system with very large blocks, not particularly oriented to navigate around. it is not within what we consider a walkable scale of development. the proposed project would realign some existing streets as well as add new streets, alleys, and pedestrian pathway is to reduce the size of the development to a more manageable scale that provides pedestrians more direct path of trouble, and creates a more legible block pattern while keeping the core elements of the original design, such as the circle at the center. all of these new streets and alleys are codified in this plan for development. there are specific parameters about where that are required to be and the public nature. that has all been very well worked through.

in terms of the scale of development specifically, the western half of the site is essentially a four-story model at the base, consistent with what we generally considered in residential neighborhoods around the city, a 45 foot scale. the eastern half is more of a six story scale. that decision was made to concentrate most of the bulk of the units on the eastern half, to ward where the transit infrastructure is. the existing powers, as you know, are going to remain. through the design process, the team decided to concentrate any new additional towers near the existing powers so as not to fundamentally alter the landscape and the view from surrounding hills and from the neighborhood in general. there are a series of slightly taller buildings that sort of rise up above the prevailing

four 26 story four to six sto -- four to six story habitat. this will provide a little variety in the urban fabric. this is a monoculture, but there is a real texture, a sense of a neighborhood that filled up over time. on the western half, there are some slightly taller buildings at eight stories that are intended to mark important locations. they are open spaces and centers of activities that people navigate, as well as important intersections. on the eastern half, there are more buildings to add texture and density and infill he locations. these images give you a sense of what the variety and texture would look like overtime.

on most of the western half of the site, you see buildings along narrow alleys, a 324 story character. -- a three to four story character. that maintains a fine-grained residential character, with predominantly low to mid rise scale. this is an image you might see from an interior courtyard. i will talk more about those in a minute. generally, lined by lower-rise buildings with some taller buildings punctuating the landscape that he vantage points. i mentioned the massing generally of the buildings and heights maintains existing view corridors. it is important to recognize there is significant typography on this site. it seems fairly flat, but there is substantial difference in the grade from 19th avenue down

toward the west, toward lake merced boulevard. as soon as you move up 19th avenue, the site drops about 30 feet almost instantaneously. what that means is that the taller buildings on the western side of the site barely rise above the level of 19th avenue. the prevailing height does not rise at all. it barely punctuates it. so the existing views from the surrounding hills, from residential neighborhoods from the east, will not be altered at all. there will not be viewed blockages, or anything of that nature. i mentioned that the bulk of the units is located on the eastern half of the site.

we will hear a little bit more about the community realignments and transit investments. i would just like to point out that 50% of all the units are located within a couple minutes walk of the proposed realigned streetcar line and other transit resources that are focused on the eastern portion of the site. the density diminishes in a slightly graduated way as you move toward the west. parking also follows this pattern. while this is not strictly an urban design issue, it is important to bring up in this context all the parking on the site -- chairperson mar: use of 50% of the housing units will be within walking distance of the public transit? supervisor elsbernd: just to be really specific, a five-minute walk within 8 light rail stop

still hits the western edge. >> that is correct. other transit rocking does permeate the neighborhood. all the parking will be underground, except for a couple of small above-ground locations on the eastern part of the site. almost all the residential parking will be underground, which is a major urban design advantage of the project. in terms of how the number of spaces are distributed, it is essentially the reverse of the housing units. to encourage transit usage, but still provide parking for those who want it, the project would be allowed, although not required, to provide one space per unit. most of those parking spaces would be built on the western half of the site. on the eastern half of the site, the overall parking issue would be approximately half a

unit. it slowly graduates to the west. so if you live near 19th avenue, you would have access to a parking space, but it might be a few blocks away in an underground structure. this meshes with the density and the transit goals of the project to make parking available but not design the whole project around maintaining parking immediately next to everyone's unit. there would be geographic distribution of the parking that underscores the bundling program, where all units would not be obligated to rent or buy a parking space. it would be more of a free- market approach. if you wanted to live near 19th avenue and wanted a parking space, you could pay more for a space located near where you lived. or if that choice was not your highest priority, you could pay

less to have a space further on the west of the site. chairperson mar: there are about 2000 parking spaces over at the west side. -- i mean on the east side. on the west side, there is more of a two to one ratio. >> that is the geographic distribution. it is overall a maximum of one space per unit. each individual development may not follow the exact ratio. we will make sure that overall the ratio does not exceed one to one. as you pointed out, 50% of the units are on the east side. it would not be possible to build a 50% of the parking on the east side. just in terms of how those parking ratios relate to other areas, if the commission is interested in this -- we sort of

feel that it falls on the spectrum of where we have been adopting various plan areas of the last several years. looked at it in comparison to the ocean avenue commercial transit district adopted as part of the balboa park station plan. the residential ratios are the same. the commercial ratios are slightly more aggressive. that are more transit-oriented than the hunters point area. the ratio falls within the spectrum. in terms of how the density compares with other neighborhoods in the city, the proposed density is about 59 units per acre. it falls within that middle tier of san francisco neighborhoods. it is half as dense as some of

