conservation to open house for a couple of years. i am very familiar with it. san francisco has a lack of senior housing, particularly below market rate. it exists outside the city, so you have to be removed from where you have established everyone you know and everything in know. that has to be corrected. senior housing is hard to find. lgbt senior housing is next to impossible to find. miss collins mentioned it was a long time coming, and that is exactly what this is. i would move the present conditional use draft motion. commissioner borden: i am not

going to reiterate what commissioner miguel just said, by want to thank everybody that shared their stories. my heart goes out to sell many because a lot of people were not able to maintain their housing in san francisco because of the lack of osrsort of housing. it breaks my heart to see that people can't access resources they need in this city they loved her because we don't provide of affordable housing in general. i am thrilled to be able to be part of making this happen. i want to thank you all for sharing your stories with us and reiterating that importance. i want to thank the community

for advocating the inflationary housing. it was one of those terrible situations where we had a terrible bargain that we had to look at. i am so glad that we were able to figure out a way to maintain inclusion rehousing and also have a successful project. i know there was an article in the paper about the project moving forward on market street and that a lot have been bought. i of the mayor's office is looking at these projects'. of the money can definitely be there is a that we can be there sooner rather than later.

>> i am glad that there were community efforts on everybody's part so that we were faced here, maybe today or at some point trying to be referee between factions, so to speak. i am particularly glad that the community process work and i think everyone on the commission can be behind its and i have to make difficult decisions between one side or the other. i am particularly happy that the process work. commissioner moore: i fully support the project and what all of my fellow commissioners have said, including the recognition of a riveted the spoke about

personal experiences. ultimately, what we are strong about is handing it to you, and you all did that. the community organizations that have long supported the project and provided us with the impetus to continue, all of you deserved great recognition, and of like to ask one question. you are representing the project sponsor, and my question to you is, how are you anticipating major changes? originally, we looked at the strong architectural developments less of the most competent architects and the affordable housing. will those people stay on board?

>> as you know, commissioner, the financial difficulties over the last few years, have transferred their interest to the international developer in atlanta. they have not gone into detail. we need to get to this is the first to make sure that this peace could be in place so that the project is feasible and can move forward. the next step will be looking at design, and there may be some adjustments made to a. if it is anything significant, it will come back to you. >> can answer the part were whether or not the architects

will stay on board? it takes a critical balance between historic preservation and letting a necessary project take its place. they have the sensitivity to deliver something of exceptional high quality, stepping into architectural quality that we all felt would be a historically strong building, and i am not talking so much about the scientific facets, but when you have a strong building from the past, you need a strong building for the future. i want to make sure that as we are opening up new approval for project, you take with you the obligation to bring something back to this commission by which our support philosophically for what will be in the buildings will continue to be a strong as

the expression of the building that will be approving in the future. >> i am sure my client heard you, and if there are changes, we will come back with strong architecture. i can assure you that everyone involved previously will remain involved. commissioner moore: for us, it is not just another project. we are watching it very closely. surrounding it and adding something, > [unintelligible] president olague: i think there are unsung heroes in all of this.

it started with the first iteration of the project approvals about for her five years from now. people fought to make sure that this side would remain deeply affordable for seniors. it wasn't the original iteration of this project. it was originally meant as a 0% for whatever -- they all fought very hard to make sure that it remained deeply affordable. and now with the latest visit to this project, it was sort of rock with some kind of tension between those of us that wanted to see a deeply affordable

senior project and those in the community, folks that really wanted to make sure that some attention was given to the original commitment of the project to provide affordable rental housing to families. a they reminded us that people like tommy and brian, when we fight for our own, we fight for everybody's ability to remain in the city. i want to thank those the facilitated the project and others that stayed with it and didn't give up. i guess ultimately, for a lot of us, living in san francisco isn't a choice, it is a necessity.

we hear that time and again, especially those from different lifestyle choices. and just the histories of everyone in the room, the elders that opened the doors for everyone to live. it can't go unrecognized and it will be really critical, i think people from the community have the opportunity to remain in this culture, it is not an option. here is some affordable housing and open in walnut creek. part of it has to deal with

