will have access to quick and convenient locations that will allow them to get to all other points in the bay area. this is a safe and efficient and convertstation surrounded by the and beautiful area. this will include seven residential towers within the transbay redevelopment area. this redevelopment not only helps fund the new transit center, but will create a new neighborhood south of market street. today folsom street has chain- link fences and narrow sidewalks. in the future, it will be a boulevard with use to the big, wide sidewalks and landscaping. neighbors will be able to see the outdoor cafe and stroll along the sidewalks. once it closes, the site will be

transformed into a 1 acre park. >[inaudible] this park will be open space where people can -- [inaudible]

the community space for the new transbay neighborhood where people can -- [inaudible] >> i apologize for that. basically where people can play frisbee and walk their dogs. i seen it a few times. it shows the wonderful new neighborhood. president fong and members of the commission, we respectfully urge you adopt the plan as presented by the planning director and staff, because without it we cannot build a new station or provide the station for their growing and current commuter work force we will see in the san francisco bay area, and we will not be able to have the environmental benefits. we will not be able to build housing, so thank you very much for your consideration and the opportunity to comment. president fong: thank you. >> i am with the planning

department staff. as the planning director and an rea, you are restated, this plan is the filling of -- held vision about the downtown plan in 1985 to realize the new downtown san francisco of round the bend transbay terminal and the new transbay transit center. this plan covers and not just the transit redevelopment area, which was detailed in the video you just saw, but the broader area from market street to folsom st.. essentially the embarcadero to the east side of the district. this plan that we feel is the pinnacle of transit-oriented growth and development in the bay area. the city has been engaged with

the regional agencies and other jurisdictions for quite some time, and crafting plans to accommodate the next several decades worth of growth in a responsible, sustainable manner. this plan is at the forefront of all of that. this plan has very carefully tried to balance the considerations for growth with insuring that we prefer -- we preserve and enhance the quality is in place that makes an francisco special place. at the skyline and at the street level with widened sidewalks and the necessary infrastructure to support transit, and vibrant street life. looking closely at urban design considerations for the sculpting in buildings and creation of in beijing street walls, the preservation of buildings and the expansion of concentration -conservation are.

it also would provide funds over $12 million for investment and open space improvements around the downtown to helping accommodate the additional growth. . very importantly, this plan provides substantial new, net new public revenues to realize all of the infrastructure, and particularly completion of the downtown rail extension transbay project. this would generate over close to $590 million of net new public revenue not available today through a new fee in community facility district mechanism, which we will talk a little bit more about in specifics. of that, 420 million would be allocated to projects that the

tpja is allocated. in the balance from a close to $170 million would be available for public realm, open space, street level improvements in the district and broader downtown. this is all in addition to the existing deprograms and revenues, that would be raised, including 600 million for m uni, $10 million from the existing downtown park see that would continue, even in addition to the new fees proposed, as well as several million dollars for child care under the existing child care programs created for the city. it has been a number of years to get to this point. we started this plan effort in 2007. after the interagency effort identified this as the major next up and realizing the vision

for downtown. we published a draft plan in november 2009 and has been available for public review. we just certify the drafified he draft eir this morning. we have been here for recent months. today we are here to consider various adoption actions, of which there are seven before you. before i get to the individual adoption actions, i would like to cover a few substantive issues and questions that were raised at the previous hearings that commissioners had questions about. we will take a couple of minutes to discuss those. first, it is related to affordable housing and below market reunion.

there were a number of questions about the controls that apply and why they are in place. as was already described, state law requires in informing the redevelopment plan and transferring the lands from the state to the city, that 35% of all units built in the redevelopment area, which is a subset of the planned area, be affordable. that is not just units on public properties, but all units that are created. to achieve this, the city and redevelopment agency is building as much affordable housing as possible on land. many projects will be 100% affordable. to meet the obligation, we have to do more than that on the public land. that means on private parcels were there is new housing developed, we have to require that the units be built on site.

theoretically, they can be built of sight, but the reality is there are no feasible parcels him the redevelopment area to build offsites affordable housing, hence the requirement that was adopted a number of years ago into the planning code to require the buildings in the redevelopment area have to build affordable units on site. however, there will be a number of buildings outside the redevelopment area that will have the same options available today. there are issues that come up with building a new market rate buildings, particularly towers with issues regarding whether the inclusion very rules allow increases to homeowner association fees to be included with the calculations for what is considered affordable. those are issues that are serious and will continue to be looked at.

