That may be something there right now is not how they would do it currently but that is how the people of a Second Generation night have done it and they honor that. It is a way to move forward and recognizing the future will have complicated conversations around the individual character and style and what it may mean. I hand this to staff to talk about the recent community process. Good afternoon. I will talk about racial and social equity tool for this project. We hold two Community Workshops in cooperation with the task force, a communityled group. It can be classified in three categories. Some felt it is happening quickly. Concern is that the property and Business Owners may hav may be. Others say most Community Members have been reached and any level of protection by the guidelines is better than none. Secondly, there were many comments regarding the applicabilities of the Design Guidelines. Members of the Community Felt it was too limited if applied only to japan town. Planning believes other Properties Identified in the plan as Cultural Heritage resources could be used for the guidelines. In addition, properties that meet the criteria will be subject to the special area guidelines. Lastly, we received comments regarding the principles that we described earlier. The site design was generally supportive with some inquiries with the shape referred in the guidelines. It is to recognize landmarks such as the pagoda at the peace plaza to integrate the neighborhood to provide a stronger sense of identity. The community for architecture included comments such as highlight use of bamboo and natural wood. It should permeate this action andy signs should harmonize. Building layers should be honored and open space be grated. It should be a journey between public and private. For public there was general support. Landscape is valued. They commented open spaces should allow privacy. This should be designed to be flexible for different uses and users allowing different events and rehearsals. It is a design that includes lighting and equipment resulting in a stronger neighborhood character. Public artshould be integrated offering opportunities for kids to play and individual interpretive spaces. It should provide a sense of neighborhood safety. Planning staff applied the Racial Equity to this project. The goal is to identify the measurings to minimize the negative effects of the proposed guidelines. We have three main benefits. Stakeholders include city staff, project sponsors and community. Benefits include clear expectations from staff and sponsors and community doing Design Review reducing review time and costs. It will honor the context of japan town and reinforce the vilattalty. We have one unintended consequence for the Design Guidelines. The stakeholders impacted are sponsors and community. The higher costs are due to design expectations which can be mitigated by providing streamlines. It will reduce costs. The second burden is limitations on the flexibility for project sponsors mitigated by better design and neighborhood cohesiveness. It is a potential higher housing or represents due to High Construction costs caused by Higher Quality materials. They can analyze each project individually and evaluate the project. Good afternoon, commissione commissioners. Trent greene, staff architect. I will go through the guidelines we feel highlight how these guidelines augment the Design Guidelines in place for this area. The project came in with the urban guidelines would be used to evaluate the project. Looking at how these guidelines look at unique conditions of japan town and address them. As with other guidelines it is three main categories, site, architecture and public realm. The first guideline organize new development to support peace pagoda as a visual landmark. This shows with a small project area we can start to look at unique conditions. For example the peace pagoda. One of the Community Members said it needs to be preserved. It is a landmark only that can be seen from afar. If the mall was redeveloped and changed the context of the peace pagoda, it wouldnt have the same mean goes to the community. We are looking at shaping the building to respond, potential set backs. Bay windows with views of the pagoda. This is one example the guidelines would not necessarily achieve that. Second is transparency and screening and layering at the ground floor. We are looking at storefronts. In japan town, storefronts take on a different character than the storefront around the city. It has a bulkhead at the base, storefront window with clear stories above. In japan town there is varied play of solids and voids, and a revealing of the storefront in layers through screening which could be metal work and wood slats and so forth. This addresses that condition in japan town. Finally, looking at the public realm. Balance for public and personal space design. You have the major events through out the year. You also need smaller areas for intimate gatherings daily. The guidelines look at a way to sort of integrate nature into the open space so primarily on buchanan mall and the peace plaza the main spines that anchor the community but also addressing more challenging conditions such as geary boulevard which creates a border to the neighborhood and how to improve that. If you look at the images, you know preserving and highlighting the roof of the fountain and been be chess, using these for setting the bar through new designs throughout the publicrel willing and looking at streetscape for some of the others. It really has . Unique conditions that i think is guidelines will address in a way more specifically than currently happening. Looking at next steps. We have revised draft Design Guidelines friday or tomorrow. Moving very quickly and they are constantly evolving. Japan Task Force Board meeting on tuesday. We