appeal. each speaker will have tw o minutes. we have the certification for the final e.i.r. we will hear from persons speaking on the behalf of the real party of interest. the appealants -- appelants will have time for rebuttal. supervisor kim? let's proceed to the hearing. let me ask for a representative, if you can step up to the microphone. you and anyone else have 10 minutes. >> good afternoon. i am alex goode, with jeffer,

mangles, butler, and mitchell, representing the appelant. this is on 50 beale street, adjacent to the 350 mission street project. i appreciate the time. i will try to be brief and clear as possible. if you have seen the submissions and the attorney and developer, you have had a lot thrown at you with almost 20 court cases that were cited, the statutes from the public resources code, and the guidelines. this gets complex very quickly. but really, there are only a couple of issues in place here, and only a few reasons we think that was certified by the planning commission is not

sufficient. i wanted to talk about a couple of general issues, first. if you read the submissions for the project developer, they seem to be suggesting that this is improper, and these issues have the planning code exceptions, that were granted by the planning commission before the board of appeals and we should not even be here. this is true, we have the appeal pending on the planning code issues. we're here to talk about these extensive issues. i do not think the council should suggest that we have to pick and choose and can only appeal -- we have to somehow forgo the rights for these issues. another issue that has been raised is that somehow this only concerns the impact to the

property and its impact -- these can be ignored. if you read the submission, and i will walk you through this very clearly, we are talking about the impact to the general public that was not properly studied, and again, i do not think the council for the developer needs to suggest that by virtue of the fact that the building happens to be next door -- that we somehow forgo the rights to talk about the general impact. any member of the public could appeal the certification, next door or a mile away and i will address this year. i want to walk you through one of the basic components of the analysis. any proposed project -- you have

to study the project alternatives. you have to present alternatives to the project to study the potential impact of those alternatives, to arrive at the conclusion if there are alternatives out there that reduce the impact that will be caused by the project. if these alternatives are reasonable, they may be a superior project. it is important to have the alternative analysis, to study a reasonable range of alternatives because decision-makers need to have all the facts, and they have to know that the developer has a project. but i have to understand whether there is an alternative that will reduce the impact of the project, with the main objectives of the project to end up with a better plan for the public. the project leaders have this

brought to them and you need to have this analysis presented to you. this did not properly study a feasible project alternative. and you could say that you can always come up with the project alternative. how many of these do you want? the alternative that we think they should have studied is a code-conforming project. they did not analyze this project. you have the codes and they are the result of a long public process, with input from the planning department and the public, and decision-makers and you put the code in place for a reason, because you want certain limitations on development in certain areas. this does not mean that exceptions are not granted. we find this a little bit puzzling, that the compliant alternative was not studied.

but why is this? this was not studied because this is not the project developers are wanting to build. he did exceptions to the planning code and they did not want to study the code because they did not want this building to have for decision making. the response seems to be that this does not matter. we have studied a few other alternatives and we do not believe that this would have done anything better or reduced any impact for the building as proposed. there is a potential impact that this may alleviate, and we just do not know. i will give you one example. this is one area that you have to study. there is no quantification of the noise generated by this project.

there is a proposed 21-story mechanical element, that will be protruding and this is basically the system for the entire building. there is not one sentence in the eir about the noise generated by this protrusion. there is a generator on the roof and there is not one sentence that will quantify with the noise will be. and you say, why do we have to study the code compliance. if you built this building, he would have to comply with the property line. the other thing that you would have to do, if you wanted to keep all the square footage in the building, you would have to set the building back by 300 feet.

this is proposed to be about 300 feet. you could easily maintain the square footage for the building, and if you comply with the code and use at the building back above 300 feet, the building would just be taller. this would be 550 feet and this building is way below that. this is 375. if you make the building taller, this would not be taller than a number of buildings in the surrounding area. what would happen if he complied with the code and set the building back, the generator on the rooftop would be much higher, and would be much further removed from all the surrounding properties, including a public plaza. we not know if this would lessen

the impact. they did not quantify any of the noise impact. this is required in the guidelines, that they have to discuss whether a proposed project is conforming with the general plan of the city, the specific plan of the city, but are operative for an area. this is an area where it is policy to do something that we fretfully -- have asserted and this is not in line with this. you have to discuss this. the general public at large, decision makers have to understand if the project is in compliance with the general plan. if there is a special overlay. whenever you have to talk about with that particular plan. we do not talk about that here. we talked about this in the staff report we released a few days before the planning commission.

this is not what they require. if this is my client or any member of the public, they have to see if the project composed is in compliance with the law. the planning department shrugged and said, this is our policy and this is a significant area where this is deficient. i want to make it clear. i am not before you and my client is not trying to stop this project. they do not do this to office buildings. they are perfectly fine with the project right next door to them, down the block. it does not matter where this is, as long as this complies with all law, and this explains what the project is, and the potential impact -- and the environmental impact of the project.

>> thank you. is there any member of the public that wishes to speak on behalf of the appellant? each member of the public will have up to two minutes to speak. >> good afternoon. i am a portfolio manager with broadway partners. i have seen the benefits and the exciting things that have happened for the redevelopment throughout the city. we are excited about this project, looking forward on numerous levels, with the trans bay terminal plan. what we are concerned about is the lack of viable alternatives, and we think that this is a deficient thing, having done the development of the city, where there is no real

look at the code-conforming alternatives that were studied, to allow for the session. that is where we have the exception. we show that we are for the project, and we think that they had some issues that should be addressed. and that is all that we are asking. >> and is there any other member of the public that wishes to speak? can you step up to the microphone. >> carry on your city -- won't you make it turn out good. >> any other members of the public wishing to speak? we go to planning for your decision.

>> good afternoon. president chu, members of the board. i am the eir coordinator. joining me is sarah jones. the senior environmental planner, the subject of today's appeal. the neighborhood planner, with the planning code -- for the authorization. two memos were sent responding to two letters. another letter from april 6, 2011, was submitted on behalf of the owners of another adjacent building, who are not a part of the current appeal. after careful consideration of

the concerns raised, we find the project eir was adequate, accurate, and pursuieed the guidelines of the administrative code. it is to uphold the planning commission's decision, to overturn the decision to return the project to the staff for additional review. this would cause an effect with the air quality and the cumulative transportation impacts. and mitigation for the impact with the potential conflict between pedestrians and the buses, for the vehicles in the

loading dock. with respect to the oversized trucks using the loading dock. other issues were less than signifigant, with asthetics, cultural resources, shadow, wind, traffic, and parking, and operation air quality and housing. with mitigation measures identified in this eir. the department's response to the concerns, and a letter boiled down to five points. the first has setbacks, bulk and encroachment, exceptions granted to the project. and the state of the eir does not address these impacts with set-back exceptions.

this does not mention -- the e.r. does not give a resonable r-- reasonable range of alternatives. the mechanical impact would effect beale street. air quality, the emmissions from projects and the objectives that they follow the project developer. the encroachment exception, sequa requires the 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