eirs. is that the same? something is going on in san francisco. you cannot put single people, families, and disabled people out of housing and build what you want. i cried when i heard that transit terminal would be 2017. we need equality for all. president chiu: any other members of the public wish to speak? why don't we go to planning for a presentation? >> thank you. john ram with the planning department. i will let michael do most of this presentation. i just wanted to make a couple of comments and introductions. this is an appeal of the eir, not the project. but we are here to talk about today is the actual adequacy of

the eir, and not the project itself, which has not been appealed. we looked at land-use compatibility, traffic, shadows. this project is on a site which has been zoned for this height and density for 25 years as part of the downtown plan. this site was always intended for a mix of office and residential use of this type and density. you will hear michael talk about this more. existing on the site to date is a parking lot that accommodates 200 cars. the existing project has less than half that amount of parking on site. the shuttle impact that has been described will run along second avenue. the height proposed for this project is" compliant along second avenue. the proposed rezoning in front

of you is not for the part of the site along second, but is for the western edge and occupies 15% of the site. a fairly small percentage of the site is offered for rezoning. we will present you with more detail. >> thank you, members of the board. i am with the planning staff. thank you, director. to briefly summarize the project and the site, the subject property is on the southwest corner of harvard and second street. -- howard n. seconst.and second.

the house -- the lot is currently a parking lot for 200 vehicles. it is in a white district where buildings up to 350 feet tall are permitted. about 15% is within a 150 ft. height district, which is the subject of the proposed reclassification the board may consider. the project would eliminate the off-site parking use. it would construct a 350 foot tall, 26 story office building. there will be demolition of a loading dock at 631 howard. the building ground floor would have been closed publicly accessible space, open space, and it's basement levels would include parking space for up to 80 vehicles and up to 46

bicycles. on july 8 of this year, the planning department published a comments and responses document, or cnr, which included their responses. on july 12, the planning commission voted 6-12 certified the -- voted 6-1 to certify the eir. according to ceqa, there are a shadow alternatives. we will properly assess the project in the context, in particular the mix of uses in a three-block radius illustrated on maps. the project proposes a use

permit to buy the planning code because similar uses are located in the immediate vicinity. we found the project would not adversely affect land use compatibility. with respect to show, there is an analysis of the effect on open spaces protected by proposition k under jurisdiction of the recreation and parks department. there would be a shuttle between one hour after sunrise and one hour before sunset threat the year. the project would not adversely affect the open spaces under the jurisdiction of recreation and parks. it would affect non-proposition k open spaces from may through early september. we also found that a project could shade and open space plan for the roof of the trans it center between november and early february.

given the limited duration of these effects in the open spaces not regulated by proposition k, these would be less than significant. there were concerns regarding shuttle on second street sidewalks and others adjacent. shading on sidewalks judged as part of planning approvals applicable to certain streets and zoning districts. this code section requires that buildings and additions sit in an envelope that slopes away from the street at a prescribed height in order to maintain some light on public spaces during critical use. the code allows for granting an exception if the shuttle is deemed limited in scope and duration. because the sidewalk is primarily used as a routine travel corridor, shading would not substantially affect its usability. the preservation staff reviewed

the proposed project, determine that demolition of the adjacent loading dock would not impact that building, and eligible historic resource. it would not have adverse off- site effects on adjacent resources such as the conservation district. we evaluated partial extensions to existing boundaries as part of the transit center plan and determine that even with a potential expansion these districts would neither include the project site nor adversely be affected by the project. it does identify significant unavoidable impact with regard to traffic congestion at the intersection of harrison and second street and others. no feasible mitigation is available. there are five alternatives, including eight no project

alternative, a reduced project alternative, a preservation alternative, and a note rezoning alternative -- no rezoning alternative. these are discussed in the packet. the height reclassification is not before the board at this time. if the board chooses not to support the reclassification, the eir includes an alternative of how the product could be implemented under existing zoning and building requirements. the planning department position is that we adequately survey ceqa issues. this concludes my presentation. i am available with my colleagues if you have any questions. supervisor alioto-pier: to

planning, i do have one question. it was mentioned that this is more or less a code compliant building. will you give me an exact understanding of why it is a code compliance building? i have heard that it exceeds the height limit and would like to have a better understanding of how. >> this is a code compliant building with the exception of 15% of the site that would require a height reclassification. the eir does analyze an alternative that could be developed within an envelope that exists currently on the site without any height reclassification. supervisor alioto-pier: you do

