, is a separate focus in the eir. the project would have a potential significant, peculiar impact related to hazardous materialsthe plumbing department are very focused pm&d. the department prepared three documents a pm&d certificate pm&d and -- the market and octavia eir address the future impact; the project is consistent with the eir assumption that anticipates that future projects would add vehicle trips to the intersection. traffic conditions are not considered a particular impact on fifteenth street; the market octvia eir discloses that the consideration. staff believes that no substantial eventshave been presented that would warrant the preparation of and a new eir. the plan already disclosed significant unavoidable traffic impact at the fifteenth and market intersection. by posing the p&md -- -- -- [indiscernible] [indiscernible] the suit>> calling the appellant. >> the resident commissioner good afternoon commissioners. the group has appealed the p&md and we have some support from 50 membersyou heard from don

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

the numbers in the eir are based upon programmatic analysis. we don't have specific designs for a few of these buildings. when these come forward the sponsors demonstrate they have done to the best of their ability refine the designs to reduce if possible the amount of shadow analyzed in the plan's eir. though still consistent with goals to build to the height of the plan. the criteria in the '89 memo for public good speaking to public good of buildings or projects. what we would propose is for these parks we are proposing to change the limits that public good of individual projects that are within this plan area be based on public plan as a whole. we think it would not be a fair or adequate evaluation to evaluate each building based on the good of each because their good is their participation in this plan providing new open space, providing hundreds of millions to transit and try to evaluate each independently would obscure public good of plan as a whole, which doesn't have a good unless buildings get built. so with that, that essentially con

. >> the analysis which is in the eir is a cumulative analysis of all potential buildings that are on file that might shadow any of the parks that are under sdrution and the only building that falls outside the plan area that meets those conditions would be the 707 mission project. the central corridor is in its early phases of planning and within that, i don't believe anything that's been contemplating which is deep south of market would have any impacts on any of the parks that are under discussion today. i don't believe that the expansion would impact any of the parks under discussion today, but the analysis that was in the air was it was a cumulative analysis, it cast a wide net and looked to capture everything that was on file that might affect the parks that are under discussion. >> thank you. >> commissioner hillis? >> you show the cfd's provide about 15 million dollars of funding. what properties are participating in that cfd, is it a requirement? >> so, the cfd, the community facilities district is a requirement of all projects in the plan area that build in excess of 9-1far

criteria are written based on the shadow profiles of buildings in the plan area as analyze ined the eir, it's highly unlikely that another building outside this plan area will crop up that fits these same shadow profiles in terms of time of day and days of the year, it would have to be a building that is exactly in line with one of these buildings and that particular park that is north of market street in some location and based on our assessment of development patterns and so forth, we think that that is unlikely. >> i have a ceqa related question. we're supposed to be adopting findings under ceqa, can someone tell me where those findings are written. >> john from the city attorney's office, in the agenda, there are two different sets of ceqa findings that are mentioned. there's one set of ceqa findings associated with a joint action which is to change the budgets, those are the ceqa findings that the planning commission adopted in may of this year as part of the transit center district plan. those are the same findings, so you're incorporating those by reference. the second set of ceq

the tp under eir is about six months under schedule. it is a big undertaking, something we are very supportive of. but one of the messages to the voters was we want to deliver the projects. if they are ready to go, they are funded first. there are strict projects on the line. if like in prop k if we have programs in the fifth year and the sponsor doesn't come in the board can say you have a good story, we will let your funds rollover or could program them to other eligibility projects ready to go. the timing is also very good. we are about to embark this year on an update of the five-year priorityization programs, covering fiscal year 14-15, the next five. that is picking up the tail of prop a. we will be able to complement in two categories, the biggest opportunity are the rt, tps category and prop k where we can have the ability to advance a lot of funds if there are projects ready to go. same thing on street repair. may be able to advance funds to backfill the projects. >> thank you. >> colleagues, any other comments or questions? co

