connects directly to the park. there is a very generous bridge, canopy, weather- protected canopy and the retail level out to the park itself. you can see the bus bombing in the foreground. if you back off of it and look from adjacent buildings back towards the tower, you can see the park in the foreground. the tower is very beautiful object intended to be timeless, simple in form, but i should say we are continuing to refine it. we're working with the planning staff to look at other ideas that might make it more interesting, particularly at the top. we will be pleased to show you those as they develop. as has already been mentioned, the tower is 1,070 feet. still very tall. no getting around that. it is proportioned so that it

can be very carefully protected. we're quite satisfied itself retains all of the central ingredient of the previous 1,200 foot tower. next. this is the street plan that he showed you a few minutes ago. this is significant refinement and improvement in the plans. we have three designed the structure of the tower to pull the columns in as they reach the ground in board, which allow a 20 foot sidewalk dimension on mission street, allowing for a very generous bus drop-off on mission street. this is a rather complex thing to do. it involves sloping the columns as the rise through the tower. it is very achievable and a common technique, but a way for the tower to settle itself into mission square to create an environment and very comfortably

acknowledge the bus traffic on mission street. next. this is the floor just above us. this is the typical first floor. as you can see, quite well developed. the core of the structural engineering is quite far along. these are refinements from the days of competition. this is a very safe building. at has a third exit that conforms to the new building codes in san francisco that was not present five years ago. the elevator systems, the mechanical systems are all being refined to the seismic requirements that one finds in this hightower. it is a very tough -- this stems down to a 17,000 square foot plant some of the tower has gone from a 26,000 square foot plant to a 17,000 as it goes from the bottom to the top. next. >>as the exterior, we're studyig

a system of very beautiful white-painted solar sunscreens that you see creates a very rich texture in the skin. they are deeper towards the middle and more shallow in the corner. these sunscreens' also help mitigate wind. it is a very good way to control the amount of wind of that might ultimately reach the pedestrian level. next. from inside, because we have held the columns away from the corners, you will have extraordinarily views of the city. it will be quite a remarkable place to be. i will show you various views from distances around the city. i think proving it is still a very beautiful proportion building. spending in the iconic qualities and like this will be the most remarkable standard point to the city skyline. next. here is a view as you come into

town from the bridge. next. of view across. this is to show it is the center point focus of the city's skyline. next. finally, city park at night. thank you very much. president fong: at this point we will take public comment. if there is any public comment on this portion. >> rubin santiango. i feel that the plan that pelly

park kelly has done is fantastic and beautiful. the only problem i have with it is the tower. for one thing, they have not shown an illustration of what a 1,200 foot tower would look like compared to the 1,070 foot tower. even though they are saying it looks beautiful and evenly proportion to or is up to standards, to me, it looks squatty and shortened. i know buildings. i go all over the united states. this tower that was originally proposed that 1,200 feet would go splendor, tall, majestically up higher, which would make it slender, and it would look very

impressive, where as this illustration to me looks like we're being shortchanged. their original concept was great. so i do not know why they brought it down, but i would like to see the planning department get together, and maybe do alterations or even go up higher, because they are saying this is the tallest building in mississippi. l.a. is planning something taller than what we have right now. at 1,200 feet we would beat l.a. by the time 2017 comes along. i just want to pass that along. there is time to do alterations to it to see if we can do something better. thank you.

>> sue hester. further on your agenda today, you have renderings in their of what that building will add to this guideline. i looked at the last rendering, and there is basically two holes. south of market and the existing one at the bridge. the planning department has approved the second, and four other projects that basically go in a straight line down fremont street. visually a straight line. if you do not give developers accurate rendering of what you have already approved, and they give you rendering like that one that does not show up the sideline build in with the

project you have as the next item of your calendar, you are not doing ourselves -- you are not really telling yourself what it will look like in the context, and you are not telling the public. planning department, you have that information. you have that information on the next item. please make your rendering honest. thank you. >> i am jim patrick with patrick and company in san francisco. we are existing property owner on the west end. we actually share the same property line. i have interest in this project for a long time. i would like to call your attention to access. we have a roadway now. that will not deliver the volume

