i like to call a spade here. this is all about the land use around the library. to me the best policy rutin is to make a rigid policy route is to make up your mind about -- to me the best policy is to make up your mind first. >> good afternoon. thank you for this opportunity. i am here on behalf of my community. one thing you should understand

is over 50 years ago, they were confronted with the same issue -- where to place the library in this incredibly dense community, and it was an extensive process. the community articulated the library should go on that site. the only reason in the did not come down to placing the library on that site was due to political efficacy. they had questions about traffic studies and whether it would cause trouble closing it. we have that information. it is the best solution. the park is going to be

liberated. there is no possibility to go from one. it is cut off. you build on good buildings. you do not build on bad buildings. thank you. >> seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor chu. >> we have three comments. i do support the landmarking of the marina library. i think many features are still

in tact. it has already been renovated. i>> it is obvious when something has the integrity to be landmarked that people are more willing to do it. >> with regards to north beach, i want to thank everyone who came out today. i have tremendous respect for the individuals on both sides of the issue, and i did spend a long time thinking about it. the question is whether we should plan to mark the library. we are going to have further

conversations. there is an eir and other issues better not appropriate to consider today. the historic preservation committee debated this at eight meetings. there were three separate votes. one was deadlocked, and there were two that involve the one- vote margin. it is clear there is a legitimate question about whether they deserve landmarking. we have received numerous feedback from architectural historians, neighborhood historians, and those from the community. they point out that of the seven branch libraries dedicated between 1951 and 1969, the north beach library is least represented and most lacking in characteristics of that

particular style. i certainly support historic preservation when it is merited. we are preserving six libraries for future generations, and i support those renovations. i do not think we should include buildings that lack architectural merit, because i think it cheapens designations for other buildings that have real merit. that is why i will not support landmarking the north beach library, and i ask that we not approve landmarking to the full board of supervisors. >> i want to thank everyone. i am very supportive of much more functional libraries for the people of north beach and

chinatown, and i see that accessibility as critical. i support the building modernism, but i placed the value offensive and acceptable -- placed the value of the acceptable, a functional buildings. i put the usefulness of buildings above the landmarking of the buildings. i also want to say the testimony from a lot of my colleagues and families and parents and teachers and from francisco middle school are very influential on my decision as well, and i think this is the best way forward for a community that has needed a much better library and a park as well.

i think the opportunity to unify the park in a much more useful use of space is one of our goals as well. >> i think if there were no better examples i might be convinced maybe it had merit to land mark, but since there are better examples, and i am a recipient of four new libraries, and two are built, and they are amazing. they have outside places where people can read. it is much better and much more functional. two libraries are completed. you should see it. it is amazing. i think the north beach area

deserves a new library. they deserve to have an amazing building so they can be proud of something. i will be supportive of supervisor chu and supervisor mar. a lot of you children, i will be supporting you and what you want. without objection, so move. [applause] madam clerk, will you read items four and item five together. >> an item to change the bulk of property. item number five, ordinance commending the zoning map of property at 222, second street. >> we have other business in

front of us. we have items four and five red, and we will take a three-minute break before we continue. thank you. >> is located at the southwest corner of howard street. the project proposes to destroy an existing parking lot -- >> you said you were going to read about the parking lot and what else? >> a surface parking lot and a loading dock >> it was 22 -- >> 26 stories. >> a 26-story building, for office usage, retail space, and

a ground floor space that would be accessible to the public. the requests are for a zoning map and the general plan to reclassify the height for the district. this-change would affect a relatively small area off in the western portions run -- portions. what makes this consistent is the height limit. they granted approval and recommended approval of the zoning map. the commission specifically said this affect a relatively small portion of the properties and would make the height uniform to the site. the proposed site is also compatible with others in the vicinity, and it is consistent with the plan to focus on

intense development, particularly on employment issues that can take advantage of transit and other services. this concludes my presentation, and i am available for questions. they are ready to give of brief presentation. >> any other staff reporting? why don't we open it to public comment? i have david >> david, and justin, a father -- jennifer, and victor gonzales.

