comment? >> sue hester, juster on the (inaudible) toward the end, he had the snap of central corridor, and after thought. and in terms of how the planning department is using this. we have this, this is the area of western soma plan, it does not have a youth and family zone on it. you should have that before that on every page. why is it important?

because the planning department em barks on a process that is very friendly to the developers and their attorneys and their lobbyists at the identical time that the community is working on the western soma plan. without a whole lot of resources and so, the planning department staff has enormous resources to wipe out everything that the community has done. there is a precedent for this. if you look at the chart, one of the charts that you have, it is a various things were adopted downtown (inaudible) was adopted in 1984, and it provoked around the downtown china town plan and north of market plan and south of market plan. there was a community-based planning processes to establish and keep the boundaries, at the same time. and you don't respect the community doing planning.

you respect the people that you pay not the volunteers who do the hard work. i am also raising for the third time at this chair, the question of sea level rise, it is huge, this corridor you have it. i am not hoping that some of this on the screen. this is the second report or the second to 6th street corridor, it is all bay street hill and what i remarked about earlier, it happened in this area and i could take you to the sites where they occurred and there were poor people and so they didn't count, there was enormous loss of a life and of housing and of buildings in south of market and the planning department should plan for people, and they are not. they are planning for architectural wonderment. and my priorities and i think that john's priorities is people. and low income people and

moderate income people and seniors and the philippineo community has a youth and family zone, and all of them are being thrown out so that the developers could be happy and yes they have a audience of developers and yes, they will always come. but we do not see that at all. we don't see the respect for community-based planning or for those people. thank you. >> and any further public comment? speakers? >> okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini? >> thank you, well, first we will address some of the comments from the public, i mean i think that the community includes all san francisco ans at the very least and while you certainly have to be cognoscente of the needs of those who happen to be living and working in the area at a particular time, san francisco changes over a period of time.

and so we have to weigh, you know, the input in all faction of the cities as to what is most desirable here and it may not be the status quo staying as it is and we acknowledge it by this plan and so that it is not going to be a strictly industrial area and it has not been and it is a mixed use area at best and we have to plan to make it the most servicable and also to realize the benefits of this huge investment with the central subway and other transit that we are putting in there and the need for growth of office space. so trying to weigh these

>> i looked at the focus group that you met on and it is a large group and a good group but it is almost entirely san franciscoans from the area. as opposed to getting some focus groups with businesses inside and outside of san francisco. because if you plan to build and increase an office space, maybe you better ask the businesses would you like broader floor plates or narrower, or what sort of a market is there for what you are trying to build? we would like to include other parts of the city and that is what the planning commission is for but it is important that we have a bigger turn out for these hearings for the people throughout san francisco and they are concerned about what is going on in these areas and they probably have ideas about how they could best be shaped too. and i think that is important. and a couple of ideas that i have, you have got an area that

is a little bit tough on pedestrians, and transportation needs are important and you have got these broad blocks that were built for industry and most of the time i am down there and traffic is racing by, real fast and it is not really pleasant to walk around. so some of the things that you are doing with wider sidewalks, makes a lot of sense. on streets that are not necessarily imperative that the transit traffic move quickly, there are some streets that will have to move that way but wherever you can if you can convert to the two-way streets and if you, convert to a street that you make a mid cross stopping and it might add to a little traffic congestion, but if you work on these on streets, where the traffic does not necessarily need to flow quickly to get to a freeway or, you know, i think that there are a lot of possibilities to do that.

i like the idea of south park, west type of concept in one of those parks where instead of just a big green area you could possibly put an interior street that would be some what like south park, where you would have smaller structures that would probably be retail, supporting, or you know, not any housing or maybe some smaller businesses but it would make not only a park but it would cause a fine, grain fabric sort of in the middle of where you have these larger buildings. >> so that was the few of the things that i came up with. the pdr uses that were there, it may be advisable or better for them economically, to shift to pdr zoned or pdr 2 to the south. where, their cross will be less, and they will be closer to their products moving out on freeways and leaving san

francisco to the south. i'm not saying flower mart would necessarily go there, i don't know what the intentions of the flower mart are, i am certainly a strong advocate for them and i think that they are an important resource in the city and whether they want to move out or super a lot to do with their own needs, but, you know, if they were to relocate down towards bay view, somewhere it might be better for them but we want to make sure that they will stay in san francisco and continue to be viable. and the height ideas look good. you know, i think that it is a step in the right direction, i definitely want to see a two way, fulsom i thought that was a plan that we were going to have and wherever we could find the other streets that would lend themselves to two-way traffic makes it a lot more pleasant for the people who are walking, or working, living, and recreational uses, it just

makes it a lot more pleasant to be there. and on lot consolidation, i think that some lots are to make the one that you would want to protect and what you would allow it in and what will make the most sense, a lot of steps in the right direction, and i think that the emphasis towards the increased amount of business space of various kinds makes a lot of sense and there has to be some housing included in some parts of this too, i think. commissioner borden? >> it looks like you have done the refinements since the last time that you saw it and that you presented the community issues that you are trying to graple with, did you have the benefit of seeing his plan for today and do you have any

