expanded beyond the area, to all san franciscans and all people interested in what we are doing. the important points that were made about the studies that were done. this is more susceptible than people having to travel from transit to work. i think that we are doing an excellent job in planning because historically the area south was always the industrial area and housing that related to the industrial area. of course, that has changed. we have new thinking. this is the perfect link from

downtown to mission bay. we're having challenges and this is a link between civic center, the downtown area, the retail area and we have to make sure that we do have a good job of lincoln is between the development in the downtown area. there is the importance of establishing where the bed rockets and making sure that we do whatever we can to anchor our construction into something that will move and transit is another important thing. i think that towns and street, 16th street, this is going further than cesar chavez. when you are leaving the station and you want to go to western san francisco, you will not want

to take transit or go all the way back up to market so you can go the other direction. you cut the corner on townsend st. and that brings you to church and market. the same with 16th street from mission bay eventually bringing you to the mission district. those are important things to focus on for either light rail or some kind of transit that moves people quickly across those areas. that may take a while to develop. >> this is a great document and quite exciting and i am very

encouraged to hear about you looking. i think that is very important. this is working in a tech company. when i talk to people, the kind of office space that they want is not high rise. it is really exciting that we are looking in the direction for opportunity and that corridor to embrace that. i imagine that this would be covered in the eir. i will be looking forward with great interest. that is where we will honor our information. i imagine but has muni been involved in this plan process?

>> yes, they have. this is from the sustainable streets and transit division and they have been participating. "no this came up a couple of times. where is that project? >> there is the plan which i believe is in the later stages of wrapping up their concepts. i believe they are looking for environmental review funding. the boundary of their concept only goes as far east as six street. and there is the two way portion east of our development area. we are sort of in the middle. we are grappling on how to resolve that in terms of our plan.

we might not do detailed design for folsom. we will see what we can add it to the discussion. >> thank you. commissioner sugaya. >> what is the thinking along fourth? think two-lane streets? >> the central subway plan is that it would stay one way through the freeway at harrison street. >> secondly, you have had some discussions and presentations before public health about the development measurement tool and the use along freeways especially. i think that they have done some

mapping along the freeway corridor. >> in the condition assessment, we did a page on air quality issues and we included pages from the epa. our technical advisory committees are interested in playing -- in discussing these issues. it is important that this entire planning area shows up read on these maps because the existing service streets carry large volumes of traffic. this triggered the threshold that had been set in terms of the commission and so forth. >> as long as we have them involved. >> yes. >> this is a great start to the

planning process. a lot people came. there was a lot of substantive interaction with the community members. the other thing that is interesting to me about this project is that it is creating a different workplace and a diversity of workplace environments. there is an interest in allowing the uses. this lets it mix it up in terms of mixing it up and we think that that is more interesting to the folks that want to move into the city. this is a very different type of environment and frankly a different environment. i think that those factors are creating an interesting planning

process. >> does this already exist for would be adapted to use? >> there are plenty of industrial uses there already. all of those are on a repair, others that we think are necessary in this transit rich area. we have been working with the staff and other people who are following industrial closely to make sure that they are satisfied with the plans. this is not the core pr area. this is about supporting that would be allowed but not necessarily promoting by requiring it to be explored. >> what areas more or less? >> all of it. this is a loud anyway.

they are there already. this allows the industrial speed. we have these uses that some play well together, some don't play well together. >> when you spoke with some of the nonprofit groups, did any of them raise concerns about the office space, the pressures that might be placed on the nonprofit due to the appeal of the area? >> that did not come up. that specific issue but certainly a thousand others did come up. we provide more space, we're

hoping to leave the pressure. we also have this giant economic activity. we want to put it in the right place. >> there is always this rhetoric that are -- that we are relieving pressure. >> this was permitted everywhere and now we have created a different dynamic. >> that's great. i really like what i see so far. >> the community, at least the folks we have talked to, seem to think that office uses are less gentrifying than market rate residence. they are more supportive of office uses industry shirt than market rate housing. >> they were starting to do some

thinking around this. i was wondering if you have any of that. "yes, they work with that group of students before we started this bunning effort and we developed some policy ideas. we talked about the direction we are heading. these are the policy recommendations and we have not had any conflicts to date. we are heading in the same direction. >> i would be curious to see what they're thinking. >> we would forward it to you, if you like. >> that would be great. this was something that we really did embrace the idea of office use and kind of where you

are going with it. we have been involved with so many other issues. >> i was one of the speakers on the walking tours. >> finally, the u.s. commission, do you remember what some of those priorities work -- were? >> they did not have any pointed comments. >> i went to the hearing. i'm just trying to build the relationship. we don't hear enough about this in the planning process. here is what we're thinking and we will see what their reaction is. >> some of these other buildings are worth saving.

>> this is for the house and balance. i would like to address that from the get go. this is not as gentrifying. this is housing for the elderly which is a very strong beginning point for housing south of market in that area. i hope that that particular group is being given a fair voice looking ahead and balancing what other needs we have for the type of housing we are suggesting. only in the balance of all kinds of housing can we really achieve that housing balance we are looking for.

this is a very important relief valve and looking for the building types and i like the prototype you are choosing. >> i hope that we can have enough uses that will allow that kind of thing because i think that there are people that are moving into actually building stuff and i don't know if robotics is in the city or not. isn't there a way of south of market? there are people actually moving in to that more production oriented experimentation.

