plaza and the building would provide additional means of public access to the rooftop city park on the transit center. so, section 295 which implements the sunlight ordinance, section 295, just to recap what it says and what it requires, requires that the planning commission not approve any new building that would result in that new shadows that have adverse impact on the use of if park unless determined that the park would be insignificant. these are subjective terms, there were no specific absolute quantitative mechanisms or dictates of any kind in section 295 but it set up a process and requirement that the joint commission, the planing and the recreation and park commission jointly meet to establish criteria to implement section 295, and so it took a few

years, in 1989, the joint commissions adopted this 1989 section 295 implementation memo which did a couple of things, it established general qualitative criteria for the evaluation of shadows and that includes things like time of day and time of year of the shadows, the size of the shadows and -- in the extent it might cover any parks, the location the shadows may fall on the park and what features the shadows are there in that location, how long they last, and the public good of the projects that might add this new shadow to the parks. as i just mentioned, section 295 in prop k which adopted it didn't contain any mention of quantitative mechanisms or necessarily require they adopt any quantitative measures, the commissions create a criteria for its implementation, at the

time, 1989, they created more tightly recommendations, they created budgets. i won't read through the list of parks, there are 14 of them, three of them were given budgets greater than 0 meaning that some additional shadow would be allowed on three additional parks, the others would be given 0. all these parks but one were north of market given the focus at the time of trying to shift development towards the south of market area. just to note in terms of what the commissions have done in terms of evaluating shadows since the adoption of the 1989

memo, 25 projects have been adopted to add some amounts of new shadow to parks, the commissions have found in all those cases, they would not be adverse, and in 9 occasions, the commission raised the budgets on various of these 14 parks, you can see them highlighted in yellow there. one or two of the parks had their budgets raised a couple of times. and again, it's just important to point out that the budgets again are not mandated by prop k, they are sort of the wisdom of the commissions and the regulation of shadows and sunlight in the downtown area and are based on broad considerations of open space patterns in the downtown area. so, getting again to more of the specifics of this plan area, you can see the plan air y, the transit center district

planned area outlined in red, from the waterfront to approximately third street. you can see on the map there are no rec park properties in the plan area, there are no publicly owned open space ins the plan area, all the open space you see on the map, those are all reck park areas, generally all of them north of market street. this just shows you the plan buildings, the plan extends all the way to the waterfront, all the core plan buildings are sort of clustered in the center of the plan area, a substantial distance away from any of the parks that might have additional shadow on them. so, as outlined in the eir, the cumulatively, all the potential build rinsing the plan area would add new shadow to 9 parks and i'll just read them off,

union square, st. mary's square , etc., 7 of them have absolute cumulative limits established by the 1989 memo. so, to implement the plan and to move forward with the developments in the plan area, the budgets would have to be changed for the 7 parks with budgets. regarding the transbay tower itself, it does not shadow all of these parks, it shadows 8 of these 9, 6 of those 8 have budget, initially, when the transbay tower was first conceived through a design and development competition, it was proposed at a height of 1200

feet, through the plan process, we conducted extensive model, not just of the skyline but of shadows and recommend the height come down a little bit to reduce the shadows, and that's one reason it was reduced, similarly, heights throughout the plan area were generally sculpted with shadows in mind, though clearly not all shadow impacts can be prevented through a development of broad objectives of the plan, so in terms of the broad consideration of what the shadow analysis tells us, generally as you saw from the map, these buildings are quite some distance from the parks that they would potentially add new shade to, as a result, these shadows happen in very limited times of day, very limited times of year. generally in the early morning

when the sun is low in the sky and is rising very fast, these shadows sort of sweep across these parks or portions of the parks for small amounts of time as the sun is rising in the morning hours. another note which is not really factored into the -- literally into the quantitative analysis that's before you but it's something to be considered as a reality on the ground and how these shadows might be perceived or impacted on the park, because these buildings are such a distance from the parks and they're relatively slender in profile as viewed from those parks, the sun will not be fully ob secured by most of these buildings so some of these impacts might be highly slated because of these facts, the sun is a broad disk in the sky, it's this big fire ball in the sky and the analysis behind

the numbers assume that is the sun is a little point in the sky and that a building is fully blocking it or not fully blocking it, often the sun is peaking out behind buildings, the analysis does not -- is not capable of recognizing some of those factors. there were a couple of images on the eir that helped to illustrate this reality, the image on the left shows the shadow cast by a tall structure, a non-enclosed structure that if you're standing a thousand, 2 thousand feet away, the shadow is there on the ground, it's hard to discern and what you can see is that the shadow of the person taking the photo is this sort of a dark very discernable hard edge shadow which is overlaid interest on top of the shadow

