the plan was published in april. phase ii of the planning process is sort of twofold. one is the environmental analysis process, the notice of preparation for the e-i-r was published in april and that e-i-r is now commencing and that should take, as you know, some time, probably 18 months to get through the whole process about a year before we get the draft next spring. but during that process, while that's going on, we plan to keep this project on the front burner and continue to delve into the critical details of fleshing out the plan than recovered by major prep sails [speaker not understood] so forth in the plan. i'll go into a little more detail. that's the purpose of this briefing. phase iii is the culmination of the process where we bring it back together after the e-i-r process with implementation measures, ordinances and so forth for your adoption. for the next 18-month period, how do we know which issues

identified. [speaker not understood]. secondly, we held a public meeting last week which was well vetted, 40 or 50 people were in attendance. we asked what do you want to talk about over this next year and a half? and thirdly, we're here to share that list with you and get your feedback. so, the makeup of these topics, the goal of this phase is to really delve into some of the key details that haven't been flederction out to date. some of the broad basic proposals in terms of land use and building heights. we spent the last two years working on those and talking about those and we really framed the alternatives and those alternatives will be analyzed in the e-i-r, as well as i'm sure some other alternatives. while we wanted to continue to get people's feedback and read the plan and digest it and sit with the mainly components for the next many months, ~ major ~ we're hoping to delve into it

in finer grain than land use and urban forum proposal. so if i could get the slides on the screen. we can just run through the topics. so, this is a synthesis of the list that we developed on our own as well as the things that came up at the public meeting last week. so, the first category would be things related to land use and i'll just read them off. i won't go into any detail, but i'm happy to answer questions. one is requiring purchase of development capacity. basically setting the rules regarding far, transferrable rights, or any program that speaks to how people achieve sort of the maximum density envisioned in the plan. second is fleshing out the concept of introducing the plan in terms of the office and residential ratios on large lots. the plan proposes to concentrate mostly commercial spate in large part of the plan that allows some housing. how do we arrive at that mix. third neighborhood serving uses we heard a lot from the community wanting to make sure we get sufficient neighborhood oriented uses whether it be

retail or other services. so, that's really controls and other incentive. commercial displacement, something that came up at the hearing last week. people want to see if we can come up with any strategies to mitigate issues displacing existing commercial uses. next, foyerv lereah tail coil, something we want to hear what people's opinions are. next, hotel controls. definitely hotel are in the mix. we want to talk about what size is appropriate, where they're appropriate, any other matters related to hotels. next, arts and entertainment. we've heard both people's interest in talking about incentives for arts and entertainment uses as well as kind of strategies for mitigating any conflicts that might arise with other uses. next specifically the flower mart. this is a key site in the plan area and it of itself deserves a whole long conversation about the future of that property. and, so, we intend to kind of have a discussion about that. and last land use topic would

be recreation and athletic facilities. this is something that came up at the meeting last week. next, urban forum, we want to talk about what kind of incentives we might be able to create in the rezoning retention for maybe nonhistoric buildings that really add to the character of the south of market. next limitations on parcel consolidation, that's a key interest we want to delve into. setbacks and building controls, taking our broad height and form ideas and massaging them and working at a higher level of detail. and then lastly, design guidelines for key development sites. this relates to the fire marshal as well as other notable development sites or possible development sites in the plan area and really coming up with a more fine grain set of design guidelines for those sites. next, public realm. there's a lot of interest in really fleshing out the ideas for new public park on the

block between fourth, fifth brannan and brian. we want to have more conversations about that. and then design about proposed open spaces, there is a slew of sort of other smaller spaces and there is certainly a lot of conversation we can have about those details. and then implementation, some things that came up at last week's meeting included -- visiting what we can spend impact fees on in this area versus the rest of the eastern neighborhoods as well as priorities. there certainly have been priorities expressed in the eastern neighborhoods to date and there is a whole process set up with this new plan coming forward. should we revisit those priorities or add to them? and then thirdly, the geographical indication of impact fees. this came up at the meeting last week where people expressed interest in talking about how we prioritize expenditures geographically within the eastern neighborhoods in terms of where growth is happening and where improvements should be best targeted.

