the plan and zoning changes. this is a project level just for the one building. future buildings will have to come in for their own environmental review, which would likely be a community planned extension or perhaps a focused eir, but this has two functions today that you would decertifying. you decertifying plan eir, if i could call it that, and project eir -- you would be certifying. commissioner wu: just to be clear, the transit tower does not come back for a separate eir, but shuttle issues are dealt with at a separate commission? commissioner moore: could you please explain how the shadow issue is not being considered? because as you are looking at the eir for the plan for the

project, you cannot talk about it without analyzing the impact of shadow as well as visual, cultural, etc., impact, which come from this tall building. could you please elaborate for me, under section 295 of the planning code, how many parks are within proposition k? is it 14? >> for the general discussion of section 295? i do not have that information. perhaps kevin can answer that question regarding overall the number of parts for which there is a shadow budget. >> thank you, commissioner. i believe there are 14 parks covered by what we refer to as a shadow budget. under section 295, that comes

from the 1989 implementation memo, which was jointly about the planning commission and recreation and park commission for guidelines of implementation, but all properties under the jurisdiction of recreation and park are covered by section 295, and any development over 40 feet in height that would potentially impact a park receives detailed shadow analysis. it is not just limited to those parts named and identified in terms of what is identified. commissioner moore: the reason i bring up the number of 14 is that indeed, the eir does state that nine of these 14 parks are being affected, and that is a concern to me. any of the building will have the ability in front of the commission and in front of itself to ask for the maximum full benefits, which might be exchangeable and real as this, which comes on line as the iconic tower.

i am concerned of tilting a shadow-impacting building towards one particular building one in the end, the whole grouping of all buildings together need to define this transit center. >> if i may, you have raised the point that has been discussed extensively the last couple of months. i was going to make comments about this during the next item, but the shadow task force, which had been meeting last two years, suggested that you and the planning commission and recreation and park commission review collectively after the plan is approved -- review collectively the shadows from all the projects. whether you decide to approve the shadows at that point is a different question, but they did suggest that you review the information from all the towers collectively. commissioner moore: we had five years to initiate that discussion in order not to be put in as awkward situation as we are in today. i myself feel we are in a very

awkward situation. the concerns about shadow and of holding proposition k has been pretty much mainstream to my position on the commission and why i like the building, and a very much support the plan. and the work the department has done. we have talked about it for the last five or six years. i feel basically pushed against a wall that this issue has not been resolved prior to today. >> my only response to that was we could not resolve it because it requires a change in zoning and for the commissions to review the plan before it could be resolved. the information has been in the eir for quite some time. we have had it out there. the only difference we're talking about is how that information is reviewed by the two commissions. commissioner antonini: what is really before us at this particular time is certification. the eir, which is a complete,

accurate and very analytical extension, and so really, that is the only issue we are considering in this particular motion right now, which i will move to certify the environmental impact report. >> second. commissioner wu: i do think that the eir -- it does an adequate job of addressing shadow and hats. it describes that there is an impact. it describes what the shuttle impact is. it does not diminish the importance of sunshine, but i also feel that voting to certify the eir is sort of an implicit statement about shadows. what i want to say is that i really think a shadow ordinance is important, and i do not want take for granted that through

one action, you are sort of implying that all these other actions will be easy or that they will follow in that way. i just think that -- i want to make clear that despite -- or acknowledging that acknowledgingeir itself -- acknowledging that the eir itself is adequate, that these are issues to be considered on another calendar and with another commission. commissioner fong: thank you for pointing that out. i agree that while we might be taking some action today, it does not necessarily mean that everything going forward will have the same result. commissioner antonini: just in regards to what commissioner wu said, the certification of the eir in no way deals with the leader is coming on. this is the adequacy, accuracy, completeness coming from it. we can discuss today but will probably at a later time the

