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 this historic building their along howard st. just off the corner, and we want to bring the base of the building along so that it carries that line across and relates to that part of the neighborhood. intentionally sits back there, what it reveals, and along the base of the building, we really wanted to make that march use of glass and big, movable doors, so when those doors part, that lobby and that place -- cafe tables really become part of the light of the city, really becomes part of the life of the

neighborhood along with the articulation. here it is with the street trees, so that becomes kind of an arcade with the trees, clear glass buildings and movable doors, really becomes very lively, and a part of the city would be kind of a blank for sought that is more of a fortress -- blind -- blank facade that is more of a fortress. they are looking along second street. the reveal their -- there that reveals that four-story base. the street trees that i think are important to give the building scale between it and our building. here are the materials which we

can examine the clear glass, the stainless steel large portals, the clear glass as the building rises up, so very simple, very, i think, aesthetically pleasing materials. the main corridor there at second avenue of howard street, as it moves along, as it relates to the life of the city, the big doors, the four story baseman reveal, the carry along that character height -- basement real comedy carry along that character hike. certainly open to any questions. >> i just want to say we have worked very hard to pull this together. we have our team here who would be happy to answer any

questions. >> thank you. >[inaudible] and public comments. >> good afternoon, commissioners. fortunate enough yesterday to attend the transbay terminal ground-breaking, and a couple of buzz words that were said over and over again were "grand central station of the west" and building for the future. i think this is a gray example of how we can complement this new terminal. 11 separate methods of transit terminating in one central location, and this project is a stone's throw away, just adjacent wall past on the walk back to the office, after using my new clipper card, by the way, and saw once again in the

parking lot -- or a full parking lot, but flat, underutilized piece of land. the project will be utilizing clear glass, which will be better for life conservation and energy management, and i look forward to going on the bay view project for san francisco. thanks. commercial miguel: thank you. >> it is half a miracle to seek a proposal for an office project. we thought a minor one not too long ago, but this one really is substantial, and it is exactly where office is supposed to go -- san francisco. for the most part, it is exactly the height at which is supposed to be, and is tied exactly into the transit corridor we have in

that part of san francisco. provides further customers for the businesses in that part of san francisco. it is pretty much everything we want in that part of san francisco. the minor exemption for the height of one part of project, that is a slob they seem to of explained very well by their respect for the sale of the adjacent historic structure, so i ask you to approve this project and let us get on with it. thank you. commissioner miguel: thank you. >> [inaudible] commissioner miguel: i go on cards. if you do not put a card in, you have to go at the end. i realize that, but most people who need a block of time put in a card, so after the cards, i

will. then a good afternoon. i am representing turner construction. we're at 34 3 cents in st., downtown san francisco. the accident involving construction over 40 years ago, and we are happy to say we have been working with teh a &e team for about three years. it will be in excess of $100 million and employ 300 union workers on an average of 150 labors over the course of the two-year project, so i would like to encourage you to approve the project. we are very supportive. a lot of our sub-contractors are looking forward to putting the tool belts back on and being part of a very successful project. having been personally involved in the trans bay terminal

project, i believe this project will be very complementary to the skyline in and around the neighborhood. thank you very much. commissioner miguel: thank you. professor. >> [inaudible] so many electronic gadgets here. there will be a series of bus speaking. i want to go back to an issue i talked about when we had the comments on the eir, which is that the intention of the

planning department, the intention of the city for this area was to really balance out a whole lot of issues, and the issues were the historic district, building design heights to protect sunlight -- in this particular block, the only areas that are protected in the south of market are montgomery and second street. the others are on the north of market, but this was the area that the cities he wrote in on as very important to protect it. they are seeking an office allocation, which gives another layer of evaluation of -- is this the best project? i would point out how many office allocations have been granted that have not been used. you have renewed them. you have about seven to eight projects that have gotten allocation that have not been built, and that is a reflection

of the need for office space and the demand for office space. this project is coming to you on a site that the planning code and the downtown plan, the -- designates as a highly sensitive site foreshadows. what they are doing is they are balking out the building. they are asking for as much as you can possibly get -- you cannot get more square feet than they are asking for. it is an impossibility. you cannot get more height because they already have to change the height. you cannot get -- unless you totally through the code out -- more square feet. with the limited amount of space that they can get, they are still stretching the floor plate. they are going maximum floor plate and then some, and not only for the individual floor,

but for the average in the lower power. when you add this all up and you have not gone through the shadow plan, you are having shadows. i would point out that these are the shadows in the eir. this is 12 noon on march 21. you can see this entire area. when it is black, it means there is no shadow there at all. you have all been doing shadow diagrams for a long time. you knew the drill as well as i do. then, you have the shadows on september 21. again, these are totally new. this is new, when people are going through. december, we kind of thing that december is december, but all of this right now is sunny. look at this long area that currently is sunny in december at 10:00. andy eir -- and the eir tells

you is going to be in shadow. you are being asked to grant exception after exception after exception and a rezoning, and what you do not have is an alternative that honestly deals with this. you do not have something in the eir that is maximum sunlight protection. you have bits and pieces. it is fairly cynical. i could use this exception. i will give you another this -- another exception in other alternate. you stretch out all of the various ways that they could improve the project, but you only analyze this little thing, and they loaded up. kill of the ground floor open space if you make us do this alternative. it is fairly cynical. the neighbors are going to talk about other issues, but i want you to focus on the intention of

