environmenta,l effects of the project. compliance with zoning is discussed, and the the evaluation focused on this significant defects. the palette has provided no evidence to mr. in the project will result in a significant impact directly resulting from the granting of exceptions for the proposed project. the project was analyzed as proposed and aspects for which exceptions were required are not found to be significant. it requires that these are evaluated which would avoid it

the effect of the project that would easily contained the limit. however, the code compliance alternative which were the same height as the proposed project. this would be considered in feasible due to the existing building floor plan, the size of a lot, and what the project is proposed that now. because the focus is intended to be on avoiding or reducing significant impact of the proposed project, further analysis is not required for the project impacts which are less

than significant. the third appellant point has to deal with noise. the potential noise and vibrations associated with the building's mechanical element not being -- or any other adjacent building. this would be required to meet all codes which control noise levels. the department of public health investigated complaints regarding fix mechanical source noises such as a ventilation systems, air-conditioning, motors and compressors. the district inspectors will take measurements to see if they stand to allowable levels. they will require the property owners to make sure that they are compliant. this might include times when the machinery is allowed to be turned on, relocating equipment, nor is compression

measures, or other measures. the project is subject to the noise ordinance which regulates operational noise for all buildings in the city. the fourth point is air quality. this -- the operational air quality was considered less than significant. the proposed project would pose potential health risk, particulate diesel matter that is emitted during construction. the mission would not exceed the air quality management district significant threshold. the operation air quality impacts were analyzed and h -- on page 84. this concluded that the building

corporations would not violate standards are expose the receptors to it substantial pollutants concentration. there is no evidence to support -- no evidence presented to support a conclusion that the office system would result in a substantial impact on neighboring office buildings. the next point has to do with the objectives of the developer. an eir shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives which would obtain the reasonable objectives of the project but would avoid are substantially lessen the effect of the project. the range of alternatives would be those that could avoid or

substantially lessen the effect. among the factors that might be used to eliminate all alternatives from consideration are failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, a feasibility, and ability to avoid significant environmental impact. these do not preclude adoption without exceptions. the appellate has not raise any new issues relevant to review that or not previously addressed in the eir or the comments and responses documents or any substantial evidence to refute the conclusions of the department retrospect to the fiscal environmental effect of the department. the department conducted a thorough analysis of the project.

for the reasons stated, the department finds the project could be issued cullis certification complies with the department. >> . thank you, any questions? ok, at this time let's go to the project sponsor. >> i wish i could make this more exciting. afternoon i have been representing the ownership and project sponsors since 2006 on this project which has provided us a pretty significant adequate opportunity to review the details. the proposal is the city's first

private lead platinum office building. the planning department has already required an eir which is the highest level of review for the project. the initial study accurately describe the project, the proposed project and comprehensively address is the impact with more than 250 pages of analysis. the appellate has dressed up in the objections as seacliff issues, this is not about sequel -- has stressed that the objections as ceqa issues, this is not about ceqa. they even confessed to as much in a letter. "this was dismissed as merely

stating that the potential impact of the adjacent impact did not rise to a significant level of traffic impact and thus requires no further analysis." this commission's mandate is to shape development that is not necessarily impact major properties or communities. he is claiming that there is an impact on his client's property but not necessarily a ceqa impact. the real objections are not to the adequacy to the eir as an informational document but to the mechanical room located to the side of 350 mission.

the design approvals have been appealed to the board of appeals. with that said, this appeal is before you and therefore we have to go through some of those objections for our records. it is contended that this is defective because it did not properly analyze the significant impact with the exceptions that were granted. exceptions such as these are routinely granted, in this case with a 7-0 vote. this applies to the upper tower where reductions and for size would result in some standard floor plates which would make building this building on economic and unable to be rented. the tower exception consists of a 50 foot setback and then gradually increases at the lower floors.

