this case is a conditional use request for full service restaurant to occupy a commercial space at 1423 polk, in the polk street. the space is currently vacant. the sponsor does not have a restaurant tenant at this time. you heard this case last week and passed a motion of intent to disapprove the request because a sponsor did not yet have a tenant for the space. you directed staff to prepare a motion of disapproval that would allow the responser to return in less than a year if they were able to secure a tenant and you have that motion buffer. i'd be happy to -- before you. i'd be happy to answer any questions you have. thank you very much. president miguel: thank you. commissioner lee: i move to approve the motion. commissioner borden: second. >> commissioners, on the motion

for disapproval. commissioner antonini: no. commissioner borden: no. commissioner lee: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president olague: aye. president miguel: aye. >> that motion passed 5-2.

but it would eliminate the parking use as instructed or 430,000 office tower. the building goes to ground floor would have an enclosed publicly accessible open space and retail uses and space that would contain up to 80 parking spaces and 46 bicycles basis. the draft eir was published on january 27, 2010, and had a 57- day public review which closed on march 25. march 4, the commission held a public hearing to take public comment period on july 8, the department published the comments in a response document, which included their responses of the comments. subsequent to the publication of the documents, the department received an additional letter on behalf of the residence at 246 in street. staff committed a written response on august 11 via e- mail. additional copies of these

responses are available for the public are here on the table. supplemental comments deal with three primary ceqa topic areas, which were addressed in the eir documents. other issues relate to planning code exceptions as part of the committee, planning code section 309 project approval consideration. in terms of land use, the idea is located in the c30 district where office and retail uses are permitted. project would exceed those limits on the floors as well as not comply with the 150-foot height limit. it would be the subject of project approvals. the documents also indicate that the characters of the surrounding use, and number of residential and commercial users are located in the vicinity. eir found that an office use and zoning district that from its office uses would not result in a significant land use impact theory with respect to shadows,

shadowseir concludes the study and concludes that it would not conflict with the sunlight ordinance. the ceqa significance criteria asks if a project with affect usability of publicly accessible open space or outdoor recreational facilities or other public uses. as you see in the comments and responses document, we do respond to concerns related to shadow, sheeting on publicly accessible, privately owned open spaces, and in that context, the eir does not consider shadow impacts. similarly for when they eir finds some -- when the eir -- eir finds this to be less than significant. eir identifies a number of significant and unavoidable impact related to traffic congestion at the intersection

of harrison and second street, as well as cumulative impacts at the intersection of howard and third, howard and montgomery, harrison and second street. the project would make a considerable contribution to future traffic volumes that could result in significant delays at these intersections to determine that no feasible measures are available to reduce these effects. commissioners, the draft certification motion is included in your packet. staff recommends certification of this eir. this concludes my presentation. i am available for questions if you have any. thank you. commissioner maine delaware: thank you. commissioner antonini: 90. i believe that was extremely well done, and i agree with your belief that this eir is complete and thorough. i would also like to point out that in regards to the analysis,

which you mentioned of the office space and residential space in the area approximately between market and probably folsom and fremont, actually, 1/3 of the square footage, as you pointed out, of the office space in the downtown financial district is now located there. or about, rather, 15%, but the residential space is about 1/3 of the office space in the area, said they are both uses that are quite well studied in the area, and i also appreciated your historical analysis, in particular, the reference to 631 howard st., which was very well done. so i think it is well done. i would move to certify. >> second. again for the general public,

remember the eir addresses the alternatives, and some of the issues brought up. we will discuss later, but the eir itself i think is very well done, and michael here is extremely good in his responses to the general public. commissioner moore: my concern is that my question regarding policy and forward-looking response to concerns about not yet determined open spaces on top of the trans bay terminal were not really answered. however, i would appreciate if there would be a more pro-active way of looking at it and also looking at the expansion of the museum. i cannot help but say, and not particularly singling out the developer or this eir, whenever