details, which of course have to be in conjunction inrec/park and any kind of shadow allowances. this would be dealing with the document self, which i think is extremely well done, as is almost everything we have had before us that staff brings us. commissioner moore: i would like to ask the city attorney on an interpretation to a comment regarding the non-compliance of prop k makes the project noncompliant and non-approval. and then maybe i could clarify three points -- >> may be a clarify three points. i think that sarah address the issue of code compliance, and there is nothing in ceqa that requires the project being analyzed for the plan has to be

code compliance -- code compliant. two issues are worth pointing out. the language of prop k for the consideration at the latest is triggered at the point where you are considering a building permit for a project. it can be considered before hand as long as you have environmental analysis, but the decision does not have to occur until you are considering a building that is over 40 feet in height of the building permit stage. i think one other point worth clarifying is that -- i believe some people misconstrue the criteria that were adopted, the implementation memo by the planning commission and recreation and park commission

and, as something that is set in stone, and that somehow the prop k forces you -- you are bound by the subsequent implementation memo that was jointly adopted by the commissions, and that is not the case at all. prop k delegated the authority to be reckoned park commission and the planning commission to adopt and implementation program and adopt criteria, and the commission's jointly are allowed to adjust those criteria as they see fit. there have been city attorney public memos on this. those criteria can be adjusted up or down based on your policy decisions. you can adopt criteria -- i think kevin mentioned prop k applies to every party under recreation and park

jurisdiction, so commissions could adopt criteria for parks where there currently are not any what we call budgets that have been adopted. those decisions are purely in the hands of the planning commission and recreation and park commission. commissioner moore: does that include those parts which have shadowed tolerance of zero? if that would be the case, why have it in the first place? >> the absolute limits that were adopted were things that were adopted by this implementation memo in 1989 by both commissions sitting together. at the time, it was determined what level of shadow at that time they felt was appropriate. i will read for you a paragraph which i think is relevant from a city attorney memo that was written in 1989.

i believe it was shortly after the criteria, the implementation program was adopted. the original carefully considered cumulative limit and qualitative factors may have proven sufficient. however, if new information and experience proved that the criteria are unnecessarily restrictive for our and effective to protect parks and playgrounds from shadow and shading, then the commission's as representatives of the people have the implied power and indeed do need to change them. i think that is important that the opinion is not that once the criteria are adopted they can only be -- they must remain frozen or that they need to be more restricted. it does recognize that they can move in either direction based on the policy considerations of

both commissions. >> i hear what you are saying, but i understand it to stand in stark contradiction to what the attorney said. commissioner antonini: i think i understand. i think the key word is discretion, that you spoke up. it does give to the commission some discretion. before us is the california environmental quality act. since this discretion exists, a project that commissions could find that the project in their discretion would be conforming and therefore, we are dealing now with ceqa. we are not dealing with 295, but we have the discretion over 295 that could make it conforming, so we are kind of getting confused at this point because what is really before us is just the ceqa issue.

>> that is correct. as i indicated, prop k is triggered at the latest when there is a specific building project before the commission in excess of 40 feet that might shadow a parke. commissioner antonini: because uld be conforming because of our discretion, and therefore, it would fall under any ceqa law that might follow a project -- require project to be conforming to the law. >> that is correct. >> just to clarify, you do not have discretion over section 295. what you have discretion over is the technical memo that the commission adopted. to be clear, what john was saying, perhaps if i could clarify, clarify,prop k did not establish the budgets. the commissions established the

budgets. because of that, it is your memo. you have the authority and the right to change that with a project comes forward. when the commission's get together and approve a small increase, what you are doing is changing that memo. >> we have done that on a number of occasions with a number of projects. >> there have been 13 times here not all of this project have been built. there have been 13 times in about three years. commissioner moore: in the majority of those projects, it was social considerations rather than private interests, which modified the budget. i have sat on a number of cases when i went against my own strong belief that prop k has a particular purpose, which does not allow the modifications we are considering today, but if there are overriding considerations, the ones i

