passengers to the downtown core. as compared with the existing caltrans station vacation. here you see an image of the real extension over the old 1863 shoreline of san francisco. down along townsend st., we will be excavating in what was the former mission bay, and moving along third street going into the land side of the old shoreline into the western end of the transit center. as you can see from this image, the transit center overlaps the old shorelines into -- over last the old shoreline. the images on the left are representative images of the types of construction we will be using to construct the tunnel.

we'll be using a cut and cover construction approach. once we reach a third street, from there, moving on to second street, we will be using a mined tunnel approach. in terms of funding, of course, phase one of our program is fully funded. on the left, the myriad of funding sources that have gone into making that possible. important to that are the properties that were given to the city to help execute this program. the tax increment that will flow from them, but also san francisco stimulus funding. on the left-hand side, we have

about $600 million of identified and committed funding towards the face to -- phase two program. these are only committed funding and resources to the program. revenues that might flow from the transit center district plan would help close that gap. the other recent component and fully funding phase two is a regional mou that has been developed to address a number of high priority high-speed rail related projects. including caltrain electrification, and positive train control, the downtown

extension, and other upgrades along the alignment. as part of that mou -- the parties include tjpa, the city and county of san francisco, high speed rail authority, and the city of san jose. the benefits and importance is that it reaffirms some existing commitments, the designation of the dtx in resolution 3434. it commits all the parties to the mou to develop and

implement a regional strategy is used to fund these priority projects. one of those is -- one of those is to designate the dtx as a new starts project. it will put it in line for participation in the federal new starts program, one of the most significant potential funding sources for transit-related projects. it adopts, for the first time, a regional strategy to fully fund the dtx. the future of the mou is there was a hearing that was held before the mtc planning committee in april.

it will go to the full commission two weeks from now with the final being brought for adoption in mid-2013. that would establish the position in the new starts stream. that concludes my portion of the presentation. i will be here for questions that you might have. >> thank you. >> i will walk you through the actions before you today. a high-level overview of what is contained in the documents. again, today, we are initiating a general plan amendment, planning code amendments, with the exception of those that were initiated yesterday. the zoning map amendments, with

the exception of the preservation act amendment initiated yesterday. there are two other items that do not require a initiations, but will be before you on the 24. administrative code amendments. today, it is just the general plan. in terms of the general plan amendment, what it contains is the new transit center district said area plan of the downtown plan. it is a distillation of the draft plan document which has been a major artifact of this planning process to date. the plan supplement, of which we submitted to you before the last hearing. pat robertson's the basic narrative and all of the background deliberate -- that represent the basic narrative and all the background

deliberations. we have distilled the core objectives and policies and created a sub-area plan. it is already covered by the downtown plan. that represents the general plan amendments before you. there are some additional minor map and text amendments proposed for the downtown plan, the transportation element, the design element, and the land use index. they provide consistency across the general plan and the appropriate cross references come out of state maps to reflect -- references, update this maps.

there is one policy which we are proposing to add to the plan, which has not been before you. there is an additional sheet, which we just distributed at the beginning of this hearing. it relates to public access to the transit center park. last time we were here, there was a lot of discussion and concern amongst the commissioners that the plan required edges to access to the transit center park to ensure the public has all the necessary access to activate and take advantage of this major public resource. we are proposing to add some additional text under objectives 3.11, describing the importance of thepark.

these will have to be renumbered for the final draft. insure that highly visible and welcoming means of access are provided directly for iraqi public spaces and buildings adjacent to the transit center. mission square is a very important public space. it is expected that there is public access from the spaces and buildings to the transit center park. such access requires close coordination with the tjpa. everybody needs to work cooperatively to make these things happen. it would be good to note that this is part of the proposed sub-area plan text before you. moving on to the planning code,

i want to walk through what the different amendments seek to achieve. first, amendment to a series of sections that convert to a squad the special -- quasi-special used district to a zoning district, a clarification to the confusion that was in the code before. to create a new commercial special used district that requires that large development sites should be -- should have a majority office space and them. next is a set of amendments to revise the far controls. revise the rules regarding the purchase of tdrs.