have a 100% code compliant alternative? >> correct. there is an alternative that does not require height reclassification and one that does not require all exceptions granted as part of the 309 process the planning commission approved. supervisor alioto-pier: does the code compliant building changed the view corridor to the building the appellants have been talking about? >> generally speaking, the code compliant -- it would have the same intensity of land use. it would be a little bit taller. it would be 27 stories instead of 26 stories because the floor- to-ceiling height would be shorter to account for the change in the building's mass. in general, the assumption is

for purposes of conservative analysis about a 350 foot tall building in that location. supervisor alioto-pier: 350 feet is the compliant height? >> that is the height district established for the site. supervisor alioto-pier: can you give me an idea of why you chose the building we have in front of us as opposed to the one that is compliant? >> that speaks to the project approvals. we analyzed a range of alternatives in the er -- eir based on the proposed project. they can speak to the rationale for moving the project forward as proposed. however, based on the objectives of the project, that is what we analyzed. supervisor alioto-pier: the eir is in front of us today. what was the bout at the

planning commission? >> the commission voted 6-1 to certify the eir. supervisor alioto-pier: we do not have product approval in front of us, correct? >> correct. supervisor alioto-pier: and that led to the planning commission with six votes. >> correct. supervisor alioto-pier: thank you. president chiu: any additional questions to planning? supervisor mar: i wanted to follow up on the shadow issue. it sounds like the analysis is saying that it is insignificant impact. yuba buena center is impacted for a certain time during the early morning hours. i am reading from section 295 of the planning code, the sunlight ordinance, significant criteria are if something would affect a

park under the jurisdiction of the rec and park department and other publicly accessible outdoor recreation facilities or other public areas. could you explain why the shadow on yuba buena gardens is insignificant? >> it is not a rec park facility. it is under the management of a redevelopment agency and their agents. prop. kate and section 295 does not apply to that park. supervisor mar: but it is a publicly accessible open space. >> my name is sarah jones. i am a city planner with major environmental analysis. supervisor mar: it is a publicly

accessible open space. >> you are correct for that reason. we did include an analysis. we found the shadow would occur before a o'clock a.m. only at certain times of the year -- before 8:00 a.m. only at certain times of the year. in terms of use of the open space, that would not substantially impair the ability of the public to enjoy that space. supervisor mar: what about the trans bay terminal open space that is part of the proposal? >> in terms of the trans bay terminal open space, given where that effort is in the process, and also given the level of design for that park, which is not available at this time, we do not have sufficient information to determine that

there is a significant impact on that site. supervisor mar: someone said that the proposed project would shadow over 10,000 square feet of the new rooftop parked at lunchtime. is that looked at in the eir? >> yes, on page 144 of the draft. that was identified that this would occur in midwinter approximately a 100 foot by 100 ft. area at the southwest corner of the park. that constitutes approximately 5% of that park space. supervisor mar: i am looking at page 144. it is several lines in one paragraph, analysis of a potential big shadow impact on a public space, it sounds like. it does not seem like it is a

serious analysis of the cumulative impact of other buildings and how that might impact this large public space. >> i think that we were treated and that as an issue -- the transit center part in and of itself is something we we would -- we would consider a foreseeable development but not an existing open space. we treat it in terms of potential cumulative impact. president chiu: any additional questions? at this time, why don't we hear from the project sponsor, the real party interest. please step up for a presentation of up to 10 minutes. >> good evening, supervisors. i am andrew m. junius, here on behalf of the sponsor for the office project.

we do not have a large presentation. we agree with the staff that the eir fully complies with ceqa. it addresses a fact on the environment that could be caused by the project. it lists reasonable alternatives and things that reduce impacts. it is supported by substantial evidence. the appellants you have heard from today have not provided you with any evidence that would call into question any of the findings, statements, or conclusions in the eir. you have heard a lot of statements about the project, and it is really not directed against the eir document at all. the process and the document is an informational process designed to provide decisionmakers with all the facts and objective analysis about the possible physical effects of a project on the

environment. this document accomplishes that task. the eir complies with ceqa. we urge you to move forward with this project. that is all we have for today. thank you. president chiu: colleagues, any questions for the project sponsor? are there other folks on your side that wish to speak? why don't they step up? >> i am the chief estimator with turner construction. i have been working this job for four years. my background is numerous high- rise buildings. i have looked at the eir and have also analyzed the building. i feel that within the $100

