when you do something as huge as what we're doing, you will affect everything around you in terms of buildings will turn around, things will happen because of what we're doing, and we that. it may be a wall now, but the question is -- from a permanent planning standpoint, and this is where san francisco staff comes in -- that wall -- it may not be in five or 10 years, but that building most likely will turn around, given what your doing, and we must be sensitive to that as well if that is an issue. i do not know. there's a whole lot of things. maybe it should be agendized, but i will not be here for it, so i will not say one way or the other. director metcalf: i just want to say thank you for raising the issue. >> we have a long closed

session. >> we are looking at building a building adjacent to that, and it has been to the knowledge of staff for many years, so we are trying to get the design finalize so we can move forward. the idea of there are other alternative exit ways to be had, so with a little thought and head-scratching, we can develop a win-win strategy, and right now, it is sort of a win-lose strategy. >> thank you very much. >> no other members of the public indicated they wanted to address you under public comment. with that, we can move into the consent calendar. >> we have three items. the minutes, which i will recuse myself from, from the last meeting. and then a couple of amendments. >> we can call the member -- the minutes separately, sever those from the calendar. >> all right, is there any motion for approval on items 7.2 and 7.3? ok, and the objection? seeing none, passes unanimously.

i will recused from item 7.1. any objection from the minutes? and you will recuse yourself, to appear are, are you going to recuse yourself? you were here. -- and he will recuse yourself, too. art, are you going to recuse yourself? you were here. that passes unanimously among members allowed to vote on it. what are we on now? regular calendar? presentation of the transit center district plan by the san francisco planning department, sort of. -- sort of apropos of our public comment. >> as i mentioned yesterday, mayor lee did mention that in early october, we should have the draft released for the public. in anticipation of that, jobs will be giving a presentation on that plan and what it entails. >> good morning, directors.

-- joshua -- josh will be giving a presentation on the plan and what it entails. >> good morning, directors. the plan was published in 2009 and has been on the streets for almost two years now for public review. what will be published in a short number of weeks is the draft environmental impact report for the plant, which will be a full analysis of the proposals and plan for public review and comments. the transit center district plan covers a broad swath of the southern side of the financial district from market street down to folsom street from the embarcadero to second and third streets. it overlaps with the transbay redevelopment area, and covers almost the entirety of the area, but the plan will not be

affecting any of the land use and development proposals for a zone 1, which the redevelopment agency has jurisdiction over and is overseeing the redevelopment of. zone two, the jurisdiction of which was transferred or delegated, i should say, to the city, back to the planning department, and is subject to the control of the city's planning code, and as such, that is subject to this rezoning. the plan will be rezoning essentially all of zone two as well as surrounding areas that are not part of it. this plan has several core objectives, the first of which is a land use objective to recapitalize on the major investment that is transit center and really look at the south side of the downtown now that we are 25 years out from the adoption of the downtown plan in the mid-1980's and look

at how the city should respond to the major public transit investment with the land use response. second, to look at how the downtown has evolved from a physical standpoint and see whether we ought to further kraft both the form of the downtown at the skyline level as well as the pedestrian level and what public realm response in terms of streets and public spaces should be improved to provide a more world-class setting for the transit center and all the increased activity that will take place in the area. importantly, our key goal of the plan is to generate a substantial amount of new revenue for the transit center project as well as for other infrastructure that is needed to support the district. all the increased activity from the transit center as well as the increase dedication as part of the downtown.