there is a grouping that relates to the urban design controls, relating to measurement of heights, tower separation, street walls, setbacks, all the various urban design controls that we have discussed. we are amending sections related to public open space. section 138 is the primary section that is being amended. it is related to open space. to allow and encourage adjacent developments to connect to the transit center part and count that towards the open space requirements. there is a series of amendments in article 1.5 related to modifying the rules for of st. automobile parking, bicycle parking, loading, parking lots, as well as changing and

expanding the rules requiring participation in the transportation brokerage program. the only new sections being added all pertain to impact fees. those are all being added to article 4. new open space impact fee that would apply to the planning district. there is also a new section being added related to participation in the proposed district. there are amendments related to renaming the current and new montgomery-second street conservation district. that is under the planning commission's purview to initiate. as well as amending article 11 to change the boundaries. the other amendments -- there were also before the commission yesterday. the process -- the only

amendments being proposed are the addition of some cross references to some of the new provisions being added throughout the planning code. lastly, the zoning map amendments. there are four amendments proposed. the first is to the basic zoning district map. the primary change is a very basic one, to reclassify all the parcels in the planning area. it would the exception of the publicly is zoned parcels -- with the exception of the publicly-zoned parcels. there is the change to the special use district map to reflect the boundaries of the new district. there are amendments to the height district maps. we are creating a new bull

district, which will be applied to all the buildings-- bulk district, which would be to apply to all the buildings. lastly, the changes to the boundaries of the new montgomery second street conservation district. they were initiated yesterday. those are the items before you. the planning department's is happy to recommend approval of all these items. to direct the department to notify a of the hearing on or after may 24. we are happy to take any questions. >> thank you. there may be some questions later. going to public comment, i do have a couple of speaker cards. >>

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i am the planning director at spur. i'm here before you to ask you to initiate adoption of this plan. we really believe in its critical importance to san francisco, the region, and the state of california. we think this plan represents one of the most important and significant transformational pieces to the transit system, both in the region and in the state. as planning staff identified, in order for san francisco to meet the growth projections and policy objectives, this plan is critical. the district plan is critical to san francisco, in terms of maintaining a jobs center in the downtown downtown is a major

regional job center. it is home to over 250,000 jobs. over 50% of workers in the downtown use the sustainable transportation mode. this plan represents an opportunity for us to increase that and sustain that in the city. although we recognize the shadow impacts are of concern, given their modest impact, we believe the plan as a whole is much more significant to how we're going to meet our transportation goals and sustainability goals for san francisco. lastly, and certainly something that is important to spur, is the bta plan for staff. many in san francisco as buyers to finance. this is one that actually

delivers -- aspire to finance. this is one actual delivers on that. it is an important step in bringing high-speed rail to san francisco and takes the necessary steps to make sure we are competitive in the region. sober urges adoption of this plan. -- spur urges adoption of this plan. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the and kingsley -- dan kingsley. i'm here to express our support for this effort. director graeme and his staff should be commended for producing a very good plan. it is quite visionary, especially when you consider this is 145 a. in the middle of a very dense city. it is a very good piece of work and i'm hopeful that not just the commission, but the board of supervisors and the mayor will recognize what they have done. there are two areas of concern

that we understand will be difficult to address, given the limitations going on in the state of california. the first is with the elimination of the tax increment plan that is available now that the agencies have been eliminated. the department is increasing the tax for the property that will be entitled under this plan. it will produce more financial strain on the feasibility of these projects. i would ask the commission and others within the city to keep an open mind and look for ways to make the cost of economic improvements more equitable so it can be spread over the 145 a. of the plan area. there may be some solutions worked on in sacramento, but i think the city and county should embrace those when they occur. the second is that the

redevelopment plan and it surviving the development agency, the affordable housing needs to be on site. in our case, we are building a 700 ft. tall building. you could probably produce more affordable housing if it was offsite ban on site. and given that affordable housing in california is going through a crisis without the redevelopment funds, we would encourage the city and county to keep an eye on looking at other ways to increase of four or housing in san francisco. -- affordable housing in san francisco. we agree with what you've done and we urge approval of the plan. thank you. >> my name is wayne. i am a real-estate consultant in san francisco. i am working with two of the projects in the transit district

area. i'm here to talk about a few small issues, but more important, we are supportive of this plan. we spend a lot of time working with the planning department. we are aware of all of the issues and we commend the department for bringing this plan to this stage with this type of analysis. what about the concerns that we have--- let me first say that the project receive benefits from this plan. we understand it will be costs. there is concern that it may be inequitable in the sense that we will be paying for a lot of these fees for projects outside of this district area and enjoying the same benefits of

development, but do not have to participate in these fees. one of the concerns i have -- and it is not to discredit this plan, but there was an article in the "wall street journal" about the city district tax plan, which was to create this district because of changes in the economy. all of a sudden, the tax revenue anticipated to be generated it did not come about and the money was taken from the city's general fund to support the bond -- the payment on the bond. the concern is that with our projects here, if the impact fees and development fees are too high, it may give -- it may impede development. we're dependent upon it proceeding.

