 38 mission street. item 24 is motion approving the decision of the department of public works and approving the tentative parcel map for a 4-lot subdivision located at 738 mission street, assessor's block no. 3706, lot no. 277;

making environmental findings and findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. item 25 is a motion to disapprove the department's decision and disapprove the tentative parcel map. and item 26 is a motion to prepare findings associated with the decision to reverse the approval. item 27 is a public hearing of persons interested in the decision of the department of public works dated april 28, 2014 approving a vesting tentative map located at 86-3rd street, 700 mission street, 706 mission street and 738 mission street. item 28 is a motion to approve department of public works decision to approve the vesting tentative map. item 29 is a motion to disapprove the department of public works decision and disapproving the vesting tentative map. and item 30 is a motion directing the clerk to prepare findings associated with the decision to reverse the approval. >> thank you. colleagues, we have in front of us today an appeal of the tentative map for the project at 738 mission street and the vesting tentative map for projects at [speaker not understood], 706 mission street and 738 mission street.

because these two appeals involve the same project, related transactions and the same appellants, i propose we consolidate the public hearings today. for this hearing we'll consider whether the tentative map for 738 mission street and the vesting tentative map for 86-3rd street, 700 mission, 706 mission, and 738 mission are consistent with the general plan or any specific plan that applies. as we usually do, we'll first hear from the appellants who will have up to 10 minutes to describe the grounds for the appeal. we'll then take public comment for individuals speaking on behalf of the appellant with each speaker having up to two minutes to present. we'll then hear from representatives of dpw and the planning department who will have 10 minutes to describe the grounds for their decision to approve the two maps, following the department's presentation we'll hear from the real parties in interest who will have up to two minutes to present. we'll then hear from individuals that wish to speak on behalf of the real parties and then the appellants will have up to three minutes for rebuttal. unless there are any questions why don't i recognize

supervisor kim as the district supervisor ~. >> thank you, president chiu. the items as articulated are the appeal of the tentative map for 706 and 7 39 mission. these map appeals are related of course to an item we are familiar with 706 mission and the mexican museum project. the project entitlements historic appeals and c-e-q-a appeals have already previously been heard by the board. this appeal relates to the subdivision map prepared by the department of public works. and i do watch to thank mr. storrs for the detailed report prior to the meeting. very helpful explaining how the subdivision is essential and novembering forward with the project as plaidction and why the decision worked the way they do on these various parcels. that being said i am looking forward to hearing from both parties on this appeal hearing. ~ moving forward >> with that, why don't we start now with a presentation by the appellant. good afternoon, members of

the board. i'm tom lippe, i represent the appellants. we are here now because the tentative subdivision maps, both the nonvesting ones, project 7 65 and the vesting map under project 79 70 were not approved last summer ~ when this board and other agencies of the city approved a whole bunch of approvals for the 706 mission street project. so, the planning zone agree on one point. those cited in support of this pa peel, the board has already seen. this board has an opportunity to make a different decision on a number of those issues. there are also a few new issues. first of all, the vesting map, you can't approve that unless the other map is approved first because the vesting map a tents to subdivide a parcel that doesn't exist yet. and that's in the previous number on the project number is 4, 79 69.

a second issue that's new is that if the e-i-r which is in litigation at this moment on the approval issue last summer is found to be inadequate under c-e-q-a, this neir that you would be basing the decision to approve these parcel maps would also be inadequate. they're kind of an ipso facto, if it didn't work there, it won't work here. now, the planning department assumes -- this is a third issue -- that your time period after certification by the e-i-r, the only issue is whether there is new information, changed circumstances, or a change in the project that would require a subsequent or supplemental e-i-r. and i disagree with that. even if it's true, i think there is such new information and i'll get to that. i do disagree with that. i think this board has an opportunity to reconsider the adequacy of this e-i-r under c-e-q-a at this time because this approval involves a vesting tentative map which could have been approval last

summer with the other ones. for whatever reason the project sponsor decided to delay it. and a vesting map that grants fundamental rights to develop. so, this e-i-r should be judged on its own merits at this time. rather than simply looking through the lens as section 21 16 of c-e-q-a looks at, where there has been a change in information or circumstances or in the project ~. now, the fourth issue is that even if -- the fourth issue i want to speak about today. even if that lens of section 21 116 applies, ~ or new circumstances, change in the project, changed information, there are new -- there is new information. that does trigger the need for a subsequent e-i-r. if you recall, this board certified the e-i-r on may 7 of 2013. on may 8th, one day later, the project sponsor came out with a

