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 regarding ground level -- the new buildings should not exceed certain hazard level when speeds. the project would notthe projecy

minimally increase averaged wind speeds by approximately two m.p.h. and would not increase hazardous exceed gains. this shared entry is limited. the project proposals 0 width of 33 free. -- a width of 33 ft.. the province sponsor has indicated a desire to add an additional space to the second level of the project area. this needs to be considered in a manner that is excluded, so the staff has approval but would enable the change administratively, provided sufficient open space is provided, so i would like to distribute an e-mail we received

yesterday. this is a letter from a gentleman who is in favor of the project but insisted a component of parking be eliminated, and he mentioned impact to transit system, so in summary, staff supports the proposed project and requested entitlement. there is a large variety of uses in the area, but there are many but coexist well with structures in the area. there is a high level of transit, so it is suitable to utilize the existing place. the staff believes the added number of the employees would activate the sidewalk and

bolster retail and service in the vicinity. i am available for any questions you may have. >> i would like to hear from the project sponsor. ours should been the first platinum laid in the most environmentally friendly and development in the district area. i know you will be proud about what we are planning and of

significance to showcase san francisco superior -- san francisco. >> thank you. >> i am in charge of these nine -- of the department of design. it is a great privilege to bring this to you this afternoon. it is a basic building block of the city. we think there is a way to change how this contributes. my colleague and i believe we

should be focused on cultural equity, environmental responsibility, and especially in the city, where it resonates with our culture. i will refer you to our screen. the position shown in red is directly adjacent to the new terminal. the building is bracketed by the transkei terminal to the south and by market street to the north. we believe the thousands of pedestrians have experienced this part of our city.

there used to be light industrial blocks. we think this is an important part of our city, and we want to engage them. it is not the biggest building in the neighborhood. it will be one of the shortest period -- one of the shortest period -- shortest. finally, there is a tall building for the transit center itself.

it is next to the major transit hub orsetti -- or city. what you see is the typical office building footprint is about 22,000 square feet. the great part is actually the service corridor. around it is actually the perimeter of the building, so if you overlay the red, you can see we can really only get about half of the typical office building on the right. we have a building of only 15,000 square feet. if you use the center of the building to let it ring error in, and bring error from the

outside into the building directly with low energy and using air for ventilation of the tower. this is one way we get to the level of platinum for the structure. another important idea is the section, and that is a drawing to the left, and you can see it to its right is still street. to the left is 50 fremont and william power next to it. a typical office building has that at street level, and we propose to lift its 50 feet in to the air so we can create a significant space of ground level, so at the ground level, this is the plan looking down at

the public space, which we think is the most important part of this. we have to minimize its to have a favor of a pedestrian zone, and the mezzanine is an extension of public space so people can look at it with public activities, which is the way the public theater works. this was said to be a restaurant, if we can support this cafe at ground level, which is part of the open space common -- part of the open space, but you can see people can move all the way through this building.

this makes it really truly public in the best sense. this is looking across from and what will be the transkei plaza. we have the best engineers in the world designing this, but it opens up the space. this allows us to create a space that opens up. you can see we actually have an opening with folded glass panel, but days like today we can open this up to be the most porous structure in the city, and we can fine tune this.

within we see a space of social vitality that welcomes people into the space. we drive them off, called a timeout, and inside, we place figures which allowed the benches to slowly move past one another, so you can eventually engage with them, but the idea is to make a place that is constantly changing, and we are aware of people and what makes the city great. there is a coffee shop common -- a coffee shop, and you can see we extend this to the street itself, so people can come up even to the street, and a simple

gesture where you can meet someone, engage someone on the street, and we think it is very much in the spirit of what the new sacramento will be. this will be looking back from fremont street looking over down on the bus to. you can see the outdoor terrace and -- that would be part of the activation of the space and the city. you are looking at the view of a special lighting techniques. this is low energy pixels but will let the building. will let the building. -- that will light to the