higher percentage than the inclusionary. iñ the other uses that the agency uses these funds for is for small business support, loan programs, and support for small businesses primarily. as i have said, the primary use is for affordable housing and infrastructure. what it is not clear how yet if there is a replacement or what the specifics of the governor's proposal because there is no legislation yet. the governor simply proposed this in his budget address and has been a discussion in the city and across the state about this issue and i know last says the mayor has been in discussion with his counterparts certain other large cities across the state. it is spknown that the use of te

findings and redevelopment is somewhat different in the cities of california. large cities have often used it for redevelopment of formals industrial sites. splosh forma-- formal industria. there is not a whole lot beyond the memo that i can tell you because there is some lunch on non stand there is no specific legislation. the mayor has asked france to work with his counterparts in other areas and look at some alternatives that will not totally eliminate this but look at other ways of solving the budget issue. i will close unless you have any

questions. >> there are excellent memos from staff and also from mr. blackwell from redevelopment. if there was a change or elimination of redevelopment, would we go back to the old zoning controls that are in those areas and they don't have an answer. the other question is, and that is a pre-existing redevelopment projects that might have been voted on that have not begun yet. the other thing that i think the distinction that the governor made recently is contrasting some kinds of redevelopment with others and my understanding as was pointed out just now is that

redevelopment should pay for infrastructure, affordable housing, and affordable uses. we have used redevelopment in the right way and there are some locations where the funding is going back to find a privately- owned structures, which i think is probably something that might be well examined and to make a distinction between the types of redevelopment and what use is our most beneficial. >> i think that one of the interesting questions, since the increment beyond the base level

is used within the area, there has always been a concern on my part that the and the rest of the city's general fund suffers because it is not being used for other projects, for example. i would imagine that the agencies around the state and the cities are undertaking some kinds of studies now to show what the economic benefits are and the return of tax dollars and that kind of thing. >> i think that as part of the analysis. the full increment does not go back into the district. i don't even remember the percentage but some goes into the general fund and some goes to this district.

this is close to ensure that a project would happen. that is the way it is described. my experience is that let is particularly true on sites where the infrastructure needs are so great. there is an argument to limit that they would not likely happen without some public investment in infrastructure. clearly, the committees have used this in a different way. that is part of the discussion going on. >> if we can be kept abreast of anything that might be going on in that regard. >> the weekly news flashes from the weekly -- association and i get real estate lot and

redevelopment law updates on some of the largest firms in san francisco. the commissioner will send them to those who are interested. >> in his final paragraph of the memo which talks about the tax increments and the -- from redevelopment in 2011, i guess this is a projection because he uses that year and he might have meant 2010. the increase in property taxes generated by redevelopment, only 6 million or 4% went into administration. about 94 million went to pay off the indebtedness of these increments and it another went into the general fund. presumably, this is very beneficial if you assume that

some of these things would have never been killed. this is just the increase in the property-tax is, not necessarily talking about the sales taxes, payroll taxes, and other taxes that go to the city and state of california. >> i would like to open it up for public comment at this time. seeing 9, public comment is closed. >> you are now on general public comment. -- seen none, public comment is closed. with respect to this category, the public address you up to three minutes. keeping in mind that the entire category has a 15-minute time limit. >> that afternoon,

commissioners. >> that would be the next item. this is just general public comment and so it relates to items not on the calendar. >> is there any public comment. >> now you are on public comment for agenda items for the public hearing has been closed. at this time, members of the public who wish to address the commission on an item that has been viewed in which members of the public are allowed to testify and the public hearing

has been closed. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. the only item on calendar is item number 94 mission street on the certification of the final environmental impact report. >> is there any comment on the certification of the environmental impact reports? >> item number94350 mission street. certification for the final eir. -- at item number 9 for 350

mission street. >> this poses demolition of an existing four-story building containing office space and retail uses and construction of a new 24 story 50 foot tall building containing approximately 340,000 square feet. the uses are approximately 6,500 feet of retail space. approximately 23,500 feet of subterranean parking and open space. a copy of the draft eir is before you and it was published on september 15th, 2010. public hearing was held on october 21st. the public comment period closed in november 2nd, 2010.

i would like to read into the record and direct the attention to a letter submitted today. the initial study in the appendix, a key boxes were erroneously marked in the checklist. this does not change the pleasures of the eir and is considered accurate. we are here to answer any questions. the valuation -- the evaluation of the issues contained in the eir would result in unavoidable

environmental impact that cannot be mitigated to a significant level through transportation by project instructions and the planned transit center with a the result of -- in nearby streets, transit service, and bicycle circulation and also air quality. for the commission would need to adopt a statement of overriding consideration pursuant to the california and arm of the quality act and to the commission approved to approve the project. these comply with the provisions of ceqa. this concludes my presentation unless the members have any

questions. thank you. >> thank you. >> he should we hear from the project sponsor? >> >> i move cert. second. once there is a paragraph which makes reference to the reduction in air pollution which happened last june. this was within 1,000 feet from the freeway. does this rule applied to this project? >> i am unable to determine what constitutes a freeway. i am not trying to trick the project this is just a question and i need to ask. >> the air quality impact which

is significant and unavoidable which is for the construction of the project. >> does it fall within 1,000 feet of the freeway? >> i believe it does not. >> when will you now? >> i don't know. >> i am not trying to trick you, this is a question i need to ask. >> i wanted to add that the high volume roy came -- add to the high volume. >> we will see what the eir has to say on that issue. >> this is to the residential

