i was surprised by the amount of time that has passed. in 2005, they operated as an independent regional agency. they issued a report saying that based on the projections, all it could build was a new bus station. that news reached the supervisor, who was the head of the san francisco transportation authority. he was very unhappy and expressed himself and indicated that he thought the fact that the train tunnel was left out of the discussion was certainly a threat to proposition h. that january and february, they

organize the task force. it consisted of a number of senior soviet officials -- senior officials. they prepared the beginning of the work we are at today. about that same time, the composition of the governing commission changed and the authority became much more integrated and the city's planning activities. the plan that was prepared, and i found a copy of it, it was issued in june of 2006, or the recommendations, really focused on how do we get a train tunnel. two significant things cannot of that. the station must -- came out of

that. the station was plan to include rigid the terminal was planned to include the train station underneath it, which was a risky enterprise because no one knew whether that money was going to be available. it was impossible to build the best -- the bus station on top of plant if the money for the underground part was not there. luckily, we made that risk, and one. the other part related to the zoning. as you have noted, at significant amount of money is projected as being made available to that effort to pay -- to help contribute to to bring the title downtown. that is significant in today's discussion because we are asking -- the city has participated in this effort to to create a blended program for

the high-speed rail and electric find it. there have been people who have .wr? all the way to transgenderebay. it would make a more -- it would give us more leverage with the regional state and federal authorities to get the rest of the money to build the tunnel. that is very important. in the next month, you will be dealing with a whole lot of issues. economic, a static, urban design -- a static, and urban design. there is an issue of shadow. i assemble come to you. if you read the environmental reports, the shadow question is not as significant as some of us worried in the past.

that may be a part of that. i want you all to keep in mind as you go through this, the whole effort is not to being done for planning purposes. it is not a developer driven. it is publicly driven. the purpose is to move transit to tie the station into the new terminal and to the regional rail system. keep that in mind in all of your work in the next six weeks. >> thank you. additional public comment? >> commissioners, my name is reuben santiago. i would like to share my thoughts about the prague -- project. when the world class designed for the terminal was selected in 2007 over to other designs comet it was proclaimed as a

project of puget scope and beauty. a tower of 1,200 feet that would soon -- sort in the clouds -- soar in the clouds. a few years later, that great plan for san francisco has now changed dramatically. by many who seek san francisco's planners characteristically refusing to change its old ways. the tower is shrunken down to 1,070 feet from 1,200 feet. it makes it look short and squatty. instead of tall and majestic. gone are the wind turbines, which would make it glut night and -- glow at night and give it

the look of a giant white house. gone are the moving -- a giant white house. gone is the giant canopy of the plaza. gone are the retail outlets on the ground floor. gone, too, is the public restaurant and lookout level on the upper floors of the tower. so the public could enjoy the breathtaking views. what has happened to the city who once knew how to impress the world? they should revert back to their original plans for the terminal and tower, which was so impressive to begin with. concerning the shadows studies for the tower, the 1200's foot height is the right height for this tower. not only will it look iconic and spectacular on the skyline, it would also accentuate the rest

of the high rises on the skyline, which would look up to the tower as its main central high point. i would have been recommended to the san francisco planning department to allow the extra shadows, which would be visible only for a short time during the day, for this one truly iconic tower. thank you. >> thank you. any additional public comment? commissioners. commissioner antonini: very good reports, thank you. the first thing has to do with the caltrain extension. that is and as a show part of the entire project -- that is an essential part of the entire project. i guess these are somewhat development driven. can you give me any idea about some sort of timetable in which

this extension would be finished? i am not talking about high- speed rail. i am talking about an extension that would make the trains to be able to come all the way to the transit center. >> unfortunately, the commissioner, i do not know the time line off the top of my head. i believe initially, the schedule called for a completion of the downtown extension by 2019. i am not sure if that has changed. it is dependent on securing the rest of the funding. downtown rail extension, i believe, it is $2.5 million project. this plan would bring close to half a billion dollars to the table. we are continuing to look at other major forces of federal and local funding. -- sources of federal and local

funding. the agreement is to put the downtown extension at the top of the list for the region's new starts federal funding after the central subway is fully funded. i think that package is coming together. i do not know the schedule. we can have someone come to the next meeting and shed some light on that. commissioner antonini: that is great. it is essential. with the growth in silicon valley and the peninsula and this huge business center as well as the east bay, that would centralized, you know, transit right at that point where people could come from both directions. i would assume there is a plan to connect the transit center to bart so people will not have to

come aboveground and then go a couple of blocks in the rain to get to the metro. i would hope that as part of the plan. >> it is something that they are studying. it is not part of the core program to date. they have been studying an underground pedestrian connector. i believe the price tag is about $120 million. it is something that they hope to find if they can secure the funding. it is something also about would not be needed until the rail is built. commissioner antonini: if you are spending a couple of billion on the extension or whatever, another hundred million dollars to put a connector makes it really functional. people are going to be coming up escalators and struggling along with their luggage for a block instead of being able to move quickly from one transit place to another. another question related to

that, the transit tower. the last speaker talked about the decrease in size from the original plan. i would assume that the 1000 flight does not include an additional 70 feet or so of nonfunctional space. what is the title height? >> that is correct. when you remove the planning code amendments, -- review the planning code amendments, there are some proposals that height would be measured for these new tall buildings quit certain roles. right now, there are certain height allowances. those would all be put aside. there would be a special set that would allow substantial additional non inhabitable architectural additions to the buildings above 1,000 foot limit. provided that the commission

finds they are elegant and reduce the other impacts. the proposed code amendment would not limited to 70 additional feet. that is for future delegation -- the liberation of the commission. commissioner antonini: i agree with that speaker. it does have to be iconic. we will address some of the concerns about the chatelin and other issues that have been brought up. -- shadowing and other issues that have been brought up. that would be good. i have a couple of other questions. you talked about the idea of bringing down the allowable non residential parking from seven to 3.5% based on square footage.

