department. >> good afternoon, president chiu and members of the board, i am deborah dwyer with the planning department. we are available to answer your questions and addition staff from sfmta and the community investment and infrastructure agency are available for questions. i want to make some introductory comments, and then respond to as much of the comments that we have heard today as possible. initially i would like to remind the members of the board and the public that this agenda item is about the appeal of a final eir for the proposed 706 mission street, mexican museum and residential tower project, the planning commission certified the eir on march 21st, 2013. the board may affirmer reverse

the action of the planning commission by a [phra-eurpblts/] vote majority vote. if the board reverses the certification, it will make specific findings and remand the final eir to the planning commission for further action consistent with the board's findings. eir certification is not an action to approve or disapprove the project itself and a vote to uphold the certification of the eir does notice bind any votes. the question at-hand therefore is the adequacy of the environment document according to ceqa, the california environment quality act, not the merits of the project itself. once the eir is certified,

various communitis and boards and this board will have the opportunity subsequently to consider other aspects of the project for approval beyond environmental effects. a number of people disagree with some of the planning department's conclusions. and disagreement and difference of opinions with the determination presented in the f [kwrao-eufr/] feir -- the information analyses and conclusions in the eir are appropriate and legally defensible. the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence and discloses the impacts from the proposed project. so i know that we have heard this, but i'm going quickly summarize

the project. the project site is on the northwest corner of 3rd and mission streets and the proposed project consists of the construction of a new 47-story, 550' tall tower consisting of 520' tall building with 30' mechanical penthouse. there would be three floors below grade. the new tower would be adjacent to and physically connected to the existing aaronson building. the new tower would have 44 floors of residential space and approximately three floors of museum space.

in addition, the jessie square garage would be conveyed to the project sponsor for a total of 470 parks spaces. the eir analyzed access variance for the project site of the project sponsor would provide $5 million endowment for the mexican museum contributed to the yerba buena garden maintenance and provide affordable housing housing, additional to planning code requirements. the board received several appeal letters prior to the close of the certification deadline of april

10th. some state that the eir was inadequate with respect to analysis of cumulative pedestrian impacts and related to -- also related to pedestrian safety in the area. appellant 765 market street residential owners association friends of yerba buena and the following individuals, pail segway, ron wornick, matthew schonberg, joe fang and margaret collins state that the eir is inadequate in the following areas, traffic circulation, et cetera >> historic resources, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise and recreation and therefore, based on this, there is a need to recirculate

the eir. the appeal letters for the most part raise issues that are exactly the same oar similar to those addressed in the final eir in the responses to comments document orr tc, which was [p-eubl/]ed march 7th, 2013. letters were submitted by the resident and owners association and friends of yerba buena -- in addition, a letter summarizes the issue previously raised and finally a was

received this afternoon that will be responded to in this presentation. i would like to focus my remarks on the main issues raised in the appeal letters and supplemental information at today's hearing. with regarding to the assessment of impacts to historic architectural resources appellant states that the eir does not adequately assess the project's impacts to the aaronson build or new montgomery mission second street conservation district. the analysis in the eir treated the aaronson building, as well as the conservation district as historic resources and identified the anticipated change in designation proposed as part of the transit center district plan acts. an assessment of potential project impacted to both on-site and off-site historic resources was conduct in the eir.

the historic preservation commission concurs with the department's conclusions regarding impact, as well as the level of ceqa analysis conducted for this project. subsequent to the publication of the eir, and as part of the approvals, the aaronson building was designated category 1 significant building and while this change in designation results in permited to alter, pursuant to article 11, it does not alter the assessment of the physical historic resource impacts conducted for this project. the proposed project would not have a significant impact with respect to historic resources and for the historic preservation commission to consider the consistency with article 11. the appellant's issue is not a ceqa issue or adequacy of the eir. with regard to noise, the eir's adequate and accurate in its

analysis of construction and stationary operational noise impacts and appropriate mitigation measures would be implemented as part of the proposed project. existing state requirements for residential development to comply with title 24 standards is also discussed in the eir. the appellants do not offer substantial evidence as to why the identified noise mitigation measures or compliance with the required codes would not adequately address the noise impacts of the proposed project. air quality technical report was prepared and assessed criteria pollutants and health, risk and hazards. the analysis addressed those construction and operational air quality impacts of the proposed project. a significant air quality impact with respect to construction was identified and therefore a mitigation measure was specified this. is a

performance-based mitigation measure aloud llowed by ceqa and requires that the project sponsor demonstrate that a riduction measure of 60% be made. plan specifies tier levels of construction equipment and those pieces required to have diesel particulate filters, as well as pieces operated with propane or electrified, by plugging into the pg&e grid.

with implementation, the impacts are reduced to less than significant. appellants state that the city utilized improper levels with regard to air quality impacts anwhile it's true in a bay area air quality management district levels adopted there may of 2011 have been invalidated by judicial action, the courts a decision was based on procedural flaw of not completing ceqa for the threshold adoption. the decision did not address the merits of these thresholds as being health protective or protecting air quality. as lead agency for ceqa, the city is not precluded from using sources of significance for a particular project if those thresholds are supported by thresholds of significance and they are appropriate and supported by substantial evidence cited in the feir.

