president fong: good morning.

this is the regular meeting for the planning commission may 24, 2012. i would like to remind all of us to turn off cell phones or other electronic device that may sound off during the hearing. roll-call. ron miguel is absent today. the first category item our calendar items proposed for continuance. 2,011.093011.0939d 1450 post st. president fong: public comment of this category? commissioner borden. commissioner borden: i moved to

move this item. >> motion for continuance to june 14, 2012. on that motion? [calling roll] thank you. the motion passed unanimously. commissioners, the next category is public comment on the agenda items for the public hearing that has been closed. this category is on this calendar and date, specifically for item number three, which is the certification of final eir for transit center district plan and transit tower. at this time, members of the public that wish to address the board on that item, the

opportunity to do so for that item would be at this time only. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes each. president fong: commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: i have a conflict of interest on the environmental part of the meeting that will take place. with respect to public comment on the hearings that have been closed, and as it relates directly to the and fervent report, i think it should recuse myself on that item. i should also recused myself on item number three, transit center district planned certification of the final environmental district report. also 4a, adoption of ceqa plans.

>> but you are ok to be here on item 2? commissioner sugaya: maybe not. >> deputy attorney. i would recommend you read clues yourself from the public comment item, because it would consent to ratification of the eir. you should recuse yourself on item three, however, you did not to recuse yourself on the adoption of the ceqa approval findings. at. th. at that point, the eir will have been adopted. >> what about item 2? >> i would recommend recusing

yourself from item two as well. >> move to precludes commissioner suguya from 2, 3, and 4a. category b. commissioner borden: , on the motion never close of four commissioners to ga suguya -- [calling roll] commissioner is reclusied. we have called a public comment on closed items. mr. president, i have one speaker card.

>> dan kingsley. >> i have one also. >> i would like to -- commissioners, before i start, i have here a copy to change commissioners and a copy -- my name is bill mohler. these are copies of the city attorney's opinion regarding what can and cannot be done under proposition k, which i have sent to planning in the past, and i assume you all have seen, but in case you have not, there are a few items on page 5 and 6 the may enter today's discussion. i believe also there is a copy of my comments today.

even if i tried to talk fast, i may not cover it. i am sorry, are we starting? ok. all right. commissioners, proposed transbay project can be a boon to the city, or they can be litigation, depending on how they are addressed. before you vote, please required the amended to reflect the appropriate height to bring it into compliance proposition k and the planning code section 295. unit square has virtually no budget. these are buildings would exceed the shuttle limit in any of those cases.

since the limits have been established with regard to the parks and the proposed project would shout out beyond the limit, clearly inappropriate to be studying the proposed approval for project to violate rules. this clearly shows significant shadowing beyond what is permissible, and the prop k. this document must be reflected to show the least environmentally interested. further, it is permissible to say that it must not say you cannot build a 600 foot building in downtown san francisco. in terms of ceqa, it is clearly significant. the project has proposed it would have the ability to change the shuttle in the future.

planning officials are wrong in their decision-making power superior of that of the electorate. the entire proposition was to conclude any such negotiations, and all side of the election debate agreed on that point. then the city attorney issued a clarification for what could it cannot be done, which you now have before you. prior to this, the city could use the did require trade-offs from any develop from a public park. the result was a slow destruction of the city parks. in essence, the continual modification and privatization of public sunlight was the public right. for all of these reasons, skipping to the chase, the proposed project that will share part should be excluded

from the scope of the eir. planning is aware of this. they have set up a committee that has worked over a year on it. yours is the ministerial act to follow. thank you, commissioners. president fong: dan kingsley. >> dan kinsley. as a native san franciscan who still lives and works in san francisco, i would like to extend my compliments to stop for the diligent work to reduce what is an extraordinary plan. to me, one of the more important aspects of the plan is it literally and the crudely tell san francisco to have to grow up. -- and figuratively tells of san francisco you have to grow up if we're going to reduce the carbon footprint and reduce -- support public transport. i think the family over the past 20 years needs to be

complimented for all of their hard work that has led up to this plan, including the now defunct redevelopment agency. president fong: any additional comment? >> my name is rubin santiango. when the world-class design for the transbay terminal was elected in 2007 over 200 -- over to other designs, it was proclaimed as a project with huge scope and beauty. a tower of 1,200 feet, 80 stories that would soar in the cloud and renewed the entire bill and lackluster high-rise of the san francisco skyline. a few years later, the great plan for sentences go has now

changed grammatically, and by many who see san francisco's planning, planners characteristically reducing change its old ways. the tower have shrunken down to 1,070 feet, 61 stories from 1,200 feet 80 stories, which makes it look short and squat in style -- instead of paul. gone are the with germans and the crowd that would make it light up and give it the look of a giant white house. that would be so beautiful to behold on the skyline. gone are the trams to give you a lift to the park above. gone are the retail all its on the ground floor. gone is the public rest from an observation level on the upper floors of the tower so the public could enjoy the breathtaking views. what has happened to the city that once knew how to impress the world?