the mechanical projection, which is used to help us get to the lead. standard brings in natural air at each level of the building. this is about 7 feet from the property line. all of these setbacks exceed those on -- the appellate claims that it is deficient for failing to claim these exceptions, these were actually considered in detail and they would not have a significant impact. i listened with a little surprise that the presentation made because this is the document if anyone would like to read it. there is a section which says that code compliant alternative, that is an analysis of the buildings at 350 mission street. the only non code compliant aspect is parking and remove

this from mission street where the mta would never allow us to have this. we needed an exception for that. that is the only exception. the rest of this analysis is completely code compliant. so, this is in the eir. the analysis was sufficient because it would have a massive blank wall against the side it elevation and would affect the value and quality. even if true, these are not significant impacts. these are events that allow us to do fresh air on every single floor. the fans are low velocity and would not produce audible noise or vibration inside of the location.

this would impact people at 350 mission than those at 350 deal. private views from the side elevation are not protected by ceqa or the general plan. general public views are protected by private or not. this might not be a desirable change but this is not a significant impact, therefore it did not need to address it as such. this is also not a significant impact and is no different than the dents downtown core. in fact, this is a corner building and opened elevations on the northeast and south.

they have criticized the eir for considering a range of alternatives. it would be impossible to analyze and responsibilities. it is directed that a reasonable range of alternatives be considered. the purpose is to identify the alternatives that reduce significant impact. that analysis has been more than adequately completed. it is claimed that it requires the analysis of an outside alternative but ceqa does not say that. the transit center is the ideal place to put a new office building. it complains that this did not contain a meaningful adoption of the regulatory plans. this is also correct. there are 13 pages of

discussion of at least 10 plants including the planning code. these are thousands of pages long. the summary is all that is required in the eir. the competing alternatives and approving the project, there is no question that they had all of the questions that they needed and that is what the eir is supposed to do under ceqa. we urge you to allow the appellants design objections to be heard next week at the board of appeals where they belong. thank you. >> thank you. are there any members of the public which wish to speak on behalf of the real party in interest, the project sponsor? ok, i will ask the public if you could step up for 8 or bottle -- step up for a rebuttal.

>> and almost 20 minutes we heard from the planning department and mr. rubin, i did not hear any where that noise is quantified, it noise steady or anything about noise. i point you to the planning department's response that they issued a couple of days ago and they addressed the noise issue and they say, "it the following information was obtained from the project sponsor team. it will not make any noise." there is no sentence that quantifies anything. the generator on the roof is not discussed. mr. rubin said that a code compliant alternative was studied. it was not. what was studied was something

that significantly reduced the square footage that has been proposed for this project. it did not go any higher. they say because they don't want to build that project but that is not the determination that is a post to be made or put before decision makers. the city is supposed to exercise its steady at about the region a range of alternatives. you cannot just except what the developer comes in the door with. that is what happened here. again, i need to push back on this idea because we have to have simple issues. this was not sufficient for the reasons that i outlined it and i don't think that anything from the planning department or mr. rubin changes the assertions that i made earlier. thank you.

>> are there any final questions? at this time, this hearing has been held and closed. these items are in the hands of the board. >> in reading both the appellate brief and also the brief for a 350 mission, one of the major contentions of the appellant is whether the eir properly evaluated project alternatives as has been discussed for the last 30 minutes or so or whether it adequately analyzed the building. i agree that the bulk has been evaluated and does not have any reductions in environmental impact. there is reductions and

parking, reductions in noise. any potential transit or conflict. this is still another office building. the environmental impact will be the same regardless. that being said, whether all of the reasonable alternatives have been approached by designers and engineers in terms of how this will impact the neighborhood or the neighboring office building. i think this is an issue that is more properly dealt with by the board of appeals. there is a hearing in the next week or the next two weeks. i hope that our office buildings are able to work out this dispute. i don't think that the eir is the appropriate place for this discussion. i would like to move forward item 13 and table items 14 and