the eir contains a couple telling photos to demonstrate empirically. from left this shows sutro tower. it is almost indiscernible on the ground. whereas the person taking the photo is dark overlaid that from sutro. it explains diffusion. on the right, the transamerica pyramid taken at some distance from the pyramid there is no hard line distennesseerable. where does the shooed doe begin or end * because it is shining around the side of the tower and a broad amount where there are light amounts of shadow. if you quint maybe you tell. the there is a gradation. the quantitative analysis shows a dark shadow. this is not something we have found a way to easily capture in our calculations but something we know empirically happens. so now the park-by-park look. first justin hermann plaza. justin hermann plaza is about 2,000 feet from the transbay tower *, a similar distance from the other two buildings that might shade it. the potential shadow from the new buildings would happen in late fall, very early winter. as little as 15 minutes, as much as 50 minutes t

one other note, the eir for the plan did look besides just the plan buildings what other projects have been filed that are out that might also potentially shade union square, to give a full, cumulative look at what is coming. there is one project on file. 706 mission, the mexico kal museum tower project. that also outside of this area not really subject to liberations on this plan. in itself would add 0.9% in union square, in addition to what this plan would add. that is just to provide context. * portsmouth square, moving on to three buildings that might potentially shade it. portsmouth square, the new shadow would fall * in the late fall, then later on in the winter. also generally before 9 a.m. between 8:00 and 9:00 and between 30 and 60 minutes. as you can see in the graphic the moment the maximum extent of shadow would be the southwestern half of the square. you know, it falls on some of the open areas and playground areas in the southwestern part of the park. and i will just move on to the usage analysis and maybe show the -- we can go back the video later if you'd like. so this

this chart which was created by our eir consultants, it was not in the eir, but it was a very informative chart shows for each of the key sites that might shadow these various parks. what height they would need to be built at to have no shadows at all, what then is highlighted as the height for each building that would be sort of the lowest height or the maximum height above no parks would be shadowed by that building, you can see for the transit tower which is planned at 1070 feet, in order to not shadow any park at all, the building could not be over 500 feet tall, and that's driven by portsmouth square, so you would have to allot 500 feet of the building, for justin herman center, that height is 842, the next tallest building, 51st street for 154 feet would need to be reduced by over 300 feet, and we have this information of the other various buildings. >> okay, i think that's very informative. the other is, can you talk a little more -- you mentioned section -- a section for shadows on non-rec and park departments and their shadow load parks and you secondarily mentioned 646 with shad

the eir is -- the final action was nine years ago, but the eir was before that. what is the process for you to take into account that this is a parking resource potentially for the arena? the amount of traffic for the arena and the change of seawall lot 330 based on what you have, i don't think you have information. and i'm just saying the city is very dynamic. there was not a recession when this project was approved. the recession was in 2008. it's now nearly 2013. and this project was approved nine years ago based on a really old eir by [inaudible]. and i throw that out to you. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >>> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is andrew green. i live in sunset. and these buildings are just another representation of what i see as your meat lock of inspiration and respect for the beauty of this city. we are already what people want. we already are, and it seems like you are still trying to become. you know, for years people fought what was the [speaker not understood] of this city, and this is another representation of the

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 ter

as soon as the eir are certified we have projects ready to go. as part of the projects we are doing initial engineering and certain corridors, adax one cleared at a project level. once eir is certified we would be ready to begin development of project. i feel fairly confident we know the project and have a good sense of what the schedule will be. there are two overlays of how we are developing, one being customer amenities, already funded through a grant we are getting through mtc. on top of that the assumption out of aa is the more improvements that require analysis circumstances those would be done con currently or immediately following the initial investment. we are pretty confident. >> johnathan would it be more appropriate for me to be asking the transportation authority to look into ways to have adax to fund mta? >> i think what we will do, as chad has said, we will look at transit reliability category. i think we are more comfortable with the scope of projects we put forward are. placeholder is a nice compromise but we were heavily are --

