Here. Hillis. Here. Johnson. Here. Moore. Here. Richards. Here. And for the recreation and Park Commission. Buell. Here. Low. Here. Lef. And mcdonnell have an excused absence. Thank you, commissioners. Under your special calendar, please note that the joint commissions will hold one public hearing for the public to provide testimony on all items listed below, including consideration of whether to certificate the eir. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission will consider action on certificating the final Impact Report and the recreation and Park Commission will act jointly to consider raising the shadow limit for the park, and the Recreation Commission will consider making a recommendation to the Planning Commission, regarding the possible, adverse effect on the park, and following action on those items. The recreation and Park Commission will adjourn. And the Planning Commission will remain in session, and separately consider, action on all other entitlements. Item one, case number 2011. 0409 eat 925, Mission Street and various parcels known as the 5 m project. Certification of the environmental Impact Report, please note that the public hearing is closed. The Public Comment period for the draft ier ended on january, 7, 2015, the Public Comment will be received when the item is called during the hearing. However, comments submitted may not be included in the final eir. This will be a Planning Commission action, only. Items 2 a, b, c, and d, for case number 2011. 0409 env well i should, continue, to efg hijklmnopand q. For case numbers 2011. 0409 env cua dva will ber ofa map pca shd, and the considerations under the california, environmental act and this is a Planning Commission action, only. And adoption of finding of consistency, and a Planning Commission action only. Discussion and possible joint action by the Planning Commission and the recreation and Park Commission to raise the shadow limit for thal fred apark and a joint action. Discussion and possible action by the recreation and Park Commission to adopt a resolution to recommend to the Planning Commission that the new shadow cast on the park, by the proposed project at 925 Mission Street will not be adverse to the use of the park by required by Planning Section code, 295, this will be a recreation and Park Commission action only, following items 2, a, b cand d, the rec and park will adjourn and the Planning Commission will remain in session to consider, 2 e through q. Which are, consider upon the recommendations of the recreation and Park Commission, whether the new net shadow cast on the project by the park will be adverse to the use of the park and to authorize the allocation of the cumulative shadow limit, fourth park to the project. General plan amendments of the various maps and figures within the downtown plan, the urban design element and the south of market area plan. Zoning text and amendments and the zoning map amendment as well as height reclassification, approval of the design for development, document. And approval of a, Development Agreement. And please note that pursuant to the San Francisco administrative code, section 56 hpt 34, the director of planning has received and accepted a complete application of the amendment for the agreement which is available for review by the public at the Planning Department. In the case file, 2011. 049 dba, allocation of the Square Footage under the annual limitation program. Allocation of the Square Footage again, under the annual office, Development Program. And several condition at use authorizations. For the public, you will be afforded one threeminute, comment period, for all of the aforementioned items. President fong and president buell and the members of the planning and parks commission, good morning, dan with the Planning Department. I am going to give you just a brief overview of this project, and then frame the next 30 or so minutes with respect to the staff and sponsor presentation to give you an idea of the information that we would like you to see. If we could have the screen please. As you can see on the monitor, here is the project site and it is on the eastern roughly third of the block, founded by mission, how ward, and fifth and 60 6th and it is about four acre site. And it is as you know, a project of scale. The project itself as members of the Planning Commission know, contains a little fewer than 700 dwelling units and more than 800,000 square feet of office space and about an acre of open space and three New Buildings that range in height from 250 to 400 feet, and it also features the preservation of some what iconic building and the historic kemalin building and the preservation of the examiner building, including the bridge over ministry to a limited exat extent. This image that you see on the screen is a big picture, overview, simply of the physical, and the program land use, and it involves a agreement and the Public Benefit package and we will talk about that later in this mornings hearing. There is a significant history to this project, that some of you are aware and that conversation between the developer and the city began in 2008 and you will see on todays agenda that the case number for these items is a 2011 case number. And that is indicative of when our formal review process began. And as you can see on this screen, today is the fifth public hearing at the Planning Commission on the 5 m project. What we are going to do is have the members of the city