square, mid september to mid october and then in late february, maximum duration of 20 to 30 minutes, also before 9:00, and a total cumulative amount of 0.09%. and here's roughly where the maximum extent of the shadow would fall. we have a video of this one, i'll save it in case folks want to see that after the presentation. usage analysis of st. mary's square, this is the last park that we did on the ground usage analysis for the parks, at 8:30 a.m., the park is completely in shade, they are relatively less used public space than the other spaces we looked at. there was roughly 10 to 15 people at all times doing tai

chi, doing other quiet activities, a couple of kids playing in the small playground that's there, there are open areas where people can do activities, regardless of whether they're in sun or in shade, and this is 10:00 a.m., so i kind of went over those findings, there's no current budget for st. mary's square, the proposed budget is 0.09% of which the transbay tower is half. moving on to maritime plaza, maritime plaza is about 2 thousand feet away from the transbay tower, it is the only building that might add shade to maritime plaza, it is an elevated plaza that was built, the shadow would fall at the most 25 minutes for one or two

weeks in early december and then one or two weeks right around the new year and it would fall between 10:40 and 1105 p.m., and it is a relatively small patch that would flash by as the shadow of the transbay tower slices on the towers generally shade maritime plaza, so maritime plaza is a lightly used open space, it doesn't have good access, it doesn't have a lot of amenities, it's of course very proximate to attractive open spaces on the waterfront, a shadow would fall on the small part of the parks that doesn't have any other amenities and, the shadow is primarily cast by the sort of sculptural top of the transbay tower which we think would not be a dark hard shadow on the ground if it was readily apparent at all.

there is no available budget for maritime budget, we propose to raise it by 0.0004 of which the transbay power is all of it, willie woo woo wong, this is not a park that would be shaded by the transbay tower at all, the park is primarily composed of a sports place, 20 minutes after at the beginning of the day, 8:25 for a week or two from late december to early january. the potential impacts happen at the first minutes of analysis of the day for a few days of the year, they're there and

gone almost before they're discernable on these videos that we might show you. the shadow is very limited in duration, it is at times of the year where children are going to be in school so we don't presume that there would be any adverse usage of the park at those times. there's no current available budget for the playground, the proposed increase is 0.03%. moving on to the chinese rec center which is about 4500 feet away from the transbay tower, almost a mile away, the chinese rec center as you know is just recently reopened after a significant reconstruction, renovation, i believe it just reopened this summer, it consists of a three storey indoor recreational facility and a smaller outdoor play area. the shadow would occur for a

maximum of five minutes at 8:25 in the morning roughly for a few days in october and a few days in february and would predominantly fall on the roof of the new rec center. this is not an actively used roof, there's no roof deck or they don't play facilities on the deck, it's just a roof. and this is one of the two parks for which there is no budget established by the 1989 memo or any subsequent actions so there is no proposed quantitative change to those limits, it would add 0.008% shadow to the park and the actions related to the transbay tower would find that this shadow would not be adverse to the use of the park without any action related to any budgets. boeddeker park, second to last, about a mile away from the transbay tower, which would be the only potential building

that might add shadow to it, it is slated also for a wholesale renovation hopefully soon. there is a concept plan that the rec park department has worked on with other partners, and so our analysis is based on the proposed renovation of the park as opposed to its current layout, it is 5 minutes before 7 a.m., sometime between 6:47 and 7 a.m. for a few weeks in mid june. and as you can see on the image, the shadow would essentially exclusively fall on the street edges along elle street and jones street on areas of the park that are not slated to be active recreational, one is the entry way to the park and raised planters, the other is a

service gate and some raised planters along elle street. boeddeker park does not currently have any available budget. the proposed increase is 0.003% of which the transbay tower is all of it, that's the only building, and lastly, woh hei yuen park is about a mile away, which is the building that would add shadow to it, it is less than 10 minutes before 8:00 for about a week or so in early november and again in early february, the shadow would primarily fall along the edge along the street edge on the north edge and then a small part on the edge of the playground. again, based on the very limited duration and locations and time of day and time of year of the shadow, we don't feel it would be adverse to the use of this park, there is no