which is this fuzzy light, almost indiscernible shadow on the ground, the shadow on the right is the shadow from the transamerican building. so, now i'll go through a park by park analysis, we did a thorough analysis of each park and i'll take you through that now. so, i'll start with justin her man plaza which is about 2 thousand feet away from the transbay tower, so what we provided is to try to give you a sense of the sort of cumulative potential effects and to help put in context the amount of shadow that's a potential on these various parks, we created these charts which sort of show you the amount -- the cumulative annual

time that these parks are in shade versus in sun, so the chart is essentially a theoretical 100% of the year, if you add up all the hours during daylight throughout the year and the park was in sun all that time, there would be 100% and you would see no shaded parts on that chart, this is space and time, and it's sunny 64.2% of the time, the total cumulative potential on that shadow would be .1%, so instead of being in shade 36.6% of the time, the park would be accumulatively in shade 37.7% of the time, the shadows would fall in late fall, early winter, about two months in total for a duration of between as low as 15 minutes to a maximum amount of 50 minutes

and that 15 to 50 minutes would fall between 1:00 and 2:40 p.m., while it says that, we're talk about a 15 to 50 minute slice of that time period. as i mentioned, the shadows of these buildings, they're not static, shadows move and they often move very quickly. what we have are images that show you the moment in time, sort of the minute of the year that is sort of the maximum extent of new shadows, so this helps to give you a sense of what the worst case condition is and generally the rest of the time is significantly less than this so the shadow from the transit tower, you can see that lattice architectural top falling on the sunken plaza and part of the area of the plaza that's the extension of market street at that time. where we also did -- we also

had created some videos and we think the videos are instructive in letting you get a sense of how the shadows move over the course of the day and how they sweep across the park, so i'm going to jump over to the videos, i'm going to let the videos play in a loop while i talk. so, let me just orient you to the videos and they'll play in a loop as i talk. what you see are the shadows from the future planned buildings, the buildings are the blue outlined parcels, in the lower left hand corner of the screen, you can see the time of day ticking down on the hour and you can see the two days of the year for which this particular video is applicable,

so every day of the year has a mirror based on the seasons, so on this day, november 29th and january 11th is roughly the days that we call them basically the worst case scenario for justin herman plaza, then what you see, you can see the parks outlined in green and where the shadows from these new buildings might pass across a currently unshaded part of those parks, you'll see a little bit of orange show up and that represents the net new shadow from the plan so i'll let it play so you can see from the morning ticking down, you can see the shadows slow down when you get to the middle of the day, we are going to 1:00 and then from there, you saw the shadow, and then from there, from another building that passes through the southern central part of the square, and i'll pause it once we get towards the -- right there,

this is the slice of the video represents that still image i just showed of that one moment in time, and you can see notable for justin herman plaza, while i mentioned the maximum amount of shadow would be 50 minutes, it's not 50 consecutive minutes, it's two smaller periods from two different buildings that happen some time apart. so, that's the first building and then you can see the second building passing over and then by 3:00, there's no more shadows on justin herman plaza on these videos. you can also see again not just the shadows move slowly in the middle of the day, how at the tail ends of the day where the shadows they were talking about happening, they're moving quite swiftly and while this video is sped up so we can show you many hours in the course of a few

seconds, they do move quite swiftly. so, the other thing that we did was go out and conduct some usage analysis of a few of these key open spaces just to see if there was any conclusions we could glean from the usage patterns of the park and how it could relate to the areas where a net new shadow might occur, so we did this in generally half hour slices of time, a little bit before this potential shadow might happen and a little bit after just to bracket it and what you see in these a -- aerial photos is indications of where people

might are, that's stationery or seated, or in a fixed position in a moment of time , that's probably a child plaining, and those are the primary activities at justin herman plaza, so what you can see, this is at noon. woe did this analysis this summer, so while this isn't the exact time of year when the shadows might occur, you get a better sense of the plaza at a sunnier time of year n -- in the middle of day, at noon, you can see people are clustered at the edges, a few people on the other perimeter sites and of course there's people in the market street extension going to the building and the vendor that is congregate there, there is existing shadow at these times when we did this

analysis, where the highest concentrations of people are clustered is almost the shaded part of the plaza at this time and we'll just flip through these and we can come back and look at them later if you want to, this is 1:00, 1:30, this is 2:30, the plaza's getting more depopulated and 3:00, most of the people are gone from the plaza except the folks in the vendor area, so what findings can we draw from this analysis both of the usage of the park and the shadow analysis? one is it's clear that some heavily shaded parts of the park, they're the most heavily used parts of the park, another is the new shadow based on the analysis falls on an area of the park that is generally both not very heavily used, it's