we have an aggressive developer- driven eir, it gets very tight around howard and this question that does not really adapt a response to questions which are not being spelled out. the issue, and i'm talking to the juniors here, the issue on shadow sidewalks is a policy issue. as long as i have practiced in the city, shadow on sidewalks, which does not fall under the shadow ordinance in the way the public spaces government does, has been a concern, has been a design issue, and has been an issue of public commitment by many developers, and in this particular way is basically being argued out, and it becomes -- i'm sorry to say the. it is kind of like a ping-pong game. he said, she said. you are right, you are wrong,

and i'm frustrated not having someone on top of that policy to explain to me -- is it an issue or not an issue? the one thing i know is that while the transbay area is very strongly driven by office development, although that was not its original intent, proposition very clearly spells out that it was to be a mixed use building, but the competition is solely an office building. with rincon nearby, i know that we have an increasing number of residents in this particular corridor. i also know whenever the market is not playing itself out well, there is an adaptive reuse of office space for housing. these are my comments regarding the eir. i have questions which i do not feel have been answered.

>> commissioners, the motion on the floor is for certification of this final environmental impact report. [roll call] that motion passes 6-1 with commissioner moore voting against. thank you. commissioners, you are now back on your regular calendar with item 12, a, b, c, and d. the 222 second street. >> thank you, good afternoon, commissioners. the request before you today is for several actions regarding a project located at 222 second street at the southwest corner of howard street. -- proposes to demolish an existing service parking lot and loading docks and construct a

new 26-story, 350-foot tall office building containing approximately 430,650 square feet of office uses, 5000 square feet of ground-floor retail space, 20,000 square feet of retail space, and a grand for interior open space accessible to the public, measuring 8600 square feet. in order for the project to proceed, the planning commission would need to allocate the request of office space under the a will office development limitation program and determined that the project applies to planning section 309. in addition, the planning commission would need to recommend that the board of supervisors approved amendments to the general plan and zoning act to increase the height limit on a portion of the property from 150 feet to 350 feet. his height change would affect a relatively smaller area at the western portion of the site, representing approximately 15% of the site and would make this portion inconsistent with the 350-foot height limit on the remainder.

as allowed by planning code section 309, the project requests and number of exceptions to the requirement to the planning code. in terms of both requirements, the lower tower portion of the building exceeds the maximum diagonal dimension, maximum floor area, and maximum temperature here in the upper tower, however, complies. the building is massed in a manner that creates a distinctive vision between base, lower power, and upper tower portions of the building with its -- substantial setbacks from the interior of the property line. in addition, the project commits the streets and several lower historic buildings, which serve to make the separation and access to light purchase of property. project also request an exception from the requirements regarding crown level when cover. it requires that they not exceed certain cover and have a level wind speeds, and also reduce the existing and it's been at the existing level. project would not result in any

hazardous when speeds. it would eliminate a for your existing comfort level exceed insists. however, at the new locations, wind speeds were only slightly exceed the comfort criteria by one to four miles per hour, depending upon location. the link upon at the comfort levels are exceeded would only increase slightly from 16.4% to 17% here lastly, as has been discussed, the project just request an exception regarding shadows on public sidewalks. the code requires a project on this portion of second street comply with the sunlight access claim that begins with a high of 132 feet and slopes away at an angle of 62 degrees. project into its within this plane. many existing buildings in the area to cast shadows on second street, and the new shadows generated by the portion of the building inside the claim are limited in generation and disappear by the late fall and winter. at this time, i would like to distribute to you a number of letters and e-mails that sap has

received following publication of your packet, and i understand you have received separate transmittals. the letters that i'm presenting to you do raise concerns about dust, noise, and degree during construction, traffic, scale of the building, and the exceptions and questions of liability of new office space in the area. i would also like to mention that if the commission is inclined to approve this project, the commission should adopt ceqa findings and the mmrp as an attachment. these findings were provided to you in hard copy and were available to the public at time of publication of staff reports but really should not necessarily be adopted as a stand-alone item. again, if the project is inclined to be approved by this commission, these findings and the mmrp should be adopted as part of the case as an attachment, and i would request direct staff to refer to this attachment any corporate the