the successor to the redevelopment agency has assured us that the new units on publicly-owned properties, of which there will be many, that increases will be included as the requirements of the disposition and development agreements will be included in the definition of affordability for those projects. that will represent the majority of the units in the district. lastly, there will be over $100 million generated from development, commercial development and the planned area that will go into the city-wide affordable housing fund to build affordable housing all over the city where they feel it is most affected. the next question. there was question about parking last time in terms of what ratios are proposed and other aspects. just to provide a little background, this district is in

the downtown district, and it will continue to be. the existing controls that apply for non -- for non- residential uses allow a maximum of 7% to be dedicated towards parking. we do not control the number of spaces that people build, but we strictly limit the amount of space that can be devoted to it. however, the ratios deals infinitely. clearly that could pose a problem with building of this bill we're talking about. it we do not change the rules, there could be over 2000 new parking spaces built and is transit court, in which would present a problem. what the plan proposes is to reduce the maximum allowable non-residential parking. this bill would allow major buildings do have a modest two sizable garages for the largest product -- projects.

we feel that this is the appropriate balance point to move forward. nonetheless, the plan proposes to set aside some funds from the impact fee, the transportation impacts feet that were paid to do a downtown parking study, the intent of which would be to analyze what, if any, absolute park and cap should be established for downtown to achieve various transportation and congestion objectives. lastly, on the subject of parking supply, it has been demonstrated, and we've been told time and time again from transportation planners that work for the city, that limiting the supply of parking will be most affected towards a limiting congestion as downtown has front of the past several decades. we can provide the public transportation options we can afford. there were some questions about

the funding program, specifically if we reached the right balance and are these the right numbers? again, the plan proposes two new revenue mechanisms you need to the plan. one is a new set of impact use. this plan will as well. there will be an open space fee on top of the existing downtown space beat and transportation fee. -- there will be an open space be on top of the existing downtown space fee and transportation fee. project south exceeding certain densities, would opt into in order to take advantage of the densities. the plan proposes a rate of 0.55% of annual assessed value, which we anticipate would raise upwards of $420 million over

several decades. all told, looking at $590 million of net new at public revenues for public infrastructure over the resources we have today. questions about the rate and the potential impact on the feasibility and on building. there -- all of the research shows and anecdotal evidence shows we should strive to keep property tax rates under 2%. that is the magic number of what can be tolerated. the current general tax rate that applies is 1.15% give or take every year. including the 0.55% raise that would bring the tax burden in the plant area to 1.7%. still substantially under the

theoretical 2% cap. melarose is a common use in redevelopment areas. the proposed rate at the new treasure island development project would bring the total package to 1.8 percent signed. that would be a 10th of a percent what we're proposing here. we're working with economic consultants and have led us to strongly believe this is a supportable rate, that it can be well accommodated by the increases in land value that is expected in the plan area. it is important to know that just looking at office space, an increase insupportable office rent is only three or $4 and would more than outweigh the annual cost to projects. we're talking about office rents that will already be in the $70 range. it is a relatively small increments. there were questions about what

projects that it would apply to. the trigger for the new mechanisms is the construction of new development. we do not have a mechanism to share the burden with the existing buildings. we cannot rope them into the mechanisms. we will apply them to the redevelopment. as i mentioned, infrastructure, the transit center paid for will increase property values. folks paying into it will substantially benefit from it. it is true existing buildings will be benefiting as well. it is just the luck of its existing are ready. the buildings that are getting entitled that will be participating have the benefits of being able to take advantage of donating. that is very substantial benefits.

there are some mechanisms that could be implemented in the future, not necessarily under the control of the city to share some of the cost of future maintenance and other operations. there has been discussions initiated by the private-sector of creating community benefit district that existing and new buildings could for dissipate and that would be relatively inexpensive but could help fund these in the future. the city has been participating in these discussions, and hopefully it will come to for tuition. -- fruition. one other important aspect in terms of the revenue that is going towards this program is recently just in the past few weeks the region, metropolitan transportation commission adopted a new transportation plan that lays out a funding

program to build in the downtown real extension, the first time there is a plan in place to do so. it basically, it's the region to putting forward the access as the highest priority. federal new starts for the project from the city and region, which would provide a sizeable share of the financially to build it. the amount the region is putting the city on the hook for is $450 million. this plan with largely get us there. it would not get as all the way there, but very close to meeting the region expectations for camp -- for san francisco's expectation for making this happen. it is a very important aspect. this is billions of additional savings.

