and sequa. i was repeatedly told this is not the plan, that this is just the e.i.r., yet you just presented the plan to us. i am a little confused. we are not voting. i just want to get this straight. we are not voting on this plan. we are voting today on the e.i.r. appeal. is that right? why are you presenting us with the plan? i don't get it? we are not vote on the plan. we are voting just on the appeal to the e.i.r. that has a certain parameter around it. i just wanted to state that i know i am a novice at this and i am just learning. it is confusing when i ask questions and then we say that will be address understand the plan and we are not vote on the plan. then you get up for 10 minutes and present the plan. i want to clarify to say that i as a novice person and anyone listening out there, i apologize four taking up your time. i want to state that is in itself very confusing because i don't know why you had to present the plan. i just want to say that took 10 minutes. we are not voting on

i am not convinced it is not a sequa concern.i want to hear more from the city attorney or from planning about the consideration why it was not studied in the e.i.r. and what we can do to mitigate the real concerns around building so much, which i support, but in the heart of the city where i think we have a lot more water and less bedrock. >> planning staff again. the e.i.r. did evaluation seismic considerations in the initial study. it is an autops an appendix cird for a 30-day public review period. the initial study found the plan itself would not exacerbate size nick risk. that is what we are required to look at is whether the plan would exacerbates the seismic risk. there is no doubts the plan would encourage development within the area. there is established case law about sequa does not apply to bringing people to the hazardous area if the project does not somehowicsomehow exacerbate that condition. vicky wonk is here and lisa is here to discuss more about the funds that are available as part of the plan for preservation to

condo owners concerned about view us and about what they might consider live ability can bring to a sequa process. i encourage you to reject all of their concerns. there have been valid concerns about displacement today. i really am worried. the blue condo owners intend to get whatever money and kickbacks they can to compensate for loss of use. i hope we also consider this process. >> next speaker. >> thank you. i am christy wong to support the plan and oppose the appeals. by accommodating the job and population growth we are reducing our environmental impacts. greenhouse gas emissions and other impacts that would result should the jobs and housing units move to other parts of the region. this does appropriate place. i would echo the planning department perspective jobs and housing do not need to match up. there are places appropriate for much more housing. we urge you to not reduce height in the plan and not burden the plan with requirements. it has a vast pack age of community benefits. affordable housing, greening of the neighborhood, safer streets, cultural opportunities, you name it.