earlier has as completing the project in october of 2017. that is when we would move the operations into the transit center and turn the temporary terminal site over for redevelopment. >> thank you. i have some other comments in a moment that will work off of that timetable. the other thing i am concerned about, and i do not need an answer today on this, but one of the questions i asked last time was trying to plan for access to the transit center, particularly subgrade portions of it to barton -- bart muni, which is about a block. i think that is really important because if you want people to use rail service, or even high- speed and regional rail service, they will have to easily move their suitcases or whenever they

are carrying to connect to bart board muni to go elsewhere. if they have to bring them above grade and carry them a block or two, most cities, there are at least corridors where you can roll your suitcases. i would like to see that as part of the plan, hopefully. i also wanted to comment that there is an area for the transbay park, and that is where the temporary transbay terminal is now. we should look very carefully at possible uses for that area. obviously, everybody wants a park. there may be the availability for some subgrade parking in there. there might even be enough space for some sort of structure, possibly an arena.

i do not know what acreage would be required, but that particular piece as well as another piece zone by the redevelopment agency on spear and main street, adjacent to folsom, i think there is one vacant building there, but i think most of it is a surface parking lot. looking at these things carefully, there might be some uses that will be of benefit. and certainly, a great vacation. i have a comment. two questions, and i do not need them today. the first is i noticed that the of street parking for businesses is based on 3.5 per square foot floor area. i'm sure that's fine and makes sense, but what are you comparing it to? what is it in the rest of the city? what is it in the downtown area?

the other is the prohibition on surface parking lots, even temporarily. nobody wants a surface parking lot. but we have seen a lot of projects that utilize that as a fawning tool -- funding tool if construction is delayed. we have three or four in operation today that are providing some funding during the interim until they can be developed it might be something where we look at that, whether there should be an outright vote -- prohibition or funding on that. and the other thing is, and mr. riis spoke to this a little bit -- but in terms of the on-site affordable, we had a conversation earlier and i guess there is a requirement that calls for 35% affordable within the transbay area aggregate the,

not any particular project, but as an aggregate. but i do not think this use prohibits the offside if the funds were used for housing within the transbay, moving toward that goal. i think it would make it much more competitive for builders of market rate housing, or any housing that included an affordable component to be able to cite it across the street where the construction is about 5 per unit. and that makes sense to me. and the other thing is, -- and this may take some change at the state level. would we be allowed to count housing that is near the area,

but not actually within the transbay area, toward the affordable mandates? i don't know if that could be done, but it makes perfect sense to me that if you put 100% of affordable complex, and it's just on the edge of transbay, it would certainly have all of the benefits of being right within transbay. i would like to know what the barriers are. and the other thing that was brought about the malodorous -- melarus, i guess this is funding for redevelopment. if your redevelopment, you can also be infrastructure finance. but i do not think that precludes some other funding tool that could be used to

spread the cost more broadly to all of the people who benefit from it, including existing buildings that are already in place or have already gone through entitlement. i think it might be able to minimize the cost to proposed buildings that might make it in feasible financially if the costs were too high. i would like to see that explored financially. i guess my only other comment was -- i guess that is it for now commissioner miguel: thank you to staff for an excellent and comprehensive presentation on a very complicated project

overall. it is great to see it move forward. i have many of these same concerns that other commissioners have, particularly commissioner moore as to the transit tower itself. i am merely thinking of the sandbagging, if you'll pardon the poker term. you get the contract on the basis of one design and then you push out a second design. i think many of us feel that the second design is inferior. i've got a lot of problems with that one. i know the budget will come back to us for specific entitlements, but i am not totally satisfied that if addendum policy 3.17

meant to address it, that it necessarily does it specifically enough. i get the idea. policies are not always very specific, but i'm still troubled. let me put it that way. i am very pleased, however, that three major property representatives -- kingsley, hu, and handler -- are enthusiastically supporting. but i also appreciate their comments on these actions and i think we have to look at these very closely, including the melarus as we move forward. the transition from redevelopment's to partially development, if i can put it that way.

