south of market and so forth. we are now -- so that was sort of a cumulative, comprehensive action. to date pretty much almost every time and not exclusively but most of the times the budgets have been changed. then sort of because individual projects that have come up that have warranted some consideration based on single projects alone. this is the first time since the memo we have had any sort of comprehensive rethinking of the downtown landscape. not just development but the open space landscape. so based on the new information and new plans, we think it is prudent to revise the memo in a comprehensive manner in recognition of the plan that the city just adopted. so with that the department proposals in two weeks, on the 11th, the two commissions amend the 1989

memo to revise the absolute cumulative limits for the seven parks that has them that could potentially be shaded by buildings in plan area and be reflective of what was in the planned eir. additionally, the department also recommends that qualitative material be adopted. not just numerics because clearly the number doesn't show you the whole story but where the shadow would fall and how long it would last at any one time. like done for three parks given budgets or greater than 1989 we recommend commissions also adopt essentially criteria that any new shadows that would be considered within these new increased budgets would be consistent with shadow profiles analyzed in the

plan's eir. so if a building came along that wanted to shade union square that wasn't -- or portsmouth square that wasn't consistent with shadow profile analyzed in this planned eir but states within the budget, it wouldn't meet the qualitative criteria. secondly the commission hold projects to higher standard in terms of further building design. the numbers in the eir are based upon programmatic analysis. we don't have specific designs for a few of these buildings. when these come forward the sponsors demonstrate they have done to the best of their ability refine the designs to reduce if possible the amount of shadow analyzed in the plan's eir. though still consistent with goals to build to the height of the plan. the criteria in the '89 memo for public good

speaking to public good of buildings or projects. what we would propose is for these parks we are proposing to change the limits that public good of individual projects that are within this plan area be based on public plan as a whole. we think it would not be a fair or adequate evaluation to evaluate each building based on the good of each because their good is their participation in this plan providing new open space, providing hundreds of millions to transit and try to evaluate each independently would obscure public good of plan as a whole, which doesn't have a good unless buildings get built. so with that, that essentially concludes my presentation again. we want you to -- hope you think about this in a

comprehensive manner in terms of the plans development profile as well as its benefits and contribution to the city landscape. so with that i will be happy to take any questions and happy to go back and show videos or go to any of the graphics and discuss them at any length. commissioner moore. >> the public first? >> my apologies. i will call for public comment on this item at this time. >> sue hester. it is interesting that it started out with summer and what the downtown plan called for. downtown plan went through the planning commission a variety of years.

the peak was in 86, 80 -- pardon me, 83 and 84. prop k came hot on heels and went to the public. prop m came after prop k. people who are not in the department feel absolutely correct in saying the downtown plan called for this result. it called for thousand-foot buildings into the transit center. even though the downtown plan rezoned the area south of market for the highest height, we are going to outstrip those heights. the planning department is very good at making up tales. that is what this is. i was involved in the beginning. union square and the port litigating. out of that came prop k

because people had no confidence in this commission to say no but now you are supposed to have confidence that we are going to do the balancing of the public good and when has the planning department not found a public good for a project spectrum? i'm waiting. i look at this and say this is really throwing out of prop k. you are not doing it honestly by taking it to the voters. you have a recommendation that was flashed on the screen. what was the recommendation on this proposal by the task force that was put up. the individual members. the individual member who created the 1989 shadow span. it was consultants from uc

berkeley. what we don't know is the parks or dynamic places. they keep changing. that is why prop k was so important. it was important because parks made change but the sunlight, once it is lost, is lost forever. you have basically intuited what everyone wanted to do and taken away the ability of voters to vote, that there should be no additional shadows. that is what hay voted on. i'm looking forward to the full report that you made available. i would point out your first meeting is at the same time as the first debate at the approximately.shall. you are having green connections at the identical time as debate between romney and obama.

