I am a second year student at the college of law and i am working under inaudible in the housing klen ing clinic and i will be representing these tenants of the golden gate Street Property and we request the jurisdiction because on june 4th they filed with the Planning Department requesting notification for all permits in the building after receiving notification that they were applying for a building permit. But before, the permit had been issued. And the tenants feared being displaced from the homes during the course of these renovations as they would have to leave the 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
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
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 significant amount of time for displacement and should be subjected to Planning Department review. The owners of the property have not been re