[unintelligible] i want to thank all of you for speaking ianda dealing with the things that the courage to step out when some of us weren't even born. you guys are out there fighting the good fight. i want to thank you for that. i will call the question on this item. >> there is a motion for approval to commissioner borden:. -- for approval. [roll call vote] that motion passes unanimously. president olague: wewe >> the planning commission is

back in session. you are on item number 15. the planning commission response to the grand jury report on park merced. >> the afternoon, commissioners. that you're hearing a few weeks ago, they reviewed a draft response to the san francisco civil grand jury on the report regarding the park merced development project. he requested some further refinements of the letter before you approve it. they are directly from commissioners, a couple issues he wanted to address. one was to make sure that they convey that all commissioners were concerned about demolitions, not just the ones on the project. they are edited this seemed a little more in the voice of the commission.

with the generous assistance of the city attorney's office, it was revised and sent to you in your packets today. >> i am sorry to interrupt, something had done usually do. if i could may mention, there have been further revisions to the letter that were given to me by commissioners. also, i have the copy. both of those documents are before you for your consideration. >> this is different from what was in your packet.

president olague: is there any public comment on this item? public comment is closed. >> the letter that i just gave out is really not substantive in nature. it is a little more soft. commissioner moore: those that are listening to this, is a very well crafted letter by the city attorney and the commissioners together felt that non-legal language would be more in keeping with us. adding up of the comment that some of us still have certain types of concerns. this is basically the essence of what this letter now stands for.

they called me, and offered to help with a generously did. >> i am quite in support of this, and did not voice this earlier, but my problem is with the response on page 6 of 7. removing the section of the development agreement that was recommended by the grand jury. i think the language that i don't like, i don't want to wordsmith it now, but just to put this on record, i don't think the development agreement,

i don't agree that the developer gets to go ahead for a million years and do what he wants to. i don't think the development agreement is intended to solely exempt the developer from certain city actions, certain regulations and other things like a voter initiative that might come through during the time that the development agreement is in effect. the language seems to me to be a little bit -- the leading the section would undermine the purpose of the development agreement. i want to go on record as not totally agreeing with that language. commissioner miguel: i am fine with the letter as if presently stands. as you know, i handed out the necessary codes required to

recommendation and the findings. the document is fully in conformity with the penal code as i can see it, which i appreciated the work that was done on that. commissioner borden: i suggest that we approve the letter with the modifications that have been expressed. and if there are technical linguistic things, they can do that after the fact. >> are you approving the one in your packet? commissioner borden: the most recent period >> on that motion. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. president olague: aye.

>> that motion passes unanimously. you are now on item number 16. it is an informational of day. commissioner miguel: i should have said that while i was speaking before, i did ask if one or more members of last year's grand jury, particularly in the chair of the committee could be present today to give their argument. i am disappointed that they did not show. >> doesn't the grand jury change in june? >> as a member of the public, any designees usually committee

chair is normally here in front of the board of supervisors. but they did not show. >> before he makes his presentation on the transit center district plan, just to give you a quick overview, as you recall, the department released howard draft in november of 2009. we are nearing completion of the draft. we expect to release that in september. we have tentatively scheduled a october date for the public hearing. live been working very diligently and very closely with the translator joint powers association. the also have the advantage of having worked on the previous redevelopment plan.