the key would be on a busy day downtown, what is our capacity like for garages? i do not expect the answer right now, but that is an important question to ask. if you do not have any takers, it is a fine plan, but you have to have people who are willing to invest. if they feel they have enough parking and it is not being addressed properly, we have to make some of our decisions based upon what we hear from those who might want to invest in the building or those who might occupy the building to see what their needs are. i really like the idea of the combined power that they use in

manhattan a lot. i think that makes a lot of sense. those are my main comments and questions. i appreciate the report. i would read over it in more detail in the future. commissioner moore: i would be interested in a new giving this commission a more focused update on how the building has changed. i have read mr. clarke's explanation about changes. the height changes are totally inconsequential to me. when you are a point of where te

are some question marks of what we are giving up. that addresses a larger planning issue. they are crucial to wanting to approve the building of that height. if you do not have those commitments, or an integral part of the design of those commitments, what do you have? i will leave that as a question. i would like for you to follow up and give this commission a better update before we are moving into the may implementation cycle. >> you raise very important questions about the tower. the tower will be coming back to you at a later date for the actual approval. but you'll be seen on may 3 is the plan. the tower project will come to you in the fall for actual approval. moore: the

commitments of the tower work for the larger transformation of the district are extremely important. behold transit district has been -- uphold transit district has been sold to us based on those improvements. if they are not there, it becomes a very different project. and a very different plan to approve. it becomes just another high rise building standing there without having the connective tissue, which justifies the transformation of the entire district. >> that is where i think the ground level requirements are an important part of what we looked at. i completely agree. we're also very concerned about what happens on the ground level. >> that includes the idea of the open space being the catalyst for the entire network, which you have worked on for a long time. because of the size, the

exclamation mark. >> yes. >> it seems that many of us are on the same theme here. i appreciated the views from twin peaks, from treasure island. that does not bother me at all. san franciscans look at them also. what has concerned me is what happens on the street. i was also very disappointed in the changes to the tower. the interactions between the tower and the street, between the tower and the city park, as far as the interactions and the access.

if i was getting the correct information on the last iteration of the tower information that i had, i absolutely do not like it. i think it ruins the plan. it really does not enhance the area in the manner in which it should. i am also not concerned about the 200 feet. whatever it does, it does. whether it is a wind turbine, the flag pole, or whatever, that is something else that will come to us. i appreciate very much of the work the department has done. the comprehensiveness of it, the manner in which you presented it to us. the detail of the funding. i know those are testaments.

-- estimates. the very fact that we have something to look that is excellent. i look forward to a lot more detail as this goes through. this is the most important project area of that has come to this commission in a long time. >> i want to thank joshed and david for their incredible work. i also want to thank our partners as well as the san francisco redevelopment agency. the good news is that it appears as if the tax increment from that plan will be an enforceable obligation that will continue for that part of the plant. there was some question about that for a while.

that is many millions of dollars for public improvements. i appreciate your comments about the tower. we are meeting separately in the next few weeks. i will make sure those comments go back to them as well. we're also concerned about the nature of that. one of the most interesting things about this plan is that because of the density, we are talking about, except for the transit tunnel, it pays for itself. that is pretty hard to do typically because we cannot generate the type of square footage that would generate enough fees to do that. this is -- there is something very special about that. a very healthy amount of money for the tower -- for the tunnel can be generated from this plan. that is an important point to keep in mind. when i first got involved with this, i was initially quite

surprised about the emphasis on had -- as i have gone to understand the departments and the city's work over the last several years, it is very important to remember that we have -- this commission has approved a number of almost exclusively a high-density residential plans in this district. this becomes the first plan that you will have approved in a long time that shifts the balance a little bit towards jobs. it is important to think about that in light of all the recent planning efforts that have been almost entirely focused on housing and added tens of thousands of units of housing in our capacity. in thinking about it in that light, it makes a whole lot of sense. we are running up against capacity issues on job space in the city. for those reasons, i do think it is important that we think about this as the first step towards

increasing the job capacity. the last 10 years has been about residential capacity. commissioner sugaya: for some of us, it is the connection to the upper level. that is a huge problem. [inaudible] >> thank you. commissioners, you are on general public comment. >> is there any general public comment? sir? >> i would like to express that this tower being told hundred feet tall, i could see it attracting -- 1200 beachball, i could see detracting to 1,200

feet tall. you talk about jobs starting. i think that is a good indicator that you can draw a lot of business around to this tower that could bring more businesses to san francisco by being at that height. more of your importance businesses are from the east coast. they are used to being in a tall skyscrapers. san francisco has never had a tall skyscrapers before. this would be our first one. at 1,200 feet, it would be the perfect iconic tower. it might be the last tall iconic tower in san francisco, but i think this tower should be built. anything lower than that to, it does not look very impressive. i have been at every strategic point in san francisco, everywhere, the current height

does not stagger the imagination. it does not indicate, wow, is that san francisco? is that all they could have done? my heart tells me 1,200 feet. >> is there any additional public comment? >> we will talk more about shadow. if there is anything else, please let us know. thank you. >> meeting is adjourned.