we will see what their reaction is. >> some of these other buildings are worth saving. >> this is for the house and balance. i would like to address that from the get go. this is not as gentrifying. this is housing for the elderly which is a very strong beginning point for housing south of market in that area. i hope that that particular group is being given a fair voice looking ahead and balancing what other needs we have for the type of housing we are suggesting.

only in the balance of all kinds of housing can we really achieve that housing balance we are looking for. this is a very important relief valve and looking for the building types and i like the prototype you are choosing. >> i hope that we can have enough uses that will allow that kind of thing because i think that there are people that are moving into actually building stuff and i don't know if robotics is in the city or not. isn't there a way of south of market? there are people actually moving in to that more production oriented experimentation.

>> item 15, for the transit

center district plan and transit tower. public hearing on draft incremental impact report. written comments will be expected and the planning department's offices until the close of business on -- >> the end of the month. it was the 14th and then we have a thanksgiving day holiday. let me look at my calendar. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is sarah jones.

i am with the planning division. i am the coordinator for the transit center plan and the transit hour. from our environmental planning staff, i am joined by the transportation coordinator. the draft eir analyzes the draft transit center district plan which would change the zoning regulations and promote improvements to support the new transit center facility that is located at the site of the former transbay terminal. it also has an analysis which has proposed 1,070 foot office building which would be constructed on mason street between fremont and first street

immediately to the north of the new center. before you are review and comments on the draft eir for this project which was published on september 28th. comments will continue until november 28th, 2011. yesterday, we held a hearing at the preservation commission where they prepared comments for the draft eir. this concluded that it would have the unavoidable environmental impacts. aesthetics, historic resources, transportation, noise and vibration, air quality and shadow. for the transit tower, the erir found unavoidable impacts such as transportation, air quality,

shadow. the planning staff is not here to answer comments. these will be transcribed and responded to in the comments and responses document which will respond to all the verbal comments and written comments. today's should be directed to the adequacy and accuracy of the information contained in the draft eir. if people could speak slowly and clearly so that our court reporter can produce an accurate transcript. you should stay your name and address so that you can be properly identified and so you can receive a copy of the responses document. after hearing from the general public, we will take comments from the planning commission. this concludes my presentation. unless members have questions, i would suggest that the comment. be open.

>> in the environmental document, there is a citation to the company that i work for. the citation is in relation to some historic resourced evaluation work that was undertaken. we concluded that i do not have to recuse myself. >> thank you, commissioner. >> i would like to open up for public comment.

>> after carefully viewing and reading your current eir proposals for the hide design for the transbay tower and comparing it with the original design of 80 stories and 1,200 feet, i deeply feel your original design is superior then your current design that you are proposing. in shortening the tower, you are defeating your own original vision. her for a much bolder tower that would stand out on the san francisco skyline. your rendering of the shortened tower just does not look or feel like it dominates the skyline. this falls flat.

a 1,200 foot tower fulfills every aspect of the iconic tower, your excuse of shadows doesn't make sense when you plan to build to 1,000 feet or over. you will have shadows regardless of what people estimate they are going to have. by going up to 1,200 feet, you are casting more shadows and not building the tower at this height is ridiculous and hypocritical. san francisco does not deserve a shortened down tower. the skyline of the past 40 years and needs a break out of its tired conservative change that has stalled progress of any future iconic towers that are talked about but never truly

realized or built because of selfish politics that go on in this city. san francisco needs visionaries that have the foresight and daring and are not afraid of change. san francisco needs the original design of 1,200 feet to rise to a breathtaking height that will certainly do justice to our beautiful skyline for all the world to enjoy and visit. the short and design of the tower would not have an observation deck or an entertaining restaurant for the visiting public to enjoy. all great cities have one or more shadows but does that stop you from visiting them?

for one special time and for this special tower, cannot the board, the plan department -- the planning department -- can i have a few more minutes? >> everyone gets three minutes. you can turn in your comments to the play department. >> thank you. >> good evening, commii am a sag and urban research. we drafted a letter on the draft eir and what i will do now is read that into the record. thank you for the opportunity to comment on the transit center plan. we believe that this adequately analyzes the impact of the plan.