we're open to discussion, but also not opposed to the plan proceeding over the next year to make sure we can come up with alternatives to make sure these projects can proceed. the other thing very quickly, for the palace hotel, we did an analysis of reunion square on the shadows studies. and in those shadows studies, we took images every 25 minutes to show how union square is used. although the shadow studies are correct, it does not account for all of the cloudy days an early- morning spirit of the impact may not be as great. thank you. -- the cloudy days and early mornings. the impact may not be as great. thank you. >> good afternoon, president, commissioners. my name is bob.

i'm a realtor. i have been actively involved in the rail extensions since 1984. we are here to support this plan. we think it creates substantial benefit for the district, substantial benefit to the properties that exist there, but perhaps a load on new development that will not be shared by other properties. primarily, we think there may be an opportunity to expand the concept of affordable housing in the district by allowing them off site and for them to be treated as -- the same as other properties in san francisco. our hope -- as you can see, there are only two active development in this district. there are no other developments being proposed. it is quite important that these developments actually get billed

to my get financed by get marketed so that this revenue can come to the city. although we urge you to move on the schedule that has been proposed, we also hope that you can help us with some inquiry and creativity to see if there are ways to make it more certain that these developments actually happened. i also want to say that director graeme and his team have been very open and receptive i feel like we have -- open and receptive. i feel like we have an ability to communicate and our goals are common in making these buildings go up. >> good afternoon, commissioners. and the executive director of livable city. we have been following this plan and talking to your staff and we

think there are a lot of great things in this plan. we think there are a few things you can do to further the goals of this plan if you change them. i was reading an article recently about portland and they talked about the success of the portland model planning. in portland, they said, you make what you want to see happen easy to do and yet you make the things you do not want to see happen hard to do. in san francisco, sometimes we do exactly the opposite. one thing is -- to consider is floor area ratio. we see that we want jobs downtown. we say what housing downtown and parking downtown. residential uses an office uses count against your f.a.r. limit, but not parking. one thing you could do is to build some other f.a.r.

exemptions in. that could be affordable housing. you could give it back to the project sponsors in terms of everyone is entitled to the parking. you can begin to incentivize the things you want to see. there is no good policy reason for exempting parking from f.a.r. indeed c-3 districts and we would ask you to limit it. -- in the c-3 districts and rescue to limit it. there's four hundred times more parking than is permitted in the c-3 by right, 100 times for a parking ban is permitted in the old district by right. those redevelopment controls can be amended legislatively.

we would ask that you would make the amount of amended residential parking consistent. pick a number and make it consistent. and there is a serious issue about our -- barred capacity, particularly in the embarcadero area. we really need to deal with this as a city. it's going to hamper the ability to be downtown. most of the transportation has been on part in the last three decades, not on muni. i would love to talk to you about capacity limits and we need to do to address it, but to ignore it over and over again is distressing. if we do not deal with it, we will not be able to attract people to transit. thank you. president fong: any additional

public comment on this item? >> my name is brad. i serve as the co-chair of the park shadow task force, which was set up by then mayor newsom and david chiu. we have been looking at this site as an example of how to think about methodology. but i'm not here today in that capacity. i'm here as an individual who many of you know has a long history in that -- in affordable housing. i am participating in the task force meetings. you know how dire things have gotten. we have lost 40 million to $50 million a year. the ways we are talking about it initially is ways to put up to $10 million in the first year and then slowly wrapping back up. it might be good to rethink the

policy that requires that affordable housing has to be on site in the project. i and stand the idea behind that to create an economically creative neighborhood. it is not like we're talking about building this miles away. there may be some real problems in trying to do this because of the way the land was transferred to the city. it would probably require some kind of state legislation. i only ask that you consider that as we have this conversation to see if there is a way to free up some of the money to build affordable housing for nearby families. the other thing that was pointed out to me recently is that although this will become eventually a full neighborhood, a lot of things are not there. if you were to build the project with the affordable housing two or three bloaw