comments? i mean, just for the few minutes that i have it. i have at least compared the height limits if you look at what he proposed and what the concepts and like the odd height limits and i just got this and the rest of it, and some of the concepts that he proposed and how he was considering it or at least considering it as part of the discussion in the eir. >> sure. >> we didn't, you know, with john and his staff for quite a while since the plan began and

he shared the earlier drafts before this week with us and so we have seen some of the evolution and you know, i say, i think that it is a little bit accusations in the past. and so, i think that there is a good deal of agreement on some of the key matters in terms of looking at the areas south of harrison street and fourth and particularly the larger opportunity sites which are really lightly currently utilized for the major developments that you can see in the draft and you do have the height limits along the 150 feet along the street and a lot of it in terms of the major land use and the commercial growth and the high ideas are very similar. and clearly, i feel strongly that there ought not to be residential uses in the area, in sort of this summit overlap area. and we hear that loud and clear and we have committed to

including in the eir and no housing during it so that when the time comes before the decision makers, we can kind of decide one way or the other. the department feels that there are definitely benefits to including housing in this area, in terms of sort of 20, or more seven-day a week, and you know, activity in the evening and so forth. certainly that could also come from the hotels, but there is just, you know, there is pros and cons. we definitely also are looking at some of the fine grained issues whether it is lot consolidation or retail development and other rules and those are a lot of the key things that we need to flush out over the next year and we are committed to working closely with them to define the right zoning solutions for a lot of these issues. >> in terms of the value, i have not studied this, but it would be useful if we could find out or look at now, kind

of what is in the pipeline or what has been proposed, i know in some cases that he indicated things that he has known or proposed in various areas and i guess that one of the questions that came up with the sally with western soma and there was one project in the pipeline and what to do about that, and i think that since the bigger area of one block, or a couple of blocks in that case, to have some sort of handle over what is existing there, and then what has been proposed or what is in the pipeline there, and it would be helpful so that when we are looking at the housing variant, we could have something, to compare it against. and but, i think that things are moving at a better direction, i think and i also believe that you know, like i just started to look at his and i looked forward to sitting down with you and talking more

about it, i think that there are great ideas here and i do see that there is a lot of, you know, a common agreement, of some you know, conditional use proposed verses what we would instead have in that zoning, i think that i can't comment more than that, but i think that it seems to be based upon the kind of feedback that you are get and what you have provided that things are moving positively. >> commissioner hillis? >> thank you for the presentation, i think that it was great. in it seems like you have done a ton, working with the community and labors and organizations and clearly not just developers, i mean, clearly the own developer that called me on this was john (inaudible) and we certainly are listening to developers, we are listening to staff and people in the neighborhood. but, a question on the lot consolidation, which i think is an interesting issue and

complex, are you or is the way that you are looking at it now is just having a limits on the lot consolidation is whether it is a cu or no lot consolidation in the areas that are circled or also a broader control on lot consolidation. >> at this time we are looking at those focused docs. when we look at the idea of having a broader consolidation and control, a lot of the major developments, are actually made up of a bunch of different parcels under the same ownership that have funky configurations whether it is parcels that right near the cal train station or just the bank-owned properties. we felt that a really brunt kind of broad lot consolidation would really limit on what we can agree on are the major opportunity sites that are lightly developed. and we went on to focus the controls in the area that kind of have a fabric of more small scale lots and buildings and

that is not to say that we end up something that addresses or has broad application and only targets the small lots and we will continue to work on that. >> and there is an existing controls on lot consolidation. >> i don't believe that applied in this area and we have them ultimates where in the city. >> that was the first planned area where we introduced them and they are based on sort of maximum lot frontages for consolidated lots. and then the lots with the box with the mosconian gardens, did you look at it and is there any effort to fix the streets on those, and so those, i don't know if it is possible, or but it is obviously just kind of a dead block with it. >> trust me we would love to. we are, you know, they are proposing an expansion, which they are looking at in the same time frame. >> right. >> and they would hope to and they would hope to fix the

street edges where the next phase of expansion would go at the corner of third and howard. >> and the plans, they would like to do more, but so far those are not moving forward. and so there is nothing, short of the only thing that we can do to force them to do it now, with the idea that we could do it with new growth and development. >> and i think that it would be good to encourage and try to get them to do something, i mean i know that the expansion is across third. so it does not necessarily what they are doing work. >> the extension is not actually, that was initially a concept that they are looking at. they are actually going under howard and doing both sides of the howard on the west side. they are not moving forward yet with the expansion across third. >> right, okay >> and even on the other on the north side, i think that metrion has done stuff to improve theirs and you are at a center of the arts and i don't know if there is a lot that could be done but it is a great organization but i think that