supported work of social consequence. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is for certification of the final environmental impact report for the transit center district report and transit tower. on that motion -- commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner moore: no. commissioner wu: aye. commissioner fong: aye. >> thank you, commissioners. that motion passed four-one, with commissioner moore voting against. commissioners, you are now on item four, the transit center district plan adoption of action -- adoption action. for the record, i will state that adoption of the ceqa findings is 4a 4b is proposed

plan amendments. 4d is request for review and comment. 4e is a learning t is administre amendments. 4g is the program implementation document. >> good morning again the, commissioners. since the department has been the primary sponsor of this plan, i thought it was appropriate to address you from this location rather than my usual chair. three weeks ago, we talked about a number of items. i will not reiterate all of those. i just want to reiterate what we are putting this before you today for adoption and white -- and also a bit more about the shadow issue. we initiated the plan in response to the transbay working

group. the idea of the plan was to reflect the goal of the original 1985 plan to create a high density neighborhood as well as providing an creating land value that would be captured and distributed toward the actual construction of the terminal and tunnel. there have been a number of actions since then. we initially proposed and put out the plan for public distribution in november 2009. since that time, the eir, which you just certified, has been developed. the plan has four goals, as i said, to generate revenue for the terminal and the downtown transit tunnel to further implement the downtown plan, to provide capacity for additional jobs and office growth in the city, and to create a model for a sustainable high-density urban district. we think this plan does all of that. you re joshua review all the plan elements in detail.

it is, in my estimation, one of the most comprehensive planning efforts we have ever done. it addresses changes in land use, density, height, and it creates 11 acres of new open space. it creates a new urban design and streetscape improvements. it designates additional historic resources and expense and historic district, and, i think most important, creates an important financing mechanism to make all this happened. i think it is a good reminder to us that the densities in this plan can allow the public amenities to be funded, and that does not happen very often. we cannot create densities, nor should we, in most of the city that pay for public improvements. in this case, we can, because of the densities proposed. i want to reiterate this is not about creating high-rises for the sake of high-rises. it is about creating the density we are talking about. there were additionally different heights proposed for many of these sites, including the transit towers.

those have been adjusted as we developed the plan and look at the environmental impact of those plans. in several cases, we adjusted down with the original proposed heights. i believe this plan is important to adopt now. normally, and not standing in front of you urging the adoption. we leave that to other project sponsors, but in this case, the department is essentially the project sponsor. i believe it is important to realize the financing to create a new neighborhood here, which we have all been wanting for a very long time. it is important to address regional growth issues and for the city to accept its share of regional growth. a significant part of the city's own share of regional growth can happen within a very small area because of this plan. it is important to address office capacity. we believe that there is a market in the city in the coming years for both high rise buildings of this type approval and the larger low-rise buildings we're talking about in the other parts of the city. if the plan designates

additional historic districts in landmark buildings, i think it creates an improved skyline by creating a more accentuated form to the skyline, and finally, it creates a much improved street environment. i will turn this presentation over now to maria from the chance they've -- transbay joint powers authority. joshua will present other portions of the project, and then i will come back. so thank you. >> good morning, members of the commission. i am executive director of the transbay joint powers authority. for many years, over a decade now, we have been a partner to the city and county of san francisco. the san francisco planning department, the redevelopment agency, and now the successor entity to the redevelopment agency, working very hard and diligently ontransbay transit c.