economic analysis of its project and the financial feasibility of the reduced shadow alternative that was done by its consultant eps. now, the reason this is relevant is because the project was found in the e-i-r to have a significant impact on shadow on union square. under c-e-q-a, that requires that you adopt all feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that would reduce that significant shadow impact on union square. so, this project was 5 20 feet when it was subject to the e-i-r certification. what the eps report said was the 5 20 feet if financially feasible, there is a positive project residual over and above the developer's profit and the reduced shadow 351 feet is now financially feasible. but what it did not do is pinpoint the place between 5 20

feet and 351 feet where you have a reduction in impact of shadow -- reduction of that significant shadow impact, but you still have financial feasibility. so, translated what that means is there is some height between those two numbers that is financially feasible and that reduces the shadow impact that was significant and, therefore, this board has an obligation to adopt that height. well, the project sponsor eventually reduced the height of 480 feet. but without any information suggesting that that's, in fact, the height that is the lowest height that's financially feasible and, therefore, this is new information after certification that require a subsequent e-i-r. i made this argument to you last july because at that point we were looking at other approvals and you did not agree at that time. i'm giving you the opportunity to reconsider your decision on the exact same information that was submitted by eps. now, the other piece of

information was the consultant that i hired, mr. eric sussman and he critiqued the eps report in great detail and found that it's deeply flawed. and what he found is the 351 reduced foot shadow alternative is financially feasible. whether it need to be reasonable, return on investment to the developer, it is significant reduction in the shadow impact on union square. and, therefore, it is a trigger for a subsequent e-i-r on the issue of what is the right height that will reduce the impact and still be financially feasible. now, the other consequence of those information is the board cannot make the finding required by c-e-q-a that you in fact have adopted all feasible mitigation or alternatives that

would substantially reduce this identified significant impact. thank you. >> colleagues, any questions to the appellant? let me ask if there are members of the public that wish to speak in support of the appellant? ♪ sometimes you start feeling lost and so city lowly then you'll find the mass is on your mind because you can't tell where you're at when you don't have a map sometimes you can only think of one thing and it brings though all the lines you'll find 'cow you can't tell where you're at without a city parcel map

♪ >> next speaker. tom gilberti. the president said a couple of -- like to say that this -- everything is on the table. and in this casey would like to see a planning commission that goes to somebody and say, we can't make enough money building 100 yards up in the sky in san francisco and, so, we need to go 200 feet higher in order to make money. i would like to see the planning commission say to that developer, since you can't make money at 350 feet, we don't think you should handle this job at all and go to the owner of the property and say, excuse me, we recommend that you find

a new developer and a new project all together. there are aspects of this city that is up for grabs, and greed is in the pocket of many. again, if they can't make money at 100 yard in the sky, million dollars condos, again, they might not be the right developer for the project. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. are there any other members of the public that wish to speak in support of the appellant? okay, seeing none at this point, why don't we now hear from -- oh, yes, you can speak, sir.

good afternoon. my maim [speaker not understood]. i am holocaust and world war ii survivor. i am 40 years in san francisco in united states. i have proclamation from mayor newsome, from mayor lee and board of supervisors. and what i wanted to tell, i wanted to tell that mayor lee, racist, fascist, anti-semitic. you evicted me on the street. i am 82 years old holocaust survivor, sleeping on the street and couldn't get affordable house because you don't do anything. i apply to many of you.

again, i say you are fascist, racist and anti semitic and board of supervisors, too. >> thank you. any other members of the public wishing to speak on behalf of the appellant? as i mentioned before, whoever is clapping please stop clapping. we have a rule in the chamber that we don't interrupt our proceedings against either applause or hissing. so, with that, any other members wish to speak in support of the appellant? at this time why don't we now go to dpw and planning. >> good afternoon, supervisors. bruce [speaker not understood], city ask county surveyor. i think most of you have seen the center here today, but the summation is this on december 4th, 2013 we received two subdivision applications from neighboring properties on mission street at the intersection with third. first subdivision applications

of four-unit air space parcel map proposed to divide assessor's block 3 76, [speaker not understood], 738 mission street. this property currently houses he the contemporary jewish museum and the jesse squared garage. subdivision would split lot 277 into four parcels. parcel a would be a portion lying below ground for an existing garage. parcel b would be the air space above the existing garage. parcel c would be the space above the jewish museum and parcel d would be the air space below the jewish museum. the subdivision is necessary to convey parcel a and b to the developer who submitted the second ably indication. second application would be project 797 0. second subdivision application, five-unit air space final map with up to 190 condominium units propose hees to subdivide parcel a and b from project 79