so, those are the core topics that we think we're going to focus on. there are some other topics that have come up that are very important that we will be working on that may be in parallel with this process that relate to issues that are maybe a little broader than the central corridor, but -- or involve other agencies and other kind of decision processes. if we can get the slides back up. and that includes the effective sea level rise and climate change. this air ca of the city is at a low elevation and we will be working with the port as well as other agency stakeholders in this part of the city. and there are some grant opportunities we have to look at some strategies for dealing with sea level rise and climate change adaptation. streets and circulation, we work very closely with the mta to get to the set of proposals that are in the plan, but there is a lot of refinement to be done in this whole separate kind of parallel public out

reach and engagement and approval process. [speaker not understood]. [speaker not understood] there is a task force set up and they parallel with this plan, with a whole broad range of stakeholders to engage in a plan to come up with an eco did district plan. some of those ideas will be feeding back into this plan before it comes to adoption. so, in terms of the process on how we plan to deal with these different topics, one is finalizing this list of topics that can evolve over the time we have in front of us. and, so, what we plant to do is through our mailing list and our website, invite people to choose which topics they want to really directly engage on and at the same time engage technical experts whether it be from other city agencies or the private sector including nonprofit, advocacy groups, academics, developers to try to flesh out these ideas. with the help of all these people planning staff would develop essentially policy working papers on each of these popics, framing the issue and providing additional strategies for addressing it. then we would share these with

the broader community and hold focus meetings as appropriate to flesh them out. ~ and then we would have these to inform the final decisions at the end of the process next year. so, that essentially concludes my presentation. we hope that this strategy and this list of topics will keep things on the front burner rather than going dark the next 18 months while the e-i-r is humming along and showing up with [speaker not understood] proposal. we hope to really collaborate with people to flesh out the plan as we move forward. so, were that, i'm happy to take any questions. thank you. >> thank you. why don't we take public comment first. i have one speaker card, john elderling. would the secretary please distribute these to the commission? thank you, commissioners. i'm john elderling, president of the taco group. quickly, josh left two things off the list that definitely many of us want to see which is affordable housing, how to do

it. the most we can in the central corridor. and number two, the future -- the youth and family zone and how to improve that and make it achieve more of its stated goal. but today i wanted to ask you to look at specifically the macro economic strategy that really underlies this document, and what's wrong with it quite honestly. we believe that so far this plan really is based on bubble nomics, not sound economic planning for the city's future and the south of market part of it. a very interesting part of the document is the appendix in the back where the staff responded to our critiques that given the long-term average of only three quarters of a million square feet of office actually absorbs [speaker not understood] in the city, the 8 to 10 million square feet this plan would allow just in south of market is way too much.

and the reason it's way too much is because the city is already committed itself as public/private financing for the transit center district and the central waterfront, the ports capital needs and mission build out. it's already committed itself to about 10 million square feet of office development and those locations already committed. and if you take three quarters of a million square feet over 20 years, that's only 15 million feet of demand. and if you add 10 to 10 you've got 20. and that's not counting other projects in your pipeline and there's quite a few. ~ in other parts of the central business district. you just cannot be -- we cannot be as a city, act like kids in the toy store with an unlimited credit card who can just order as many office buildings everywhere and assume magically they'll all be built and transit center will be funded and the port's capital needs will be funded. it doesn't work. the reason it won't work is because office development south of market has an inherent advantage.