mr. clarke should revert back to the original plan for the transbay terminal, which was so impressive to begin with. concerning the shadows studies for the tower, but 1,200 foot height is the right height for this power. not only will it look iconic and spectacular on the sideline, but also a situate the rest of a high-rise on the sideline that would look up to the transit tower as the maine central high point. i would highly recommend the san francisco planning department to allow the extra shadows, which would be visible only for a short time during the day with its one truly iconic landmark tower that it will truly become, and i feel the shorter tower is a field goal, and the taller tower is a touchdown for san francisco. thank you. >>president fong: thank you.

>> i want to follow up on supervisor mar's comments. i was involved in the battle when prop k was passed, because there were huge controversies about shadowing union square that played out. i would like to associate myself with his remarks better part of the coalition that was part of getting this ballot measure through. it the planning department wishes to change prop k, there is a way to do it, and it is the only way to do it. put it on the ballot and let the city vote. the people at the city have already bowed to it. you may not amend it just because of superior design or whatever reason. you must follow the law.

the law says you cannot approve the project, and you should not approve certification of this eir for project that is does not comply with the law. you must have a code-confined project before you because that is what the law requires. secondarily, i know this is before information item on changes that may have occurred. we have heard all kinds of rumors about deals that have been negotiated, modifications. that is inappropriate. you have to explain that those in writing before this kind of testimony is allowed. having people testify without knowing what we are about to hear and cover what is about to be said in a comment is not

rational and is not legal. i have to objections. -- two objections. i cannot comment on them, because i do not know what they are. they are not in the staff report. more than that, you have to reject the cir. you have a staff that is out of control with regard to prop k. it is the law of the city. it is not something that is subject to further interpretation. it was passed by the voters. you cannot approve an eir that does not comply with the information. thank you. president fong: any additional speakers?

>> thank you. seeing none, i would suggest we move on to the regular calendar. item number two, 2012.0706x 4 up informational presentation on 101 first-rate. you>> you all ask that we put this on the agenda as a precursor to the action items. this is an informational hearing. we're not taking any action. this is public comment on this item, just like on any item in the agenda. it is important for us to realize that the project that is embedded in this half the titular item is one piece of an overall plan, but the centerpiece is part of an ensemble bout was created and proposed as part of the larger

creation of the transit terminal five years ago. what is before you today is the design for that ensemble, with the terminal having already started construction. we have been working with the architects, landscape architects for quite some time. you have raised a number of concerns and comments about what has been proposed. i am happy to report we have made serious progress. they have been working in close collaboration with the department to make sure your concerns have been addressed. what i have for you today are the presentations by peter walker, the landscape architect, and by fred clark who will present the proposals for the ground plane of the district, if you will.

the ensemble of buildings that is greeted by the transit tower, terminal, and mission square plaza. i would also point out, and i am here with the developer on this. i would point out this is the same team that did proposed five years ago for the competition, so the tame -- same team has been working on this project from the early stages. with that, i will turn it over to peter walker who will start the presentation. >> good morning, commissioners. i am peter walker, the landscape architect. we are delighted to be here, because we have been working on the park for a long time now. finally, the other part of the other competition comments are coming up. it has been a while, but we are here. >> [inaudible]

>> it is a long time to remember, but five years ago part of the presentation was the relationship between mission square and the park above. it was not so much that mission square was going to be a problem in terms of access and people would know about it obviously, but it is the connection between them, which we emphasized in the competition here than what we are bringing to you today is some of the ideas that we're working with on mission square, and i will try to show you how they relate to the park and making them one as much as possible. we're working with redwood trees. you have another plaza that uses redwood trees, but we're working

with them in quite a different way from that one. that one is a little reckless and moving away from the busyness of the city. we are the front door of the busyness of the city. we want to be out there. the thing about this is it is quite different. if you think about oaks like in the 9/11 at memorial, they form a canopy and a series of lakes that holds the canopy up. redwood's form a series of spires, and they are closed, not solidly, across, but closed along the stem of the column. you can see on the left-hand aside what a group of trees it does. it essentially takes your eyes up here yet you know the phenomenon where you go in and taken up by the columns. the other thing i