i think it is a wonderful plan, and i like the renderings very much. commissioner wu: i also want to thank the architect for the renderings of mission square. really like seeing the retail. really like seeing the funicular. i just want to comment about how i think this will be the tallest building in san francisco or west of the mississippi. i think tall buildings are part of defining a city. it is part of a skyline. also, how we welcome people into the city, who gets to use these new beautiful spaces. i think that is part of the reason why people come to san francisco, that they feel welcome. when i think of new parks around the country, i think of the high line. to be frank, i never see any poor people on the high line, and i want to make sure there is access to everyone in the city.

it may mean making a funicular free or it may mean more connections to other buildings. probably this details can be worked out, but i just want to state that as a principal -- principle. commissioner borden: the other commissioners have run up the love creek points, and i agree with what everyone has brought up so far. the issue of access is a major issue, and having other ways to access it. being able to access the park from all around the building i think is really important. as we look at the escalators, and if there's an opportunity for something exterior, that would make a lot of sense. i guess my only major concern is just about maintenance. i guess maybe transbay joint

powers authority would be in charge of maintenance of the trees. is that correct? i just want to make sure of who is in charge. >> the tjpa is responsible for maintenance of the park on the roof. the plaza in front would be maintained by the developer at the tower. >> to clarify, the plaza is part of the open space requirement for the tower under the planning code. they are required to maintain it. commissioner borden: maybe staff can answer this. how are we finding the ongoing maintenance of the park? -- how are we finding -- how are we funding the ongoing maintenance? >> they can answer the question. i believe that program. >> that has been something we have been working together as a

team to try and find ways to do. they have a maintenance plan that they are working out, but there's also investigation into concessions and restaurants on the park or in the building that also support the maintenance of the park on the roof. >> thank you, commissioners. bob beck with tjpa. tjpa will be responsible for the administration and maintenance of the park. we will be contacting for those services. we have also had conversations with recreation and park about potentially participating in that in some form, but in terms of the funding for the maintenance of the park, we are looking at a number of strategies. there is a cbd that has been

developed in rincon hill. the redevelopment agency is having conversations with them about expanding that to encompass the redevelopment zone and potentially even extending it as far center or r settingcbd that is more focused -- setting up a separate cbd. in terms of the total operation, the old terminal will receive some support from mtc through the former bridge tolls through the operations center, and also we have the retail programs that will be in the transit center that will help offset operating costs, and then any excess operating costs will be supported by the transit operators themselves, but we want to draw the line between the transit-related expenses and the open space related expenses.

>> thank you. obviously of the important thing is that it is well-maintained and it is a place people want to use. overall, a lot of great improvements. the 20-foot sidewalk, the solar panels, the help with the wind. there's a lot of great attributes. i see there is a canopy. i actually do not think -- i have mixed feelings about that because i feel like a canopy could block sunlight, but at the same time, i do believe there is some need for shade. i guess at some future point, maybe we could talk about the thoughts around that. >> well, you are listening from a landscape architect. each of us have our own trades and our own way of doing things. the kennedy did not have any function. it was simply something which gestured to the top. i think that the trees, with all deference to my colleague here

-- i think the trees are a much more poetic way of doing the same thing. all it was trying to do was take your eye up and connect the two. perhaps more important than either of those is the little funicular. i think that will catch people's imagination. it is genetic. even though it is small, it will be something that is important. think of any other place that has one of those. commissioner borden: i think the idea of having it be free or very inexpensive would beat a great idea. thanks. commissioner fong: i know commissioners had other, as, but if i may make some general ones on design. with some caution and the role we play, you make it easy to become excited about the space you are talking about and how you describe it. i think the funicular is a great

addition. as you point out, it becomes a landmark, and iconic place to meet, a sense of space. i believe that adding motion to it and throwing people of would physically -- i agree that it should keep moving in operation to drum movement towards that and create motion. i love the idea of the nighttime activity and activation of this area. this could be very well the first place people see when they arrive, so having the city park at night or in day active i think is very important, and a new entry point for san francisco. we are talking about the landscaping, the height of the building, the skyline change, but i also want to point out this might be reinforcing job generation for san francisco, reenforcing office space, living space, dining space, activity, and so that is huge for us to make an investment city-wide for