the costs are lower. there are not super high-rises like the transit district. they don't need the same $100 square foot rents and they don't have the major infrastructure cost needs that the central waterfront projects do on port property. they don't have to carry that. so, they will be able to undercut the priority projects that you have already decided as commission we will depend on to fund crucial public goals over the next 20 years. there has to be a mid range alternative identified, well thought out in this plan in between the current zoning and the proposed zoning, something like our plan which proposes 4 to 5 million square feet of office space in the central corridor area. so that you will not -- these public goals will not fail. if you approve this plan today, you very likely the transit center caltrain extension will fail and very likely the port will not be able to develop those two sites in the foreseeable future. thank you. >> thank you. is there further public

comment? okay, seeing none. >> ma'am, did you want to speak to this item? [inaudible]. for examinations, for a goal business literacy as well as [speaker not understood] retainer for planning commission. i just wanted to be able to ask a remiter for admittance to be able to determine simple information that will be relevant for planning commission if i can be able to have a break for at least like 7 to 10 minutes [speaker not understood] if anyone [speaker not understood] if there is a time limit -- >> right now public comment is limited to 3 minutes. okay, 3 minutes, i'll be short and simple. i want to make sure that this is relevant for planning commission.

i had heard so many information about engagement -- >> i'm sorry to interrupt you, but are you speaking to the central corridor plan, the information that was just -- well, this is information that is vital to [speaker not understood] about displacement, for commercial displacement and that's what i really wanted to talk about first of all, because this is a similar calendar which is significant to planning commission and it has to do significant with planning and zoning permit licensing as well as inquiries for commercial displacement. commerce displacement for environmental acquisition at this time for the pacific heights location, which is my planning and zoning that significant for the city and county of san francisco, for myself as substantiating a state premisy. i was interested in the statements that were made

before previous, that were other statements in the matters of returning and as well as submitting evidence that will be relevant for the mayor's neighborhood services as well as other inquiries, planning events. subsequent for students, student fairs such as myself. the students of san francisco city college, my name is dee anna [speaker not understood] sullivan. i want to san mateo county sure this is relevant if it is dealing with brokers or purveyors for the city. i was discussing information that was [speaker not understood] about commercial displacement. first of all, for acquisition property that was eight figures. i was interested for purchase agreement, for planning and commissions in looking for surveyors that were like equity for the leasing and rental which was [speaker not understood] for my entrance. i was displeased for parties at

205 ocean avenue. i wanted to make this relevant privately with my board members, we have relevant evident this was a financial statement i had submitted before previous -- this was not today, but this was previous. ~ there and i had submitted inquiries about nbc financial statement, they said the financial statement was disbarment for 205 ocean avenue of legal law practices. this is for legal law practices for administrations for students that are business literate from a financial statement of zero equity to a financial statement of commercial paper. this was commercial displacement on united states -- my calendar for united states as well as san francisco county of san francisco. for the planning commission [speaker not understood], i would like to dismiss this record and submit an order that i would like to schedule calendar and admit. >> thank you, ma'am, your time is up. all right. >> any further public comment

on the central corridor item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> i wanted to express my appreciation to mr. switzky about laying out topics of further refinement. it's very important in the absence of having heard the plan as we read it and familiarize ourselves with it to know what is missing. i think that is a very wise strategy. i'd like to ask that the ledger which i received this morning at about 11:20 be put into the record that is council of community housing [speaker not understood] written by fernando marti speaking on those issues which he focused on, mr. switzky, i think you were copied. if not, i will give you the letter. i think the director has it. it lays out concerns about the absence of mid range zoning alternatives. it speaks about project objectives, examination of

residential den its, socioeconomic impact analysis, briefly touched on by mr. elderling. the two parties are agreeing on the parts that are missing. [speaker not understood], 5, local hiring stipulations, and 6 as already mentioned by mr. elderling, former youth and family sud. something this commission spoke strongly to when we reviewed the hotel on 4th street as it was at the border of youth and family zone. we all realized that the eastern neighborhoods plan did not give us any ability to implement community benefits for that particular district and we all agreed with each other that we wanted this to be a very, very important discussion item in the central corridor plan. thank you. and you can take this [inaudible]. >> thank you. commissioner antonini.

