downtown residential neighborhood on the south side of this area. i believe the number is 5000 to 7000 new units. given all the dialogue surrounding regional smart growth issues, it is a higher priority to take advantage of our corps regional transit facilities, with close proximity to barton and metro region art -- to bart and metro. we do not have other parts of the city where we could concentrate other jobs in proximity to regional transit. the plan will consolidate a ratio of commercial space to

non-commercial space. we are not concerned about small lots, but will make sure on the very large lots that the large buildings have significant commercial space. you can see the numbers of what the plan area would build up to over a long time, 20 years or so. over 9 million square feet of additional space, 2/3 of which would be office space, a little over 6 million square feet -- this does still leave room for other uses. we do anticipate over 1300 new housing units and hotel rooms, as well as ground floor and other retail threat the district. in terms of how that relates to existing zoning, it is about 40% of the zoning of the capacity of the area, about 4 million square

feet of the 9 million the plan would allow. in terms of urban design and place making, we are not concerned just with the skyline, although that is a major consideration, but with how the people experience the district as pedestrians, making sure it is a world-class, exciting, and comfortable place to be. the plan proposes to augment the existing guidelines in the planning code in downtown plan with additional guidelines or controls as they may manifest to ensure we have active ground floors. one way to do that is to limit the potential expense of lobbies on the ground floor. this is something new york city has done and we hope to do as well, to make sure we have active retail and public open space, and other things that

help create a vibrant downtown. we are also looking at how to make sure tall buildings reenforce the comfortable public space at street level by defining a street that is more in scale with the pedestrian experience, not just concerned about making sure we do not have tall towers without consideration for how they feel from a physical presence as a pedestrian. as well, we took a lot -- a look at controls related to control four towers of this size, which do not currently have controls in the planning code. at ground level, the plan really takes on the issue of how we can create a real world class public realm and meet the circulation needs of the district of this

density in the future. the streets are bleak from a pedestrian standpoint. the sidewalks range from 8 feet to 15 feet, which may be wide in other parts of the city, but not downtown. they feature very few pedestrian amenities. they can get quite congested in places. additionally, we want to ensure that surface transit, buses, and every one who needs to circulate to the area, models continue to predict increasing auto congestion. we need to make sure this district lives up to its billing. the plan proposes an ambitious project to widen most of the sidewalks in the planned area, up to an average of 18 to 21

feet, as well as provide the amenities and by correcting need on the sidewalks to create a memorable and enjoyable place to be. in addition to the sidewalks, we need to improve our transit lines, make sure they are enforceable in dedicated, and that muni can circulate through this district. we have been working with muni to draft some proposals that are being refined to make sure the allocation of right of way in the streets puts transit and pedestrians as the highest priorities for moving people around the district. we are also doing things to enhance the pedestrian experience by providing crosswalks to mitigate the size of very long blocks in this area and help disperse people

around the district so they do not concentrate in just a few corners. we want to implement a bicycle not work and look at how we can improve facilities beyond that. i am also looking at how to humanize the proportion of one- way streets to two-way streets. this is what it might look like in the future, with dedicated transit lines, why sidewalks, and so forth. beyond the streets themselves, we do need to tackle other core transportation issues to make sure we do achieve the mode shares for transit use, walking, bicycling, and carpooling we need to ensure growth can occur without congesting the downtown.

building off of the fairly aggressive parking policies of the downtown plan, we see a need to take it further. this area is the core of downtown. it has the worst congestion areas. we cannot facilitate additional growth of auto use in this area. the plan proposes to cut in half the amount of allowable nonresidential parking in the area. the plan also calls for a study to someday establish more of an absolute cap in the number of parking spaces in the downtown, based on what a study of the streets can accommodate. the plan does support further examinations of congestion pricing as a necessary tool. the plan proposes more nuanced improvements to the

transportation management tools that are currently in place downtown. i know you are familiar with the 5.5 acre park that will be built on the roof of the transit center. the plan does look at how we can improve access to that major new amenity, as well as enhance open space in general, by looking at opportunities for other open space in this district, which has few public open spaces. there are small privately owned spaces that have been built alongside commercial developments. second and howard is a location where there could be a new public plaza. unfortunately, a number of historic buildings will ultimately need to be removed.

