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. the first division map enables the successor agency to transfer a parcel which conveys jesse square garage and mexican museum parcel to the project sponsor. this is a necessary step to enable the mexican museum become a reality. also, this is an action which you had already approvedment the appellants in our opinion are now trying to delay the project and actionses here today are without merit. as you just heard from your city staff the appeals do not raise a new issue not previously considered. it should be rejected by the city. this is a waste of your time and a waste of our time. please vote no on the a meal. we want to see the mexican museum built. thank you very much. [speaker not understood]. >> next speaker, please.

good afternoon, everybody. my name is juana [speaker not understood]. i am mexican and that is why i am here. i am [speaker not understood] to hear every time the mexican people or the mexican community wants to do something good, every time we can face people who are against us. and i think it's time to remind people who don't know or who don't want to remember that this land was part of mexico. and [speaker not understood] every time we want to do something for our community for good because you weren't always complaining about the latino community. so, [speaker not understood] because this will be part of the history. i am a grandmother. i want to teach my grand sons to love my country in the same

way that they love this country. and i am loving to this country. but i feel really fit with those people who are -- only six people trying to a peation? we are [speaker not understood] this for 30 years. guess what the last few years. coming, taking away, those are sick [speaker not understood]. please, ask the board members to [speaker not understood] this appeal because it's not right. why is everything that [speaker not understood] mexican. thank you. >> next speaker. good afternoon, board of supervisors. my name is pete gallegos. i'm here to support rejecting this appeal. i wish i could sing like walter. i don't know what else could be said about this thing. it's been brought to you a

million times. they started out with shadows that was proven that it wasn't a problem. then it was transportation. they said there what going to be clogging the streets. that was not to be the problem. then they got a low he point, they brought a bunch of seniorses and said seniors sanity walk the streets. they're grasping for thing that aren't there. now they're back again with another technicality. basically you have some folks who don't want this project. they have a lot of money. they keep paying an attorney to come up here and argue things that don't make sense. just please reject the appeal. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. good afternoon, district supervisors. president chiu. my name is rudy corpus. i'm the executive director of the violence prevention program here in san francisco. i'm here with some of my team,

united players. i'm born and raised in san francisco. our headquarters of up is down in the south of market district 6 with jane right there. i'm here to speak about cultural diversity, how important. i know you had some of the latino brothers come up to speak and sisters. you got a filipino right here. you got some blacks up here. it's important not only in our city, but in our county, the country and this world for cultural diversity. we are very supportive of the mexican museum. we want to see it to move forward as well the filipino museum to be built out here also. it's really important that we embrace that, embrace cultural diversity in this city. as you see here, it's not only about the diversity of different nationalities, but also the age limit. it's important that the mexican museum and the filipino museum

or any museum that teaches about our kid about cultural, you know, [speaker not understood] is super important. so, we want to make sure you guys support this, strongly support this. so, you know, not only for the diversity of our community, but for the kids. thank you. [speaker not understood]. >> thank you very much. next speaker. good afternoon, board of supervisors, president, [speaker not understood]. my name is [speaker not understood], district . i don't want to take it lightly, but it's funny. i mean, [speaker not understood], okay, something is wrong. they do it again.

remember the previous appearance? he said the culture is for people, like the roots of a tree. the question is what do we want to have? communities, especially minorities [speaker not understood] who are -- they don't see anything about the people, the culture. instead what they hear is [speaker not understood], discrimination. it's a way of life. i think we have to focus that even so, this is going to be profitable for the city, beneficial for the city. [speaker not understood] they have all the gain, values [speaker not understood], no question about that.

[speaker not understood] have an identity and roots where they came from, they feel bad who they are. i propose that that child is going to grow up to be a strong productive member of the community. so, please reject this appeal. [speaker not understood]. thank you. >> thank you. any other members of the public wish to speak in support of the project sponsor? sir, are you coming to speak? okay. seeing none, let us now go to the appellant for final rebuttal. >> thank you, members of the board. i have nothing to add to my previous comments. >> okay. colleagues, any questions to any of the parties involved in these appeals? seeing none at this time, this

hearing has been held and is filed. [gavel] >> the matter is in the hands of the board. supervisor campos. >> thank you, mr. chair. mr. president. i just want to take this opportunity to thank the members of the community that have come out time and time again to talk about the importance of this project. i also appreciate not only the members of the mexican-american latino community, but the members of other communities that have come out to support this project. and, you know, i respect people's rights to bring these kinds of appeals forward, but i think it's unfortunate that this process has gotten us to the point where this appellant continues to rehash the same argument, the same issues. i think that's unfortunate. and i don't think that was the intent of this process. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. just wanted to concur with some

of the comments of supervisor campos. i think that what is before us today in terms of the subdivision of the parcel is consistent with what this board has already approved time and again regarding the project at 706 mission and the mexican museum and the subdivisions that are before us, really are in alignment with the project that has already been approved by this board. so, seeing that, i'd like to make a motion to approve item 24 and to table item 25 and 26 -- [multiple voices] >> let's break it up into two separate motion. if we can start with that. >> he second. >> second by supervisor avalos. colleagues, any discussion? okay, can we take that -- why don't we take a roll call vote on that motion. madam clerk. >> on the motion to approve item 24 and table 25 and 26, supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos?