>> item 15, for the transit center district plan and transit tower. public hearing on draft incremental impact report. written comments will be expected and the planning

department's offices until the close of business on -- >> the end of the month. it was the 14th and then we have a thanksgiving day holiday. let me look at my calendar. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is sarah jones. i am with the planning division. i am the coordinator for the transit center plan and the transit hour. from our environmental planning

staff, i am joined by the transportation coordinator. the draft eir analyzes the draft transit center district plan which would change the zoning regulations and promote improvements to support the new transit center facility that is located at the site of the former transbay terminal. it also has an analysis which has proposed 1,070 foot office building which would be constructed on mason street between fremont and first street immediately to the north of the new center. before you are review and comments on the draft eir for this project which was published on september 28th.

comments will continue until november 28th, 2011. yesterday, we held a hearing at the preservation commission where they prepared comments for the draft eir. this concluded that it would have the unavoidable environmental impacts. aesthetics, historic resources, transportation, noise and vibration, air quality and shadow. for the transit tower, the erir found unavoidable impacts such as transportation, air quality, shadow. the planning staff is not here to answer comments. these will be transcribed and responded to in the comments and responses document which will respond to all the verbal

comments and written comments. today's should be directed to the adequacy and accuracy of the information contained in the draft eir. if people could speak slowly and clearly so that our court reporter can produce an accurate transcript. you should stay your name and address so that you can be properly identified and so you can receive a copy of the responses document. after hearing from the general public, we will take comments from the planning commission. this concludes my presentation. unless members have questions, i would suggest that the comment. be open. >> in the environmental document, there is a citation to the company that i work for.

the citation is in relation to some historic resourced evaluation work that was undertaken. we concluded that i do not have to recuse myself. >> thank you, commissioner. >> i would like to open up for public comment. >> after carefully viewing and

reading your current eir proposals for the hide design for the transbay tower and comparing it with the original design of 80 stories and 1,200 feet, i deeply feel your original design is superior then your current design that you are proposing. in shortening the tower, you are defeating your own original vision. her for a much bolder tower that would stand out on the san francisco skyline. your rendering of the shortened tower just does not look or feel like it dominates the skyline. this falls flat. a 1,200 foot tower fulfills every aspect of the iconic tower, your excuse of shadows

doesn't make sense when you plan to build to 1,000 feet or over. you will have shadows regardless of what people estimate they are going to have. by going up to 1,200 feet, you are casting more shadows and not building the tower at this height is ridiculous and hypocritical. san francisco does not deserve a shortened down tower. the skyline of the past 40 years and needs a break out of its tired conservative change that has stalled progress of any future iconic towers that are talked about but never truly realized or built because of selfish politics that go on in this city. san francisco needs visionaries that have the foresight and

daring and are not afraid of change. san francisco needs the original design of 1,200 feet to rise to a breathtaking height that will certainly do justice to our beautiful skyline for all the world to enjoy and visit. the short and design of the tower would not have an observation deck or an entertaining restaurant for the visiting public to enjoy. all great cities have one or more shadows but does that stop you from visiting them? for one special time and for this special tower, cannot the board, the plan department --

the planning department -- can i have a few more minutes? >> everyone gets three minutes. you can turn in your comments to the play department. >> thank you. >> good evening, commii am a sag and urban research. we drafted a letter on the draft eir and what i will do now is read that into the record. thank you for the opportunity to comment on the transit center plan. we believe that this adequately analyzes the impact of the plan. this is critical to the future of san francisco and the region. this is a major regional center home to over 250,000 jobs.

over 50% of workers and use a sustainable transportation mode. this is largely due to a key facts. first, san francisco has the best regional access. the developments will build on the successes by creating a world-class station including the high-speed rail. we would like to evaluate future job and housing growth. the study concluded that downtown san francisco would not need the future demand under futures zoning. the transit center district plan addresses the need by increasing his own incapacity. we have had the opportunity to review the shadow impact of the plan.

with one exception, shadow from having building would cover any affected section for less than 45 minutes per day over a period of time ranging from 4 to 12 weeks. the exception notice is the shadow by the proposed addition of the hotel. the potential shadow increases range from point to 4% to less than 0.01%. the plan a sees the budget for the park by 0.2% which is only 0.5% of the budget. we believe that the value of this plan to enable the development of our downtown core out ways the very small impact. thank you for your consideration of our position. >> is there additional public

comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i wanted to thank the planning department staff for their efforts in preparing the district plan. the transbay transit center program is at the heart of the plan area and was the catalyst for the plan. when the program was approved in 2004, the primary funding for the project was proceeds from the former embarcadero parking along folsom streets. the program still had a significant funding shortfall. in 2006, the mayor and the chair of the san francisco transportation authority convened the working rick to ensure that this could be

constructed a soon as possible. the working group recommended the creation of a special zoning district permitting and limited number of tall buildings including two on public parcels. the zoning district developed in the plan and analyzed would generate additional revenues for the plan in three races. first, the sale of the public property is, the land between the streets will produce revenues for the transbay program. the amount of that revenue hinges on the value of development. while we are all concerned about shadows, we're pleased to see that the shadows from buildings has minimal shadow on city parks and they will be defused due to the districts of the parks and

the new buildings. given the significance of the revenues from these property sales to the program and the importance of the program to the city and region, we don't believe that these weren't the reduction of the proposed sites. because of the draft the i are analyzing new height limits, these cannot be settled until the eir has been certified. we urge the commission to close the comments on november 28th as scheduled and the response to comments for certification at the earliest possible date. consistent with position that stimulated the plan and it is important that the revenues including the fees from the tower should be directed towards the transbay program.