we looked at the eir there, and the pmnd, each project has mitigations and thinks that it is to respond to this issue areas. we are not going to see any reduction -- any increases in the level of service on any of our intersections ever. i would be very surprised, unless we can get to the goal where 50 percent of people don't drive. our hope in the plan with market/octavia is that people will take the train or bicycle. if people would not go up fifteenth, it happens a lot of times; people pull-up there and want to make a left, blocking cars. part is a larger issue around traffic mitigation . may be preventing left turns allowed along the corridor. that would've been another discussion that would've been perfect in an earlier discussion. those concerns are valid; they are not valid for this appeal. those dishes up and addressed in a number of waysconcernsi want to move to deny the appeal. >> i agree with almost everyone else who has spoken; we need to look at the entire area as the city to do the things that we can do to make it safer for pedestrians, bicyclists and even traffic going th

mode; they are working to release a draft eir in december, and then certify the final eir at the time of the plan adoption which is this upcoming may, 2013. i will close my presentation and happy to help out with any questions you might havethank you. >> opening it up for public comment. if there is any? seeing none, commissioner antonini. >> i have a few questions for whoever is most able to answer these. i noticed the projections show around 191,000 new jobs by 2014, but only 92,000 housing units but one assumes that each housing unit is averaging at least two people;it looks like there is balance there. it does work out if you do the math to about 4,000 per year, the projection of wherever you are at this year, 3200, is probably a little lower. they will be years where maybe we can produced a few most. my question for staff is, of these projections based on what we think is going to happen or are these goals we are trying to promote the growth in the areas not projected to have jobs and housing starts? >> fax to the questionthere is a level of black-boxness to some projections; we

shadows accumulative by the new shadows within the transit center district plan as identified in the eir prepared for the plan, this would be additional added language, and would not be available for buildings outside of the plan. >> thank you, and i accept the previous arata, the city attorney, that you've haed and also the language to reflect the concern of commissioner borden. >> commissioner hillis? >> i'm supportive of that motion and the amendment, i would even want to put in parenthetical how much of that acl is related to transbay but i'm okay as it is, but just a point on why i think it's appropriate to do this when we're doing the planning, if you look at the market octavia plan where we didn't look at shadow impacts and increase the limits, we've got this odd dynamic happening where we built a park, phase green, in that plan, we contemplated development adjacent to that park in the former octavia parcels but they're not allowed to be built unless we have this joipt hearing and approve this budget, i think this makes a ton of sense to approve these limits when we're approving t

>> commissioner, yeah, you will be seeing that project in multiple capacities both in terms of the eir as well as -- assuming it moves forward any potential zoning changes. we could at some point schedule an informational hearing as well if you would like an informational hearing prior to the zoning and the eir. >> i think in some nances it's good for projects that we have informational hearing before we get into the environmental and see the scope of it. i think it's a good way to handle things if that is possible and the other commissioners are favorable to that. i would be interested in that happening. >> no further questions. thank you. >> mr. president, just for the record historic preservation commission didn't meet this week. >> thank you. >> with that commissioners we are now at general public comment where members of the public may address of and within the subject matter jurisdiction of this commission with the exception of agenda items and may not addressed in this category or only when reached on calendar and you have three minutes and before i give this to the president fo

the time of year and so forth and those are particular to the analysis of the plan buildings from the eir, so while it's not allocated specifically to the future buildings, essentially the only buildings in the plan area that fit those profiles would be allocated in the future. >> thank you, i'm clear on that and also i understand these are buildings that have to have as part of the plan, have to have undergone the environmental analysis, and so -- or these building shadows are projected and they would be covered by our increase. a couple of other comments and it's been made by staff very well and by many of the speakers is the benefits not only out weigh any small shadow increases but in terms of actual shadow, the benefits between the nearly 10 million dollars of allocation for park space outside of the plan area particularly in chinatown will more than mitigate with new sunny space in new parks or changes to existing parking to increase the amount of sunshine to those more than mitigate and sur -- surpasses any present today and the benefits have been spoken about affordable housing, t