the building still is... >> think that it

is a preponderance of it and it would just be the changing in zoning. >> in closing, we are looking at the way to accommodate the growth and you are much like the transbay and i think that we are not getting the big cry about side and

talking to each and really discussing challenge and with each other in front of some of us. and i think that the project that we have had, the market, and they have come out of the maturing dialogue where the people who are in the neighborhood and doing the day-to-day working and fighting, on the front line are in dialogue with you. and start to shape at a level of detail what it can carry successfully into the future, that would be my ideal dialogue to listen and to observe and not to intervene but to see you talk about with each other that i can feel the depth of what really needs to happen here and that will shape, then, the guidelines and some of them of

the more reasonable alternatives to look in and after the eir process is done, i think that i like to have that additional level of detail mature a little bit more. the next thing that i would like to do and i would like to challenge you, for me, as well as with the proposal, and you actually, the protection of the (inaudible) of the developing and ultimate to the quint sen shall, to give the recognizable place in this area, i would like you to create some maps where you combine, suggested protection areas of protecting the small lot size with the historic resource and show them together, because, small buildings on their own, don't necessarily have, a historic preservation aspect. they are only strong because of their scale, but when you combine them with the notable other resources i think that

you can make not only one minus two, but you can make that one and one is more than three and that is where you start to create a critical mass of recognizable district and a recognizable place on which you can then put and attach your guidelines, including open space improvements and additional buildings etc.. sml of the approaches that you put forward, i would like to have you add the suitable architecture to that as well. you are showing the examples into the photographs and you need to translate that more and because i am not interested in the glass box relative to materials, and the proper proportion of the open and closed building elements and something which is really, the dna of that area.

and most people were (inaudible) fighting for the proper expression and we need to see that in order to see you, carry the guidelines forward and we will get the instruction that we do appreciate all of the stuff that you have done and i think that you are putting a lot on the table and i hope that you can indeed make this mature to a full rounded dialogue in the next month of two or three. >> thank you. >> let me offer a couple of place thoughts. it is much more digestable than the last time that i saw it. i think some of that comes from the dialogue can todco. these topics are technical and i think that there should be a public engagement to it and that is sort of area 101 and i

don't know if that is a thing but trying to give the people the concept of how you might of thought about the uses and the height and i know that is actual usually part of the over all presentation but really digging deep into it and the people can take their own goals for the neighborhood and think about how that would turn into the code or how that would turn into zoning. and i think that that is an important part of the dialogue in addition to talking about the tdr and lot consolidation and on and on. and also i would like to see the zoning of the maps. and it is reenlifened because of the hotel project that was continued today. i think that there are maybe differing opinions or memories of what the zone was. so i think that there already is this discussion going on about what or how to solidify it. lastly i will say that i am

supportive of the affordable housing and supportive of using the publicly owned sites to think about the public goods and i would love to see that in more plans. >> commissioner antonini? >> i know that this, discussion began with an emphasis on the need to meet our projected demand for office space. however, i think that the case can be made for including some housing along with it. for a lot of reasons. we just looked into that with transbay and we realized that for the transbay to being successful we have the office building and we have housing in there and we talked about the mid market and the many people have said, we are going to have to provide housing and have 24-hour presence for the people to be able to support the other services in the area. between the retail and things like that and there is sort of a critical mass of population

that you need admittedly this is not that big. the housed through the jobs but it will make it a more viable area if we can find a happy medium and allow the housing because sometimes the mix used project is much more likely to go forward because you have got some of the costs of the office and some of the costs of the other things that they have to do could be offset by whatever the housing happens to be. and so that, i think, is important to look at that and decide if it is happening in part of the area and historically san francisco has been a city always even back to victor an days where you provided housing over office retail that were on the ground levels and in the top levels were housing and so, i know, a lot bigger buildings here and different sizes, but, it probably is not a bad thing to look at if it fits into the

equation. because we have already got housing there because as the people talk about the family zones there are people living there and you can't have other people living there and it adds to the vitality of the neighborhood. >> commissioner moore? >> i want to express my support for your comments regarding public sites looking at affordable housing. all of the other sites surrounding... and transbay are mostly sites which have a small portion of the title of affordable housing that we are looking for. while we talk about affordable housing and growth in the area, i would encourage us to also look at institutional uses from anticipating schools, communities facility and healths etc. and because that area, as it is now really turns its use into something where people live and work.

we have a great absence of those types of facilities and i think in order to have really the proximity, live, work and we need to have the proximity of the schools, house and open space and i like to ask for the community facilities to be another ingredient which we anticipate and that obviously speaks about police and fire as well but that is planned as someone else and anticipating schools and parks and housing. where i think that we need to take a specific stand. >> thank you. >> we are going to place it under public comment, i have speaker cards. is there any general public comment? >> public comment is closed and i believe that we are adjourning. >> in honor of the dew iko on

his last day of service. >> yes, i started my career with him. >> who knew that he was a bus driver?