part of the sunken plaza as well as the informal seated areas on the periphery, and as per the transbay tower which represents a significant amount of shadow, it's this unenclosed top for the shadow, so the comments potential of diffusion of the sun, it passes through the subject, we don't think this sculptural top will be readily apparent on the ground at all, so currently there is a budget for justin herman plaza of 0.002%, staff proposes to raise it by .083%, and of that, the transbay tower represents about half. moving on to the next park, union square, also almost 3 thousand feet away from the transbay tower, the closest

building is about 1500 feet away from the square. the potential new shadows would fall from mid spring through late summer, as little as five minutes a day, the maximum extent would be 60 minutes, some time before 9 a.m., cumulative shadow of .2%, and i'll show the video in just a second, just to give you the sense in the moment of time where there's the most amount of shadow at union scare, it falls at 8 a.m. on the southern edge of the plaza in the area leading down towards gary street. so, i'll let this play a couple of times, on the days of this year, october 6 and september 5 or the days of maximum extent

on union square. on this day, the transbay tower does not shadow union square, one of the other buildings does, and you'll see at the beginning of the video, you can see there how one of the buildings sweeps across the park, it is there and gone between 8:00 and 9:00 a.m., i'll let it go one more time so you can see that. so, we did a usage analysis of union square, we started at 7 a.m., and at this time of day,

there's very few people in union square, there was about 10 people at most doing anything stationery in union square, there was people walking there to and from somewhere and there were people spending time at union square, it was foggy at this time, the sun came out later in this day, so you don't see any particular shadows. this is 7:30 a.m., you can see a couple of clusters of people in the southwest portion of the park, 8 a.m., still less than 20 people in the square, 8:30, a couple more and then starts at 9:00, the usage of the park takes off and by 9:30, there's several time more people in the square, roughly at about 9:00 is the time that the movable chairs and seating is put out on the square and other activities sort of kick in in union square, so there's very

few people before 9 a.m. that are doing anything in the park. importantly, one thing to note is those couple little clusters of folks where the maximum amount of the shadow would happen, those were observed to be tourists, they were there for other reasons, they would likely be there for the same reasons given the small amount of new shadow. currently, there's a budget of 0.8% for union square, the proposed increase is .11% for a total of .19%, of that, the transbay tower represents about 10%. one other note regarding union square, the eir did do a cumulative analysis besides this plan, it did look at any other potential billing that -- building out that that might

be affected by the plan buildings to give a broader cumulative look ot what might be out there besides this plan. there was one other project outside of this plan area which is on file, it is 706 mission street at the site of the proposed mexican museum and residential tower, it's 155 foot tall proposed building, it would add new shade to union square, not on the same days as the plan, its potential new shadow is .09%, so if that project would get approved at another time, cumulatively with the plan and that building would reach up to .19%, that's as context, it's not proposed as the actions before you today. moving on to portsmouth square, net new shadow would fall in the late fall to midwinter, a

maximum extent of 30 to 60 minutes before 9 a.m., the total cumulative percentage is about .41% of the theoretical annual sunlight so instead of being in shade 39% of the time, it would be in the shade 39.1% of the time, in terms of some visuals, the sort of maximum extent minute of time, you can see up on the screen, it's not pr the transbay tower specifically, it's from another building, it occupies the southwest earn third to half of the square at that time and i'll show you the video so you can see how -- and this again is early in the day, it's the very first moments of the video, you can see the shadow sweeping across the park between -- different moments

between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m., look right there, and by 9 a.m., it's gone, so this would occur for -- this is the maximum extent it would occur for a few days a year and there would be an additional shadow bracketing that for in addition to 10 weeks per week, we can't show you the other 40 weeks of the year where there would be no other impacts at all. so, we did a usage analysis of portsmouth square, we don't have the graphic to show you before 9 a.m., one interesting thing to note, there were more people in portsmouth square before 8 a.m. than any of the time that is we looked between

8 and 9 a.m., there were other people in the morning doing tai chi, it's heavily used at times of heavy shade and at times of sun. the first image is at 8:30, just to orient you to the square, the left hand western more portion is the plaza area, there are some terraces that step down on the eastern side and a couple of children's play areas on the southern edge, you can see the other two previous analyses i showed you, we have a red ease showing people exercising, primarily people doing tai chi in small groups in the upper plaza, but interestingly scattered throughout the park. then moving on to 9:00, 9:30, and you can really see at 9:30

and 10:00, the usage of the park takes off, so what findings might we conclude, portsmouth is a heavily used park, it's used steadily throughout the day, the usage is you can soften the graphics is spread evenly throughout the park, there's not one part of the park that's more heavily used than others, we would surmise that, that's because it's a very heavily in demand park and people like to find their space to do their activities, whether it's meeting with friends, doing tai chi or playing so they're spread evenly throughout the park, whether there's sun or shade, they want to be out in the park and they want to find their space, so there is currently no available budget for portsmouth square and we propose to raise it .41% of which the transbay tower is about 1/3. st. mary's square, similar times of year to portsmouth 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 we