the funding program is laid out in the implementation project as reviewed last session there is a large table that shared the allegations of all of the projected revenue and identified funds that will be used to build the infrastructure in the future. you have a nice copy at your desk. there is one item i wanted to call your attention to. yesterday we sent you a sheet with a couple of items that have corrections and minor modifications to the package that you already received. this goes in the clarification column. there is a line item or previously a line item that allocated $12.5 million from the projected open space impact fees for fees for open space improvements outside the plant

area and the broader downtown san francisco area. we just wanted to clarify that the line item would be divvied up into two separate items. $9 million of the 12.5 million would be allocated for the chinatown area for open space improvements to be identified in the future, and the other 3.5 million would be for other general downtown area improvements. and as part of the action before you, we would hope you consider this proposed additional item as part of the package. there were questioned last time from a number of the commissioners about an underground pedestrian tax between the transit center and a bart station, and because there were some of the questions, we thought we would give you a

brief presentation on the planning and design for that project. >> thank you. members of the commission. just wanted to come back and give you graphics more illustrative of the connector and at this study we have been doing to connect the transit center with bart. originally it included as a potential elements of the program a connection along fremont street. we subsequently studied multiple connections, both along fremont and feel street to the embarcadero, and also, along first street and market straight to new montgomery station. we reviewed these connections with bart, muni, many stakeholders, and initially we

were looking still at the fremont street connection, but beale street had a number of advantages. in working with high-speed rail, they have requested we extend the leak of a platform to accommodate 400 meter double length high-speed rail trains, which is causing us to add an extension to the train box to be constructed in phase two of the program, along with the tunnel. that brings the beale street alignment much more in the center of the below grade levels of the transit center. for a number of reasons, the beale street connection is seem to be preferable of monks the alignments of the study. first, it is a direct linear tunnel connection. it has the shortest distance and travel time for passengers connecting. it will have the lowest

construction cost of the alternative study, the shortest construction time, and it gives of very -- it works well with the point of entry, and also, the connection into the passenger concourse level of the embarcadero station. in this image shows of the alignment of feel street in where that would connect. on the east side of beals street, the above grade portions of the transit centers are constructed in phase one, and the proposed extension and where we would connect to the transit center. then, in the planned yoed view d where that comes in on the concourse level.

i will zoom in on the next slide. in that is the alignment along beale street. where that comes into the concourse level is what is the unpaid area in the northernmost platform of the rail levels that is intended to be for caltrans. we have a paid area for high- speed rail passengers on the south side and unpaid passengers on that this connection would come in to at the west end of the concourse level. i can answer any additional questions you may have about the connector. >>president fong: we will take

questions at the conclusion of the presentation. >> that concludes the various items that the commissioners have last time and we wanted to cover today. now i will does briefly walk you through the various actions that are before you today. there are seven. first, adoption of ceqa findings. including a statement of overriding considerations. the resolution before you shows all of the procedural requirements. this will include future action to take pursuant to the plan. next part adoption of a general plan amendments. these amendments would include a new transit center districts of

area plan to the downtown plan in making related amendments to the commerce and industry elements, urban design element, a transportation element. next, the planning code text amendments. these include the amendments related to various sections of the code. also included are of various amendments to the appendices of article 11 related that to historic resources. related item, item 4d includes requests for you to review and comment on the specific article which are under jurisdiction of the historic preservation district which you are required or requested to comment on. i will just turn it over so he

can say a couple of words about that item. >> thank you. good afternoon. as you have just heard, one of the items before you is to provide comments and recommendation on the proposed boundary change for the new montgomery second street conservation district. your comments and recommendations are requested regarding the proposal consistency with the general plan and regional housing and sustainability policies. the proposed boundary change would expand the boundary of the district to include 26 additional properties, primarily along market, mission, and howard street, and to change the name of the district of the second district conservation. of the 26 properties being added, 16 are proposed to be reclassified. category one, 10 properties a

category for, and three properties of category five. the department believes the proposed boundary change reinforces unique areas in the plan that contain a notable buildings that contain strong historical significance and meet the requirements for designation under article 11. furthermore, the proposed boundary changes before you today are consistent with the general plan and party policies of section 101.1, and consistent with the policies on housing, transit-oriented development and environmental sustainability and growth outlined and the general plan, downtown plan, and the plan in front of you today. the planning commission comments will be forwarded to the historic preservation commission, which will consider the boundary change and other reclassification and designation of properties under article 11 of the hearing on june 6, 2012.

the recommendations of both commissions will be forwarded to the board for final action. >> remaining items includes owning map a mammoth, which include amendments to four maps. the last two items include amendments to the administrative code, which we discussed last time, which involve amendments to chapters 10e and 6. last week, a resolution to recommend approval of the program implementation document, which contends the funding program and implementation actions related to the plan. in one other note