given the fact that the number of children under the age of nine that go to the various preschools i mentioned earlier, that 15% of the 10 buildings have children -- i'm sorry, that 15% of each building has children, each is irresponsible to allow this project to go on. imagine the case that impact on traffic cannot be mitigated -- we disagree. the smaller building, the same height involved as the immediate surroundings buildings will mitigate the impact of traffic. we have said from the beginning we have nothing against anyone building on this side. all we are asking and what we want you to ask is a code- compliant building. -compliant building, the same size as the adjacent structures,

would be a much better neighbor for all of us. thank you. >> good morning -- good afternoon, commissioners. i think this project shows how difficult it is for transitional neighborhoods to determine what should be the overriding consideration. i will tell you that san francisco invited my family and myself and my neighbors to move downtown and spend the money and raise our families and used car share and transit and work and live in the same place, contribute back with property taxes, sales tax, supporting local businesses, and we were happy to take that invitation based on the rule book that was presented to us. here are the rules for zoning. here are the rules for wind,

shadows. we said ok, we will take this invitation and move in. he did not say we will stop when a project sponsored does not want to follow those rules anymore. it is an important and difficult decision for you to make. i agree with the previous speaker that a new office building, a new building of any kind is a miracle in san francisco right now. i'm going to suggest to you that it would be just as much of a miracle if it followed the code. i would welcome a building on this side, especially one that followed the rules. if there were a grocery store included, i would probably come down here and cheerlead for it. it is an important consideration to have a building on that lot. we just want one that works for our neighborhood and our community. commissioner miguel: thank you.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i want to talk a little bit to you this afternoon from the perspective of the corporate occupier and the users of these buildings. i am part of a practice that represents large corporate users in san francisco. i work with other users in san francisco, who you probably know are a rare commodity for this city, users who are building and adding jobs and who need space and contribute to the tax base. from someone who has been involved with san francisco since 1987, how special that group of corporate citizens are, maybe a little counterintuitive to think about a building being -- coming forth and being asked for approval in a market cycle that is down where the nadir of the cycle,

and we have a lot of economic challenges in front of us. i can tell you that the users that are growing in san francisco, like sales force, are looking for opportunities to expand their footprint, and when you are talking about users like sales force or xanga that are in the social media, cloud- computing space, they are growing rapidly. they are looking for space years in advance, so they can see rates that are high. i noticed people mentioned how much space there is or space that has been approved and have not been built. when you are looking for two, -- 200,000, 300,000, 400,000 square feet, you are looking two five years out and thinking about what side is entitled that

i could execute on with minimal risk, and squeezing out the risk is so important to a corporate occupier. they do not want to have to wait and wonder if the project is going to be completed. when you think about how many projects are actually ready to be built in san francisco, it is very few that are of scale. i would encourage you to approve this project because it adds another opportunity to retain your existing growing tenants and to recruit those tenants that are outside san francisco that are looking for homes. this is an outstanding project that can deliver on that score, so that is my suggestion and recommendation. thank you. >> commissioners, i am president of the mark company in residential real-estate market sales, and i speak as a presidential expert. i have the marketing and selling condominiums in san francisco for 20 years.

in 20 years, every single project i have worked on if either adjacent to or across the street from a commercial building. it is the urban fabric. i think it is what draws people to soma. i find that when someone comes in, often, it brings life to the streets. not until foundry square was built did we finally have a decent cup of coffee. this is right now a vacant lot, as you know. i think it is a question of safety. we have people in our office to keep their cars at sunset in the wintertime because of the open lot. the public space that will be added is also vital to people in the area. for our office alone, we used marathon plaza, and other public

spaces for meetings, for places to eat. with 2000 people added to the building, we have a lot of buyers. right now, we are marketing 1 hawthorne, a short walk away. many of our buyers come from within walking distance. they like to not use their cars all week, so i do think this would change the neighborhood for the better, and it also really does help values in the neighborhood. really, that is what i would like to say, including that i strongly support this building as it is. thank you. commissioner miguel: thank you. >> my name is greg patterson. i am a fifth generation san franciscan, and i have young kids. i thank the commissioners for this opportunity to speak. as a fifth generation san

franciscan, in talking with my grandparents and other people who grew up in the city and have been disappointed at the way some things have developed and delighted at the way other things have developed, i would encourage you to take a very close look at who has spoken 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, an