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 footage of these blocks, it is a small percentage. the transit tower is a big development that has several for

outages. a lot of the district is already built out, so we will do that calculation before this is all said and done about how much of the streets we think will be built by developments. we will definitely do that and get that out, but ultimately, even with the developers, there will probably still be a shortfall, and we will have to prioritize these improvements and probably seek additional funding at some point to complete everything. >> ok, and then, related, how would what you are proposing differ from an infrastructure financing district? >> it is similar. i am not an expert in those. i believe they are very similar. i think they are enabled under different state laws, so there might be limitations.

i think that is the primary difference. >> when you come back, it might be helpful for us to understand what the relative merits of either would be. >> they are substantially almost identical. the allowable uses of the funds are slightly different, and potentially, it might be an isd, especially if the law gets reformed to deal with redevelopment going away. they will become easier. >> i think the basic concept with districts are more or less the same. >> i guess it cannot be used for maintenance. >> or affordable housing. >> i know it is limited to publicly-owned infrastructure. >> i had a question, i think, maybe for you. to what extent does the tjpa plan assumed that zoning and other things that are proposed

in this district plan? >> nancy, i think it would be great if you could respond to director reiskin on this. currently, our plan does not assume the impact fees, primarily because we do not know yet how much of that will be dedicated to the transbay project. before you joined our board, a working group was created to study different ways to help fund the rail extension of the project, and one of the recommendations was that the city family put together this plan, and the whole idea of zoning and creating revenue for the projects that was originally envisioned and put together on -- and developed to fund the project, but to date, since we do not have the details, we have not yet allocated it, but we are currently assuming the increase

heights on both parcels t and f for a landfill component of our revenue. am i think you have covered all of it. there are two parcels that are part of the sales we are considering in our financial plan -- >> i think you have covered all of it. as the executive director stated, we do not have any revenues assumed from the impact fees being contemplated here largely because we include only those that are committed. as you know, we have a little ways to go before we have commitments of those funds. >> thanks. did the tjpa bodies of any plans? >> we have been funding most of this effort. so we have been meeting -- the

planning department invites us to weekly meetings now to discuss the plan and go over the plan. the my i am looking at the height that -- >> i am looking at the height maps. from a skyline perspective, the city would look a lot better at 1,200 feet than 1,000 feet for that one tower. if you think of this as the analog to the church steeples in medieval europe, the symbolic high point of the city, what we are trying to do is commemorate basically the value of ecology by making the transit center the tallest building in the city. when you think that this will probably set the maximum height of buildings in san francisco for all time, you would leave

open a lot more options for future alterations if you bump it up a little bit, at least visually. even if you are putting a windmill on top of it. , two, related. if the city does not a land, the city cannot dictate which sites will actually be developed. the specifying in such a detailed way which sites are too good to 750 feet and right next door is less than half of that height, it may not work out that way. the other way to get there is to zone the heights in broader swaths but have tower separation rules so you ensure that you do not try to outguess in the future which landowners are

going to develop, but you still ensure the appearance of tower separation. i have some concern that the sites will not manage to get it down for whatever reason, and and other potential willing owners of land will not have the upzoning to get it done. >> in principle, we would agree with you. proposal is based on a detailed assessment of what are realistic development sites in the area, and they are actually very limited. if we sat down together and looked at it, we would probably not find other major development sites in this vicinity that would potentially have billings of this scale, and i think we are pretty comfortable that this represents the best opportunities, even if some of them are delayed for a certain

time because those particular owners cannot build for a certain amount of time. we anticipate that this is a long-term plan. the horizon of this plan is 20 or 30 years, so we do not anticipate all of this will happen in the five years after the plan is approved. i think, you know, we see that is the case in rincon hill and other places. everyone gets entitled to live thereafter, and it takes a while for everything to get bill. >> i found opportunity sites. does the eir allow for total -- greater f.a.r.'s then allowed on this? >> i see allows for a certain square footage and dtr