>> yeah, i think this is a very important area. it's an area in transition, and i'm currently reading a book on the port called the negotiated landscape, and there are some similarities, although the port situation is much more complicated than is the central corridor area and the area south of market. but some of the same principles apply because many of the uses that were industrial uses that were present over the years and flourished in this area are no longer practical. some can still be supported and blending those into business and residential uses along with the real constraints or the strains that are put on by freeways going through there and all the traffic that runs through that area. i think there are many, many challenges and i think this has the potential to be a very successful area, but has to be handled carefully and it has to be done with, you know, taking

into consideration all the different factors. and i think it can't be an area where business can flourish, but it also can be a residential area. ~ can be an area with the flower mart, obviously we have to talk to the owners, the flower merchants themselves and find out what their future plans are, whether they plan to try to remain there, whether they want to relocate and make sure if they are going to relocate, that it be somewhere within san francisco. and there may be an area that's more appropriate and serves them better that has even closer access to freeways and other parts of the city where the retailer will come and pick up the product. so, that's certainly the important thing there. as far as impact fees, i think the emphasis should be on trying to ameliorate a lot of problems that exist in the area. we have these really wide

streets. and if they're going to be streets where we're going to have a lot of pedestrian traffic and people living there, then we may have to work mid-block crossings and do some traffic calming on some of the streets, but allow traffic to flow as it has to on the other streets. the same with bike lanes. i think some streets might lend those, but some streets bike should be discouraged because of the intense amount of traffic that's going to go on through and already does through that area. the final issue i had, gi noticed yesterday when i was walking from the ball game for muni at king street ~ is a little difficult because it's such a busy intersection with pedestrians, with traffic coming off of 280, even if 280 is some day changed to a surface area, it's going to be the same amount of traffic. and i really think that muni should consider a gradient

situation where they bring muni underneath king to be able to make it -- you know, they're building a subway, but it's going to be a bottleneck there at that point because it's going to take forever to get through king street. and i think that would be something they should consider as part of the plan. there's so much being spent already that it would make it a lot more pleasant, make it safer for pedestrians who are going to caltrain, at least as long as the station is there. so, those are my main comments just in general. >> commissioner hillis. >> just a couple questions for mr. switzky. on your list which i think is extremely important issue, limiting consolidation of parcel, is there an approach yet to this that is being proposed or we're just recognizing we're going to need to do it and figure out the best way? >> there is not a specific proposal yet. the plan suggests at minimum there would be some sort of

conditional use process with some sort of really specific criteria about design criteria or other mechanisms to ensure that any consolidation results in a [speaker not understood] fabric. we're open to a collaborative discussion covering that. >> kind of the yerba buena public block discussion, trying to fix that around the convention center and just make those amok feel better at a pedestrian level, is that something you're looking at? given the fact that moscone is again looking at expansion, i think it's, you know, it's an opportunity to look at some of those blocks again and try to fix them. >> yeah, the specific conditions around the perimeter of the moscone blocks are really the subject of the moscone expansion project and they're taking that on in a lot of detail. our e-i-rs are running in parallel and there's a lot of coordination going on. so, the analysis going into

both the e-i-rs, pedestrian conditions, everything will be, will be consistent with each other and we're engaged on that. the central corridor plan in terms of our broader look, we're focused more on folsom street and third and fourth, but not the immediate kind of front alans which are real technical challenge that the moscone project is taking on directly. >> if i might add, commissioner, moscone has a separate e-i-r from central corridor plan, but we are sharing the transportation component, the transportation study is one study for both projects. >> moscone is not looking where they're 135edctionving. they're looking to try to fix the -- >> yes, we all recognize there are some dreadful pedestrian conditions around the center. between their project and ours come up with some better solutions. >> thank you. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, commissioner hillis mentioning the small lots and protecting potential merging of