of the people, but at the west end there is no access. there is a plan to put the escalator into the park that is not funded. i think we need to have policies in place that will encourage bridging to neighboring properties, both build properties, and yet to be built properties. the only policy i am aware of is a trade-off for when you build the building. there is no policies for cost or encouragement to get existing buildings joined in, so you have a total system throughout the parameter that is very important that we think about that and the policies be in the plan. thank you. president fong: additional public comment? seeing none, we are moving to commissioner comments and questions. commissioner morore: think you

form attending this meeting. -- thank you for attending this meeting. this makes it a little more difficult to really separate what we're working on today and what ultimately is a discussion of the building. however, i do believe there was a lot of uncertainty, as was expressed to you a few weeks ago. i would like to talk to mr. walker and a couple of other issues. mr. walker advised -- could i ask you to come to the microphone? i am very interested in your thoughts about the plaza and very interested in your explanation about the redwood trees. a few questions i would like to ask, is the issue of san francisco and that particular sarthe region part of the city is actually quite gray in quite

dark. redwood trees do have a tendency of creating a somewhat more shaded environment than what we normally like on heavily- frequented public plazas. how do you seek to resolve that issue? i am sure you can answer them all in one. trees bring dim light. they are not such a positive way. that is just the nature of the trees. in addition to the fact, tree limbs dropped needles, and that creates a maintenance problem, which is not just restricted to the drop line of the trees, but the needle shipped around. i see that behind transamerica acquired for inchoate way -- behind transamerica quite frequently, and i think that is

something we should be concerned about. lastly, you did not speak about the capacity of the funicular. i think about the peak access in hong kong. it is restricted to about 8-12 people, and i am not sure if it is a similar thing. this might be standing on the lead. what happens at ground center control to continuously ride up and down and blocks that aspect for others? the big question obviously deals with who will actually own and operate not only been -- not only the vernacular, but the roof top part. quite a few questions if you could address them. >> let me start at the end and

go back. we're just at the beginning of studding the vernacular, so i do not know specifically how many people and so forth. i am aware of this problem up and down, and we will work that out. in the ski resort stay open up one side and the other side, and that is how they do it. i am also hoping because we will go to the part because of has its own fascinations as well, but i do not have specific answers on those. as to the ownership of the transit authority will own the park. how bad is maintained will be a program they will develop, and i assume that mission square will be looked after by the developer of the building. correct me if i am wrong.

generally we have found of the maintenance in institutionalized spaces exceeds the maintenance in most city spaces, simply because of funds and the uses their put to. in some cases, at least in this day and age, it is the best thing these areas are looked over by people who have a real interest in them in a specific sense. i wish that were not the truth in the world. i think that is right now the way the world works. as to the darkness, one of the reasons we have placed the trees apart was to make sure light caught in between them, no matter which way it was coming. i think the one at trans america, and the reason i showed that slide, is that is billed and like a tight growth. you have trees all the way around with a fountain, and that is intended to be dark. that is the nature of that kind

of organization. we are treating them more like columns where light would come between them, and that is the reason for spacing them out this way. the famous column spacing as the building. i think that the other answer to the light question is that you need to keep them pruned up. that is true of any park. i know, and i am very aware of san francisco and the need for as much light as possible. on the other hand, i would like to see more trees always. if i can get a few more in, typically i would take that opportunity. i did everything that -- commissioner moore: you did and i think it would be interesting to do a shadow and height study

in terms of how the heights over years will change shadow patterns and what it really looks like at the beginning, because i do not think anyone is comfortable for it to be dark, particularly when that is a more or less 24 hour use environment. this is not as much of a gathering space for large groups of people to provide seating and connect the top and bottom, but on its own a wide open space or parts of it for people to gather or whatever. basically a walk you basically walk through a passage for the top. >> that is true. the park has a plaza and an amphitheater for that, that are built to hold a lot of people and the congregation. because this is on the entrance to the transit, this is a place that most people are going

through it to get to something else. what the retail is doing there is animating that space, not filling it. i think it's primary function, other than my function, i want to relate it to the park, but its primary function is to move people into the station and out of the station. it is a way of making, i think, a really wonderful entrance to add to the interior spaces, which are extraordinary. commissioner moore: may i have you for one more second? you talked about multiple part environments and multiple park experience on top of the roof. one of the questions i asked about five years ago, and it was probably as, as far as i'm concerned, this project will only be successful if it over the years if it is protected from shadow