process for several years, culminating in a draft plan in 2009 and towards the end of 2011, a draft eir was published on the plan and then this may, the planning commission certified the eir and adopted the plan, following that the, the board approved the plan and the mayor signed it and they are not reflective, so the next step and key step in the implementation of this plan are the item that is are before you today, particularly amendment of the jointly adopted 1989 memo that the implemented section 295 particularly to raise the budgets on a number of park ins the downtown in response to the adoption of this comprehensive plan, and then secondarily to act on the first and most significant project is the transbay tower on 101 street, they will consider that at the planning commission when they consider the other entitlement actions related to that project. so, i won't go at length into the plan itself, but just to recap the core components of the plan, this is -- the plan represents a realization of dropping growth into downtown away from the north of market area and to the south of ma

i pporthisaw bauseitoesn for anyhurctoerfo a se semarrge if is agnst eir lief anthat wha th is out.relious eedoanall rylaerseqlly der e la joine inotin foqueson 6 firs.. a... 3 vesgati... fids. trubli lels..of asen ... ... pll d gpe jce... t ... rodrs elain./ . ewá. 3high. lels ...rsen c../ d... ny re... oduc...// 3 tomn ca)re is stae the's ite ce, own ri, ri caa, crkers d ceal.ice cereal is often a ba's fst od. bu nsur rerts'estsf 32 ric anndons of rice arsecc andab tts show manof t sales d trblinleve of orgac aenic theost xic orm. (so"inoanicrssn is known humacarnogethat habeennk to in, ng, andblaer cancer."(v/ther a fedal imitfor e amnt oarsec llw in ie a mosothefoods. nsur rerts' &iestttionlso fod there 3 brownrie than in white. ot:ndre roc"waren -ab to aw conclionsbout ecic brds baaseourr-3tts a limed. t the anasis didf oernnt &pta sos tht oamerans &pignicantsoor of seni posu." (v/oothheusa rice fedatio an ndusy tre gro, insts he is docuntedvidee ofctua adeeseealteffes fr xpose toarsic iu.s. ownice.(so anda ro) "welrea knothatevenow velsf arnic posu ireasyouuisk cnce -3 d oer h

absolute cumulative limits to accommodate these significant impacts is inconsistent with the plans of the eir and will be in violation of 295, i want the city attorney to weigh in on that, i don't want to be in violation of those sections. >> john from the city attorney's office, if i could have a minute to review the letter which i just received and then i could respond to it. >> great, thank you, then let me ask staff for a minute and this would be the joint powers group, the rec and park department has a genuine concern about what ultimately happens with the open space and recreation facilities in the project. i know you can't answer that definitively today, i know we've had outside conversations about it, but i would like the record to reflect, if you can arrive at any conclusions about your recommendations about the disposition of those properties, you would come before our commission with that information. >> commissioner john ram with the planning department, we would certainly be happy to do that and we'll certainly have many discussion ins the disposition of those property ins the ye

the eir that was approved in 2008, i believe, was that of an envelope of the union square station? >> i'm not sure i understand that question. it might be directed better to the mta staff. >> mr. fungi? >> commissioners, john fungi, central subway program manager, the eir document that was aprao*fed in 2008 essentially had a 30% design of the station and the station itself back when it was originally designed in 2006 and as it exists today is essentially the same with the enhancements of the various commissions that have reviewed and approved the station. if i was to show you what the station looked like in 2006, it would have a much greater impact of the park of massing versus one that you're reviewing today which is tucked into the park and almost looks like it's part of the park, but the footprint of 2006 is essentially bigger than what we're proposing today, and there's also a planning department finding of the current views of all three stations and it's in your packet dated september 12 from mr. bik wiko that addresses the topic of any changes that may have occurred from earl