campos aye. supervisor dado? 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 motion is approved. [gavel] >> and on the related appeal, supervisor kim. >> thank you. on the related appeal i'd like to make a motion to approve item 28 and to table items 29 and 30. >> okay, supervisor kim has made a motion. is there a second to that? seconded by supervisor campos. colleagues, can we do that without objection? without objection that should be the case and the motion is approved. [gavel] >> colleagues, why don't we go back to item 10. >> item 10 is an ordinance amending the administrative code to reauthorize the reentry council and revise the membership, powers and duties, and sunset date. ~ to revise

>> roll call vote. >> on item 10, supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos? >> supervisor campos? >> 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. >> this is passed on first reading. [gavel] >> next item. >> item 11 is an ordinance amending the administrative code to establish the committee on city workforce alignment, to give the committee responsibility for planning and coordinating the city's workforce development programs, and to make other changes to the procedures governing the planning and implementation of workforce development programs. >> supervisor chiu? >> thank you, madam chair.

colleagues, this is an ordinance that comes out of years of work. you may remember in the last board of supervisors before any of us came here, there was an attempt through initial audit by budget analyst to rehaul workforce development program. unfortunately after a number of years that work is not done and i had last year asked for an audit of our city's workforce agencies to really understand what we are not doing and it turns out that in our city, when it comes to our workforce programs, we have not had an overall strategy. we have not had metrics of success. we have not had targeted populations we're trying to help with the workforce programs. we have not had the uniform budget. this administrative code change and this ordinance would really help to establish for the first time the coordination of workforce efforts to create a committee made up of representatives from a variety of departments responsible for

workforce agencies to plan and coordinate our programs and to really create a multi-year strategy in how we are helping to make sure that all of our communities in san francisco are taking part in that 21st century economy. so, with that i want to thank supervisors cohen and breed for their co-sponsorship and ask for your support. and with that, colleagues, can we take this item same house same call? without objection this ordinance is passed on the first reading. [gavel] >> madam clerk, can you call items 12 through 15? >> item 12 is an ordinance amending the administrative code, by adding chapter 94, sections 94.1 through 94.7, to establish a plaza program that coordinates city activities in some city-owned plazas on public property and public right-of-way; create a process to identify stewards to activate plazas under the jurisdiction of the city's real estate division and regulate such plazas; establishing administrative fees for the plaza program; and affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act. ~ program. item 13 is an ordinance amending the planning code, by amending sections 234, 234.1, 234.2, and 605, in order to modify and make technical amendments to the provisions of public use zoning districts; affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; and

making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. ~ item 14 is an ordinance amending the public works code, by adding section 792, to establish a permit program for plazas on the public right-of-way; and affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act. ~ public right-of-way and item 15 is an ordinance amending the police code to include "plazas" as identified in administrative code, chapter 94, as a type of limited live performance locale, and establish various requirements applicable to such plazas; and affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act. ~ applicable to such plazases. >> supervisor cohen. >> thank you very much. good afternoon, colleagues and san franciscans. the san francisco plaza program is an exciting new urban plaza stewardship program that aims to build on community efforts to, to implement more innovative sustainable and livable solutions that engage and support san francisco's many vibrant communities. i'm happy to sponsor this legislation today. i believe it will have many positive long-term benefits to our city's plazas and open spaces. this legislation gives the city a tool to activate plazas with events like farmers market street, limited live performances, movie nights, local food and retail opportunities. this legislation will enhance

opportunities for economic development, partnership with community members and proposes streamline and permitting process for stewards to the plaza making activation easier and more sustainable. colleagues, you have in front of you a copy of three nonsubstantive amendments to the administrative code and the -- these amendments simply clarify, one, a 90-day rfp time period for city plazas which mirror the time period already stated for street plazas. the second amendment, because this item was continued at the planning commission, the program target implementation goal of april 1st is now out of date and they're now setting an implementation goal date of july 1st and the goal of adding three plazas to the program by the end of 2014. it is now amended to read "by the end of fiscal year

2014-2015." the third amendment is an amendment to allow written public comment on submitted proposals for stewardship before the rfp review committee does final touring. i have with me robin havens and ken rich from moewd to help answer any final questions, but i think these are straightforward and i would welcome your support on this initiative. thank you. >> thank you. as i understand, supervisor cohen, you have amendments to this. >> that is correct. i have three amendments. >> okay, if i could have them. okay. so, i'm going to clarify, supervisor cohen has made a number of amendments to item 12. can i have a second to those amendments? seconded by supervisor mar. colleagues, can we take the amendments without objection? without objection that should be the case. [gavel] >> thank you. >> and i want to just take a moment to thank supervisor cohen as well as staff from oewd on