we feel like we're reaching an appropriate conclusion of a lot of years of work on this. we thought it would be helpful before the draft was released to give you an overview of the plan just as a kind of reminder of the plant and the purpose of this plan, but we're happy and it would probably be appropriate to have more details on certain aspects of the plan in coming months. what topics we might cover an upcoming hearings. >> if i can get the slides of, please. president olague: it is kind of

carvery, but we have one in front of us. we are flying. >> how the district plan was published in november of 2009 pitahaya you were all on the commission at that time. we sent you a copy so you have that now. the area covered by the draft plan is essentially the southern part of the financial district. is on the west right up against the district. the plan area includes all of the redevelopment area. however, the district plan is not making any changes to the land use or-developer for similar developer of the redevelopment area that is a the jurisdiction of the

redevelopment area. it is under the jurisdiction of the planning department and planning commission. the transit center is at the heart of the district area. it is its own project. under the jurisdiction of the trans a joint powers authority, is essentially the heart of the district. there are certain public parcels in the area. a couple of key properties. we will talk about that in just a second. the objective of the district plan, the first is environmentally responsible land use. and have an appropriately in the

u.s. response in downtown. -- and appropriately and the u.s. response in downtown. -- and appropriate land use response downtown. we are looking at the downtown plan, to build on the foundation of that and the redevelopment plan, and build within the spirit and policies in terms of guiding growth downtown, creating livable spaces, and having a world class public realm. witt also are seeking to make this a world-class transit district that lives up to the name transit center. i will talk about how we are proposing to improve the area in that regard. another plan is generation of

revenue to support the public improvements to streets, open spaces, and infrastructure to support continued growth downtown. last is to make sure this district is a shining example of comprehensive environmental sustainability. the planning director covered the key milestones. the draft plan has been on the street for some time. we are anxiously looking forward to bringing this plan forward was the draft eir is completed. we hope to be before you in february next year. getting to the plan, this plan was an outgrowth of an interagency group led by the mayor's office several years ago, looking at ways that we

could essentially -- the city could better respond to the transit center project and how we could capture growth down down -- downtown. that resulted in a recommendation that we undertake a new area plan for this part of the downtown, and that we looked at increasing height limits and establish a landmark building in front of the transit center that would cap the downtown. this plan is, as i mentioned -- it looks to build of the foundation established by the urban design elements in the downtown plan. the premise is that it is compact, walkable. it is transit oriented. at the time of the downtown plan, most of the financial district was on the north side of market street. there was development pressure

to demolish a story buildings and change the character of that area. the authors of the downtown plan decided the prudent thing to do would be to to export -- would be to expand south of market street more deliberately, with market street as the center instead of the southern edge, and to concentrate growth around the translate transit center. this plan six to do that. the height limits in densities established in the downtown plan did the cement the area around the translate terminal with the highest height limits in the city, at 550 feet, and the highest densities. this plan six to revisit some of those limits to meet 21st century priorities and needs. from a height limit standpoint, the plant sixth to realize the vision of a transit tower on

mission street and first street as the tallest part of the skyline, the cap of the city's downtown, reinforcing this notion with mission center and the transit center, extending the downtown to ring, hill -- rincon hill on the south. the transit center is the heart of that downtown and should be manifested on the skyline and in terms of land use and densities. in addition to creating this new crown on the skyline, in order to transition the skyline from the current prevailing height of 500 feet to 600 feet, the would be a small consolation of buildings that rise above the

500 foot level to transition the skyline around the transit tower down to the adjacent district of the downtown. these proposals are strategic. there is not a sweeping proposal to raise all height limits in the area. we carefully looked at key opportunities. there were a limited number of remaining intentional development sites in the area around the transit center and in downtown at large. you can see on the design maps the height tapering from 1,000 feet at the transit to our down to 850, 750, and 700 feet, with prevailing heights of for under 50 to 550 feet. the work we did with the redevelopment agency proceeding this effort in the transpire redevelopment area, as well as our rincon hill plans -- we have

expanded the downtown skyline to go all the way to the bay bridge. we needed to cement this together so that downtown is recognized as a whole. this plan seeks to tie the entire downtown area together. i will run through a few visual simulations we did as part of the plan. the document has a large number of visual simulations. on our website, there is even more. the first image is a view from twin peaks, where you can see the full breadth of the skyline with market street down the middle. this is how it would exist under existing zoning. there are new dwellings. they mesh with the existing skyline, which you can see stretching on either side of stretching on either side of market street.