assuming that continues to be the case, a new public plaza looks to be a gateway to the transit center. to the south, it is mainly lined by alleys. the plan proposes to encourage new buildings adjacent to the transit center to offer direct connections to the transit center part, public connections. we can make sure people have access to this rooftop park and a gets well used and is a real amenity for the district with open space requirements and direct connections to the rooftop park. in terms of historic resources,

the planning department did engage in a historic resources survey during the planning process. i believe in 2008 or 2009, the landmarks board did adopt survey findings that covered everything, essentially, from market to fall some -- folsom, out to third street. it recommended certain potential landmark buildings and a recommended expansion of our existing second and montgomery conservation district. you can see on the next map that the plan does propose the second new montgomery concentration, to

take up plants that were left out of the initial conservation district, as well as to review and upgrade a lot of the ratings for the buildings in the district. the plan also identified for bang buildings that could be potential new article 10 landmarks. there are pictures of three of them on one of your slides. there is a more daring union hall on second street, one of few examples on the city, with spectacular art work. the hotel, a poster of quick residential hotel -- a post earthquate residential that is one -- earthquake residential hotel that is one of the only wood from hotels in the city.

one of the more innovative things the plan proposes to do is to address sustainability beyond the land use and transportation measures we are used to dealing with in the planning department and planning commission. we are really trying to push the envelope about what we should be considering when we are building out these very dense districts. the scope of the development that will be built here, as well as the balance of uses and the concentration of development, potentially lends itself to a more coordinated system of energy, heat, and cooling for buildings, something you see as the norm in europe and the u.k., which is a combined heat and power system, where you can generate electricity and use the waste heat to heat and cool buildings.

it is something that has potential to substantially improve a greenhouse gas emissions and energy efficiency and economic efficiency of buildings in this district. we have been working with the department of the environment. we've been looking in terms of water usage. this is in the water ordinance district. all of these buildings have to be dueled -- dual plumbed to expedite provision of recycled water to serve a lot of the water needs of this district, because you do not have to use pure water to do all these things. you could use non potable water

if we could find a local source for that. the last topic is money. all of this stuff costs money. there are open space improvements, transportation improvements. there are concepts for sustainable resource districts. ahoy the total for all of these improvements and infrastructure is north of $500 million. on the second last slide, you can see what the plan proposes in terms of helping to fund these improvements and helping

to fund the transit center. we are finishing the necessary nexus' studies -- nexus studies about how to fund the spaces. all ultimately, the fee levels will differ from what is in the plan. we have studies to ultimately set the fees. these are illustrated, but we think these can be achieved and are sustainable by the economics of the building. we think we can raise this. there is a potential major source of funding, particularly to help pay for the transit center. the potential amounts are critique large, anywhere from

$250 to $300 that could be raised to pay for other improvements. this is essentially a property- tax that new development would pay overtime that could be bonded to pay for major public infrastructure. there is something we are not sure whether we will be able to carry forward, but we are continuing to evaluate it. essentially, that would be a supplemental transfer tax on sales of properties in the district, also to help generate revenue for the transit center and other improvements. essentially, that concludes my recap of the content and proposals of the plan. the plan is available online for the public to download. we have freshly printed copies available for purchase, or cd's.

we will continue to take public comment on the plan. we are happy to take public comment on this. president olague: is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public, it is close. commissioner moore: great job. good summary. however, how does this particular project afloat in the current environment of uncertainty? the san francisco redevelopment agency, with many of us unclear of the ultimate consequences due to the shift in sacramento, what does a partnership with zone 1 and zone to of this project mean, relative to the overall set up of this project?

>> to my understanding, and maybe the planning director can help me a little bit, we recently passed state legislation which allows the redevelopment agency to continue to exist. they have certain payments they would need to continue to make to the state in order to continue to operate. they are well prepared to do so. while new product areas may have questions, the project areas including trans bay that are already adopted -- will move forward as planned. >> i think that is generally correct. as i was mentioning a couple of weeks ago, there are two pieces of legislation that were adopted. the second piece does allow them to continue to exist if they make certain payments to the state. most of the plan is not in the

redevelopment area. it does not require a new redevelopment area to be created. >> in the professional press, the amount of money sacramento is asking back is significantly higher. i am saying that modest criticism in order for us to keep it in our conversation. your tally is extremely high. i cannot even count the billions of dollars. literally, with the united states in the federal government hovering at the edge of a major financial crisis, this is a very ambitious project. while i wish it all look, i believe i mentioned to you a few weeks ago that some of the

developers have declared they cannot deliver within the framework what they had intended to do. i only want to keep us realistically on the ball to understand what might happen as we are moving forward and it is wishful thinking and positive wishful thinking but a significant threat on the horizon. movering on, i had a couple of other questions and i don't have any numbers in your slide and you are speaking about building on the urban design development and analyzed the downtown form and the protection of open spaces and protection of sunlight on sidewalks will be a mayor part of the consideration as you move forward. this is already a difficult area to maneuver. and i think only if we really continue the positive attributes of downtown into this area will