staff, and both recreation and parks and along with the sponsors team speak to the 6 major topic area that you can see on the screen right now. I will not read those off in the interest of time. We are going to aim to be as succinct as possible to lead the time for you to discuss this and for the public to comment on this. So first off, commissioners, we are very fortunate today, to be joined by kevin guy, the member of the Planning Commission as you know, kevin very recently left the Planning Department staff, just about two weeks ago. For other employment, with the city family. And kevin has been involved in this project for 7 years from the start. He has immense wealth of knowledge on where this has been. And on the technical aspect and the nuts and bolts if you will and he has generously offered to spend a few minutes of his time here with us today to run you through the actions required, and what might come next from a process perspective at the board of supervisors and elsewhere. So with that i will turn it over to kevin. Thank you, mr. Cider, i am kevin, guy, formally the planning staff and the planner for the project. And he gave a thorough explanation of all of the various agenda items and there are i am sure that you are aware an unusual large number of action items on today aagenda maybe just to recap and clarify a little bit of roles of the respectful commissioners here and the recreation and the park and Planning Commissions are sitting jointly to take the items to shadow a park and so one of the items will be a joint action to like the raising of what is commonly recovered to as a shadow budget or the amendment for the park. And then, the recreational Park Commission will act separately to make a recommendation of the Planning Commission if that shadow will be adverse, followed by the Planning Commission on the same question and take action on whether or not they believe that the shadow cast by the project will be adverse. The other clarification that i just wanted to make is that should the Planning Commission, rec mepd approval of the general plan amendments and the zoning text and map amendments and the Development Agreement that these items will fob warded to the Land Use Committee and full board of supervisors for the further consideration. So i am here to answer any other questions on the project. That you may have and the questions on the mechanics or the specifics of the action. He will be discussing the environmental Impact Report. Thank you. Good morning, commissioners michael and the Environmental Planning staff. As noted by the secretary, that before you is a certification of a final environmental report for the proposed 5 m project at 925 Mission Street and various parcels. The draft eir for this project was published on october 14, in 2014, and held on november, 24th, and the dir Public Comment closed on january 7th and the response to the comments was distributed. Subsequent to the submital, it they have notified a few typoand this is the parcel number and references to the draft of the eir and notice of availability and some of the limited text insures that clarify the impacts whether these are projector cumulative impacts and we meet most of the objectives that avoid and reduce and eliminate the project, and the four alternatives include the no project, and the unified zoning alternative and the preservation, and since the draft eir, they have indicated that the project description based on the Office Proposal no longer constitutes the preferred project. It is now the revised project which is similar to the preservation. And in the comments, document, 12 and 13 pages and the physical effects are based on a number of studies prepared for the draft eir and include the subject areas of the wind and transportation and noise. And compared to the impacts, and evaluated the revised project will avoid the impact of the resources by avoiding the building at 430 street, and the unavoidable effects as those to related to the construction and the intersection and levels of service and the conditions will remain. Commissioners the evaluation of the response to comments, revised project does not signify any new Significant Impact or indicate the severe increase and no other alternatives or feasible measures that will lessen the impacts will be for the publication of the dir, therefore the commission will need to adopt it pursuant to sequa, should you choose to approve it as revised. In addition to documenting the project, it also chronicles all of the Public Comments to the Environmental Review, submitted on the draft eir and the draft has responded to those concerns and the staff recommends that you adopt the motion that certificates the contents of the report are adequate and complete and that the procedures through which the final eir was prepared comply with the provisions of sequa and the guidelines. This concludes my presentation, and i am available for questions. Thank you. Hello, i am and we are the urban designer for the 5 m project and i am going to give you a summary presentation of a little bit of the background on the project and the requirements that helped to fulfill the vision. The project the work on the project began 7 years ago with the first workshop with the community in 2009. In 2011, we shared the first full description of the masting and the heights and filed the eea at that time. And then we pursued the sequa process and the technical study as a result of that and