this is no more than a tactic in the ongoing campaign to attract cash from sfmoma, despite settled law years of ceqa analysis in san francisco. they believe views from the hotel are deserving of special protection and private compensation. for months, they have been demanding the museum paid millions of dollars for building a 200 ft tall museum next to the 325 naoto, even though the current high limit is 320 feet. we submit this is nothing more than another step in ongoing efforts to bully the museum into paying a ransom. i include as an attachment in my brief a copy of the letter from peter wong to the chair of the board on october 12, 2011. in that letter, mr. wong clams expansion project will reduce the value of the hotel and $24 million, proposes that the museum compensate for the alleged impact, and threatens litigation to delay the project unless demands are not satisfied. it would be hard to find a more explosive or direct demand. nowhere is there concern about the adequacy of the e.r.. the eir is adequate and complete, and there is no substance to this appeal. the museum has su

as i began to say, sfmoma one of the great museums of modern art in this country, and it is no exaggeration to say the expansion will take the cultural life of this city to a nother level, and make this one of the great museums in the world. i want to emphasize the civic role the museum has continued to play for the city. as i think we all know, when we moved to the current location in 1995, it enhanced the development of the soma neighborhood. expansion will further enhance the neighborhood. the trans a terminal will open soon, and sf-bound commuters will be thrust into the city west in the direction of sfmoma. the museum entrances will be an opportunity for the streets to become lively pedestrian zones. i want to mention the public service we provide to the san francisco audience. we have approximately 650,000 visitors annually. fully 100,000 are free, through various free days and family free days. there will be a dramatic increase in our visitation. we will be able to serve the educational function of the museum even better, going forward. third, the economic impact of our expansion wil

we have an appeal of the final environmental impact report for the proposed sfmoma expansion and the fire station relocation and housing project. we will consider the accuracy, adequacy, and completeness of the final eir, of which you all have copies. when love for terror from the appellants, who will -- we will first hear from the appellants. we will then take public comment. each speaker will have up to two minutes. then the planning department will have up to 10 minutes to describe the grounds for the certification. following that, we will hear from the real party of interest, who will have up to 10 minutes to present. finally, the appellants will have up to three minutes for a rebuttal. supervisor kim, as the supervisor in whose district this is located, opening comments? why don't we hear from the appellant? >> good afternoon. my name is christine griffith. i am, an attorney here in san francisco. i am representing kss enterprises, the owner of the w hotel in san francisco, the appellant in this case. we challenge the certification of the eir that was adopted by the planning com