we be creating what you are trying to describe here. in addition to that, i think there's certain urban corridors and what was early simulated that the way you look at the sky between tall buildings and you might not be familiar with that because you are too young, so not discriminating against young ones, but there was a very serious discussion early on that the quality of the city as we build more to the building has something to do with how we perceive the silhouette of the city against a clearly unobstructed viewing of the sky and when i see with the area of the skyline, while i am not objecting to the idea that you are adding an additional tall form and i am looking at the comparison between existing zoning and what is proposed that

you are starting to flatten out the overall amount of building which is filling in and kind of obscuring the clear silhouette that we currently have. i would like to talk to you perhaps in more detail and just want to mention it to you. and the distance that exceeds the amount of walking you typically have in cities around the world and the limit of a walkable downtown is set at 5 to 7 minutes in diameter and 10 to 15 minutes and the reason i am saying that is if somebody is at washington and wants to walk to the far corner of downtown, 20 minutes is too far. so you might have a core of a narrower circle and then the expanded walking of downtown but

i think in planning terms defining the walkable city senter is a slightly narrower diameter. moving right along, i would like and perhaps not right now ask you to extrain in more detail to me of why we're eliminating f.a.r. typically in planning f.a.r. and height balance each other to create a reasonable building shape. height starts to bulk out the building unless you have other tools by which f.a.r. and you challenge the height which is allowed. i would like you to explain plain that at some other time and the amount of proposed growth is very high and this is

more like 40-45% is the lot of growth if you look at infrastructure in that part of town and historically less intense development that use to be more industrial warehouse and the stress we put on the exist ing plan and something we need to look at more closely and below grade infrastructure of water, sewer, etc., and to pull away that growth into growth which is in other districts such as lincoln hill, etc. and that sewer water capacity is

part of that. and i assume it underlying your thoughts about the public realm and like to repeat my point on your slide about public realm, open space, and i believe any open space, which is huge, can only be fully realized by the citizens if it is sun light protected. it doesn't work when it is cold and windy, particularly at this time of year and when it is cold in the morning and watch downtown when people walk and they go to the area where it's sunny and squeeze themselves en masse on that side of the street. i think the living pattern of the city shows what's needed and i greatly appreciate you find a way tracking that as a design element and appreciates if you

would do that. and otherwise, a great idea to expand the conservation district and i would be interested to see how it affects our discussion about the museum of modern art expansion right in the block behind it and that the two projects will talk to each other and a lot of investments and that are they are responsible and the ideas about the sustainable resource district is fantastic and also that you are jumping to the line in that area of buildings which indeed are all in our own collective memory. the cost is great and staggering and hard to understand for me. >> commissioner borden? commissioner borden: i generally

am for this plan and i think that commissioner moore had a couple of interesting pointses about f.a.r. i was wondering about that consideration as well. for me sunlight is in the ljt lunch time and i work right smack-dab center of the district and there aren't a lot of places to be outside that have a lot of sun flight that area and it would be a nice attribute that 50 fremont building and is always packed and it is one of the few open spaces even though it is not very green to hang out in. and it reminds me of the skyline and i was just in new york city and i had been to the first portion but not the second portion of the high where it

creates galleries for people to stare at street and amphitheaters and so interesting how so many people fit in these outdoor amphitheaters and stare down at the streets and the view corridor and take pictures and just relax. to the extent those elements and features can be in the park would be an interesting dynamic. and and we did conditioning pricing in london and stockholm and one of the thing that was key in the success of the congestion pricing is that the transit had to be in the state where people could take it. that the first day they started the conditional pricing that the transit was able to accommodate the people and one of the things when we look at the success of the district and the dou downto you xhnt leave muni out -- you can't leave muni out of the

conversation and the transportation authority and dealing with funds for the project, but we just want to make sure that m.t.a. is at the table because for any of the issues, it will be critical that muni is able to transport people. people don't mind taking transit if it works and gets people to places in a timely fashion. they have a problem taking transit otherwise. and congestion pricing is successful and transit can accommodate the number of people to take it and it was a better alternative when they were forced in that direction. and so something to think about right there. and i do love district and i think this commissioner moore is making sure that the existing freezing rain structure can be included in that district. and done before the city there and excite for the sidewalk widening and it is another