streets and so forth are substantially lacking, and i will talk more about that in a second year lastly, to insure that the continuing growth of the district is sort of a shining model of environmental sustainability. i will talk more about that. i mentioned the draft plan was published in november 2009. the draft eir will be out at the end of the month. we anticipate the final adoption and hearings at the planning commission will commence probably at the end of february, given our current schedule. as i mentioned, the transit center district plan builds on the foundations established in the downtown plan in the 1980's, the premise that the downtown should remain combat and walkable, that market street is sort of center -- should remain compact and walkable. really, that the core of downtown is right around the transit center. as such, the plan proposes to

modify the development allowances in terms of heights and densities in this area. to further reflect this, i should mention that the downtown plan did assert and establish that the area did immediately establish that the transit center at the time was zoned for the highest heights and greatest in city's downtown, the highest heights being around 550 feet immediately adjacent to the transit center. this plan seeks to enhance the division of the downtown block -- the vision of the downtown plan and more cement the downtown district as the real core of the 21st century downtown by increasing densities further and allowing more transit-oriented development immediately around the transit center. the plan proposes to increase heights strategically, to crown

the downtown skyline. you can see that there is a small consolation of other sites surrounding the transit center that would be increased in allowable heights up to 700 to 850 feet. you can see that the skyline has a very graceful silhouette and really emphasizes this area as the center of the downtown. i just have a couple of slides showing you what the future skyline might look like with these proposed heights. this is a view of the downtown looking east from the top of twin peaks. you can see market street running down the center. you can see the downtown emphasized on the far northern

and -- end. the city re-evaluated its growth patterns and shifted development south of market street. you can see that the skyline really has taken on a more elongated configuration. the plan, as you can see, would really emphasize the transit center area, which is really the center of the downtown today, which extends all the way down to the ring, hill area -- the rincon hill area. the transit center is the center, and this would emphasize that. here is another computer simulation of what the skyline will look like. we did countless simulations for the public to weigh these changes.

our website has had 16 or 20 different public views simulated on our website that people can scroll through, and the draft eir has quite a number as well. here is a view from treasure island. in terms of land use, the plant currently proposed would eliminate the floor-area ratio cap, which currently exists in the downtown, currently limited at 18 to one, and the plan would propose to eliminate that and have an unlimited f.a.r. allowance in the districts of the buildings could be built to this district. additionally, given that this area in the transit center district essentially represents the last development sites in the downtown, you probably know that the northern part of the financial district essentially built out. there are no major development

sites left. in this area, there are a few significant ones, and because you are probably familiar with the redevelopment plan, zone 1, which i mentioned, is proposing and is carrying out the creation of a new residential neighborhood immediately to the south of this area. so in order to continue to have space for continued job growth in the downtown, the planning department thinks that it would be advisable to ensure that major development sites in this plan area are focused on commercial development so that we do preserve those few sites that are feasible for continued job growth. in terms of square footage, the plan would -- in total once it is all but out -- represent the addition of over nine square feet of development in the area, about 2/3 of which we are projecting would be office space, or close to 6.5 million square feet of office space,

which, as you can see, represents 40% or 50% up-zoning of this area from what is allowed under current zoning. though the focus would be on commercial development, there would still be substantial amounts of residential development that we would anticipate on smaller sites and sites immediately outside of the core. we anticipate over 1300 units, plus hotel rooms and retail space. plan does not focus just on the skyline and what the city would look like from a macro standpoint, but really also take to heart making sure that these buildings create a high-quality pedestrian experience in the public realm as you walk around the district, and proposes various guidelines to ensure active ground floors and ensure that these tall buildings continue to allow sunlight to meet the streets and establish a

comfortable space. as i mentioned, the current street and sidewalks environment in the area, as you probably are familiar, is somewhat dismal, if i could put that out there. there are a few pedestrian entities. in some places, the sidewalks are narrow, and you can see they are already congested or lack basic amenities like street trees, benches, bicycle racks, and everything you might expect from a world-class downtown environment. in places, the sidewalks are already congested, and with the addition of 9 million square feet of development as well as the additional activity that will come from the completion of the transit center, this will be a very incredibly busy place, more so then you might even see in the northern financial district today. the plan proposes to transform

the rights of way in the area by widening of the sidewalks in the area. the plan proposes that the goal would be to establish an average rail, so there is approximately 5 feet to amenities face. this will require major policy decisions on the part of the city to rethink the allocation. it will require the removal of a substantial amount of on street parking to make way for a wider sidewalks. and all the amenities that we think will be necessary to make this the kind of place that we all want it to be. in addition to wider and improved sidewalks, we worked substantially with the mta to improve -- to insure that transit can move officially through the district and release