the analysis for greenhouse gas emissions do not quantify ghg emissions and the city is not required to do so for the purposes of ceqa. the city utilizes a qualityive significance threshold for ghgs, and is permitted to do so pursuant to ceqa guideline section 15064.4 (2)the city has a qualified ghg reduction strategy. the appellants state that the final eir cannot rely on that to claim that the impacts would be less than significant, because the strategy doesn't have a provision for addressing emissions associated with manufacture of construction materials. these are known as lifecycle emissions and these emissions referred to emissions beyond the scope of indirect emissions. and therefore, for the purposes

of ceqa, the eir may not quantify lifecycle emissions to determine ghg significance. with respect to shadow impacts and alternatives, the appellants state, is particularly with respect to jessie square and union square are incorrect and significant shadow impacts [speaker not understood] appellants also state that planning code section 295 provisions are mitigation for shadow impacts identified for ceqa. proposition k adopted by the voters in 1984 is codified in the planning code under section 295 and establish a planning code provision and contained? in the san francisco code.

the analysis performed under section 295 informs the ceqa determination and the ceqa analysis is also provided to decision-makers for consideration in section 295 decisions. however, the significance criterion used by the city to determine ceqa shadow impacts asks if a proposed project would create new shadow in a manner that substantially affects these areas? it determined that there would be less than significant shadow impact from the project. however, for the cumulative context for this project, development under the transit center district plan was also considered and the eir for that area plan determined that due to the shadowing of a number of parks and public open spaces over different times of the year and different times of the day, there would be a

significant cumulative shadow impact downtown. this project would contribute considerably to the cumulative shadow impact identified for the plan. therefore alternatives were identified and analyzed. 196' in height and reduced shadow alternative would eliminate project shadow on union square. however, these alternatives would still shadow jessie square. even a building approximately 20-40' in height as described in the feir would shadow jessie square because it's the lower portion of development on the site that would shadow the square. in addition, these alternatives would still shadow other public open space downtown. the appellant states that the

eir's deficient, et cetera. this alternative was not required to be analyzed since it would not eliminate the cumulative shadow impacts identified. >> excuse me, could i ask a quick question about that. jessie square is not a prop k park? >> no, it is not. >> so i understand the point if you looked at an alternative that wouldn't shadow union square, but not shadow jessie square, but union square is supposed to be protected from shadows; right? >> i am saying that the considerations under section 295 actually are separate from the ceqa considerations. >> right, i understand that and i'm not talking about ceqa considerations, but i'm really simply talking about the impact of prop k and the implications on union square. and if you are suggesting there is a way to mitigate the shadows on union square, which are required under prop k. they

are not required for jessie square and i'm not sure why that part of the analysis is relevant. >> we need to look at all public open space for ceqa purposes and that is what we did.mitigation measures. we had to look at alternatives that would reduce the significant cumulative impact. or the contributions to the cumulative shadow impact. >> and i understand that. that is part of your ceqa analysis. but under your prop k analysis, i'm still not clear as to why this building, which clearly is going to shadow union square, which ought to have protections under prop k, why alternatives to what we currently have aren't more seriously considered? >> i mean, we aren't making -- i'm sorry. >> sorry, good afternoon, president chiu. i just wanted to clarify that the prop k approval processes has not taken place for this

project. it would happen after the appeal of this project. we have alternatives that are feasible that have been fully analyzed in the eir and those are up, if the decision-makers were to find them to be feasible, they could adopt the alternatives that we are speaking of. those are fully analyzed alternatives and prop k analysis, i mean, the approval process has not yet gone. we haven't done that yet. >> sure, i guess i'm just looking ahead and we haven't seen the planning commission or rec and park department ever turn done an analysis of prop k with shadows and that is why i am bringing this up at this point. could you address the appellant's that suggestioned you are increasing the shadow and many members of the public understand that union square was a no-shadow park and over

the years, union square has not been shadowed even with buildings proposed that might have done that and it seems in this case we're making an exception and i want to understand why we're able to do that if there are alternatives thatre laid out with a shorter build that wouldn't create shadowing. >> good afternoon, sarah jones, acting environmental review officer. it was include an alternative that identified a height of a building that would not add shadow to union square. we are obliged under ceqa to analyze a project as it is proposed to the planning department. and that is what is contained in the eir. we are also oobligated under ceqa to look at reduction of

significant impacts and we did identify a cumulative impact around shadow on i meanon square and the proposition k issue was the basis, as i say for your decision to include that 351' alternative. because an eir also needs to provide information to decision-makers to support an informed decision and so we felt that was a necessary piece of information for decision-makers; that what height the building would be to avoid that shadow on union square. >> okay. so in other words, what you are saying is that the planning department is not necessarily taking a position right now with regards to proposition k. you are simply saying that the eir is adequate because you have looked at alternative, including alternatives that would not create shadows on union square and thus in compliance with proposition k, but in future your department is going to make another prop k assessment about whether the