these lots. in the plan on page 7, those particular blocks where this condition exists are outlined, but it's also interesting that at the same time we're trying to protect assets, the bottom two charts show those very assets being in the area's high potential growth. so, there's an inherent conflict already in the plan, if you ask me. so, that should be something i think that people should be concerned about. also, it wasn't mentioned yet, but i've mentioned it previously and that is the whole issue of pdr, sli and i think it's called the western soma sli and the zoning that exists to protect small businesses and commercial establishments and production and, you know, all of the thing that the city at one time thought were priority areas especially in the eastern neighborhoods plan. i know the language that's

being used is that the eastern neighborhoods plan didn't really protect these particular blocks of pdr uses because it kind of kicked the decision off into the central corridor plan. and also in terms of the western soma plan, there's language there introduced, i don't know if we crafted it or staff did, about the eastern edge sort of being, you know, what it is now, but that also could be looked at in terms of zoning. now, in this plan, all of that disappears and is replaced by some kind of new zone called muo, which means pdr is gone. and i think that's an issue for land use that should be added to the list. and it seems like this plan is -- let me read this. it says evaluate the western soma sud for consistency with the objectives of this plan in the area of overlap.

i think the wording is backwards. i think it should be that the objectives of this plan should be examined for consistency with the western soma plan since it's in the plan we already adopted. so, i think that there's an inherent bias in the way this plan is written so that it somehow come out in front and everything else that we've already adopted are put on the back burner. >> thank you. let me add a couple thoughts on some topics that have been mentioned. i think in particular i have concerns about the existing communities that live in these neighborhoods. and, so, i'm hoping that we can find a way to actually study displacement in the e-i-r. i think coming off the conversation, the plan bay area, there was some sort of percentage assigned to the impact of displacement. i don't know what the methodology was or if it can be applicable, but i'd like us to look into that.

i also was reading an e-i-r out of l.a. not too long ago about their regional connector transit project and it actually had analysis of displacement of small businesses, which i've never seen in an e-i-r we've done. so just interested how they were able to study that and, again, what the methodology was. i think in particular the question of displacement is the question of a for thable hosing, that new units are more expensive to build. if we can do more to preserve existing units, preserve tenants in those units, i think that's really important. it may lead us -- doing that analysis may lead us to develop tools and strategies. similarly, i think there are a couple items on this list that really do pay attention to the existing community. neighborhood serving uses, commercial displacement, the open space items, and then echoing commissioner hillis, looking at pedestrian safety and the prioritization of the

infrastructure impact fee. so, hopefully we can work on those items going forward. commissioner antonini. >> just a couple other thoughts. i don't think office demand is a sum zero game. if this area is true -- it was commented on by one of the public speakers, using the figured and saying only a certain amount of demand is going to exist, this area might be more attractive. it isv' true, but it is not only competing with uses like the transit district or other districts that we're contemplating. it's competing with suburban areas. and this would be an attractive area and we could attract business that might not come to san francisco. but we could bring them here if we had broad floor plates and had office space competitive with south san francisco and

other areas that would come to this area. i think that may be the business future of this area because you can't zone demand or success. just because you zone it for industrial uses doesn't mean they're going to be successful and there are a lot of things against continued industrial uses. some pdr uses might survive depending on what they do. i'm not saying they can't, but large production type of facilities are going to be better off further to the south in the core pdr areas. i've always thought that. and finally as far as the residents, i think this is an area that has changed many times over the years. i think the present residents are important, but you can't make the whole plant just to meet the present residence. it has to be an area that has residential base that is fair to everyone. those who are here now, those who want to live here in the future. and, you know, i think that's the way to treat the whole thing fairly. so i think there are a lot of

overlying principles with this and it's another revisiting of the whole thing we talked about in eastern neighborhoods. but much of the discussion had to do with pdr in those days, but we specifically put in areas where the core pdr should be. i think whether you zone it or not, it's going to be a challenge for pdh-type industries to continue in this area. ~ pdr-type industries to continue in this area. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further on this item, we can move on to general public comment. at this time members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda item. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. i don't have any speaker cards. >> is there any general public comment?