budget for this park established but for context, the transbay tower would add .001%, so that concludes the section on the park by park analysis. we held an informational session with the planning commissioners a couple of weeks ago to go over much of this information and the commissioners raised a number of questions, and so i just wanted for everyone's benefit to respond to those inquiries and give everyone the context, so if we could get the slides back up. there was questions raised about -- going beyond section 295 in problem k, so beyond the immediate topics for today's hearing, what about other parks, wabt non-recreation park department properties certainly is our concern as well, the eir

does contain an analysis of some of these other potentially impacted parks, there are not very many. it's important to note that the planning code does offer the planning commission and the department the directive and ability to shape projects based on any potential shadow impacts on non-rec park properties, it's up to the discretion of the planning department to do that, but for everyone's benefit, i quoted it, which says the building shall be shaped with good design without unduly restricting the site..[reading].. and public space not protected by section 295. so, just to outline what is covered in the eir, there are minor shadow impacts from the potential new buildings on three non-rec park properties, those include the waterfront park on the port property that would be in the very late afternoon for a limited time of

the year, a small sliver of this other plaza behind the ferry building and a small portion of mcenis plaza which is a maintained space. we don't have images for all of these. you know, the eir provided a very comprehensive set of images for days of the year, these are limited such that it wasn't captured by any of these images except for one potential day was related to rincon park, the shadows would generally fall between 4:30 and 5:30 for some some increment of that on a small part of the park, you could see the image, these are images for march and september, you can see a small bit of orange from 5:00 p.m. on a small part of the park.

also the question was raised, what about the new parks created on the plan? we do have some analysis to share with you, generally, you sort of glean from the eir information and city park is 5 and a half acres, it is the size of union square and south park combined, it will generally be a very sunny park, it has some low buildings, [inaudible] on the south side, a few taller buildings that will be built, but it would be the misleading -- middle of the day, fully or almost entirely in sun between 12 p.m. and 3 p.m. generally all times of the year, you can see it's at least probably 2/3 in sun, again, in the spring, fall and

summer and in december, you can see 3:00, it's entirely in the sun at 11:00 and 1:00, it's probably 40 or 50% in the sun even in the dense downtown environment. transbay park which is a one acre thark that will be created on the site of the transbay terminal was conceived of and the whole development program for the public parcels around it was crafted with sun, midday sun in mind, so you can see these are a couple of graphics from the transbay redevelopment plan, the heights on all the public parcels were crafted by the redevelopment agency and the planning department to preserve midday sun for most of that year, it goes back many years even on parks that were not rec park properties. there was a question, well, what about sidewalks, the

planning code does provide for the planning commission and planning department to shape codes, it doesn't diminish the development of the parcels to preserve sun on sidewalks, there are a few sidewalks on certain streets on the downtown that have specific protections, none of them are relevant to the transbay district plan area, but it's up to the planning commission to look at and this is an item that's really sort of a micro issue that can be looked at on a project by project basis as it relates to individual projects n -- in the downtown, sidewalks are going to be shady much of the time and downtown is not different. a couple of years ago, the topic of shadows and how the commissions deal with them and how the transbay plan will be evaluated came to the forefront

and was being discussed while the plan was being reviewed, board supervisor chu assembled a citizen's task force to advise the departments and commissions on how they might consider any changes to the methodology of shadow analysis or how they might consider the transit center plan as they move forward, the task force held a number of publicly accessible hearings or through the meetings over the course of about a year and a half and is this past may, the task force concluded its work and the two chair, one was appointed by the mayor and one from board supervisor chu, the task force proposes that the recreation and parks commission review cumulative data..[reading].. and consider whether to allocate shadow budgets