findings by reference. in conclusion, staff recommends approval of the projects for a number of reasons. the project would add substantial offices, retail space, and publicly accessible open space in the downtown corridor. the project is well-designed and suited for an intense and urban context, that is characterized by an eclectic mix of buildings, skills, an architectural style. product would replace an existing service parking lot with a use that would reinforce and activate and has employees that will add to the vitality of the area. the project is designed to the gold standard and inherently contributes to the sustainability goals in the location people can walk or use transit without relying on automobiles. staff supports the project and recommends approval of the action related to the projects, including the requested 309 extension, subject to the conditions of approval and the modifications that i mentioned regarding the format of the ceqa

findings. this concludes my presentation. thank you. commercial miguel: thank you. >> mr. president, i have a couple of procedural questions. to the city attorney's office, is it an issue or problem that the ceqa findings are not called out on the calendar as an agenda item? i was just wondering because they are always -- in the past, we have had similar cases where we have done the certification of the final and specific agenda item on ceqa findings, but i do not believe that is necessary. >> there is no requirement in ceqa that the findings be made as a stand-alone motion. in cases like this where you have a number of approvals, it makes it a little cleaner to have a stand alone motion that comes first, but it is certainly not a requirement has a law, as long as the commission makes it clear that when they take the

first approval action, they are also adopting the ceqa findings that can be found in this draft motion. they are adopting those and adopting the mitigation moderating program and incorporating those by reference into the motion that they are making, that the commission is making. >> ok, thank you. second question is item 12a has to do with the annual office limitation program, under which we are going to vote whether or not to -- i do not know the right term -- allocate, i guess 412,650 square feet of office space. is that number not dependent on item 12b, where we would have to do a general plan amendment to change the height sell from 150s to 350s, and if that is not

the case, should this item not come first, in terms of voting? >> thank you, commissioner. actually, the request of height change, even if it were recommended by this commission for approval, would not become effective until the adoption by the board of supervisors. if that were the case. really, the section approvals and all other actions typically related to the fundamental building blocks of the project, the building envelope and the allowance allocation is all sort of contended upon the future action. >> our action is dependent on our action of 12b, isn't it? >> that is not necessarily the case because first of all, we have conditioned the motions in such a way that everything is conditioned upon the presumption or the requirement that the resounds in general plant classification occur at a later date, but you are essentially

allocating an amount of office space, but there would still need to be the enabling actions for a building. i did not know if you can utilize the space -- >> ok, i've got it. thank you. commercial miguel: project sponsor? >> perfect, and if we could turn the computer screen on. >> good afternoon. i'm thrilled to be here. i've gotten to know a number of you well. we've been working on this project for close to four years. we are thrilled to bring it in front of you, and we think it builds on the track record.

great projects that are both economically viable, and the contributions to downtown, the 650-unit project where we have literally now one residential unit up for sale. last year was the most successful building project in the country, and 555 machine, which as of today is 82% lead and with commitments to existing tenants for expansion is 95% committed -- 555 mission. this corner is a critical corner from our perspective in downtown. it is an extraordinary opportunity to build a great office building. there are very few. there are really only three viable entitled office buildings. we have taken great pains to bring together a great architectural team to build what we hope is a great building, but also an economically viable

building. we would like to be out there competing for tenants. i will turn it over to the president-elect of the aia to take you through the detailed discussion. >> thank you, carl. tom and i are going to take you through the design of the project, and i want to touch on a couple of things that i think are important for me to address. first, the importance of sustainability in the project. remarkably almost four years ago, we got in line to be one of the first projects in the lead expedited program, so what you see is the way we will be able to pursue a legal and the measure that we will be able to do there. the other thing that i want to take is the ground floor uses because the thing that is very important in the way we have configured the project -- the frontage or probably almost 3/4 of the site, is really devoted to pedestrian uses that include

public open space at fronts on howard and second street, and retail uses at the corner of second cornertahama. loading and vehicle access -- the corner of second and tehama. the interesting statistic as we are accommodating 58 cars based on the current law that accommodate about 200 spaces. the other thing that is a key part of the open space criteria and after the is the importance of the art. the art will be located within the open space. jerry is currently chairman of the museum of modern art's, so his collection and his desire and his passion is something you have seen in the projects that he has delivered to the city. , is going to talk in much greater detail about the character, what makes the shingling very unique, and i think that is one of the things we find great in the project. there are four issues i want to

