today. there is a lot of excitement about people who have an immediate stake and you as holdsers of the flame of the character of san francisco will hopefully look beyond this economic gain and short-term jobs, all of which are valuable. i'm not discouraging building there, but like others, we would encourage wise construction, wise design that fits this space that blends in with the historic district. and i brought a picture so i can put it up. i'm not sure how to -- a number of years back there was a residential parking permit that was put in in a few of the

allies nearby because the -- alies or the planning commission because the supervisors were a little shocked to understand how this is a mixed-use area in terms of families and residents. it is mixed-use. and it's part of the magic of the area. but you can take away that magic by putting in a fortress, putting in something that dominates and takes over and shuts down the energy in the area. so put something in, but put something in that makes sense. what is shown here, the red spot, is the proposed building. the green spots are just a fraction of the residential buildings in the area, many of which immediately surround this new project. the purchase pell box -- looks -- purple box which i drew much smaller than it should be, is

just a rough representation of the historical area. there are not many areas downtown where there's an opportunity to maintain -- actually a new hub of energy and excitement. this area is being cleaned up. it's improving. you've got downtown through second street, historic area, down to the ballpark. you've got down to the waterfront to the embark darrow. full so many street is expected with the terminal to become folsom boulevard with calf face, and this is a unique opportunity to attract people. but fit's going to be an office, let it be one that's inviting. fit's not going to be an office, let it be something else. simple mistakes with make a big difference. the scenic building was built and encroached on the sidewalk area and somehow no one noticed

until after it was done. now between the streets and the buildings on two sides of the block you have to -- if you're walking by with a stroller you have to stop and squeeze people by because you can't get through. you can't walk two people in a row there. so seemingly small mistakes can dramatically increase the people flow. what's going to happen when you have a building that totally dominates the light, the space, the energy, the color and the character of the area? i guess i would ask, when your grandchildren are born in the city and their grandchildren and are walking around, they're going to say well, my grandparents helped approve the building on this corner that really magnified the character, that added flavor and pride to this area of the city that was once connected to rincon hill

as most of the most fabulous areas before the fire. what are they going to say? i'm embarrassed that my grandparents allowed this monstrosity to be put in here, or are they going to say i'm really proud, that really it's a commercial building but it didn't damage the energy flow and the lives of the people who live there. so with all due respect, that's my request. and as a business person in san francisco as well, i understand the need to drive profits and attract attention and the importance of the tax base, but let's keep a long-term view. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> president miguel, other commissioners, my name is john rocca and i'm with the ironworkers local 377 here in san francisco. i, along with my other fellow trade unioners or building trade members are very much in

support of 222 second street project. i just want to bring back a little history. you know, back 22, 23 years ago when the marriott was being built, they called that the jukebox. now people are calling this the fortress. well, i don't agree with the fortress term, but i think the way they've scaled back buildings, they let more light in and diminish casting any shadows. so we need these jobs for our members and, again, the building trades is in support of this project. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> good afternoon members of the commission, my name is christopher meade and i'm a resident of 246 second street. i'd like to say straight away

that like many of these speakers, i completely acknowledge the right to develop this area. i bought my unit in 246 knowing that that was a possibility. but i think what i also expected was that it would be built according to code, that it would be built -- that it would be a building that would maintain the spirit, the historical quality of the area that share air and sunlight with the neighbors and that respect the literally hundreds of families that now live very close to this building. i really think that's important. this is now a very mixed-use area. and if people are serious about putting up a building here, i still don't understand why it can't be within code, except the only explanation that i've heard to date is basically

corporate greed. that's the only words that i think fit the situation. and i really don't think that is a justifiable reason for the city of san francisco to overturn these very carefully thought-out planning decisions and planning codes that are being developed over many years. so i'd ask you respectfully to send this plan back to the planning department and to the developer and encourage them to come back with a building that actually meets the current code . thank you. president miguel: thank you. good good evening, commissioners. i'm here on behalf of the labors local 261 to speak in favor of the proposed project, 222 second street. we've recently reached two

milestones. one with the approval of the hunters point shipyard and the other was the transbay terminal. aside from all the positive benefits that were mentioned from previous speakers, such as being built a stone's throw away from a major transit terminal, there's the job, job opportunities not only for local residents, but in an economy such as this, it's what's lacking. so i urge you to approve this project. in conclusion, i wanted to just thank -- it's unfortunate he left, but commissioner lee for his service and i wish him the best on his new endeavors. thank you. president miguel: thank you.