accumulatively, informational reputations on any potential shadowing of the property under the jurisdiction of the rec and park department would also be made to both commissions as the projects seek entitlements and that is what we are proposing before you today is to consider the budget's cumulatively as a plan as a whole and then as individual projects come in, each commission would still consider the merits of the shadow of each project within the context of the budgets that were adopted for the plan. so, those are the two actions before you today. one jointly and one for the rec park commission, again t planning commission will consider the actions on the transbay tower and the recommendation of the rec park commission at next week's planning commission hearing, there will be other projects that come before you in the next few months and in the following year, just to recap again the specific items that

staff proposes, first for the joint commissions to amend the 1989 implementation memo, which was the creation of the commissions, two, revise cumulative limits for 7 parks reflective of the adopted transit center district plan in the analysis of the eir, and those 7 parks are union square, st. mary's square, portsmouth, justin herman plaza, maritime plaza and willie woo woo wong play grond and boeddeker park, this is to help the commissions evaluate individual projects as they come forward and importantly, not that we're just changing the budgets in a cumulative number, but also the potential shadows of buildings that might fall within this budget need to be consistent with the times of day and days of year and extent and all that

detailed information that i went over as described in the transit sent district plan eir and we're not talking about shadows at other times of day, other parts of the park, anything of that nature, secondly, that individual projects as they come forward should demonstrate they have sculpted the buildings to the extent feasible consistent with the plan's object t*ifr tos reduce impacts below those analyze ined the eir and lastly and importantly, the public good aspect of the projects need to be evaluated in the context of the plan as a whole and the benefit of any individual building would be obscured by a project by project evaluation, the public would on its own. and then secondly, the other action before the rec and park sxhition is to make recommendation to the planning commission that the net new shadow from the proposed project 101 first street, aka,

the transbay tower will not have an impact on the parks that they may add shadow to and to allocate the tower's quantitative budget, the increased budget for those 6 park and is to adopt ceqa findings to enable that action. so, lastly and i'll just close here, again, why consider this plan accumulatively, why not do this on a project and project basis, one is comprehensive planning is good planning and that's the reason why we do comprehensive plan ising to look broadly as the objectives regarding open space and economic development and sustainability and everything that's related to these plans and try to maximize the greatest public good for the downtown and broader, and it's up to this point, it's been a very unified discussion of the plan in downtown. secondly, we think it's good

for transparency and upfront full disclosure as potential plans, we know what the full maximum impacts are going to be and it's not obscured by a piecemeal implementation over time so everyone knows upfront are what the picture is, the third is the benefits of the plan are cumulative, it is not on a project by project basis, certainly individual buildings have their particular merits but the real benefits of the plan, the open space program, the affordable house program, the transportation infrastructure program is only be realized through the implementation of the plan. fourth, the purpose of a plan and we've adopted many area plans over the last few years is to provide certainty for public partners like the tjpa which hinge on the implementation of the plan as well as certainty for private sponsors in the negotiated public benefit and is the

tradeoffs that the plan presents, next as scott mentioned, expeditious implementation of the plan is important to meet key milestones and make sure those projects can continue to move forward, this stage comes after many years of deliberation over the plan and its adoption this summer, and then lastly, we feel that really a accumulative consideration is a most consistent method that went into the adoption of the 1989 memo, accumulatively, so as karen mentioned at the beginning of the presentation, this plan is the first major comprehensive plan to look at a substantial downtown since before the 1989 memo and as such, we feel a similar

comprehensive approach is warranted. so, with that, i will conclude my presentation, i'd be happy to take any questions. thank you. >> thank you. is there any additional staff presentation comment? okay, great, so we're going to go ahead and open up for public comment. and i see supervisor wiener's here knowing his busy schedule, supervisor, if you're ready -- >> thank you, mr. chairman, good morning, commissioners. i'm here today to encourage you to approve each of the items before you fully and to make very clear what i think you already know, that without a complete and successful transit center district project, we will not in all likelihood have