are planning for planned adoption hearing december 19th. This is a very compressed timeline but we are doing our best to respond to the conditions of japan town. That concludes our presentation. We are available for questions. Thank you. Do we have any Public Comment on this item . Public comment is now closed. Commissioner fung. Couple of comments and questions. You know, i was pleased to see that the guidelines remain relatively general in the following sense. That is that rather than looking at the issue between what has been traditionally viewed as japanese architectural elements which wind up to be a historical feature, and recognizing also that, you know, japanese architecture has gone through quite a bit of various movemen movements, it is good to see that the guidelines are relatively general. There are probably a couple items i may not necessarily agree with personally, but i think in general it is fine. I did have a question whether for one specific instance something a little bit more specific worry choired would be required. One of the disasters is japan town center which created walls across substantial number of blocks on both sides of it. If there is any development that is going to occur in the center itself, i think we would want to encourage them to create physical connections to the street. There is no sense of community that exists. I wonder if we want a sub set to be included in the guidelines to address that particular situation. Current leap under the you are currently under the planning code there would be an active use requirement along those edges. We certainly have heard from many Community Members concerned around how the walls at the edge of the street are not conducive to what they see at the bucan man mall where there is a lot of engagement. It fits under the code with an active use requirement under 145 and the special area with the 8. 1 to how that active use and engagement should be done. I am curious to hear if you have more specific detail around the qualities how that could be accomplished. Sometimes with guidelines you need to have more specific to it. I just thought that might be just a little hint to the owners of that facility. Last question would be somewhere in there it talks about from the Community Point of view that having these guidelines would reduce their need to attend hearings and object to projects. Wasnt that somewhere in here . I dont see how that is going to happen. These guidelines are not that specific. From is some question, particularly with the unintended burdens of the Design Guidelines, whether it encourages more interaction with the community and more hearing with the community. Some might see it as a public benefit. The burden to certain Community Members to take the additional time is challenges. That is a question if that is a benefit or burden or how it lays in balance. The pros and cons. Right. Commissioner diamond. I thought this was a wonderful piece of work. I particularly enjoyed the history and context at the beginning. It gave a level of understanding that wouldnt have read the same way without it. My question has to be with the status of geary boulevard. I am looking at the border. It goes down the middle of geary. Does that i am apply work at hand about the freeway situation . I dont know the current status of everything going on. There is transportation suggests what could happen with geary boulevard. I think it is a bit of conversation within the community. We limited it to the mcd that stops. Many Community Members feel they want to include what is on the other side of geary because they want to be able to should geary change and there is a question with rapid bus there may be changes in the public rightofway they frame geary. Geary ask a boundary in the back. I think there is interest in having it more a boulevard where they would face across and be more connected. That is a conversation point with the community. I made add to that. I think our bone zoning boundaries our zoning boundaries are in the center of the street. Early on when we looked at the geary project they did evaluate filling in the pit of geary, unfortunately, the costs were astronomical. It will keep the there and we are forced to deal with that for some time. What do you do in light of the fact it is not going away . That is something over time we have to look at. I agree with you. I just want to say that this makes me very, very happy. I feel like your department is doing outstanding work. Thank you, director. Shortly after seeing and understanding the process that you went be through to get the guidelines down as well. I think this shows such a deep understanding of the community, but also a Good Relationship with the community that you guys have fostered. Thank you very much. Okay. That places us on item 11. Case 2016013312. You commissioner koppel you were absent and diamond you were not seated. To participate you need to acknowledge you have reviewed the previous hearing and materials. Yes, i did. Yes, i did. Good afternoon, commissioners. Warm welcome to commissioner diamond. Department staff. So this was the october 17th continued to today. A quick overview of the project. 61 story tower 750 feet, 800 feet with the rooftop. Three uses Residential Hotel and office. Which would be 155 dwelling, 189 hotel rooms and 275,000 square feet of office space. This is not adoption. This is a general plan to allow for height and bulk on two parcels and to rezone the western edge of the site. This cannot go forward until this is adopted. There is 30days from todays date. If you adopt this today the first available date would be january 9 in the next year, 2020. The gpa details if you wish. I will note about the shadow which was heavy topic last time. One of the parks in chinatown per the 1989 memo had no shadow. Zero. In 2012 as part of the Transit District plan, the Planning Commission and the rec and Park Commission together as joint commissions voted to adopt increase acl for seven parks one was willy park. The acl increased from 0 to 0. 