>> commissioners, my name is victor gonzalez. i'm an owner at 199 new montgomery. we haven't heard much from that building, which is actually closer to the project than any other project. this did come before -- i sit on the board, h.o.a. board. it did come before us. the board decided to take no position on this project, and i'm just speaking as an individual. and my unit looks right at the building and obviously would be blocked in some regards by it. but 10 years ago, if we think about context, there was no neighborhood here. there was barely a soma starting, it was called south of the slot. when i was growing up it was referred to as the wine country. the stadium was constructed and things started moving. the c-net building, the marriott building, 246 second street, and my interest is in getting the neighborhood to a more mature state. and this is one of the last

remaining parcels to do that. we have the transbay, we have the high-speed rail that may or may not happen. we have ironically 201 second street across the street that you've approved for a high-rice residential. we have the mosconi center that probably will expand. we have s.f. moma that will expand. 149 new montgomery, which is approved right across the street for residential. we have even the palace hotel that may or may not get condominiums approved. and with all of those things, that neighborhood -- our neighborhood will be "developed." of course, there will be more changes, but we're in a transitional stage right now. as a neighborhood it's really only been 10 years with residential down there. the residential is great. you see people walking their dogs. you heard mention of kindergartens. you see life on the weekends. ironically a lot of people who work in this building will also live in the neighborhood. so to me it's part of building a neighborhood.

i think the exceptions are relatively minor, and if you were to build a project strictly by code you'd have a worse building and not a better building. and that's the reason that you ask for exceptions. and ironically i think a building half the size would still have -- generate a lot of the complaints about light, shadow and view, because half the size would also block my view. so anyway, i'd just like the neighborhood to get on with itself and let's finish. thank you. president miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment on this item? public comment is closed. commissioner moore. commissioner moore: i'd like to ask architect fifer to explain to the commission why you think, personally speaking, the taller building is indeed better relative to the architect you're intending to do, and could you comment of how the code-compliant building does or does not realize the

architect's vision? i think the project is very interesting, and could you please explain if your architectural vision can only be realized in the non-code-complying building. if you could step to the microphone and explain that to us. thank you. >> i think that when you look at the rendering of the building, i think that all of the setbacks have been made and really add the appropriate scale to the building. of course you could make a lower building. of course you could change its proportions. but i don't see anything in the proportions of this building that would arm the scale of the neighborhood. commissioner moore: i appreciate your comment.

i think that's a great comment, it's an honest comment and i appreciate you saying that. one other quick technical question. relative to the -- what did i say? maintaining that building. glass buildings, as you know, are hard to maintain. the detailing is complicated. what do you see yourself relative to that being an issue? >> you know, glass buildings are kind of a reflection of our time. i think we live in a time now where we can build and make buildings look light and transparent and add to the kind of modern city. i think cities are vital when they have all different styles. i don't think there is just one style. i think we live in a moment when we should express buildings about our time in our place and our generation with our values of openness and accessibility. and i think those were different from the times when

maybe some of the historic buildings were built. and i think cities become vital when you have both, particularly buildings that can open themselves to the street now, that can have large panes of glass that begin to accept the life of the city in them. in terms of the maintenance of glass, i think that's a very easy thing to do now, with swing stages, with glass cleaning. i just don't think that that's an issue in how buildings shall maintained today. commissioner moore: thank you. i wanted to ask a quick question for architect manus. there were several people in the audience, and i don't know one way or the other, nor do i want to put you on the spot. but you are a technical architect as well. there were questions expressed regarding foundations, including potential proximity issues with some of the structural elements regarding transfer -- transbay terminal and tunnels, etc.. could you just briefly say

something? and if you don't, that's ok, too. >> well, let me say first, thank you, commissioner moore, for answering that question. because i felt compelled in the course of the conversation. the first thing obviously is that both being a design and technical architect, i understand the differences. there's not any hesitation in my mind that any structural engineer who has the credentials to build high-rise buildings would be designing anything that would be unsafe, ok? whether it's a mack foundation that bears on strata, ok, or it's a pile that's driven by the system that the structural engineer is going to put their stamp on. they are both safe. they don't provide any impediment in terms of the development of the site. the discussion about the cover or -- for the rail i think is a result of the system that is ultimately going to be selected. and i think the full intent of this team is to be able to buy a coordinated effort with the jtpa and the development of