that is still a little confusing for many of us. and i think a lot even for many who are working on its, if my conversations are correct. we have to figure out how to deal with that a little more. commissioner antonini has mentioned before the conundrum with bart, and i appreciate the comments as to the fact that these stations in the immediate area are just about impacted now. however, it is somewhat ridiculous for a city like san francisco not to provide a connection. it is not good transportation planning, in my mind. i do not think we can suddenly stop this and go into that. i'm not asking for that. it cannot be done at this point

immediately. but it has to come into serious consideration. the transit center district itself and part -- bart must start talking. you are looking at an opening in 2017. if you do not have some idea of where you are doing about it by then, it would be of the ridiculous. -- a little ridiculous. i am looking for an explanation, and perhaps this will take quite a bit of conversation also, as to the bmr units. and how that is going to be handled. again, you've got the redevelopment mandates. you've got the normal city policy. you've got what one site really means or really in furs --

infers. is that transit center area really directly linked with the building? and in their conversations there. -- i think there are conversations in there. >> may be mike can talk about that. commissioner antonini: that would be excellent >> first, let me emphasize that the plan that you heard today is not changing anything in the area of affordable housing. this is an existing requirement that has been in place since the plan was adopted in 2005. it will be helpful to give you a little bit of background about why we have that on-site requirement, and only that on- site requirement in the project rid of the area appeared before the planned redevelopment was --

of the area. before the planned return comment was adopted in 2005, the state had of law requiring 35% of all units built in the redevelopment project area that they knew was when to be adopted soon be affordable housing. the redevelopment agency in working with the mayor's office of housing and other agencies looked at this at the time to see how we would meet this requirement. we have control of several parcels in the project area. the former freeway parcels that are going to eventually be developed as residential project, as you heard. transbay zone one is usually what is referred to. and we will put a lot of affordable housing in there. but we are also putting a lot of hours in there, because the

other purpose of developing those parcels in relation to affordable housing is to generate transbay revenue. on those parcels there between the towers and the adjacent podium and low-rise buildings next to the pack -- to the towers will get 45% of affordable housing total, which meets the requirement. with a little bit of wiggle room either way. it is a lot of units, 3000 units, depending on how many get built in each tower. what do we do if other housing is built in the project area, which it will become even before -- even before the transit district was built, we knew there would be housing in the project area. we still have a 45% housing requirements in relation to those projects as well. there is housing built on land that we do not control. they've got to contribute something in terms of affordable housing. the reason we made an on-site

requirement is for two reasons. first, there is not any other land in the project area to build offsite housing. this is in the middle of downtown. there are not other properties available to do offsite housing in the project area, as the law requires. the law requires that the 35% be built in the project area. it does not give the flexibility outside the project area. if the law were changed, it would be a different situation, but that is not what the law says. it says it has to be in the project area. if we give people the option of building off site for paying a fee, they would not be building in the project area to meet that requirement. we did not have much choice to put an on-site affordable housing requirement because there just is not land anywhere else in the project area to

meet the 35% affordable housing. and it does not go all the way. it is only one to be 15%. there's a balance that we have worked very hard to create while still achieving the 35%. but the other point i want to make about the on-site of four- ball house in inclusion -- affordable housing inclusion is that the city feels there is an advantage to integrating them with market rate housing. a few blocks is sometimes a long way. it can change the neighbor -- the neighborhood. we want mixed use in these communities. that was also part of the decision to include on-site

community housing. if there were sites in the project area, and it is possible there may be eyesight or two available in the future -- a site for two available in the future and if a project this is not -- and a builder decided to build across the street, we would have to look at that as a community. it achieves what the law requires. we do not feel that is a realistic possibility right now, but we know that could change the requirement is on site now, but we would be open to housing right next door, for example, if that is somehow possible. commissioner antonini: to more questions while you're at the podium. everyone keeps pointing a figure at sacramento. is that going to happen?

as to anything that affects this project. but not with this project specifically. there is talk of of -- talk of cleanup legislation, but it has not happened yet. commissioner antonini: one of the things that keeps coming up with on site projects, such as what we are talking about here, are hoa fees. highrises can be considerable. $750 a month, and i'm being a bit modest at times. they're not graduated, to make a point. and i keep hearing, although i do not have any statistical information, that these can be

crushing two individuals who have qualified for these units. -- to individuals who have qualified for these units. any comment? >> i do not has visited information about what is being done with that because i'm not directly working on that issue. i know it is being addressed as best it can be, but i would have to come back to you with an update on that. >> eirik appreciate it. i keep hearing more and more about it and -- i really appreciate it. i keep hearing more and more about it and i think it is quite serious. i would be very interested in that. >> i would be happy to for that request to the mayor's office. >> aside from that, i think this

has moved as quickly as we can expect things in san francisco to move. 2017 will probably be with us sooner than we expect. in the comments so far by both the public and the commissioners, there are still some troubling factors that need to be cleaned up. i am perfectly satisfied with the base at we have it now. >> commissioners, if you do not mind, i will chime in. i will try to make some broad comments and observations. the discussion thus far has been very interesting, and hopefully, leading to smart, intelligent planning. is a living, breathing plan. one comment by a public speakers