serve the transit center and the development in the area efficiently. the plan proposes dedicated transit lanes on mission street, potentially center-running transit lanes so that buses are not stuck in a congested, which, as is always the case, is projected to increase over time -- so the buses are not stuck in congested -- in congestion. the plan proposes to augment the bicycle network, and as well, to achieve circulation improvements, the plan proposes to analyze converting portions of howard and fulsome that are currently one way or to a predicted two-way to improve local circulation as well as achieve certain traffic coming benefits -- converting portions of howard and fulsom that are

currently one way to two way. you can see surrender of wider sidewalks, dedicated transplants, crosswalks, and so forth. additionally, the plan has a comprehensive set of transportation policies that go beyond the physical. in terms upper -- in terms of parking, the downtown, even prior to the downtown plan, has had very strict parking allowances. there are no required parking minimums in the downtown, and they're currently is a fairly low caps. nonetheless, we feel and working with the mta feel that even this is potentially too much, that keeping parking at a minimum in the core of the downtown is why we have stayed off major congested and are commuting in the downtown in the last 30

years and that we should pursue the and tighten down even more as we get buildings that are substantially bigger than we have seen in the past. the plan does propose to reduce by half the amount of non- residential parking allowed and does propose that the city should investigate and pursue an overall absolute parking staff. the plan does support the notion output congestion pricing as a necessity in the future to keep digestion down in the downtown manager that transit can run and the other modes can be accommodated. the plan does have additional policies to improve the transportation demand management implementation in the downtown. in terms of open space, the plan -- the charge of trying to

see what we can do to build on the proposed rooftop transit center park that will be built and augmon that with both additional street level public spaces as well as additional connections to this rooftop park -- you probably know that as part of the downtown rail extension, a small number of buildings at the northeast corner of second and howard will likely have to be demolished, and the rail extension will be running right underneath those parcels, so there is limited opportunity to build up of them in the future. so the plan proposes that rather than building a very small structure that could be supported on top of that in the future, to actually create a new public open space at the northeast corner of second and howard, and because the transit center essentially lacks a major southern face -- as we know, it faces mission street at mrs. gore but is primarily bordered by alleys -- this could offer

gate were to the south side, and we think it would be a great open space. there would be a small number of new high-rises that would be built essentially immediately across the valleys from the transit center, and that is part of the way of satisfying. they could offer public connections directly to the park level. we did complete a full historic resources the server prior to publishing the plan. a big chunk of the planned area is currently under way. through that survey, it identified a number of additional historic resources

that should be individually protected as well as a proposal to expand this conservation district primarily to the west along mission street to take in more buildings that are really historic resources that were not captured in the conservation district adopted in the 1980's. the plan does propose to designate a small number of additional buildings as landmarks. that would be a separate process moving forward. the hotel, one of the only wood- frame single occupancy hotels. an art deco commercial industrial building on first street. last, the plan, as i mentioned,

does seek to make sure the district is a model of environmental sustainability. we all know that this will be the case because this is sort of a preeminent examples of transit-oriented development. very high, mixed views densities adjacent to world- class public transit will make this just a model of non-auto commuting and greenhouse gas responsibility. in addition to that, we have sought to, with the help of our consultants and other agency partners, see what other opportunities might be afforded by the fact that there is an incredible amount of new developments being built in this small area. we have been investigating with consultants and the redevelopment agency and department of environment whether we might be able to create a new combine heat and power system in this district that could potentially generate power as well as use waste heat to heat and cool buildings. this is a model use all over

europe and in certain places in the u.s., and we think that this is potentially a possibility here. we have also been talking with the public utilities commission about implementing recycled water delivery system in this area. buildings already are required to be dual-plumbed for eventual recycled water service, we will be exploring ways to do that in a shorter time lines of these buildings could be saving water sooner than later. in terms of the revenue and the cost of all these improvements i have been talking about, the street and open space improvements and sustainability improvements, these all have fairly substantial price tags. the street and sidewalks improvements that i have been talking about, with the addition of the proposed underground pedestrian connection from the transit center to one of the market street bart/new stations