the city, and i think building this kind of concentration, as this project and this plan does, really emphasizes that need that i think we will enjoy down the road for years to come. unsupportive and happy you were able to come today and give an update, and a look forward to hearing more. speaking more, commissioner moore. commissioner moore: i wanted to support and echoed the concerns expressed by not only commissioner wu and commissioner borden, but also by the public regarding equal access to the transit center and to the park from all sides. i do think it cannot just be loaded primarily from one direction, where your son not a believer in bridges from other buildings, which i hope the city will be greatly stay away from. there are many other ways of how to get people through buildings

up to the level of the park, and a thing that needs to be very carefully started, and anything the planning department can do on its own to make suggestions, it definitely needs to be developed further. also, to give those people who work for dissipating equal rights to having it as part of their fun. to the comment of social equity, i think that is and always important part of this commission. there is almost nothing one can describe, but one can manage the park with a more open in. you do not have to wear a three piece suit in order to be there, and i think that goes very far. i have a question for mr. beck, if you would not mind. when is this part going to happen? from previous meeting minutes of board meetings, understand that

ultimately, the joint effort of many of the future building owners will create the park, but many of those buildings have not materialized. am i wrong with that? when is this part going to be happening? >> the park is part of our phase one construction scope, so we will be -- the team is designing it now, and it will be constructed as part of our phase one program, which is scheduled to open in october of 2017. >> that includes the creation of mission square, and that includes the construction of the funicular? >> mission square would be developed and paid for by the developer, so the final construction of that and the opening of that would be determined by the time line for the development, which once we are in a position to sell that

property would then be under the control of the developer. commissioner moore: the reason why i'm asking is it obviously leaves the attraction of access somewhat lagging behind, and that indeed creates a somewhat not most desirable experience because most people -- and i think we are all creatures of habit -- use a space by the original ways of how they approach it. that is just the way we are. if we have a house with five doors, we mostly will choose one as a primary way we enter and ultimately might use a second, but we rarely use five doors in the same sequence over and over again. i believe the main access is to come from that side. am i correct or not? >> the design of the transit center, the mission square and that was up are definitely -- is

our front door, and we do have terms where we would potentially have temporary easement and temporary access if the tower is moving on a schedule behind ours, but that the construction of the flaws that is ultimately -- will be at the cost of the developer. in terms of looking at overall movement, based on the dispersion of destinations and offices around the transit center, we expect about 44% of the pedestrian traffic to come through missions where. about 34% to come from the west end, connecting up to mission street, so roughly 1/3 from that direction, and about 20% from the east and of the facility.

we have looked at where the populations are around the transit center, and missions where is definitely our front door. we will have temporary improvements there if the tower is lagging behind our schedule. commissioner moore: i appreciate you talking about temporary improvements. >> i think your point is well taken, that if the tower is delayed for any reason, that the access via the funicular would not happen until that does move forward. it suggests to me that we should worked together to figure out a temporary way funding program to emphasize connections to the park during the interim years between the construction of the park and opening and the tower. commissioner moore: i would hope that landscape architect walker would have a tree farm already where he would start growing redwoods, said that when the tower delay comes in, that the trees are commensurately taller with the delay the building

might have. that is a tongue-in-cheek comment, but i am quite serious about that. this will be a large hole in the fabric of the city potentially for some time to come. we always hear very powerful, optimistic presentations, but we also know of the changing economy, which has created many and the opportunities, for which we are extending project entitlements without seeing much happening, and i hope we are not in a cycle with this particular project would be affected in light of the fact that the transit center is moving forward, the coming a reality, but meeting the power to market itself. one quick comment for mr. clarke. i appreciate the redesign of the building. i think the tabling of the building and pulling the columns in makes the building appear as tall as it was before. that is the art of capering in building, and i think very

skillfully done. do you by any chance already have a sample of your white solar sunscreen's? i would love to see them in terms of what they look like. >> would love to show them to you. yes, we do. commissioner moore: i would love to see them, and i think the commission would, also. i would like to put the fear of the gentleman who spoke about the reduction of how many feet we have -- 130 feet high being indeed a losing proposition as being unsubstantiated because hyde is really not receivable at that height anyway. but you would agree with me as a high-rise designer that this gentleman should rest assured that the building will still look very tall and the taper of the towers will make that possible. i appreciate your comment on the third exiting stair. at the time, the code did not require it. it came shortly thereafter.