million construction cost, and that is going to go to union work. there will be about 150 workers average. there will be 300 peak construction workers, union workers on this job. at completion, there will be a 750 jobs that will be created in this building. that is something we can use. i have reviewed the e.r. -- the eir. i think the city has done a great job and i recommend approval of the ceqa. >> my name is justin. i worked with tishman and wakefield brokerage firm in san francisco. i am a fifth generation san franciscan. my great grandfather was a small business owner, as well as my grandfather. we represent hertz corporation,

thompson reuters, and others. there has been a dearth of large block space in san francisco. the developments currently on tap are not sufficient to house some of these firms. you saw the benefits of a firm staying in san francisco. over 2000 jobs are going to be for san franciscans and the bay area. it is critical that we provide large blocks of space for these tenants to stay in san francisco to draw from the technology and social media sectors. it is very exciting for our economy and the city of san francisco. i am in support of the certified eir and against the appeal that has been filed. thank you. >> michael karioke, san

francisco building. this is exactly the sort of project that is supposed to go in a spot like this. it is within a block of the new trends bay terminal. it is exactly where it is bound to be. this neighborhood has always been conceived as a mixed use neighborhood where people would live and people would work. ideally, they would walk from home to their office and then back home again. the project has not been said to cast any shadow on the residences nearby. it is within 1,000 feet of residences. it is also within 1,000 feet of major offices, one of which are work in myself. it is a decent project. there is no good reason to oppose it on grounds it has been opposed on. there will be a temporary impact of construction, but that goes away, i know all too well.

i asked you to reject the appeal. think the planning department did a great job. the commercial and real-estate sector is the worst hit. to echo the representative, we don't often see this large footprint. and so close to the new transit terminal. not only are we going to allow people to pay for their kids and lived in their homes, we're going to put the department of building inspection to work.

we will the electrical inspectors inspecting that building in the fire department for assistance. we are opposing the appeal. >> thank you, supervisors. i appreciate the comments of the residents. i just have a different opinion of what the neighborhood is and how is transitioning. there are a lot of big problems -- projects coming. the modern art museum expansion, there is a lot going on in that neighborhood.

and it is about halfway there, and we need to decide that appeal. >> we successfully built both the one on mission. this has been zoned for an office use in excess of 20 years. we are committed to building a lead building on this project, building a great quality project

and a public open space, building offices near transit and near the downtown. this will generate in excess of $50 million and provide over 300 union jobs. it would join only three other sites in san francisco and we urge you to overturn the appeal and confirmed the project. we are here to answer questions. >> any other public members wish to speak? i will ask the appellant to stand up for a rebuttal of up to 3 minutes. >> there were a series of reproval resolutions on this project because it has so many exceptions for the planning commission. in these projects don't come for the board except for the

environmental appeal. i want to direct you to the issues mentioned in passing, but it is very true. comments or responses, the power authority submitted comments pointing out that the method of construction of the foundation could affect the construction of the cut on second street. it was kind of brushed aside by the eir and planning department. you have a project that is supposed to comply with 146 of the planning code, and 146 says, the project shall be required to avoid penetration of the sun access plane. one of them is second street. that is a weird concept, but it tells you how to model the building so it doesn't impact the shadows on the street.

they violated the shadow plane, and it violated the bloc standards. they maxed out the volume of the site so that it shadows yerba buena in the morning. when do they take their lunch? in the most accessible corner for most people going there, it will shadow second street where there are still a lot of families and kids, they don't include the chateau analysis on second street which is it a code required analysis. they don't bother putting it in me eir so no one soin -- -- they don't bother putting it in the eir so no one can see it.

even though they have four standards, there is a general street protection requirement, and there is a specific requirement, 146. 295 is that you do not shadow parks. and that you have a general ceqa shadow rule. you have shadows and sunlight being highly pushed up there in the code, and they do not even attempt to put in an alternative that looks good. [chime] they violate every one of them. president chiu: any final questions? item 20 has been held and closed.

colleagues, this matter is in the hands of the board. any discussion? are there any motions? supervisor daly. supervisor daly: i would make a motion to reverse the certification of the final eir to table item 21 and on item 23, direct the clerk to prepare findings specifically are around the shadow impact on the open spaces. president chiu: is there a second? seconded by supervisor campos. any discussion?