downtown extension for high speed rail in san francisco, just to be very clear, no district plan, no downtown extension, which has been a priority of this city for almost 50 years. as one of san francisco's representatives on the metropolitan transportation commission, along with supervisor campos, i was proud to represent san francisco in the historic votes taken at our renal planning organization several months ago to unanimously pass the california high speed rail mou, that will soon bring us electrified cal train as well as a regional transportation plan that prioritizes this region's major fair of transportation for the extension of cal train dtx, and i just want to reiterate that this was not a foregone

conclusion, downtown extension was not necessarily a priority for the entire region and we as a city worked very, very hard to bring the other commissioners from around the bay area on board to support not just electrified cal train but to make clear that downtown san jose to downtown san francisco was one unified project and they have come on board and have committed funding and we as a city have to do our part and we cannot do that without this plan in its full aspect. the downtown extension has been a goal since at least 1969, endorsed repeatedly by the voters of san francisco and of course a significant portion of funding comes from the transit center district plan, in addition to the plan laying out the physical alignment for the downtown extension. this is what good planning looks like not just as a city but regionally and i ask your

support for it so that we can have our dream of a downtown extension and a great transbay terminal become a reality, so thank you very much, commissioners. >> thank you, supervisor. >> i'm going to go ahead and call some cards and step on up, gilbert deanda, danny campbell, tamika moss. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is gilbert, i represent carpenters local 22. >> if i can interrupt for a moment, mr. president, how much time for each speaker? >> let's go 3 minutes. >> 3 minutes? >> good morning, commissioners, i'm happy to be here today to talk to you about the project. i represent carpenters in san francisco, i work for local 22, i'm one of the reps, and we

represent carpenters in san francisco in the greater bay area, i urge you to support this project for many reasons, one of the main reasons as you all know is we'll create jobs for carpenters and other trades here in san francisco, plus the taxes it will generate to continue to build more parks. what i see today from the shadow -- the presentation is that the shadow is minimal, it's basically in the morning and in the late evening and i think it's very minimal as far as the project being shut down because of the shadows, so i urge you to strongly support this project. it's going to create approximately 27 thousand permanent jobs in the area, 8300 jobs will be related to

the construction, 17 thousand jobs related to the construction of the neighborhoods surrounding the transbay center, it's going to also create new open space downtown san francisco, so i strongly urge you that we support this project. thank you very much. thank you. >> good morning, commissioners, danny campbell, sheet metal workers, local 104, i just wanted to say that the shadow impacts we feel are negligible that are by this tower and the height of the tower is important for its economic viability as well as for the completion of the transbay terminal itself, so we urge you to support this project, thank you. >> thank you.

>> good morning, my name's denise deana and i'm on the board of san francisco tomorrow, and personally not opposed to this project except for the height and i don't see how necessary it is for the transbay terminal , it takes only about two or three levels to begin with, the purpose of parks in an urban setting is to provide residents with an escape from the daily grind of urban living. the transit center project is in violation of section 295 of proposition k, and san francisco tomorrow believes that the changes proposed and administered by the recreation and parks department amount to

a major and significant change, not a minor one as outlined by the planning person in the protections found in section 295 of the planning code. since this ordinance was enacted by the people, changes of this nature could only be accommodated by a further vote of the people. thank you very much. >> after ms. moss, richard shaffer, jim lazarus, howard wexler and herman. >> my name is tamika moss from spur and i wanted to take a few moments not to reiterate many of the comments that spur has agreed with in relationship to

this plan but to talk more specifically about the people, for the last 9 years, i worked as a tenant organization in other parts of san francisco and i think it's important that we look at this plan as a plan of tradeoffs, certainly individuals who -- low-income people and seniors who call the parks an extension of their community really do need to be e vap waited -- evaluated as part of this decision, i was one of the people who worked on the boeddeker park, and we worked hard to ensure that that renovation which will be before the commission very soon was going to be something that supported the needs of the community so i think it's really important that we recognize that shadows and other conditions of the park are really important to consider. however, what i think is important is that the benefits that the plan