finally going to start construction later this year after being held up for over three years by ceqa litigation. as you know the central soma plan is subject to four lawsuits, one by my organization challenging the environmental impact report. and i think you should be aware if you aren't already during litigation there won't be any of these office buildings starting construction while the cases are pending nor housing development that loads to zoning or hotel or the mta's street scape project. it's in the interest of all concerned to resolve the issues so all these things can go ahead for the sake of all concerned. we have proposed to the city that a prioritization process based on how much community benefit provide be considered first and looking to the pen ten he is club and flower part and affordable housing space and park and rec facilities, everything. take that into consideration and build first what provides the most benefits for the community. we think this is a rational process. for the department to say some kind of readiness is criteria while we're all in dispute in court, nothing c

ceqa application. we are kind of litigating the history of proposition k, i would like to note that for the record. by the way, there are a number of city attorney written opinions that were published under city-attorney agnost that you could not trade shadow for money. that has been ignored. i was the only member of this board on the oceanwide project actually said that we were not going trade shadow for money. i respectfully submit that the city attorney should have advised board of supervisors that it was not appropriately or legally before us because of agnost's memo of 1986, pursuant to request from then supervisor bill maher that said you could not trade shadow for cash. i'm delighted that thi this appl before us just so we can 35 years later talk about what was before the voter and what the voters voted on relative to proposition k. some of that impacts this appe appeal. lot of this is something that the 11 of us need to think about as we continue to build more and more buildings. we're not creating lot of new any new open face in -- space in town. let's preserve the best of the rest. >> pre

litigation is an interesting one. it just puts too much -- it will give incentive for lawsuits. it's yet another incentive to file a ceqa lawsuit which i don't think we need to pile on another incentive to add lawsuits. >> i want to reiterate, one of the reasons i made in my presentation earlier we went in this direction because i don't think it is possible for us to compare one type of public benefit to another and it's not a good way to do land use planning. have you always based projects on the merits of the project. that's what you did in transbay and market octavia. the beauty of a plan is it creates a level playing field. >> i just sat through a meeting and i heard housing crisis and my ears are starting to bleed. >> commissioner moore. >> since we're metering office and there are reasons to do it it would not only like it look at projects but look at them on their own merit and if they are there, which we made a commitment to, i don't want all possible projects to be one, two, three, four five all in central soma. i'd like to see a broader perspective of how we allocate square footage. >> thank you all for the in