15. >> supervisor motion has made a motion to the firm the eir and table items 14 and 15. is there a second? can we take a vote on that item -- >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aabsent. >> please call the next four clocked special item. >> 16 is a public hearing a persons interested in the decision of the planning

department dated june 3rd, 2010, this is for a project at 1653 grant ave is exempt from environmental review under categorical exemption. item 17 is a motion a firm determination of the project located at the grant street address which is exempt from environmental review. item 18 reverses the determination of the plan department that the project is exempt. 19 is a motion directing the findings reversing the exemption. >> we have in front of lost the appeal of the environmental exemption of the proposed project. for this hearing, we will consider the adequacy, sufficiency, completess of the planning department's determination that this is categorically exempt from review. we will first hear from the appellants first and then we

will take public comments. each speaker will have up to two minutes to present. following planning presentation, we will hear from the real party of interest. then we will hear from persons speaking on behalf of the real party of interest. then the appellants will have up to three minutes before a rebuttal. unless there any objections, we don't we proceed to a presentation from the palate? -- from the appellants? >> thank you for hearing our appeal. team mobil proposed new sites in a two-block radius in north beach. one of these is the subject of

the appeal before you. let me show you why this should not be categorically exempted. mr. president, members of the board, first i will give you a visual to complicate as i speak about industrial installations. imagine a forest that is managed by a timber company who was applying to cut down one tree at a time. there is no one analyzing whether they are damaging the forest. the defect in the planning department's approach is that the analyze each and every installation in san francisco individually and apply categorical exemption individually to each antenna and they fail to look at the entire forest. the wireless communication guidelines utilize by the planning department indicate that this address is a preference 7 site, the least

desirable site for locating a cellular antenna. the guidelines require that such sites only are approved in rare circumstances. the city has claimed a categorical exemption under class three of the guidelines based only on whether a single cellular antenna would impact the character of the building. in this process, the planning department has ignored the potential impact of the proposal including potential cumulative impact from frequency radiation, levels resulting from a high concentration of telecommunications sites in the

area. supervisors, up to seven wireless providers locate and 10 that in san francisco proper. not only are there 550 existing antenna reported but they propose an additional 308 in the same area. more have been prevented cents a barrel first. this was a new one that just came in the mail. in addition to the volume propose, there is an additional 1225 antenna with in the same mile radius and 73 tower structures.

depending on the time of day, it tells you what is out there. if you will refer to page 80, we can expect to include 20,000 smart meters which will be bringing the total into every household. there will be 13,000 individual meters and the corresponding transceivers. this is a map of the transceivers. over 3 unaffordable wireless antenna are proposed for the right of way in san francisco since 2008 alone and this was noted by jeff cooper in his appeal. there are more and 10 at in this mile radius of north beach then in downtown los angeles. -- there are more antennas at

this mile radius. the meters might create a levels exceeding the fcc exposure which would propose a potential cumulative impact under ceqa. there is no existing federal law that pre-empts public notification of radiation levels in any publicly acceptable -- accessible area in the city. it is incumbent of this city to look at all of these cumulatively and not just one by one. supervisors, it is income but to reject this review because they refuse to include the entirety both public and disclosed.

>> i have supplemental exhibits here to submit. i am the second applicant on the appeal and i would like to present additional documentation. please note that based on the maps provided, the total number of antennas within 1 mile is 858. that is 858 within 1 mile radius. this does not count the nine additional antennas just recently proposed by at&t. according to the coverage check performed on the service, the voice and data coverage for north beach is stated as excellent.

since at&t will very likely to inherit the intent after the purchase of the mobile. in the coverage in north beach is stated as best. supervisors, either they are making misrepresentations or the -- to the planning department or the consumers regarding the strength of their voice and data coverage in north beach. which is it? if they're making misrepresentations regarding coverage, what guarantees are there that they are not misrepresenting the measurements? in july of 2010, a group of concerned residents met with representatives from t mobil to discuss the plan to install the three and 10 at in north beach within 8 to block radius. we learned a key significant

facts. first, cell phone companies measure the signals of their cell phone antenna on frequencies specific to their company and not cumulative. additionally, the signal is essentially directed towards the horizon. since they are often installed on roof tops, because of the characteristic of the city of san francisco and in particular in north beach, these installations are often end up emitting radio frequency directly. yet, the radiation is measured at st. levels, and public right of ways where the levels are decrease. in many cases, they're not even measured but calculated only.