i am glad you are putting the structurally thinking people in this audience to rest with that. we will have further discussions with you. >> thanks very much. commissioner antonini: thank you. the question has not been asked, but one that is obvious is with the construction of the transit tower and the accompanying towers, there will be a tremendous amount of new commercial space provided. will the demand be there? contrary to what is sometimes commented, in reviewing the fortune 500, san francisco has seven of the 500 companies, which does not sound like a lot, but it is far more than any other city in california, which has 53. the nearest in california is los angeles with four. we also have more headquarters in chicago and philadelphia, and, of course, indianapolis, jacksonville, cleveland, pittsburgh, and a myriad of

cities. the other thing that is important is that because of the emphasis on climate control and sustainability, there will be an interest in people living closer to where they worked. i commented on the book the great in version that is very interesting. the thesis is that people are choosing to live in center cities again throughout the world, and this has been happening for quite a while. i think all these things are moving at the same time, and providing the space, and very attractive space for business, will attract more companies of all sizes, but particularly larger companies, many of which are also already here in san francisco but do not happen to be publicly traded like bechtel and levis and others, which are large companies, but do not qualify under the 500. i think the market is here already, and it can only grow by

providing the kind of space we are looking at with this tower and the others that will be added to it. commissioner fong: i think that concludes commissioner's comments. >> thank you. we can then move forward on your calendar to item 3, the transit center district plan and transit tower. before you is the certification of final environmental impact report. public hearing for this item is closed. following staff opening comments, the matter will be before you for your consideration. commissioner fong: thank you. >> thank you. good morning, members of the commission. my name is sarah jones. i am with the environmental planning division, and i am joined by greg, also in environmental planning.

kevin, josh, david, and alan from planning staff, and we have called from esa. he led the environmental consultant team. he is here today as well. the item before you this certification of the final environmental impact report for the transit center district plan. this analysis also included the environmental review for the transit tower project that you just discussed and heard about. before you, you have a copy of the eir certification motion. the draft was published on september 28, 2011. the public hearing on the draft was held november 3, 2011, and the public comment closed on november 28. the cnr document we're discussing today was published and distributed on may 10, 2012. i have a couple of points to make about this document.

it addressed the proposed zoning as well as proposed changes to the transit center district plan that were made after the publication of the draft eir as well as the new information about the transit tower that came from the application that was filed in march. the eir found that there were no substantive changes in the analysis that were necessary to respond to those changes. the eir recognized that there were potential significant impact from shadows on parks and open spaces, including nine parks under the protection of section 295 of the planning code. the eir described that each building under the plan would undergo review under section 295. since the time that the document was circulated, the cnr document, there has been some discussion about approaching the shadow budget issue as one

cumulative comprehensive effort, rather than building by building. this issue is by no means settled and is still under the discussion. however, i just wanted to state for the record back if there is any change in how each building is brought forth under section 295, this would not affect the significant conclusions or intensity of the shadow and type. the eir analyzed a worst-case scenario. -- intensity of the shadow impact. there were a few public speakers. some of the comments they made did not address environmental issues but were rather expressions of support for or opposition to the project. public opinion regarding the merits of the project is not a topic of concern for certification, although you may, of course, wish to take such comments into account during your consideration of project

entitlements. there were a few comments made about the eir that i want to address. one was a suggestion that it consider alternatives that would bring shadows down to heights that would reduce or eliminate -- bring buildings down to heights that would reduce or eliminate shadows on parks protected under section 295. the eir includes three alternatives that would reduce building heights such that shadow would be reduced. there is a new project alternative, a reduced project alternative, and a reduced shadow alternative, and those are discussed in a fair amount of detail. i also wanted to clarify one point about what it means to certify this document. that is not in any way approval of this project. ceqa does not require that a project be code compliance in order for the eir to be certified. this is an informational document about the impact of

