Voted for the project to move forward, thank you. Thank you. Any other Public Comment . Okay, seeing none, we will open rebuttal and you have three minutes. Thank you, members of the board. The primary point that i want to make is that my clients dont oppose the mexican mu museum and it is an interesting strategy for the developer to align with a worthy cause with the museum because the developer can stay in the background while the eloquent and worthy allies of the development make the case for the developer. But lets not forget that the developer stands to make at least 120,000 million by his own Economic Analysis estimate. As far as shadow is concerned, this is not really a legal argument and more of a Public Relations issues that have been raised the transbay project and the Transit Center project had seven buildings with 0. 19 percent to allocate between them which is less than 0. 03 each and this is one building, 0. 06 and so in terms of one building, occupying or causing shadow,
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
Elevations . Application no. 2012 02 23 4735. For hearing today good morning my name is inaudible and i represent peters who live in the property adjacent and i want to express the support of the project because it will be a terrific improvement to the property and this neighborhood. It is 6 feet above the grade of mr. Peters property and supported by the region that runs along the Northern Property line of mr. Peters property. Mr. Peters filed this appeal because he knew that the building and the department and the supplying department and all of the permit holders have addressed mr. Peters questions regarding the impact of the project on his retaining Foundation Wall. It outlines the project and does not address the reviews of mr. Peters retaining wall and foundation. And in fact, the plan was engineered without reviewing this retaining wall which is visible only from mr. Peters garage. And i have a picture of the wall. That is the wall and that goes on top. That way . Okay. Mr. Pete
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
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 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,