cu. item 41160 mission a c u authorization and item 5, 1510 market i c u authorization. um members of public this is your upon opportunity to request that any of these consentical dar items pulled and heard today or a later date >> i think commissioner diamond would like to make a disclosure. >> yes, with respect to item 5 it a pierce mr. gladstone is the attorney for this project. i have previously told the commission on other items where he has been the attorney i had retained service of another lawyer in that firm. for a personal matter. close to 2 years ago. and that it has nothing to do with this matter and i feel like i can be impartial with respect to this matter. i wanted to disclose. i understands that mr. gladstone is the attorney on one of the lio items i'm making that as well. too >> thank you. >> thank you. okay. seeing no one in the chamber coming forward to request any of the matters removed from consent go to remote caller. again at this time requesting the matter be remove friday consent. i'm calling on behalf of teamster 70 you sever item 4 concerning 1

this the first hear and there is an appeal of our cu authorization that might v be a second hearing. >> yes. under -- this an opportunity to correct the record and other matter. ceqa hearings not considered hearings but an appealed be considered a hearing. >> okay. want to makure we would not get to the point where there is automatic approval because we had hearings. with that, of i am happy to support that. additional requirement that sounds logical to me. you know in looking at the project i share the same occurrence. on the whole this project could be much more sensitivelyly designed. i think the projected really speakings to the tension that is created with the state density bonus law well money and intebldzd and applies a blunt tool across unique situations and had this come in under without the state density fwoens is hard to speculate what this would have looked like. you know the height and if it is true the project need more height and bulk to it men that would trig are the shouldedo study and might be mauler. heard to figure out where this would have gone. may be would have

a downtown project authorization and item 11c, 2017-04833 a cu authorization. why before presentation american braun will make a disclosure. where i have the same i made when we heart the draft eir in doesn't study that feeds into the feir was performed by a consulting group and the company which i work do cross paths sometimes and -- we were both working for the city of mountain vow on analysis of master plan development agreement. had a separate contract we coordinated and combined reports to a single report. it is the prior professional relationship no on going relationship. never a business relationship, and no impact on my ability to be fair in hearing this item. sfgovtv, please bring up the shieds. >> good afternoon. members of the commission i'mieny planning staff. and environmental coordinator for the 469 steinson street project. planning staff includeies cat planner for the project. item before you is a certification of final environmental impact report or eir the project is accurate and object and i have prepared with the california equal oyst act or