some of us who actually watch that debate on our tv, thank you. >> any additional public comments? okay. seeing none, commissioner moore. >> this is probably the most difficult thing you did in your entire career. i do have to acknowledge this is a good piece of work. i do like to also acknowledge it lacks a number of considerations, some being touched on by ms. hester. the one thing i'm concerned about is obviously the creation -- cumulative creation of shadows is being considered with specific emphasis on the real estate of park and reck and stands in contrast to what prop k as board nesh t*if promised the citizens of san francisco but in a much larger discussion. the cumulative effect of shadows on the parks has

also simultaneously cumulative sitting affect on those people who live in the shadow path. those are residences and literally all parts of the city in that area. the second thing i like to say is that all buildings, private development up and down market and financial district and beyond have created open spaces based on the requirements of the code by which they are contributed to another intricate open space part, not protected by prop k but benefited from prop k and designed with prop k in mind. that is that the quality of those spaces encouraged lunchtime sun for those people who work in the ever dense or downtown buildings. while these are not protected by prop k, there

definitely contribute to quality of our workforce and financial district because each office building and architect of those buildings made every effort to place them that they had max sun, animated by cafes which use the sun to attract lunchtime customers, the revitalization of alleys all relied on prop k and the downtown plan to create a completely transformed downtown. what we are seeing here to varying degrees is going to be greatly affecting all these things. the one part of your presentation which i believe you need to do is speak about -- is there a conversation which i should be hearing here? thank you. the one part of the conversation which i believe you owe this

commission, at least me, are shadows on sidewalks, also protected by prop k. they are not all sidewalks but specific ones. i appreciate if that would be brought to this commission as part of the discussion. it is not under the jurisdiction of park and reck with whom will be deciding this but instead the discussion of shadows. the one thing i'm personally having a hard time of while you were in your last page, making good comments to that the simulated shadows for other buildings and transbay, the only photo designed building in this particular array, would be maximum. i think you will be running into big discussions with design architects as over the next few years buildings don't shape themselves by shadow lines. buildings shape shadow lines but not the other way

around. i think it would be very hard not to get into a dulu for all other future shadows over ther buildings * will be quibbled again when they are realistically designed. i think it puts a heavy burden on any bill err on the speculative outline. that is an unrealistic proposition from my perspective and i think it is a very questionable one. i'm saying the shadow study should be approved as one. i think you are raising issues which i don't quite agree with. i'm prepared to look at shadows but it would have to be on a one-by-one basis. we cannot anticipate that everybody in the future will agree to what you are trying to ask us to approve. thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you for an excellent report. i will particularly note

the fact that what we are dealing with here is considerations regarding prop k and that would be the subject of our joint hearing with park reck. that deals specifically with parks that are protected under the prop k shadow legislation. and i agree with commissioner moore that it is wise to also include consideration of shadows on sidewalks, non protect parks and other things she brought up. however, as was pointed out very well by mr. swizky and this entire presentation, assume weg do approve for increased allowances. each individual project has to come before us for consideration. so more appropriate would be concern for sidewalk shadows and individual buildings. commissioner moore and all of us will have that

opportunity to-pine on at the time each comes forward. but not to overburden you what is not in scope of our consideration for two weeks from now, it probably doesn't hurt to look at the issues brought up about sidewalks and non protected parks. those are not what we are really dealing with in a couple weeks. an excellent point was made about the public good. one thing that particularly resonates with me is the fact that the 160 million out of 590 million in net revenue could be generated for public open space. particularly 12-plus acres with open space that doesn't already exist. presumably a lot of this open space would have areas that are in the sunlight much of the time, or some of the time and provide parks that don't particularly exist now. well overshadow the almost infinitesimal increases we have heard on all these

other places. this is really important. i saw a video or television show about a year ago that the undergrounding of railroads coming into grand central station. we know $420 million goes toward making the downtown extension important. prior to the advent of diesel and electrification, these were steam engines, which was messy in downtown manhattan. wisely with diesel and electric put it underground and runs under park avenue. it is amazing when you go to grand central station that all the trains are coming in, you don't know they are there. they enter manhattan, disappear underground and come in. that is what we need. in what could be a new rockefeller center or additional embarkadero center that could happen in transbay and be the logical