>> do we have an overhead? >> i am dave. i want to give our context and background as to our proposed change to the site. >> can you please show the overhead? it has not even started yet. go on, guys. >> [inaudible] >> you need to speak into the

microphone. >> here is the parking lot. it is the same elevation in this area here. that is what we are proposing to rezone. the reason this is 150 feet is historically there were buildings in the area. they were designed at 150-foot height. these were demolished. they assembled the parcels and got a building approve. this will allow us to build a better design. as you can see, the rezoning will only affect this portion of the site. we would request you vote to recommend approval of the height

change. >> could afternoon. i am karl shannon. i am a resident of san francisco. i am pleased to be that and also a giant sand. we think three zoning allows for a better project. we have worked for the project. it makes for a better project, and it makes it a better economic projects. it allows it to relate to the historic building next door. this is the proposed project. >> would you just say you need the overhead? >> sorry, i need the overhead. i can do a comparison between

the proposed project in order to tie into the proposed building next door versus the alternative. it also allows additional foulard gm in, and the open spaces dropped down to 14 feet from 21 feet, so we think it is a better project. we think it fills jobs. it is one of the last remaining large sites in town. it will provide over $15 million in fees. it will house about 1700 workers and provide $4.5 million. we think this is an important project. we have worked to come up with what we think is the best solution. we would not be here if we did not think it was important in providing a better building. thank you for your time.

>> my comment is very brief. our office is located of block from second street. we have been in this neighborhood about 10 years. when we first moved in we were adjacent to blogs. the neighborhood felt much safer. people were out and about during the day and evenings. in addition to having an office located in that area, we also market and sell homes. we found that a market mixed with buildings is a strong selling point for those looking to buy a new home. this fuelled demand for additional services that creates new jobs. we understand the neighborhood and feel this is of benefit to everyone. >> how are things going?

>> it is going ok. there is a lot of uncertainty, but people are looking. >> good evening, supervisers, president chiu. ever since i got in the construction industry, about 10 years ago, i've gone around town looking at parking lots and knowing they should be buildings that have parking also. this lot is special, it's a wide lot which is more attract to have tenants. it is very adjacent to transbay terminal. this large building will be able to house the offices and commercial environment that these people will be transporting for.

this will create job hours move and shake. which makes our entire industry move and shake. and we are definitely in favor of this project. thank you. >> good evening. i'm the chief estimator with turner construction. i've been working with the last four years on this particular project. worked with them on 555, i've worked on 560 so i know this area. what i can speak to is the number of workmen that are going to be hired. we're going to have roughly 150 union workers on this on an average. peak out at 300. the building is going to hold 1,700 people. so it adds a lot of jobs to this area. the other thingky speak to is i'm a lead accredited professional. the building's going to go to the lead gold standard. that's what we want to try to build. i urge you to approve this. thank you.

>> hi, my name is justin. i worked with curbman and wakefield in san francisco. it's good to see you again. i know it's been a long day for you so i'll be quick. we represent large occupiers in the city. we respect a lot of the technology -- represent a lot of the technology firms in this city and the bay area. they are looking for large floor space and lead accreditation and this expansion to the building offers that and this building is a major project that would be on their minds, to keep the twitters in san francisco, to keep the sales force in san francisco. so i urge you to accept this expansion and we look forward to this building coming up in our city. go giants. commissioner maxwell: any more? all right. public comment, public comment? come on up. you know what's going on. come on up. >> my name is tom. i'm a resident at 246 2nd

street and an owner of one of 885 residential units within two blocks of the proposed office tower. i am one of over 1,000 residents, hundreds of working families, with over 40-plus children and over 100 children living within 100 feet of the proposed office tower. i think i recognize and think most of the neighbors recognize that there will be an office tower built at the corner of 2nd and market. that is what this site is zoned for. but what we expected was to have a code compliance building built on this property. a building that respects the rules and regulations that have been put in place after thoughtful crucial by the board of supervisors -- consideration

and the board of supervisors and others on how this neighborhood should be developed and how buildings should be built. but what we have currently under your purr view or under your examination is a building that really askings for the trieffecta of building exceptions, on bulk and height and also on shadowing, on the second street sunshine ordinance. and throughout this whole process of planning and development, there have been almost minimal inputs from the residents of this neighborhood. the planning department in its development of the e.i.r. did not seek any residential input and the building developer, until the draft e.i.r. was put in place, did not ask for any

input. but what we asked for is really for this commission to slow down this process. this building is not going to be built tomorrow, it's not going to be built next year. we ask that you slow down this process and give the residents -- tell the planning department to go back and give the residents an opportunity to have input into this building. thank you. commissioner maxwell: thank you. >> my name is viktor gonzalez. i'm be a owner at 199 montgomery, looking directly at this site. and my view will be blocked with or without the amendments. to be brief, i would like to see the parking lot developed into a much better project. the whole neighborhood is improving with transbay and other developments and so i support this amendment for a better project and, by the way, go giants.