and 50,000 square feet or more toward the office buildings which is 53,000 square feet or larger. this would apply in some form and if we are not within the freeway, is this a question we would consider or not? i apologize for not being able to -- without. there are those that do and do not work during more. this is very confusing. >> it does address high-volume roadways, not just freeway's. >> i would like to ask mr. rubin in regards to the two letters of people who raise issues regarding the environmental impact and i would

assume that you would have talked to each other about this already in the time of the draft review when people discussed these issues. i got this letter and i had to make public comment here. this is only good -- >> i never got a letter or either of them. i did see one letter when i got here. i did not know that there were two. the public scoping was with on the -- was within one of the

buildings that is apparently in the letter now. having said all of that, we send notices, we have had a public meeting and there was a hearing here that no one showed up at for public comment. the time for comment was closed. we have been in process since 2006 and we are here for our hearings. >> can ask it in the commission president, can i ask our environmental group. >> i am sure staff is prepared to do so, right? to highlight of the points that were raised.

>> we are only aware of one letter that was delivered and i can show you the point on that letter, no other letter has come to the attention of staff. the letter that i will address is the one from -- that was submitted on behalf of -- the first point in the letter regarding the eir addressing has his materials. the hazardous materials were scoped out in the context of the initial study but we did to note that there had been a slight non substantive error in the check box. those impacts are in fact less

than significant with the medications that were identified. the second point whether it addresses the whole of the project we disagree and we feel that the project was discussed and described adequately and the context of the eir. it is unclear what deficiency is the --

there are aired only regulations and the possible impact of the project. moreover, there is a full discussion of possible medications where significant fresh hold are exceeded and why those medications can not demonstrably be sent to fully mitigate the impact. the projects compliance with -- that would be an issue of that i would need to explore further and get back to you on. the sixth item that they failed to impose medications for the transportation impact. it calls of three transportation medications and says they are inadequate because they are not within the control of the planning department. two of those medications, the

planning department did call out at issue and determined that we cannot conclude that the impacts would be avoided to. they would essentially reached the same conclusion as this letter. we feel that they should be imposed but we cannot conclude what the impact that would be within our control. the third mitigation that is called out has to do with moving the golden gate transit bus stop. we worked extensively with golden gate transit on that issue. we have a letter in the eir and the files that commit to making those changes with funding from the project sponsor said that we feel we have adequately demonstrated that this mitigation measure could be

imposed. point number seven, this appears to be inaccurate but the eir is consistent about the significance of transportation impact. point number 8, which discusses the range of reasonable alternatives, we have to and no project alterative as well as two alternatives to the project. they do address the points that were raised for scoping as well as address the significant impact of the project such that it is feasible to do so. point number 9 that the eir did not raise certain in packs, we disagree with that conclusion. we feel that they were adequately assessed. point number 10, the that theeir

-- that the eir does not adequately respond to comment. we feel that we responded to the comments adequately within the context of the comments and responses document. >> i appreciate the clarity of your response. since i do not believe that these comments were originally given to you in response to the eir bar and they are only last- minute things, i have to look at them with a certain amount of reservation. i'm concerned that the particulars of the comments that you are not able to answer at the moment might not be valid. in a way, i feel this is coming and a bit too late.

pay enough attention when this is in public discussion. you were probably not on vacation while this was happening. i want to wait for a moment, if you would not mind, to glimpse at to the other letter and perhaps have a couple of answers to questions which are not very complicated. most likely at letter which was only written very recently. and might incorrect with quoting the letter as not relevant to what we are talking about? >> we are not aware of the contents of that letter so i cannot answer that question. >> this letter was sent on

february 10th. it was in my commissioner's envelope here. perhaps because it has not uncirculated, it is difficult to respond to what is not common knowledge. >> some i will have to -- during the comment period for the incremental impact report. -- in financial impact report. >> we appreciate the sternness of your questioning. at this point, we are ready to move forward. >> some have to do with the project. >> the motion on the floor is for certification of the final environmental impact report. >> aye,

>> aye, >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. but blacks you are now on item -- >> you are on item 8 a, b, c. >> good afternoon, i am with planning staff. the request before you is for several actions regarding the project at 350 mission st.. this is to demolish a four-story space and build a building containing approximately 340,000

square feet of office uses, 100 -- 1000 square feet of retail space, and in interior open space of the first and second levels that would be sensible to the public measuring 12,700 square feet. i did want to identify that the amount of retail space can change to the project. that reduction of retail space does not affect the conclusion of the eir. in order for this project to proceed, they would need to adopt ceqa findings. they would determine that it determines what the planning code section 309. as allowed by the planning section, the project request a

number of exceptions from the requirement of the planning code. in terms of the old requirements, it complies with the bulk of imitations. however, the upper tower would exceed the maximum diagonal dimension and a maximum floor size. the staff feels this is appropriate for the context. this also defines a and a corporate scale for the pedestrian round. this will not detrimentally experience -- affected the experience for pedestrians on the sidewalk. there would be substantial overall volume for the building. this could be developed under existing zoning. the project also requires an exception to the separation of powers requirement along the north and east elevation.

along the northern property line, there is an existing courtyard situated on the adjacent property. this for europe combined with a setback would provide a separation of approximately 45 feet. along the eastern line, this is said by 14 feet from the property line. however, a mechanical shaft is used in the project. it should not increase divisible bulk of the building as seen from mission street. an exception is required for the curve cut on fremont street. the alternative frontage would be on a mission which is also a transit preferential street and is a very important street for general vehicular traffic. the project request an exception from the requirement