business center of california and western united states, which i think is important. i think it was a really good presentation. reminds me of the time we were considering another issue some years ago. this happened to be 555 washington. many nights i would run to maritime plaza and try to imagine that one sliver of time when the sunlight might go past the buildings that were blocking maritime plaza. i don't know if i was ever long enough to stay that sliver of time there might be a shadow cast on a park during the time i was doing my run. i think that is instructive. of course the part of the few shadow is very important. if you are a long ways a

way, it is an analogy to twilight. you block part by this distance building, some perforated in the case of the transbay tower, but you still get a lot of the light that turns around through the perforation, around the connicle top. * and there is a difference between a full and diffused shadow. you pointed out parks in the heavily shaded areas, as it is. there are times -- while we love the sun in san francisco, because you have a cool climate, there are times you want to be in the shade because it can bright and in downtown san francisco it can get warm, that is why people prefer to eat in the shade. then the other thing pointed out, which i think is very accurate, is shadows will be less than planned because when it is foggy and cloudy it is hard to have a shadow. we do have a certain amount

of fog in san francisco in the summer. we do have clouds in the winter when it rains. any shadows projected is my assumption is based on the maximum possible if we have full sun on all the days they were analyzed. so probably you can cut that by about 50%, which may be an exaggeration. certainly a quarter anyway. considering the times when we have particularly in the morning hours fog downtown. in the winter there will be days that we will have overcast every day of the month. that is not in realistic terms. i agree it needs to be done as a unit. we take into consideration allowances on what has been analyzed, environmentally what is there. other buildings such as was pointed out 706 mission which are not within the scope, they have to justify

their own individually and other buildings in the future will have to do it. they will not be part of this shadow analysis that we do jointly with park reck. those are my main comments but i'm impressed by what you have done. any questions that you may provide answers to only makes it better. >> commissioner wu. >> thank you. if i could ask staff a couple of questions. i also want to thank you for the level detail in this report. i think there's been a lot of questions about shadows over the years . this answers some of them. i specifically want to ask questions about the impact fees. it was stated that the 12.5 million for new impact fees for parks outside the transit area plan. i'm curious to understand who collects the fees, who is responsible for

enforcing the fees, which city agency deals with them after they are collected. the fees are collected by the planning department and dbi is part of the building entitlement and site permits. essentially fees are owed before the project can pull its first site permit. after entitlement typically if a large project is moving forward full steam ahead it is maybe a year or so before they pull the site permit. by that point fees are owed. it is part of the standard procedure. dbi won't issue permit unless demonstrated fees are paid. then goes to the city treasurer. in terms of -- more importantly, how the fees

are allocated and distributed, like the other recently adopted plans eastern neighborhoods, market area and so forth, part of the action of adopting the plan is put this also into the framework that was established in the administrative code for those plans, which is there is an inner agency body set up by the administer code called the inner agency plan implementation committee, or ipic, made up of almost every agency. planning, reck park, dpw, mta, other library capital planning committee and so forth. they at a staff level sort of look at projections of incoming revenue for upcoming year, what is in hand, what gets sort of the city's laughing of projects in the different plan areas the city wants to undertake.

makes recommendation to board of supervisors, the body that ultimately decides on the allocation. if you'd like we can bring someone in from implementation staff. we have a whole division that's basically set up over the last year or two to start working on a regular basis. ipic is chaired by the planning department as sort of the broad non-specific agency that helped form the plan but works with different agencies to deliberate over the intents of plans and what the priority projects are and so forth. a couple of those plan areas, market octavia and ease tenor neighborhoods have cacs established that ones for another and one or two that it wasn't done for that. is generally the process. inner agency group and board of supervisors basically makes the allocation.

