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 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 the
Planning commission misinterpreted the planning 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 up there . Referen
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
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,