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. Its not up to us. Its 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. Im 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
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 its 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
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
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 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 t
Property during that time. The permit in question was issued on june 24th without any review from the Planning Department as a result of that, the tenants were not aware that the permit had been approved until july 15th when the counsel fox happened to be checking the department of building inspection for another matter regarding inspections of the unit. The tenant filed this request for a jurisdiction on the same day after being notified that the permit was issued it was 16 days after it had expired, the reason that it was 6 days late because they rely on the notification, regarding the issuance of the permit and receiving notification from the Planning Department or from the permit holders themselves and the suggested changes are significant enough to require the approval of the permit and the change that the permit is seeking and including the foundation of the building and the floor joists. Tenant john who is a carpenter believes that this will take at least three months which is a