there is a monitoring report required to be done on annual and bigger report every five years so the board and commissions can see how allocations have been going. maybe make adjustments or recommendations. >> thank you. i think it would be helpful to have someone from implementation team at the hearing october 11th. >> just reminded by the city attorney, john melmet, * that as part of the commission's action on adopting the plan you adopted implementation document for the district plan. that implementation document included funding program that had elaborate table that essentially allocated projected revenues over the life of the plan to different projects, open space streetscape, downtown rail. that was the statement as

to what the priorities are, how they ought to get allocated over the life of the plan n. a sense the commission has taken a stance on how you think to be allocated, what still needs to be done is on an ongoing basis as money comes in, deciding year-by-year how those get spent but over time it needs to reflect what's been adopted in the implementation document you adopted. >> thank you. so i don't think the shadow impacts are to be taken lightly. this would be, for china town parks, the core parks, portsmouth, wu wong and the reck center, the first time an increase in shadow budget. there has been this argument for transit improvements or open space in soma, but i think we need to recognize the importance of the parks for everyone, especially in the really dense neighborhood. it is not exactly where the

shadow is, or whether it is diffuse or not. i was talking to stakeholders in china town. we talk about how you go to the beach because it is sunny but you might sit under an umbrella. it is the atmosphere. it provides on space and a place forest when you live in these overcrowded conditions. i just want to keep that in mind. it is not just about exactly where the shadow falls that these parks are important. i think that is what i want to get across. i will leave it at that for now. ask what the other commissioners have to say. >> commissioner borden. >> i also want to thank staff for this memo as well as the presentation and even the video. it was very informative in the process. i want to understand the difference. i think it does make a lot of sense to make a cumulative decision versus project by project. can you explain the process. if we were to make a decision to raise an

overall shadow budget based on all the projects and consideration, how does that work. if we don't what would be your recommendation ongoing case by case. >> planning staff. the process -- the establishment of the budgets is a separate action from consideration of individual buildings. that's been conflated for individual buildings. commissions have raised the budgets and allocated them simultaneously, accept for the initial establishing of the budget. then i believe one or two other times budgets were raised more than individual projects needed, in anticipation of theser projects. essentially if you did it cumulatively you would change the budgets for those. when they came forward they

would have to go to the reck park commission to get their recommendation about whether their individual shadow was adverse and what the commission would be using to make the same finding, both that the shadow from that particular project fits within the quantitative budget already established. b, equally importantly, that the qualitative assessments of the shadow from that building meets the criteria established. that means it falls at certain times of day. doesn't last for a certain amount of time. the public good merits the allocation. >> does the mere approving of the shadow budget doesn't necessarily -- for cumulatively short for individual projects, could there be other projects that would come along that could claim that budget? >> that is why we were recommending that these

additional qualitative criteria be adopted. while it doesn't allocate -- doesn't preclude theoretically this budget being allocated to other buildings, the qualitative criteria specifically speaks to quote unquote the shadow profile of buildings and where it falsely for each park. a certain time of day, time of year, certain length of time, certain part of the park. so father let kli there could be a building that had the same characteristics but it's -- then still additionally the public a god question of there was a building outside the plan area which somehow met characteristicks in terms of time of day and time of year for the park. would it rise to those standards as well. >> i guess what you are saying to a certain extent raising -- we are suggesting a cumulative

shadow raise for anticipated six or seven project wes know of. there could be others we don't know of that could also -- i mean, i'm just trying to understand. i know there are other projects, some of which are in the plan area, some that are outside the plan area that also cast shadow. i want to understand the difference between setting a cumulative limit, how that impacts those other projects that, you know, are anticipated or maybe not known. >> maybe i could help a bit on that. what we are proposing -- you will see on the third to last slide, only those consistent and studied in the eir would have to be within that profile established, right? if a project came along that was not within that profile, it would not be -- it would not be consist it isn't with eir. >> raising the cumulative shadow limit with caveat to add that language. >> yes. >>