began on the project, particularly swapping the location of a certain and two parcels to respond to improving the wind conditions and then in more recent times we have been working more deeply in the last two years with the city to take that input in and again, come to a revised project more recently than you have seen where we may increase in the ground and so throughout the 7 years it has been a pretty thoughtful process of study. And summerizing in all, 160 meetings and 130 since the initial study, in 2013. Over all, we began the project and continue this project. Not just to manage the many constraints of this site but also to actually do something great, there are a number of goals and goals around creating the phenomenal Public Open Space that really can relate to the Historic Buildings that are there and also connecting with the fabric and really celebrating the alley ways that are part of soma and creating this transition between downtown and the lower rise buildings that are adjacent to the west. And creating safe and walkable areas. And expanding, you know, the public realm and creating a compelling architecture and all of this alongside and the physical aspects and along the project benefit aspects such as affordable contributing the 33 percent Affordable Housing as part of the over all project. As a transition site that is really at the core of this project and in this site that it is in this, specific location, between downtown and as we go, into kind of a dip in the sky line, before van ess and market and that at the heart of the planning. One of the big ideas of this project was to push density in to kind of consolidated moments in order to clear the ground and create more open space and protect the Historic Buildings and so we are up zoning in order to down zone, and half of the site is up zoned and half is down zoned. As a said before, the design grew out of the context and also how to experience buildings. So what it means to experience a building from near and from this tamerlan means from far, they come from the fabric of looking at the street spine and the rhythm that we saw in the open spaces and the buildings that continues down mission. And then, more specifically, the chronicle building and the old mint as these two anchors and then how we could draw through and play off the alleys in addition to the circulation that happens on the main street and fifth and mission and howard to create this protected and unique, open space that is also, connected wither clearly to an open space on the roof top. So, some examples of that, that go alongside with a number of requirements around the ground, because that is essential that for the open spaces to work well and it has to be a part of the fabric of the city to work well. Here you can see the example of the residential building on Mission Street across from the chronicle and the ground floor there and north mary street which is the pedestrian only to link from Mission Street into the public, and the public spaces. And then a view of the interior where it is down zoned and it creates a lower rise experience. How is all of that guaranteed . The design for development and you will see that there are a number of requirements for the ground floor and the activity of the ground floor and the transparency of the ground floor that there is no office permitted on the ground floor of any of the buildings exception for the new construction and the hd building and there is a minimum for the height and the open space and the requirement for the open space and the location of the open space and the process for the open space. As well as programming, and over all shared public ways for the streets surrounding the open space. And additionally, as part of the d, for d, we have requirements on the public art and encouraging public art and finding in the public realm. And that is paired with thinking about how we can connect over all to the fabric and these, improvements are required by the da. And so improvements on Mission Street in particular on 6th street as well as the street and the safety improvements around mission and fifth. And in terms of the height and the density, as i mentioned we have kind of consolidated this. And we can see that this is a site plan that shows the three new construction buildings the one on mission and then on howard and fifth. And these, were developed out of a long process and process of pdsing how the public realm could work and how do we think on the height of the sky line and thinking about the corridor from the powell, street and the per veiling winds that want the building to step as they go south as well as how the sun will work on the open space and transitioning from the larger streets and putting the height on the larger streets and transitioning to the interior and to the west. So you see the examples here of this, and you can see the n1, residential tower and you can see it in a model that we have here and a larger and a smaller scale that we can pass around. But the n1, residential, tower which is showing that height, pressed to the largest street. And also, creating the peak in the sky line. You can see how that is junx opposed and the camera line building which is the far theft on the left and you can see it from the distance at 7th and mission and how that starts to yaoe ate the relationship of these two towers. As you have recede from over all on the sky line you start to see how the whole form works together and t