-- bart/muni stations. a transit center itself has an additional price tag with the plans proposed to improve capacity at the embarcadero and montgomery bart stations. the plan would seek to help fund the rooftop parking as well as the second and howard proper -- park. these are rough estimates of what it would take to produce those. in order to help try to pay for these, the plan proposes essentially two new financing mechanisms. one would be a new set of additional impact fees that would go primarily for streets and transportation, including the transit center, as well as open space. we are currently in the process

of financing the legally required nexus analysis studies required by state law to justify these impact fees, and working with the city attorney's office closely on that, and we hope to have it completed in a few weeks so we can essentially set those at the announcements, what you see here, in terms of and acting revenue is very hypothetical and sort of illustrative of what we think we can achieve, but once we complete the studies, we will know for certain what the fees can be set at. again, this would be in addition to the existing fees that exist today room. those would continue to exist, and this would be in addition to that. on top of that, the plan proposes to require major developments availing themselves of the up-zoning, for dissipating in a special tax district, which means that all

these major buildings would be required to essentially vote themselves in to a supplemental property tax that would get levied every year, and that money could be bonded against or just spent as it comes in and could potentially, over 30-plus years, bring in a very substantial amount of money. once we have all these fee and tax projections done, when we get closer to adopting the plan, we will have a citywide discussion on adopting those revenues, but it will be safe to say that providing additional funding to the transit center project is a major objective, and the tjpa would be receiving a sizable amount of this money. that concludes my presentation. again, the fall plan is available on our website -- the full plan is available on our

website. four directors that you're not have a copy of the printed plan, we would be happy to deliver it to you, and be happy to meet with directors who have additional questions, but i am happy to answer any questions. >> it would be hard to improve upon this, i think. >> great presentation. a lot of really good stuff in this plan. while you are on the money question, i just want to make sure i understand. it looks like you are saying $1.8 billion comes in, but if you want against that and get the money up front, it is $366 million -- if you bond against it and get the money upfront. >> the money that would come in in actual dollars in the year they would come in -- this is projecting out 30 years. some of the money is coming in 30 years from now. in today's dollars, it is a lot less because of inflation and so

forth. in today's dollars, these payments over time would be about $366 million. when they actually come in, it is more dollars. it does not represent bonding. it is strictly pay-as-you-go money that comes in. bonding capacity could potentially be larger. >> ok, so i guess i am interested in getting a handle on what that number is. not just for the tjpa terminal and -- not just for the transbay terminal, but a lot of the things you want to do our capital projects rather than ongoing maintenance projects, so you do want to get the money up front and understand if you want it, how much money is available is one of the things i would like to understand. i guess the second thing i would say is what is the process by

which -- where do we have the food fight about how much goes to transbay terminal compared to other potential uses? >> i believe that would be through the plan adoption hearings. i think ultimately the planning commission would be setting policy priorities when they adopt the planning code changes and other of lamenting ordinances. there would be a series of hearings leading up to the adoption. we will have a proposal in advance of the hearings -- >> do you have a proposal? when will you have a proposal? >> prior to the adoption. some time over the next three or four months. >> i guess on behalf of this body, i would say we would probably like to be part of the conversation before reading about it in the papers.

>> also on the money, two questions -- with regard to things like widening sidewalks, are you assuming in your planning that that is all done with public dollars? i imagine for many of the large parcels that are to be developed, that that kind of work would just be included as part of a street improvements permit that we would just be getting. wondering with the assumption is. >> at this point, the assumption is this price tag is if we had to pay for all of it. you are correct that many of the major developments would be required as a condition of their approval and existing requirements to build those. given that there are a relatively limited number of new development that will be built in the area covering a small minority of the linear