that. what i would honestly say is that every major city in the world develops adjacent high-rise buildings. and if we're looking to make this city more sustainable, transportation and high density go hand-in-hand. >> you answered my question. thank you. i have one more quick question for mr. shannon, who is obviously in front of this commission frequently. mr. shannon, what is your timetable for this building? we are obviously in discussion with extensions to the owners of the building and we are starting to be a little bit pressed by the fact that we're sitting here and benevolently approving buildings and nothing is happening. so this is a particularly critical building to all of us. what is your intents? >> yes. i think mr. harvey talked about the market. the market clearly is in a down point in the cycle but it is clearly recovering. and for larger tenants there are a limited number of options. as i think most of you know, the e.p.a., which is located

just around the corner from this, has been out actively looking for sites. it's critical to us to be able to compete for that requirement, to have your approval. we can't get to square one with the e.p.a. without having an approved project. they won't take us seriously. also, there are tenants like sales force that are out there in the marketplace looking. we will build this project as soon as it is viable. and we began this process, i think it's worth noting, in 2006, and we went to full schematic drawings on a building that dee was fond of before we had a curveball thrown at us by the planning department. we approved 555 mission in 2001. we went through the dot-com bust. we waited for the right thing. we built the only speculative office building that's been built in san francisco since 2000. i think we built a good contribution. we intend to move forward with

this as soon as viable. and clearly the market in san francisco is coming back and we would like to do this as soon as we can. commissioner moore: but your answer is you don't know, if i hear you correctly. >> i can't tell you that. i will say that from the time it goes to the board of supervisors to get the height finalized, that there's probably somewhere between 10 and 12 month. so even if market picks up dramatically, we couldn't be under construction shorter than 10 to 12 months from the board of supervisors, because the time required to do the detailed drawings. commissioner moore: let me ask you one additional question and then i'll be handing it over to the other commissioners. what are the reasons why you need an exception, and could you do a building which indeed stays within its zoning limits? >> sure. it's a very fair question. it's appropriate. the e.i.r., i think, went through and looked at the

code-complying project in some detail. a lot of the dialogue over the last four years between us and the department had to do with where we were looking for exceptions and what was appropriate and what was not. one of the things that's quite painful to us, but very important to the department -- and we stood behind -- is making the top of the building completely compliant. we strongly believe that the building we're presenting here is a better building. we believe that that's what the exception process is for. we believe that the e.i.r. has given the commission the chance to scrutinize this. we think the bulk exception -- what we're doing in the bulk exception is we're simply moving mass that could be at the bottom of the building into the middle of the building. the middle and the bottom together are smaller than they could be under the code. the middle floors are 493 square feet larger than permitted by code. it's a very minor change, but

it makes those floor plates significantly more viable from our perspective. it also allows us to tie the height of the base to the historic building next door. and that was one of the most important things in working with the department. sure, we could make the base bigger. we could stick another floor in the building which would limit the public open space at the ground floor and get to the same place, but it would be a much worse building. commissioner moore: that's ok. i think mr. manus has explained some of that together with mr. fifer. the other thing is you and i did agree to disagree. we sat in our office and talked about that. i do believe that the people who came before us and created rules did that with understanding of well-designed buildings, well-shaped buildings which collectively together did the right thing. i practiced in one of the firms where i sat besides my colleague, an architect, for 26

years and did exactly that. having said that, i do believe that the current rules are actually there to help create the right buildings, and i do believe that your argument that the buildings -- that exceptions are there to create better buildings is not correct, at least -- unless we review together the rules of the design. i do appreciate you answering my candid questions, and that would be for me at the moment everything. thank you. president miguel: commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i know there's been a lot of talk about the exceptions, and there have been more exceptions than this building is asking in the past. but the important thing here is that the exceptions are all in my mind relatively minor and for good reason. and, you know, we talk about, for example, this is zoned predominantly 350 feet in height. there is a small area less than 15% that's 150 and it makes

sense that that be changed to make it a more viable project. and it's really not going to change a lot of the other things very much by having that addition segment. and that certainly makes a lot of sense to me. it would be kind of bizarre if that did drop down to that 150. i think in terms of the shadow, the downtown plan interesting -- and it was pointed out in 1983 -- emphasizes the period march 21 to september 21 as being the most important time to look at because that's when, you know, they felt that the shadows, if it did cast shadows then, the impact was most profound. as everyone knows as we go into fall the shadows get longer. if you remember the days when they played the world series during the day, it was great to see the long shadows in october. now it's all night, so you never see those. but i think the impact here is no new shadow, from what i understand, or virtually none