commissioner maxwell: why only two minutes? two minutes? >> that's really rough after having waited for two hours. thanks project that's going to be an office building, but should be in a neighborhood context. there is no excuse for the planning department and the developers. basically ignoring the neighbors. you can believe it? i went through this section 309 report, i went through the conditions on this project. there's retail and open space, there's not one word of condition that the retail and open space is open on the weekends and the evening, where it can be used by residents in the area. a lot of the buildings that get built downtown basically close up at 5:00 or 6:00. this one there is no guarantee. the planning department didn't look at this as being totally surrounded by new housing. they have new housing approved

on hawthorne which is just to the west of this, on fullsome, the phone company conversion and directly across the street on second street -- 2nd street. it is surrounded by new housing and approved new housing. this is going to be an office building in the middle of it. and the developer asked for everything. they asked for a height increase, they asked for four exceptions, they asked for a solar plane evaluation which allowed the building to cast more shadows on 2nd street. they asked for an exception for shadow impacts. they asked for an exception for bulk. they asked -- they have an 18-1 -- you cannot build a more dense building than 18-1 and they are here asking for the last fit. at some point someone is going to have to say, you have to fit into that residential neighborhood and someone needs to go back and look at what conditions you have to make an office building surrounded by residences act as a friendly

building, act like it belongs in a neighborhood. this is a residential surrounding it and we have too many of these projects right now in these neighborhoods. they just disregard everybody. thank you. commissioner maxwell: thank you. >> we represent the project sponsors. i just want to point out for the record that the neighborhood context was exhaustively discussed in the e.i.r., both in the original draft e.i.r. and response to comments that you heard just a moment ago. this is a c-3-o office district. there's no question that there are residents in this area but there is also no question that the district is the driving force behind jobs and office growth in san francisco. one of the earlier speakers said this is an office site. this has been an office site for the last 20 years. it deserves a class a prime

development site that does not underutilize the site and responds to the event growing needs for office and jobs in san francisco. it's a stone's throw from the new transbay terminal. it's the perfect place for office space and i think that's why the planning commission approved it and we're here to ask for your support on these amendments. thank you. >> my name is eddie. and i am a resident at 246 2nd street and i own a condominium in that building. this building is adjacent to the proposed project building. i'm here to oppose the project. primarily because the proposed e.i.r. has mischaracterized the neighborhood. the neighborhood has about 885 residential units, which were built within two blocks of this

project since 2000. another 300 residential units have been approved to be built within one block of this project. and my other objection to this is that in the proposed e.i.r., the sponsor of the project -- sponsors of the project have failed to include a public health assessment about this project. the residential nature of this area demands a public health supplement in the e.i.r. many recent development projects in our neighborhood included a health impact assessment. for example, the trinity plaza, the fullsome development and the lynn con hill district -- lincoln hill district. the health impact assessment of the h.i.a. can predict adverse health and environmental impacts and offer proposals to improve health outcomes for residents, especially seniors

and children. so in conclusion, based on that, i would please afford the project. commissioner maxwell: is there anyone wholes would like to speak on this project, please come forward. thank you. >> i'm not a lawyer or an architect, but i do live south of market and i must say, to be here all afternoon, i'm so envious of the people in your speech who had so much input and the community that had so much input into the wastewater projects and i realize this is private and it's very different and i do realize what a difficult job you have on the board. making these decisions. but i hope before you decide you will walk around our neighborhood, see that people live there now, it's our neighborhood. and we love living there. notice that there are lots of empty office buildings all around us, for one thing. and all i would ask is that you ask the developers to go back to their architect and come up

with a building that meets the code. just because you're big, you should not be allowed to exceed all the criteria. thank you. commissioner maxwell: thank you. any further public comment? seeing none, then public comment is closed. i'd like to ask the planning department to come up. we've heard -- could you describe -- is this a residential neighborhood? is it -- what kind of neighborhood is it? how long have these plans been on the books? you can just go through a little bit of what we've heard today? >> certainly. certainly the area is envisioned as an intense mix of a variety of uses, including higher density residential uses, but it has been envisioned since the adoption of the downtown plan as well, it's the locus and focus of employment, both within the city and the region. and both of these -- for both types of land uses