And the project would rehab tait the building, and construct an adjacent 480 foot, 43 story teller and provide a permit home and include up to 190 residential units and 4500 feet, and operated by the mu see sxum it the project has been approved by every city body, and there are many, including the Historic Preservation and the Planning Department and the park and Rec Commission and approval by the board of supervisors. And they have challenged every appealable action and every nonappealable ones and each time using the appeals as a vehicle to challenge the height of the project no matter what the substance of the permit at issue and now they used thed 309, appeal process to again, challenge the 295 actions tonight that you determined were not the proper subject of the jurisdiction, every city body that has had the justicersing dition over the height and shadow has approved it, in addition, the project was substantially arise to address the concerns raised by the community, as originall
Been approved by every city body, and there are many, including the Historic Preservation and the Planning Department and the park and Rec Commission and approval by the board of supervisors. And they have challenged every appealable action and every nonappealable ones and each time using the appeals as a vehicle to challenge the height of the project no matter what the substance of the permit at issue and now they used thed 309, appeal process to again, challenge the 295 actions tonight that you determined were not the proper subject of the jurisdiction, every city body that has had the justicersing dition over the height and shadow has approved it, in addition, the project was substantially arise to address the concerns raised by the community, as originally proposed the projects would have been 605 feet tall and cast over 950 square foot hours on union square and as a result of the process, the project was reduced, to 480 feet, and cutting the shadow on the union square by 75 percen
Thank you members of the board. And the claim here is that the Planning Commission abused the discretion of 309 of the planning code because it made determinations that do not comply with 295 and because it made determinations that did not comply with sequa. So on the section 295 issues, the Planning Commission voted to increase the acl, or the annual limit for shadow and to allocate that to this project entire and with that increase or action was not going to have a significant effect on the use of the park. And the state law that applies here, requires the Planning Commission to trace the route that it takes from the evidence to the findings and the findings of no significant effect is not supported by the evidence and did not provide any route between and several respects. One is that the 295 decisions are actually not enforcable because it is not clear, what the final number is in terms of total maximum that would be permitted. And to demonstrate that using the motion holder figure
Actually allocated and we spent a significant amount of time with the Planning Commission and i have an exhibit that i can show you if you are interested that demonstrates that. No . Not on . Can you see that up there . Referenced it the overhead. So this exhibit, it just to give you the percentage and demonstrates exactly the total available sunlight, the percentage that gives the macys adjustment and i have a series of exhibits here that go all the way through to include such a budget that was allocated to transbay and so you can all of them are there and before you tonight just in case it is something that you wanted to see in response to these exhibits. And finally the appeal attacks the Planning Commissions action and each of these claims lacks merit. And first, the connection 295 determination is not a significant threshold and even if it were, they are comparing apple and oranges and the eir with the project itself would not have a significant shadow impact it was a cumulative i
Code or that the Planning Commission abused its discretion pursuant to section 309 not to proposition k. This appeal does not allow a single interpretation of the planning code or a single abuse of discretion pursuant to section 309 and meritless and first as you know the appeal makes the attacks on the Planning Commissions actions to increase the shadow budget on union square which you previously determined tonight are not within your jurisdiction and second, the appeal challenges, the Planning Commission determination that the impact on union square would not be significant and making an, allocation to determined not to be in the jurs dition, to the extent that you are interested in the shadow numbers and what is actually allocated and we spent a significant amount of time with the Planning Commission and i have an exhibit that i can show you if you are interested that demonstrates that. No . Not on . Can you see that referenced it the overhead. So this exhibit, it just to give you t