during that period from the spring of equinox to the fall equinox, but there is.67 which in my mind is insignificant. we're allowed that exemption. and then the bulk is explained certainly honoring the 631 howard by keeping that at the same height, and that's very important. in reading this report, i had a real appreciation for george kellum who was the architect of that building which included the shell building, standards oil, the russ building, some of my favorite buildings from the 1920's and early 1930's, and i certainly think that's very important. and wind speeds are, of course, again, a very small -- and there always is a factor. some go up, some go down slightly. very, very small, and we can't even consider the mitigation that may be caused by the trees. and the one thing i really like

about this is the vast amounts of public open space, and it reminds me a pit of 101 second only a larger space and that's really a very nice space. and the comments have come up about viability in the office market. there are, in my minds, three types of office buildings in san francisco, all of which are great. the 1920's and 1930's, as i alluded to, which are wonderful buildings, and then the late 1960's, 1970's, 19 30's and then the post 2,000's. and it's an entirely different thing today. and many businesses, most of which were apt to attract in san francisco or keep in san francisco need the floor plates and designs that allow flexibility between floors. i was lucky enough to tour 555 mission and it's an impressive building. when you go on a tour of the offices, you really are impressed with the difference. not that the russ building is a wonderful building, but it's a

different type of building and most of the growth has occurred south of market precisely because we can build these types of buildings. and the market will pick up, as we saw during the dot-com boom when every possible commercial space was grabbed, and this is boom and bust. but overall there will be a big market, and we want there to be a rktmafment we want to re-attract business to san francisco, where it should be, not in san ramon or somewhere else throughout the bay area, where people have to travel for miles and miles to get to work. and that's another point. there was some talk about the fact that there would be traffic congestion. i think there's only 54 parking spaces allowed for this building. so we're not talking about a residential building where people will be coming in and out of it. almost everyone who works there would come by bart, muni, by foot, as they now do on second street.

certainly there's ground-floor retail, which will enlighten the thing. i know infin ty has enlightened that part along spear street. and finally, there was a discussion of the balance, and there is a lot of office already in that asia that was described between market, free month, hawthorne and fulton, and then there is some residential, and i think this will keep the balance going. so i think it's a good project. as is always the case, staff will continue to work with project sponsor on any architectural tweaking, but it's a pretty well-designed building and in my mind it's ready to go. president miguel: commissioner borden. commissioner borden: yeah. i can understand -- i went to look at a project and i can understand the size and the scale for what's currently on second street, the concerns by the neighborhood. but it is the c-3 district where density and height is 350.

and i guess my question just very generally, as i look at the code-compliant alternative, and even with the alternative, it's still a 350-foot height predominantly in the height and still a shadow exception. so i guess i'm not really clear. maybe you can talk about based on what we see here, it doesn't seem like you can easily design a building that can -- it looks like you'd have to design a pyramid-type building to actually not have the shadow be an impact. i guess what i'm trying to be clear on is, what is it that people are asking for? the code-compliant alternative still has the same shadow issue. >> the code-compliant alternative -- and this is one of my comments -- is not a code-compliant alternative because it walks away from 146-a. there is a plan in the planning code -- and i don't have it here with me, i'm sure staff does. the code has a plane in it for

how -- plain in it for how you are supposed to design buildings, so it doesn't intrude into that plain. and it's that exact situation that it was done done for. the code says 62 degrees at 132 feet, and that was the intention of the code. the intention of the code was to say that is how you design a building. and because it's intruding into the plain, there are shadows cast on second street. and that was the whole struggle in the downtown plan. that was extraordinarily conscious discussion. i believe mr. manus went through the discussions and i went through the discussions. i think we were the only two people in the room that did. maybe mr. lee. but it went on for years. how do you design buildings? how do you design buildings to not have wind effects?

winds were another big issue for the planning commission. and so -- and in the end they said we are protecting, under 146-a, new montgomery street and second street, a conscious decision, and they said -- and it's in the code and there's a map in the code. i don't have it right here. this is the plain and that's how you get this done. so it's not just a pyramid. it's kinds of sloping on one side. it's not -- as you go up, you protect second street. they weren't concerned about protecting the west side of the building. they were concerned about second street. and i'm sure one the staff people can pull that up and-shot to you. i don't have the code with me. thank you. commissioner borden: maybe you could talk about the discussion that you had at the planning staff and why you -- i mean, i know that they grouped the building to be more responsive to the historic buildi n