69 along with existing assessors block 3706 lot 93 and 275. lot 93 is currently a mid rise mixed use building at the corner of mission and third. lot 275 is a small parcel fronting stevenson street that provides access to the underground parking garage. the proposed five air space lots will provide the development new portionseses devoted to underground parking, new [speaker not understood] and other buildings proposed to house the mexican museum at the corner of mission and third. thank you. >> good afternoon, honorable president board chiu, members of the board. i'm annemarie rogers, planning department staff with kevin guy. you heard mr. store describe the subdivision that are under appeal today so i'll skip right to the underlying project which is much of the appellant's concern. so, this project was approved through a series of hearings in march through july of last year.

the project would rehabilitate the 10 story existing [speaker not understood] building [speaker not understood]. the two connected would contain up to 190 residential units, a museum space next to a museum and ground floor retail space. an e-i-r was prepared for the project. [speaker not understood] was certified by the commission last march 21st. three separate a meals of the certification were filed and this board upheld certification may 7. the subdivision mapping process is initiated, through you heard from dpw. next these applications are forwarded for the review. we look at the subject application, [speaker not understood], the general plan and the already approved entitlements. the planning staff also verified that the project was properly analyzed under c-e-q-a and for the e-i-r that was upheld by the board. the appellant argues the

subdivision does not comply with several aspects of the c-e-q-a and planning code. specifically they argue the tower portion of the project is not compatible and scale with the existing building. argument this violates [speaker not understood] however, the historic preservation permission [speaker not understood] on may 15th of last year. this approval found that this project is compatible with its context and is consistent with the code and the secretary of the interior standards. the hspc decision was then upheld, wasn't because it was appealed to the board of supervisors on july 23rd of 2013. next they argue it does not comply with the planning code controls for shadows on parks. on may 23rd last year, the commission as required by the code and in consultation with the rec and park commission, adopted findings with the shadow cast by the project on union square would not be

adverse to the use of the park. it should be noted the following certification of the e-i-r, the project was reduced again by [speaker not understood] from the initial proposal, further reducing shadows on this part. the appellant argues the project does not comply with planning code section 309 for the new development in the downtown district. it does not provide arguments for the lack of compliance. however, the planning commission did approve a downtown project authorization under the section on may 23rd of last year. and this 309 authorizations was also appealed to the board of appealed. the board of appeals also upheld this authorization on july 31st of last year. finally, the subdivisions were not properly analyzed under c-e-q-a. they argue several mitigation measures are not enforceable and a lower project would be [speaker not understood] with lesser impacts. as with other actions the e-i-r

was certified by the commission and the e-i-r was appealed. the board upheld the e-i-r and deemed its analysis and disclosure to be adequate including the mitigation measures. importantly, since this appeal, the planning department has received no new information that would alter the analysis or conclusion in the e-i-r. in addition, none of the arguments raised by the appellant are new. the appellant has sued the city and they are currently litigating their c-e-q-a claims in superior court. appellants argue the economic information presented in the eps report is proposed certification information that requires the production of supplemental or subsequent e-i-r. this is not the case. specifically, the appellants argue that after certification of the e-i-r, the project sponsor provided information that there were feasible alternatives, tower heights lower than alternative in the eir shorter than the project's

maximum analyzed 5 25-foot tower. in addition, the appellant says the city cannot make findings there are no feasible mitigation measures. the fact that the sponsor provided feasibility information after certification does not alter the analysis or conclusions in the certified e-i-r. for the purpose of c-e-q-a review, cumulative shadow impact determination was based on the project's considerable contribution to the significant and unavoidable cumulative shadow on all downtown park open spaces as identified in transit center district planning e-i-r and not in one particular park. finally, it is not the department's practice to include in the city's determination -- to include the determination of feasibility in an e-i-r. but rather instead we look at the merits of the project. here, when the board ultimately approved the project, it accepted the conclusions of this peer reviewed feasibility

report. the board previously rejected the economic arguments made by the appellants. in conclusion, the subdivision maps have been reviewed and deemed for consistency with prior entitlements, the general plan and the c-e-q-a documents. i should note that weill's response address he the appeal. the applicant submitted no new information [speaker not understood]. we're available for questions as is jim morales from ocii. >> colleagues, any questions to city staff? okay, at this time why don't we hear from the real party in interest. >> good afternoon, mr. president, members of the board. my name is margo bradish from [speaker not understood] on behalf of the applicant. i don't want to take up any of

your appreciate you time on this item this after. we defer to the very thorough presentation by staff. we concur with their recommendation and are available to answer any questions. ~ precious >> okay. let me ask if there are any members of the public who wish to speak in support of the real party in interest. if you folks could please line up on the right-hand side of the chamber so we don't have two lines. thank you. let's hear from the first speaker. good afternoon, president chiu and distinguished supervisors. my name is a.j. annapolis and we are all here today to urge you to continue to support the mexican museum mixed use residential and museum project. we also urge you to vote down the two appeals that have been brought by the four seasons residential association. the appeals are without merit.