the densest neighborhoods in the city, but sort of comparable to the lower haight and other middle-tier neighborhoods. taking a little bit closer look about the scale of the neighborhood and how it will be experienced once it is further built up, this is more than just about height and distribution of units. the team has taken a lot of care in drafting very specific design guidelines and standards in terms of how buildings will be articulated in used so that the buildings really feel like a residential neighborhood that has a vibrant character and the unique character we think of in terms of our best san francisco neighborhoods. there is a series of mandated building setbacks that are further articulated into a series of common landscaping

setbacks and private transition zones where we would expect and enforce standards and guidelines, a series of individual stoop and townhouse entrances on all of the streets, except where there are commercial units very specifically located. there will be a very rich ground floor experience throughout the neighborhood. this is something we have been trying to do and codify throughout a lot of the newly developing neighborhoods, this fine-grain prism of smaller increments and units in development. there is a variety throughout the site. there are some smaller setbacks. there are bigger setbacks depending on the street type. we feel we have achieved design intense through these guidelines.

chairperson mar: what is the dwelling units per acre for the hunters point project? >> we do not know about the project. there is other guidelines besides the town house and set back guidelines in the document that require other sensitive ground floor treatments to provide a proactive ground-floor engagement that encourages units to provide public outdoor space for the units and other articulations of the buildings. it is important to note -- if you take a look at the design standards and guidelines document, the back portion of the document is what we call the regulating plan.

that has drawings of every block, down to the smallest dimension. it locates all these different parcels and regulations as they lay out geographically on the different blocks. there are these sounds of different heights. there are pedestrian easements and pathways. there are open space parcels. there are setbacks. they are all detailed in great detail so that in the future when the developer or some developer goes to improve these blocks, there is no question about where the boundaries are for each block. the last point i wanted to make about the urban design was that we do have some taller buildings in the project. we have also taken a lot of care to craft guidelines for the taller buildings so that we have buildings that are going to be a little more sensitive and a

little more interesting than the existing powers on site, that have smaller floor plates that are well articulated and provide are correct -- architectural and visual interest on the site. i'll move into the open space portion. the purpose of this is to orient you in a little more detail about the spaces -- the open spaces provided at the site. we glossed over the last time. i will go counterclockwise around the site. one of the most important open space proposals in the project is the neighborhood commons. one thing that is lacking in the current neighborhood is a neighborhood gathering spaces that are centers of activity where people can congregate and hangout near their units. that is something that is generally lacked throughout the neighborhood, particularly acute.

these neighborhood commons would the focuses of activity, small neighborhood pocket parks. they would be anchored by small cafes and other small neighborhood retail uses, like you would think of in a corner store. they are about a third of an acre in size and they are distributed around the site so that every unit is within a couple minutes walk of one of these small neighborhood commons, where they could meet their friends or just get a cup of coffee and a paper on a sunday morning if newspapers continue to exist. that is one of the major neighborhood gathering spaces. the other major open space intervention and amenity that is being provided on the site is a whole open space corridor that essentially would permit the site everywhere from the southwest corner to the center of the project, anchored at a

redesigned juan batista circle, which would continue to mainly -- continue to remain at the core of the project. there would be open space amenities, the spine of the new open space system. it is important to note that this major open space system is only possible by the rearrangement of the blocks. there is no way you can fit open space of this size and character in the existing glut pattern. there simply is not any room for it. chairperson mar: the blocks were developed in a car-dominant era of the 40's and '50's. we are designing for more of an urban setting. >> yes. we will talk a little bit more about this designed specifically. this street system is certainly more oriented toward pedestrian and bicycle use, as well as incorporating open space more

realistically in the project. the center of the neighborhood is juan batista circle. rather than the lawn that is there now, the project proposes to renovate the circle and incorporate it as the center of a new storm water management system that would provide a seasonal wetlands pond in part of the circle, with improved public amenities and seating and so forth on the remainder of the circle. this pond would gather all of the water during storms and gradually distribute it out into a new creek system, which is essentially a restoration of a historic watershed that fed into lake merced. the stream would run southwest. along the street corridor, there would be an extensive system of passive open space, and

programmed, whether it belongs, wooded programs, or pathways to enjoy, as well as an expansive organic farm. the project proposes to engage a professional former -- farmer to take on this project. the value is not to provide food for all the residents, but to allow for educational opportunities and for residents to get their hands dirty and learn about agriculture and food production, as well as provide some opportunity for selling locally-grown produce to residents and others in the neighborhood. this stream corridor would terminate in what is called the belvedere gardens. right now, the southwest corner of the site provides no access between parkmerced and the major open spaces that surround it. this project would create new

access through a stairway system that connects down to the public street system, which would be a major new access point to connect residents to all the wonderful and expansive regional and city wide open spaces that are currently difficult for people to access from the site. adjacent to this corridor would be a new set of athletic fields , providing soccer fields or baseball to be programmed in the future. important to note that this athletic field also would be accessible to some of the institutional uses that are across brotherhood way, which currently do not have the athletic fields for their own use. the could use new crosswalks to access these fields. diaz plaza would be a new public plaza adjacent to neighborhood commercial uses.

