A statement of overriding considerations and the adoption of a mitigation and monitoring and recording program, the materials and testimony presented and available to this board for this hearing and the board finds that there is no new information of substantial importance to the projector changes or circumstances of the project is undertaken and including the reduction and height of the project that will change the conclusions of the Planning Commission in certifying the eir or such determination in such a way to require the additional review under the california quality act. The said record is in the reference and two, the board adopts as its own, the Planning Commission, findings which include the rejection of the project alternatives as a feasible and adoption of the overriding consideration and adopts the program, all is set forth in the Planning Commission, 18875, and said Planning Commission motion and the sequa findings in this motion by reference. I accept those findings as pa
Certifying the eir or such determination in such a way to require the additional review under the california quality act. The said record is in the reference and two, the board adopts as its own, the Planning Commission, findings which include the rejection of the project alternatives as a feasible and adoption of the overriding consideration and adopts the program, all is set forth in the Planning Commission, 18875, and said Planning Commission motion and the sequa findings in this motion by reference. I accept those findings as part of my motion. Okay. Thank you. And then if you could call the roll. We have a motion and then from commissioner fung to deny the appeal and up hold the section 309 determination of compliance. On the basis that the Planning Commission did not err in interpretation of the planning code or abused the discretion and with the sequaa finding is red into the record. On that motion. President absent, commissioner hurtado . Aye. Lazarus . Aye. Honda . Thank you.
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,
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
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