this is critical to the future of san francisco and the region. this is a major regional center home to over 250,000 jobs. over 50% of workers and use a sustainable transportation mode. this is largely due to a key facts. first, san francisco has the best regional access. the developments will build on the successes by creating a world-class station including the high-speed rail. we would like to evaluate future job and housing growth. the study concluded that downtown san francisco would not need the future demand under futures zoning.

the transit center district plan addresses the need by increasing his own incapacity. we have had the opportunity to review the shadow impact of the plan. with one exception, shadow from having building would cover any affected section for less than 45 minutes per day over a period of time ranging from 4 to 12 weeks. the exception notice is the shadow by the proposed addition of the hotel. the potential shadow increases range from point to 4% to less than 0.01%. the plan a sees the budget for the park by 0.2% which is only 0.5% of the budget. we believe that the value of

this plan to enable the development of our downtown core out ways the very small impact. thank you for your consideration of our position. >> is there additional public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i wanted to thank the planning department staff for their efforts in preparing the district plan. the transbay transit center program is at the heart of the plan area and was the catalyst for the plan. when the program was approved in 2004, the primary funding for the project was proceeds from the former embarcadero parking along folsom streets. the program still had a significant funding shortfall. in 2006, the mayor and the chair

of the san francisco transportation authority convened the working rick to ensure that this could be constructed a soon as possible. the working group recommended the creation of a special zoning district permitting and limited number of tall buildings including two on public parcels. the zoning district developed in the plan and analyzed would generate additional revenues for the plan in three races. first, the sale of the public property is, the land between the streets will produce revenues for the transbay program. the amount of that revenue hinges on the value of development. while we are all concerned about shadows, we're pleased to see

that the shadows from buildings has minimal shadow on city parks and they will be defused due to the districts of the parks and the new buildings. given the significance of the revenues from these property sales to the program and the importance of the program to the city and region, we don't believe that these weren't the reduction of the proposed sites. because of the draft the i are analyzing new height limits, these cannot be settled until the eir has been certified. we urge the commission to close the comments on november 28th as scheduled and the response to comments for certification at the earliest possible date. consistent with position that stimulated the plan and it is

important that the revenues including the fees from the tower should be directed towards the transbay program. we thank you for your consideration and urge you to certify as recommended. president olague: thank you. is there additional? >> my name is jamie whitaker. i live in the rincon hill neighborhood, in a humble studio. i am very much looking forward to the construction progressing for all the different aspects in the trans bay area. i am happy to say construction cranes are starting to appear again in my neighborhood. i think 45 lansing will start digging soon. it is exciting to see people moving in. hopefully, businesses will come.

air quality is my big concern. i think it will always be a concern, with the bay bridge outside my window, literally. more parking space is being proposed for projects like eight washington. i think there are tools to mitigate the traffic. we just need to find some leaders politically to consider traffic, the congestion charge, and give folks some incentive not to be driving downtown, or at least not to be leaving all at once between 3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. that is my main comment. you can already see traffic getting snarled in the neighborhood with existing transit center construction, the central subway utility relocation. with america's cup coming our way, please do not drive in our

neighborhood for the next two or three years. totally supportive of the building heights and the trans pay -- bay jpa. every friday, we get an e-mail of the construction that will be happening for the next 10 days. it is commendable. i support them. the eir looks fine to me. i hope politicians can embrace trying congestion fees to mitigate the air pollution. thank you. president olague: thank you. >> sue hester. i know nobody struggled to bring this document up, because it weighs so much. you have a report on downtown center two weeks ago that talked

about the assumptions that were made by the city when this was drafted around 1980. the assumptions that were made about how people were going to work, about the amount of office space, about the way people wanted to work in buildings. the report you have two weeks ago was that people do not want to work in tower office buildings. we have had a shrinkage in the financial district. people want to work in different types of spaces, like the last agenda item. the assumptions that were made on 25 years of growth in 1980 have not come to pass. we needed to think differently. this is going back to those assumptions. if you look at the eir -- it is