approval of the project, including any changes to codes that would be needed. the eir found significant on in court -- unavoidable and primal of hats in the areas of visual resources, cultural resources, transportation including traffic, transit, pedestrians, bicyclists, loading, noise, air quality, and shadow. the planning commission would need to adopt a statement of overriding considerations pursuant to the california environmental quality act, should the commission is ultimately to approve any aspect of the project. in conclusion, i would like to request that the commission adopt the motion before you that certifies that the contents of the environmental impact report are adequate and accurate and that the procedures through which the final eir was prepared comply with provisions of ceqa, the ceqa guidelines, and chapter 31 of the san francisco administrative code.

in closing, i would like to add that the gene this point in the environmental review process is a great milestone. i want to thank our consultant team and other members of environmental planning staff, our environmental review officer, as well as other planning staff who contributed substantially to this eir. our partner agencies at tjpa and the former redevelopment agency. this concludes my presentation on the matter, and unless commissioners have questions, and suggest you consider certification. commissioner fong: thank you. commissioner antonini: thank you for your presentation. there were a couple of questions

asked about revisions to the draft. it talks about some changes -- for example, the ratio of commercial to residential hotel changes from 3 to 1 to two to one, which would be less of an impact for the same and that, and they talk about the shorter building than was originally proposed and loading dock changes and a variety of other things. it would seem like that answers the question that was raised earlier, and then the other question was raised. i know you had mentioned talking about section 295 as we analyze each building for collectively the impact of all the buildings, and it would seem like all the alternatives are in there. there was one comment made about every possible project that could be analyzed has to be in complete conformity with 295, but i'm not sure that has to be part of an eir.

>> the topic was addressed in the alternative discussion. under the existing zoning in the area, buildings built to the allowable building height with -- there would still be some shadowing of open spaces under section 295, so in considering alternatives, we did feel that an alternative that downzone from existing heights was not a feasible alternative for a variety of reasons, so the no project alternative actually would still have the potential to result in some shadowing and potentially significant shadow and packs. commissioner antonini: right, and you are changing the zoning, and that kind of answers the question. it is a different situation than is the case now, so that basically is what is happening in this situation. >> i'm sorry, could you clarify the question? commissioner antonini: i think

you had just said that under existed -- existing zoning. what is before us is the change in zoning, that we create other changes within this district, so what you had spoken to earlier was a situation that existed prior to this change as opposed to a situation after the change. >> yes, we felt in terms of the idea of looking at an alternative that would completely avoid any chatelin -- shadowing, it was a different direction than the changes that were being considered. it would not obtain essentially any of the basic objectives of the project, so under ceqa, it was reasonable to reject that as an alternative. commissioner antonini: the analysis has to be of the project as presented, and that is what we have done. >> yes, and the alternative needs to look at reduction and significant impact. commissioner antonini: thank you. commissioner wu: i would like to

ask a question to understand what this eir would cover compared to what might be covered in the future. in most interested in shadows, but what i think you were saying just now that has not been decided was whether the impact would be looked at cumulatively versus building by building, but if you could describe to me what analysis -- environmental analysis will be done if this eir is passed -- what analysis will be done on each of the individual buildings. >> i can tell you what is the untypically. this is a programmatic eir, so it is looking at what could potentially occur under the proposed zoning changes. it is not looking at individual building proposals. so what we would intend to do is in exploring each individual building, we will do specific

shadow studies to identify the changes in shadow square-foot hours that would occur on each part, so that is how we would analyze shadow for any individual buildings. the expectation is that any individual building would result in less shadow than what was analyzed because the eir looking programmatic we did not look at the changes in -- or essentially the form, the shaping that would occur of any individual building, which would be expected, obviously, to reduce shuttle within the allowable building envelope. in terms of the process for section 295, for any further clarification about that, i will turn it over to kevin if you have further questions. >> if i may, just to be clear, this is a programmatic eir