-- it was probably you i asked. what are you doing to anticipate in identified future building sites, which this department has indeed somewhat sketched out, that the major active part elements are indeed in sunlight in perpetuity? otherwise, i think this park will never be what we are expecting it to be, partially because we are not new york and we do not have elevated rooftop parks. >> that is the one part of your question i did not answer. we are doing the studies, and we will be glad to get back to you. commissioner antonini: i think this is a sensational plan, and i did have a couple of questions for mr. walker, but i have

comments as well. during your remarks, i think you said that we would hope these trees would have a life of 100 years, but i would expect they will live longer than that. is there some constraint on the redwoods in this sort of environment that would make their lifetime less? >> i always tell my students when i start of projects, i would put a $2,000 tree in a $200 hole, and now i go the other way around. their life is subject to so many conditions. they are not going to suffer too much from a drought over a couple of years. it will not do what it does to the broadleaf evergreens, but whether they live that long will be whether they receive a certain amount of care. part of the care and perhaps the most important -- it is the same in new york -- is that system has to work. somebody has to care about the system, and when something is

going wrong, they have to go out and fixed the system. most of the things that are going on in the city with regard to plans is not because the plants are growing too large or too fast. in new york, the average life of a tree is under 10 years, average, of all trees in the city, including parks. the park trees do better because they have a better hole. they are coming out of something better. but the trees in the street and the trees in the plazas -- for instance, the trees in front of rockefeller center -- they are replaced every three and a half years. it is because the cities are a very tough place to grow things. even hardy trees that do very well are under real attack. the redwood is probably as dirty a tree as one could imagine, and that is why they are thousands of years old. but i think it is foolish to say

in the city that if we ignore the trees and do not take care of them, that we are not shortening their life because we are. we are intending to put it in in a form which could easily live that long, but whether the states, you know, that is up to the body politic. commissioner antonini: i was very impressed by the system you are devising in the fact that the base is large enough to allow restructure to develop and have this continuous recycling of water. it would seem with the proper care, the given a lot of the conditions that are good for redwoods because we do have some shade. we do have moisture from fog and a lot of the conditions that exist in nature exist within san francisco. >> it is tremendously important. it was one of our major issues of the park. the park is collecting water, taking it down to a tank that is below the station and pumping it back up into the fall. let's face it -- we are in a

continuing drought situation. all of the thng on potable wate, depending on the sewers, which are clogging up, we have to do things about that, and we are in a position to do it project by project. i would advocate it being down across the board, but when we have situations like the park and like this plaza and like the area of new york, if we do not grasp the opportunity, we're just making things worse. >> thank you. one other question with regards to mission square -- what is the size of mission square proposed to be? >> maybe i could tell you approximately. just a second. 40,000 feet? commissioner antonini: ok, and how would that work in terms of acres? >> i should point out, that is just the area from the property line to mission street, but mission square will go all the

way to the door. it is going across the property line, so it will go all the way to station doors. it will lot stock of the property line. so it is a little larger. commissioner antonini: yes, a little over an acre. why i think that is significant is i was impressed by your renderings, and it reminded me of rockefeller center. we do not have that kind of situation in san francisco with the tall spires of buildings that are surrounding a public space. we also have the possible analogy to grand central station with the transbay terminal, but i think that is something that would be a very popular and welcoming meeting place and gathering place. it sounds like the size of that is big enough to make that a possibility. >> i think even more than the size, if i could get on the phone to you and say, "i will

meet u.s. -- meet you at x" and you know what x is, then that is a success. you might have to get at a map and find out exactly where it was, but i think we should make our places distinct. the city should be made up of a series of distinct places. that is what we're trying to do. commissioner antonini: exactly like the area in front of at&t park. it is great meeting place, and even though a lot of people live there, it presents very well. thank you very much for your answers to the questions. i just had a couple of other comments -- i particularly did like the idea of the redwood in that the kennedys are not all the same height. it allows a sun streamed to flow in, so great choice of trees. a lot of our questions were

answered. i think that the bridge from the tower to the park, particularly impressed with two elements, the 20-foot sidewalk on mission street, which is very important because we will have so much foot traffic. we need as much room as we can possibly get, and the sun screens which will immediately raise wind conditions to some degree, and also add to the beauty of the building because it will reflect light differently. 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. -- setting up a separate cbd. in terms of the total operation,