touch on that i think you have already heard. i wanted to adjust all of them so you understand the context in which the design evolves. first is under section 270 and really talks about the ball on this, and one of the things that we made the decision early on in conjunction with many meetings is how we would deal with the design for the site, and i think most significant is the relationship relevant to 631 howard, the historic building on the western side. we made a conscious decision to keep the base of the building at 62 feet compared to the code maximum, which permits 103 feet, so we have left some square footage in the basis of relationship. the lower half of the building is where we are seeking exception. the upper tower is compliant. that is part of the discussion over the skyline. and simply the analysis here that i would say is is really compensation. we have not taken any more area than would have an intelligent, put it in the face of the

building, put it in the lower power of the building that carl was talking about. next thing that i want to touch on is something that we have already talked about, which is win. any building in the city, any place you really talk about is obviously something that i think is a very important thing to address. you heard this before -- there were 51 points identified. the reality of what has happened is i would say that the wind has migrated both north and easterly on the site, and the result of that has been that the wind in front of one half one, which is the new residential project, actually disappears. they move in close proximity of the site, and the reality is that there is really only one new exceeded system created, that is on the intersection of second and howard treat, on the southeast side -- on howard street, on the southeast side of the site, and the reality is

that the wind just sort of move. the other thing that is not possible is the trees, which are part of the design, will be accommodated around the site. they are always seen as mitigation for wind, and we think the wind will actually get reduced significantly. section 146, sunlight access. this is again an issue you have talked about. this is from the downtown planning trap, in terms of where those seats were designed to be protected. the great that you see there is the project site, and the key actually identifies one where shall analyses were done, then we did substantial analysis on this. kevin talked about the importance of this plane. the 132 feet, the 60-degree incline on the site. you see the wedge on the right side. the reality here is that if you go back to the document that really would be the basis for looking at any design, the criteria established was such that before noon, between march

21 and september 21 are seen as the critical periods, so what we did, in addition to a lot greater analysis, we have shown in march, june, and september, and what i can confidently say is that in aggregate, there is 0.67%, and there is no new shadow being created, so if you really look at the analysis very closely, it is really something we feel very confident that we have taken very careful diligence with to commissioner more -- moore's concerns. this is a photo that is a remnant of the past. those, obviously, have been demolished. the section through this shows the relationship of the buildings relative to the height. on the left is folsom st.. on the right is market street, which did not change. what we're seeking here is a

result of the design discussions with the planning department and the efforts we thought were necessary that really created a characteristic frontage on howard street is that we decided collectively that the rezoning portions which you see on the dotted line there should be changed from 150 to 350 feet, and i think that is the most significant periods. it does not affect the height of the building, in terms of the design character, is only remnant of the past relative to what the buildings were there. let me move on now. tom is going to take you through the end, that i think is a very special part of this building. >> hello, everyone. i'd like to take you through a little bit about what the building looks like. did we lose it? there is. what we have made here is what i would call kind of a shingle glass feet with slightly overlapping towers, and this

gives the building its character with shades and shadow and a little bit of articulation that begins to break the scale down of the neighborhood. particularly as a corollary, you can begin to read the plane of glass, so rather than having flesh plan of glass, it is slightly overlapping to give it that sense of, i think, really wonderful articulation in the neighborhood. here is kind of a wall section on the right-hand side. you can see that we have got about 32 inches as a floor floor height with design foot ceilings so we can get enough structure to service the building. and another detail their with the photograph on the lower right, showing the overlapping shingling, and a little bit of articulation on the ground floor so that every floor is articulate it and every last stain is articulated to give it a really special character in

the city. here it is. i never said that, the last plane flips -- at every setback, the glass plate slips, so it also gives it articulation, a bit of scale and character there on the corner. here is the before picture along howard street, looking to the western side. there, the articulation, that lower base, the base that we will talk about in the second, completely transparent and open in the life of the city. mid-block, as clarke explained, and the tower. this is looking south along howard street. i'm sorry, along second street looking south. you see the upper tower and articulation on the roof. this is an important you because it talks about