as amended, and a draft motion to uphold the neg dec. the department's responses to these concerns are included in your packet. the department believes that the mitigated negative declaration is the appropriate document for this project and we respectfully recommend you adopt the motion to uphold the neg dec. this concludes my presentation. i am available for questions. thank you. o president olague: we'll hear from the appellant at this time. >> sue hester. i wanted to speak on two issue, shad dose and transportation. i'll start with transportation. your response -- the response to my raising this issue is troubling because it goes back and says that you basically do your transportation analysis based on census data from 1990 and this is a little bit beyond that. and you haven't -- i am following up on comments made at the beginning of the hearing made by myself that you have a transportation methodology that is way out of whack with the real world. and you don't have good data on this and the response goes back to eastern neighborhoods

the court stayed the 2004 neg dec. actually, it was -- let me see if i can see my updates here. the appeal was filed in november of 2004, and everything was stayed until there was a finding in may 2009, but yet, in the meantime, there were very major plans past. balboa, eastern neighborhood, etc.. major revisions in both-and balkan and zoning. that was essentially a legal, because that was stayed according to cequa, chapter 31, 31.16. the superior court ordered the city to refrain from enforcing or implemented policies and objectives identified as changing from the 1990:. therefore, the 1999 element was or is a baseline for the evaluation for 2004 and to of the nine, and we do not have an adequate eir here because on 15 through 32 -- [bell] president chiu: thank you very much. >> good afternoon, supervisors. mark, a moment of discourse by bumper sticker. this eir is the product of regulatory capture at the underlying housing. this is the developer's dream. we have got ab 32 on the other side, and all the splenda department does is meet the developers need. they should have been

comment is ceqa is a process set up under state law and i think anybody has a right to appeal the negative dec or the pmnd and mr. colon knows that. president olague: i don't support the appeal, but do endorse the comments of ms. hester. i have been hearing these for years from bike coalition, tom, and i have been having these convictions as long as i have been here and it is time we start tackling the issue. call the question. secretary avery: commissioners, the motion on the floor is to uphold the preliminary mitigated negative declaration. on that motion, commissioner antonini. >> yai yai. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner miguel. >> aye. >> commissioner fong. >> thank you, commissioners. that motion passed unanimously. commissioners, you are on item 14a andb, 2004.091ck for 899 valencia street. the item on the calendar, 14a is the conditional use authorization and 14b the shadow. and i think you will hear them both together, but you need to take your action on the shadow first before you take your c.u. action. >> good afternoon, commissioners. ben fu, planning department staf