too heavy to list -- to lift, but it is on page 6. i will show you, because i can do it on the tv. the map of the area -- this is this planning area. this is the planning area you are looking at now. here, we have this area that was in the downtown plan. the assumption in the downtown plan was that this area, the screen area we are we planning all over again, would have enormous growth of office buildings, because that is where everyone wanted to go. it has not happened. you have to think about whether a report that is given 25 years later, based on assumptions -- i will write this in. what were the assumptions made in the downtown plan? what with the assumptions made in the wind on health plan, --

the ring cone hill -- the rincon hill plan? where are they now? there was also a redevelopment plan area along the waterfront. the second thing is, unlike other speakers, i care about prop. case. the shuttle as good a portsmouth square. if you are going to throw out the vote of the people, put it on the ballot. do not interpret it away. proper -- prop. k was voted on by the citizens of san francisco, and it limited show. you forget about what you here with your assumptions. the planning department does not really know how people want to work. president olague: thank you. is there any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini: thank

you. i think this is a very well- done environmental impact report. there were a couple of questions i wanted to ask, i guess at the very beginning. it talks about generation facilities. it does not specifically deal with steam heat, which is done in the dark. i am not sure if that is part of the plan, because this is the perfect area for that kind of thing to happen. it is piped into different buildings, and they do not have their own heating systems individually. that should be looked at and perhaps analyzed, if it is not. i was in agreement to some degree with the gentleman who talked about the 1,200 foot tower. i do not see it analyzed here. i am not saying it needs to be,

but i guess my question is why is it not part of the analysis as an alternative. i am not saying it needs to be. i think we have plenty of preferred options, and other options presented being lower. maybe it could be answered in terms of their response. in terms of general demand again, this is an environmental impact report. commenting on the adequacy and completeness of the plan, there were some comments about the direction of the plan. i think the plan is on target, as far as future growth. i think there are a lot of reasons people will want to be here, both to live and to work. with eight $3.75-cost and maintenance of suburban spaces

-- with $3.75 gasoline and maintenance of suburban spaces, there is a huge cost. people will come. the business community will still want space in towers, as they do today. there will be some people who need the broader workplace. it depends what the function is. i think you see towers built in cities throughout the u.s. and other parts of the world. it seems to me there is a demand for them. i do not think it is going to be any different here. i think this is also, to some degree, a throwback to the past. hopefully, we will reach a point, as we were in the first half of the 20th-century, when almost all business commercial activity took place in san francisco, and almost anyone employed here lived here, because we're were essentially an island. almost everyone rode public transportation, because it made

a lot of sense. if you did not have to leave the city, it was just as easy to hop on a trolley car. i think we are moving in the right direction with this analysis. and i think the analysis of the various factors, be they shadow, wind, and the other ones brought in here, traffic impact and historical, are quite well done. i am very happy with the report so far. i have other comments i will send in writing. vice president miguel: i find it very interesting. we moved recently from western soma to the central corridor. now we are moving further east to the transit center, adjoining areas, but very different. as to the eir, i think it adequately covers such things as

the tower separation. it obviously, as and eir should, considers the maximum build out. i do not truly expect that maximum buildup ever to be achieved. i think it is going to be a lot less. but then i am no economic guru. in any case, it is when to totally change the downtown skyline. i think the focus simulations give us a good idea of that. my concern is not the powers at their top and the separation. i am still, as a voice before, concerned with what happens down on the ground. they are commented upon in the document. the downtown streetscape plan of 1995, the trend space

streetscape plan of 2006 -- transbay streetscape plan of 2006, and the plan of 2010. that is where i think everything is important. that is where the public is: to thrive. that is where the district is going to thrive. the manner of the bill to form at the sidewalk is much more important to me the new tower separation in order to achieve 50 feet in height. those things at the top are easy to work with. the personal impact on the ground level is extremely

difficult to deal with. because it comes in the public realm, we often do with the actual individual buildings, without having a good idea of how the mass of them, because many will be built, are going to affect the street level. open space, connections to the five baker park on top of the transit center itself are very important. requirements on street widening, the color you go, the wider the sidewalk should be, in general, to make it comfortable for these hopefully masses of people that