you might think of this in terms of some of our downtown alleys, more on the scale of the west porto, if you think of that as a public plaza. the transit is an important component of the open space and the transportation system. we will talk more about the realignment of the light rail. this open space will take that exceptionally busy stop out of the middle of 19th avenue, where everyone has to cross a busy state highway and it is exceptionally dangerous, and put it in a generous new open plaza to serve both the s.f. state crowd as well as parkmerced. there would be plenty of room for people to wait for trains and pick up a cup of coffee. it would become a new central gathering space. lastly are the community

gardens. there is a small community garden on site, located between the existing powers on the west half of the site, but it is pretty small. the proposal is to substantially increase the size of the community garden so that residents have an opportunity to garden and grow vegetables and flowers and so forth. there are components to improve some of the existing open spaces around the towers that will remain. today, they are primarily on program lawn area. the project will be improving those with new landscaping to make more ecologically sustainable as well as more useful areas. another important component, which is not part of the public open space, but which is more of a semi-private, semi-public system, is a system of

courtyards. there has been a question about how much existing residence cherished their courtyards and how much they loved it about living there. there will be courtyards of similar character in new developments as well. granted, there will be adjacent to maybe some slightly larger buildings. predominantly, there will be landscapes semi-private semi- public courtyards of a similar nature, particularly on the west half of the site, where the building scale is lower, and residents will slab -- will have the same opportunities outside their backyards if they choose to live on the ground floor. those on upper stories can come down to the courtyards to let their children play and do all the things people normally do. chairperson mar: so for the garden view unit folks that have the shared backyard areas -- you're saying there is going to

be a number of courtyards connected to each of the different buildings, and also the six hubs of common areas that are within minutes' walk of each site? >> that is correct. these courts are more private. the neighborhood comments are meant to be -- neighborhood commons are meant to be very public parks. these would be semi-private, more oriented toward the adjacent residents taking ownership of them and improving them if they desire, and manage on more of a block-by-block basis. michael yearney will talk about how these spaces will be maintained over time by the project. >> an important point is that when you do capital improvements there are always questions of who maintains them. the thing that is extraordinary about this agreement is because

it is a single ownership of the city has been able to negotiate an extensive permanent magnets operations provision. there are three types of public groups and public space on the project that will be covered by maintenance requirements. the public improvements that are required by the code today -- sidewalks, street enhancements -- all of the community improvements. that refers to all negotiated benefits, like the park system and the transit plaza and the real right of way, and all the transit-related pedestrian and bike-related improvements. finally, storm water management improvements. some of that infrastructure is visible. some is invisible. those are publicly-accessible items that will receive maintenance. this map is, i think, the best way to portray what the city is obligated to maintain and what

the developer is obligated to maintain. in light blue, that is the area that would be permanently maintain by the developer, and ultimately the master homeowners association, in perpetuity under the terms of the development agreement. this obligation would outlive the 30-year term of the lease. the ground areas represent streets dpw would be maintaining. the obligations are that the developer maintain all of these shaded blue areas in clean, workman-like condition. it must be approved and reviewed by the city before the agreement becomes effective. we get to look at the proposed budget and make sure we think it is sufficient to take on these obligations. we also have the right to

enforce that agreement as a third-party beneficiary to it. this agreement is not just between the owners of condos or apartments in the project site in the master developer. it is also between the city and those owners. we are able to monitor and get involved if there is a problem. a very important point. even though the vast majority of this site is privately owned and will remain privately owned, we have negotiated an attachment. i think it is exhibit g. public access requirements. we have very aggressive public access requirements which mean most of these spaces would look and feel just like a san francisco public park, except perhaps maintenance would be a little bit better. if any of you have been to yerba buena gardens, that is the model. fully publicly accessible, well

maintained, non-discrimination provisions, full access during daylight hours, and the ability for the public to get permitted for special events. even though this is a privately owned project, the spaces would function effectively like public spaces. this is just a list of some of those sites. all six of the neighborhood commons, the circle, the athletic field, and what we call the belvedere gardens. it is worth noting that although there is a significant amount of open space on the site today, most of it is in quasi--private use. what happens is a significant amount of that arguably suburban-style landscaping is converted to expressly public and more urban-style open space.

so it is not just a start about quantity. it is really a story about quality. finally, this is an overview of all the spaces. all these spaces are subject to that public access agreement. with that, i am going to pass over the presentation to josh. >> now we just want to take you through some of the corpse considerations regarding environmental sustainability as it pertains to the project, as it is a major driver of the design program and the impetus for the project. just to step back for a second, through planning, the way we view a lot of these issues of sustainability in terms of the macro picture -- what are the big land use and transportation choices that drive the biggest greenhouse gas and growth-

related environmental issues? the context of all this today are a.b. 32 and s.b. 375. that last one requires local jurisdictions to reduce vehicle miles traveled. in the bay area, fully 40% or more of our greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation, from cars and trucks we drive. that is largely driven by land- use patterns. this is something that holds true across the board, whether you are in los angeles, chicago, or new york. vehicle miles traveled is a direct reflection of density. the average bay area residential density around the region is less than 10 units an acre. that would be predicted, according