said that it needs to have a committee of its own, a grocery stores, entertainment, food. not just housing or just office. it is important that we keep up with the growth of san francisco. this is the place for height, and not necessarily a fan of it, but if you're going to, you need to pick a place. and who are going to be the tenants in 2017, 2020, 2025? are they going to be the next version of twitter? how fast are they growing? we are sort of building a living for them, the unknown. the other question i had is that because it is evolving since the inception of the transbay tower, is $400 million the right never to try to shoot

for, using the melarus as the collection vehicle? it is something to think about. should it be higher or lower? and once you start adding a melarus and you start putting a committee districts in it in a couple of years and then you put homeowners' association fees on top of that and it can get rich pretty quickly. the reaction is to put another layer on, but when you start to multilayer assessments or taxes orleans, it adds up. -- taxes or liens, it adds up. how does the city executes its infrastructure improvement plans when there are different start dates for different projects? i'm curious if there's a lull in

the economy or in the market and then things cool off and then they fire up at the same time how that affects the execution of the infrastructure. i can get that answer later. i'm curious how that time line works. commissioner borden. commissioner borden: i share many of the sentiments shared by other commissioners, especially commissioner fong and miguel. it is concerning because it is the evidence for the overall plan. i think it is actually quite a very good plan. i actually work in fremont, so i am a block away and it is wonderful to be able to walk a fremont and -- of fremont and

not be scared. i know there was a question of new construction and they would be saddled with a lot of their fees, would they have to pay into any of these fees? would they be impacted? >> regarding the impact fees, yes, they would be subject to convergence and rehabilitation is, provided that the convergence or rehabilitation would enter them into a use that had a higher per square foot fee, essentially. if they were converting from office to residential, that would not necessarily trigger fees. regarding the melarus, as

drafted, it would not have those requirements. net new development is what triggers it. commissioner borden: there's a point about spreading the fees. we all want it to work, but we have to make sure it does not saddle other projects as we move forward. >> we do not have a perfect crystal ball, but we generally know where there are sites able to be developed. we have no way to predict when conversions or anything might happen or whether we would ever raised any money in that regard. commissioner borden: that is very fair. the other thing -- an interesting point was raised about f.a.r. and there was a point about affordable housing

be included in that. i did not realize that we did not include that in the f.a.r. calculations. it does seem like a double fee situation. using f.a.r. for affordable housing makes a lot of sense. i do not know the difference between the c-3 or the park request is in the district. maybe we can talk about that next time to see how -- what the requirements are to see how they relate. another issue on affordable housing, i know there are state constraints. i would love to figure out ways around that, because my biggest concern in talking about the hoa fees is that i think we have a

greater need for affordable housing, but you can't have a home ownership building because it is not a model that works. it is one of the advantages of offsite housing. >> i did not get into the details about how the transbay project area is able to survive. one of the only projects that are allowed to continue after the dissolution of projects for which there are enforceable obligations, as designed under the law of the redevelopment agency. in transbay, one of the affordable -- enforceable laws that we this it was the affordable housing law. the reason we put that as an enforceable obligation is that it entitles us to continue to

receive tax increment to build affordable housing. i would raise that as a reason not to tinker with the 35% level. commissioner borden: i'm not talking about that. >> just so we're clear, i'm not saying you were suggesting that. bobby's the, there might be a way to put flexibility in the 35% affordable housing. but the level is a very -- is very important to continue to receive that variable tax base. commissioner borden: i'm not suggesting a reduction in the number, but more creativity around how to get to that number. i do think the issue around rental -- it does sound like the projects in its -- it does sound

like not all the projects in this project area right to be home all0 are opportunities. -- home owner opportunities. >> they would have the requirement of the 50% a and night. cracks -- 50% ami. commissioner borden: i think there is a distinction with rental vs. homeownership. in looking at how we might address this in the future, we may look at how we look at rental projects verses homeownership projects. that is just something to think about. but overall, a great presentation and a lot of detailed work. i appreciate the staff. you really address a lot of the issues we have expressed in past

hearings. it and look forward to this evolving further, especially the transit center. commissioner wu: i want to thank staff for the presentation today. it answered a lot of my questions around office development near transit and the demand for office development, how that might get filled. i have concerns around accessibility of the public to the public spaces, but also to the entire plan area. i appreciate those changes in objective three that also may be seeking something more. this question of accessibility is also about affordable housing and also about what kind of businesses are quite to locate in these offices. i want to make sure that we are creating the right incentives