this is not just the building of the new wonderful grand central station of the west coast, it is the building of this wonderful new community, and we are here today to hear about that. the other reason i am here today is because i want to express my pricks' tuition to merely, and staff for the hard work that has gone into bringing the plan before you today for your consideration. as you know, we have four city blocks of their construction today. we're building phase one project, which is the station. we're building a station to accommodate 11 different transit systems and accommodate future high-speed rail. we're building a station that under local and state law were mandated to accommodate all different 11 different transit moats and to build this wonderful community. just to give a little bit of background, a number of years ago the state department of

transportation transfer the transbay joint powers authority. 12 developable eight goalacres. without the ability to sell this land, we would not be able to complete the project. there are a number of social considerations involved today in supporting the transit district plan. one is the city of san francisco need to sell the seven portions that were transferred to us at no cost by the state of california to complete the bill of the transit center station itself, which is now under construction. one of the very first properties weaseled recently was to allow housing for formerly displaced housing. senator byrd, when he was president of the senate worked very hard to include housing on site, but we need to sell the other personal, which is part of

the transit center district plan in order to consider -- develop the project. the tax income generated over the life of the redevelopment plan for this project must be used for hard and soft causes. we are using the money to pay for $170 million that the federal money gave us so we could start reist construction. we're 20 use it for subsequent months from the federal government to build the rail extension. in addition, the metropolitan transportation commission recently -- recently approved a plan that includes the real extension for the project. in a line item, there is joint development from this area plan. again, but for the get the the state of california gave us, we would not be able to build the transit station and his

wonderful new neighborhood that will allow for amenities that a new community needs, retail commercial, housing for persons for all demographic walks of life. i would like to you to consider that. also, when you have projects under construction, it provides tremendous benefit to the community. from our project alone, we have been able to employ over 2000 construction workers, workers that did not have worked before. we're working with youth to provide a french ships in internship program so they learn about architecture and engineering and the various disciplines needed. we recently also partnered with michelle obama and her joining forces program to provide opportunities in the trade and management for veterans that are returning to civilian life. that is what construction project can do. we are requiring contractors to provide these opportunities to use and veterans, women, small

businesses in san francisco. it is a tremendous consideration. i was also asked to come before you today because a number of commissioners had not seen our brief video of the project really puts into context and perspective everything we're doing. peter did this at no cost because he believes in the project and believes it is a wonderful project. before it showed the video, i want to thank the congressional and state leaders who worked so hard to get the price to where it is today in to get us to today's milestone. all of our congressional leaders from the east bay, peninsula, because the project accommodates transit corp. all area counties. i want to think state leaders to a work very hard. of course, president obama who

most recently granted as $400 million to the city of san francisco so we could start construction of the station on time. we are on budget and on time. ed i would like to present the video. thank you. -- now i would like to present the video. >> the former station located at first and mission streets -- just one block south of san francisco's market street was built in the depths of the great depression. it is being replaced with a new optimistic expression for our future, a new multi modal transit center that is modern, efficient. the old building was built in 1936 and paid for with [inaudible] it had electrified tracks and

transgendered that ran from san francisco to the east bay. there were operated by companies with romantic names. in 1946, the heyday of rail transport in the united states, 26 million people used the transbay terminal each year. the transbay terminal was converted to a bus-only facility. the former transbay terminal have the hollow is transit kick of it -- connectivity in the region. it also served service throughout san francisco. golden gate transit, a greyhound service connecting passengers throughout the united states.

our transit service for the disabled. however, the facility does not need for future transmit -- trans operating needs. or the growing commuter work force in the bay area or state of california to bring back the glory of the original tunnel and plan for more sustainable future were people are not dependent on automobile, the transbay joint powers authority is built on new multi modal transit centers into construction phases. the first phase includes building a new transit center designed by great clark. it also includes the construction and operation of the temporary kernel for the current operators to use on the new station under construction. the bus storage facility will also be under the west end of

the bay bridge. in the second phase, it will be 1.3 miles from the current terminal directly into the new station. this line will also serve california high-speed real. this has connections to the nine bay area county and 11 different transit operators, including new high-speed rail from southern california. this will bring new housing to enable -- to a new neighborhood. the land is being transferred to san francisco and the transbay joint powers authority for the purpose of building the new transit center. the new high-rise residential building and the new office tower. the proposed power neighboring the transit center will