the code. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for taking the time to hear us today. i am a resident of 246 second st., and my roots are not in san francisco for very long period has been 10 years. i do have a passion for thinking about preserving the historical integrity, and a look in the field and the fabric and context of our neighborhoods, it is essentially a fortress. if you live near the historic district, no fortresses are to be found, and i find it disappointing that that type of action would be used. while my roots here are short, my commitment to san francisco neighborhoods has been demonstrated, i think, in a

number of ways. i'm an employee and employer of a biotech in mission bay. i am an appointee to the citizens advisory committee where i have worked very hard with the redevelopment agency to honor what is happening in the mission bay district. citing page 61 of the comment, it talks here about -- that the conservation district is nevertheless one of the few architecturally significant areas remaining -- largely intact in the south of market area. so i struggled with this. i support progress. i support change, but i think it needs to be done in the context of the existing neighborhoods, businesses, residents, and what really makes and needs the fabric of the south of market, neighborhoods. the eir also on page 61, talks about masonry, terracotta, many things based in stucco. the color palettes tend toward flight or medium birth pallets.

i see nothing of this flavor whatsoever in the plan for what is called a tri-patriot glass panel steel curtain structure. it just does not fit. while i appreciate the comments that they have done their best to keep the height of the first tower consistent with the historical building, that is great, but i do not think it goes far enough to address the historical part of the neighborhood. i would like to remind the commissioners that there is a key area there for the conservation, and i think it is important that we continue to on that. i am all for change. i am all for growth, but why is it that this building is given so many considerations for variances for the zoning. i do not understand why there would be so much given to one particular office space. i know the commission has the effort is not necessarily focused on economic growth, but there is 7 million square feet of vacant office right now in san francisco, and i think the developer is disingenuous and

will probably flit this, and we will have no sense of what will happen in the future with the neighborhood. they are asking us to turn away from our history, the fabric, and the context within the neighborhood and the immediate environment, so what i would like to conclude with is that while the plan is one which i think is a field full billing, i will say, being in architecture and construction myself, i think it is a beautiful building, but ask the commissioners to please consider to not let this project be the first one to go down in your history is granting three variances on one project. we asked for a building that honors the zoning. we ask for a building that is compliant. the developers have left the resources to go back and design something beautiful that has been in the architectural and history context for the neighborhoods. thank you for your time.

>> i would like to speak to the -- what i would consider the bait and switch nature of the alternatives that were presented where it seems like all of the alternatives had some very good suggestions in them, that they address some of the shortfalls and weaknesses of the proposed projects, but we got the switch, and every time, we went back to what the sponsor one it as their base project. typically, i work with some of these projects in terms of the eir's their alternatives, and they were always used in a collaborative process to make a better product, taking some of the best things from the alternatives to make a better project. specifically, alternative b, which is the compliance with planning code. it is approximately the same density and square footage of the project sponsor, but it is a less bulky building and the

residential neighbor's perspective. there is setbacks and steps into the buildings on all four sides , and you would not need an extension of the boat limitation, but for some reason, the sponsor chose to put in a punitive poison pill and to take away the open space on the ground floor when they have no reason to. they are building the same amount of square footage. they put in a punitive -- something to take away from the residence, and it put in an open space on floors 9 and 18, which really is not public open space by any practical measure. same thing with alternatives. reduce project alternatives, to identify the draft eir is the environmental superlative, and it is 152% for 115,000 more square feet than what was previously approved for this exact project site.

again, they reduced the corner area ratio from 18.1 to 13.6 to 1. they reduce the traffic impact and significantly reduces the shadow impact on the -- at yerba buena and it takes away all the proposed shadow at the transit center city parks and reduces wind impact. there is still some unmitigatable traffic impact, but they say the return on investment is not acceptable to the project sponsor. and that is not supportive of purely a subjective statement -- that is a purely subjective statement that is not supported by documentation as to why that return on investment is not there. this alternative by staff is not promoting the city's in final policy. it is completely unsubstantiated because this alternative has been identified as the environmental superior alternative. the project would still be

legal, and the project would be 52% more square footage than has previously been approved for this site. the preservation alternative, again, was rejected. it has no impact on the square footage and has no impact on how many hours union construction workers are going to be set able to spend working on this project, and we discussed the aesthetic impacts from the neighbor's perspective. new rezoning alternatives, switches the bulk of the structure shifting away from existing structures and residences. and the staff comments the lack of flexibility on design without providing any examples to support this objection. same thing going back to alternative c. they took the parking component out of alternative c and then said that it is not competitive

with the office buildings because it does not have parking. well, who told them to take the parking lot? again, they just put a poison pill in the alternatives and make it less appealing to incorporate some of the aspect of that alternative. again, the alternatives reflecting planning code compliance are frequently referenced in the documents as being in feasible due to economic reasons, but this is solely the presentation of the project sponsor. thank you. commissioner miguel: is there additional public comment on this item? >> i would like to expand on the safety aspects.

i would like to expand on the safety aspect of this building. after our last hearing, one of the commission is mentioned that she had concerns about the safety of children in this neighborhood, the families that live within 1,600 feet of this proposed project, and she even mention that she sees kids going on field trips, holding each other by the hand, and the reason for that is that we are blessed, we are between two great parks -- yerba buena an dsouth park. that explains the children, in strollers, field trips, etc. it is the fact that traffic volume causes injuries, and district 6, as i mentioned before, has the highest incidence of pedestrian injury in san francisco. traffic is already a nightmare. this project will