shadows are significant. is that what i am hearing? >> yes. we have -- the department will be addressing that issue in the context of, if the eir certification is upheld. if i could turn it over to diego sanchez. >> one other question i have and perhaps any of you could answer this. the apellant suggested this alternative exists that wouldn't shadow union square and in the eir was a cursory response, yes, there is an alternative, but not feasible and thus, re[skwr-ebgts/]ed. and thus,

rejected. >> i do disagree it was dealt with cursory. since it would be an actual reduction to the project, that is something that is an alternative to the project as proposed. so we addressed it in the context of the project alternatives. as mitigation it's not something that matchs what mitigations do, but it does fit as an alternative and that is how we choose to look at it. in the alternatives, we did consider carefully the impacts of a 351' building and we did conclude that that alternative would contain most of the objectives of the project and noted that the project sponsor noted it would not provide the funding stream for the mexican

museum that the project as proposed would. but there was no rejection of the alternative on that basis. >> i guess a question that came up, the project sponsor said potentially this project might not pencil out if it were a shorter project. did you receive financial projections to verify those claims? how were you able to understand whether those contentions were valid? >> that would not be something that we would obtain under the ceqa process. we're providing the information, that would be an issue to be explored in the context of making approvals in the process. >> there were some comments that you wanted to make around prop k? >> diego sanchez with the planning department staff. i would just like to add that any position that the planning commission would take regarding shadow under prop k295 would

occur after the ceqa analysis and documents are done. so at this point, there is no official stance and nothing has been taken to them formally at this point? >> i am particularly interested in how the planning department is going to think about that and depending on what the board decides today, look forward to another conversation. supervisor kim. >> thank you. a e piece and i ntto go ack on to jessie square in district 6. so the appellants did imply that you said that that alternative was not feasible. is in a something that was stated in the eir? >> the 351' alternative. >> what the eir states in the context of the 351' alternative, skykomish, excuse me, it would obtain the project objectives and that the sponsor has indicated that the project as it is now envisioned would

not be feasible, but under ceqa it does. mitigation of the shadow impact, this is sort of a ceqa technicality, what the eir concluded was that mitigating the shadow impact would not be something feasible and therefore, it was appropriate to address a reduced-height building in the context of an alternative. when you change the project description it's something that is an alternative, rather than a mitigation measure. >> could you talk about that a little bit more? why planning determined that mitigating is not feasible on all open space? was the statement in reference to all open space or just union

square? >> the specific statement being discussed was about the shadow impact on union square, particularly. but a shadow impact is something that is very difficult to mitigate in that the impact that you are recognizing that you are creating a shadow that is impairing the use or enjoyment of a public space. you can't get back that sunlight. so there aren't changes you can make there in how you can go about the project to increase sunlight to balance out or actually address the physical impact of the shadow. so therefore, you need to actually change the project description with regard to the design of the building, or other aspects of the build, to reduce or avoid that shadow. another approach where it is feasible would be to actually

add open space within that same location, but obviously that is something where there are very limited opportunities to do that within san francisco. >> i guess i'm having trouble following that. i didn't want to focus on it, but i'm having troubling focusing on that alternative, because the 351' building would cause no shadowing on union square. so mitigation is feasible. >> there are a [sra-eurts/] variety of ways for mitigation. application and mitigation measures is one way to reduce impacts.

in alternatives, since you couldn't reduce the shadow impact for mitigation measures we looked at reduction of the impact through the alternatives that we need to look at in the eir. so we had a very robust alternatives analyses in the eir, and that was one of them that we choose to explore. >> i actually want to move to kind of other open space, which within ceqa we can analyze. is there a plan or timeline in terms of what departments we may or may not have maintain and acquire open space that was previously under the redevelopment agency? >> that is not a question that i have the information right at-hand to answer, but we can get back to you around that question. >> i think with prop k, it

will be an interesting conversation. obviously some of us weren't expecting the dissolution of the redevelopment agency, but now it has taken place, we have a number of open space under the supervision of the now successor agency and i think there is a question about whether recreation and park is the appropriate place to move this to or not? which would certainly impact prop k analysis. it's a larger conversation, but one i am interested in. i did want to talk about the analysis that the shadow impact on open space, including jessie square would be less than significant and how it was determined. some of the shadow increases that i saw indicated shadow up to 11:00 a.m. in spring fall and up to noon, possibly 12:30 in the summertime and that is the time of year that people would use jessie square, particularly in the morning.

i know yerba buena does programming there in the summertime, as well as there are weddings that take place after mass at st. patrick's church. so i am curious how we did the analysis? because i understand that we did a qualityive analysis in terms of how shadow impacts recreational use? so i am wondering how it was finally determined there was no significant impact on recreational use on jessie square, for example? >> okay. deborah dwyer, planning department. president chiu and members of the board, the criteria we go back to for the ceqa analysis is whether the shadow would impair the use of these spaces? and although those activities would occur, we did not feel it's in general a passive use plaza. and it