3 . This would add 0. 1 one budget to the park wh within that rang. The specific shadow was very limited and limited in both time 8 15 a. M. To 8 30 a. M. Also late november to early january. Low angle winter sun. I am happy to elaborate if the commission desires. I will close. I believe project sponsor is not given time to speak. If you choose to hear from them, they may have an update about community outreach. Thank you. This is the second hearing on this matter. Generally Public Comment is limited to one minute. If that is the case lets take Public Comment on this item. No speaker cards. If you have Public Comment, come on up. Thank you, commissioners. Cj higley. Land use council. As mr. Foster mentioned. The action is to initiate consideration of the general plan amendments to ensure consistency between the downtown and zoning including zoning changes that we will propose when we hopefully return in january. I wont repeat what nick said, we are also happy to discuss the shadow in more detail if you would like. I did want to mention that the sponsor has been working closely with a number of community be organizations in chinatown since we were here in october and before that as well. I am happy to report the conversations are very productive. We have made Great Strides there, and i think that when we return in january we will have the full support of those organizations. At this time we request you initiate the amendment to proceed to a hearing on the mer merits. We are here to answer any questions. Next speaker. I am ted webker. We support the Hotel Project parcel f project. As the Union Representing the hospitality employees it is the utmost concern that. Jobs lift up the community by providing leading wages and working conditions for the hardworking people working in the city hotels. Hotel developers have supported the creation of good jobs by agreeing to remain neutral and present no encumbrances to form a union. These agreements ensure the jobs will be good jobs and the developer has worked with the union on such an agreement and as such it is setting the standard for other developers to follow. We are pleased to support this project. Thank you. Any other Public Comment on this item . Okay. Public comment is now closed. Commissioner koppel. I have been looking forward to hearing this project. It is a missing tooth on the transbay terminal. This is where we want the taller buildings near the transit, people walking to work. This is what the subway is being built for. I am in support of the project. Glad to see the Community Groups were met with and had agreements. Commissioner moore. I am in support of the project. It is a good addition to the tower. I would like to hear more about the shadow issue. Last time the community was here speaking about the effect of shadow. Today that issue is not at least being raised by the community itself. I would like to hear more about it. It will be at some other point. I am interested in hearing about the high ratio of cars added to this projected. The Transit Center has not arrived yet, it may at the future. 183 cars in the highly congested sets is of concern to me. Commissioner diamond. I wasnt at the last hearing. I did review the tapes. I, too, think the addition of the building is a good idea. I was quite concerned about the comments raised by the communities in chinatown. Even though park and reccommission approved unanimously the addition of shadow which is very important. I believe 2012 resolution required the architect to do whatever they could to minimize if impact of the shadow i would like to know what was done to anybodyize it and what it would take to eliminate the shadow and what impact that has on the design. Commissioner moore, did you want to add in . I would like to add that i would like clarification if the time when the shadow increase was approved the building heights were the same or have things become taller. I think they are taller. I think that is the rub. Did you have answers to these questions . So regarding commissionner moores question. Is it if the building is taller since the 2012tcdp . Yes. I dont believe that is the case. What was studied was a building that comply with the 750foot Zoning District as well as the additional 50 feet allowed for mechanical screening. This building is more slender. The upper tower has smaller floor plates than the straight vertical that was studied under tcdp. The Transit Center plan zoned it for 700 feet. The reason this is in front of you today is the building is shifted slightly to the east. It is the same height. That is why the amount of shadow is not increasing. The location of the shadow is increasing on the park, if that makes sense. I did want to address commissioner diamonds question as well. You know, the reality is the site is incredibly constrained. The location of the building on the site is really the only place that the building can below indicated on the site. The reason why it has shifted as the director mentioned is because of the location of the subgrade train box, which allows for access for caltrain and the highspeed rail into the new Transit Center. From is only so much structural load you can put over that. The building is cantilevered over that portion of the site and the remaining volume of the building is toward the southeast of the site. As i mentioned, what was initially under the tcdp would be a tower of the same height but 100 commercial with larger floor plates. One way that the shadow has been minimized or reduced is by proposed a more slender building. Residential floor plates are approximately 15,000 square feet, and they do present legs of a less