will provide employment for a lot of people who will fit that category and it is just a small hotel, but any hotel that has the effect of providing a lot of service, jobs that are connected with it. and also, it was brought up by the commissioner moore about retrofitting older buildings and what is being done with the pacific telephone and ylep at the market square which was the furniture market before and a lot of the older buildings that have storages and elevators and even new floor plates and a lot of those are being worked on and maybe more will because there is a lot of interesting, some of the older buildings from the 20s and the only thing on transportation, i think that we are going to need to address that really significantly, and we can't have all of the transportation on the existing streets above ground, we will have to have more subways and take advantage of the hills which the previous generations

have not and dig the tunnels through them and connect the parts of the city through tunnels and make it easier for the transit to move and not have competition continuously between the cars, buses, pedestrians, on surface streets, trying to minimize that as much as possible >> we are close to the end here. because i have all of the answers. nobody has the specific true right answer. i do see and i will have to highlight some of the things and some of my own thoughts and you do see a pattern of the appeal of san francisco and a lifestyle, or the people moving to san francisco, many of them who we know, without a job and find themselfs in high cost living area while still searching for jobs for quite a while and i can see that problem for having many in san francisco that are well

educated but jobless. i do like the idea of trying to stay pro-active to it and not reactive as we have have in the past. i think that being reactive really helps and stimulates, driving real estate cost really higher because the people are in the panic mode to buy, sell or find themselves places i like the idea of zoning, and i am a believer that even if you zone an area for growth does not mean that it will help in a way and the market will control itself, but it does get out of control but at some point as we have seen in the last eight years, because of the difficult in getting money it does sort of self-regulate itself and this kind of leads to a larger discussion, probably beyond us, and with the mayor's office of economic workforce development with the jobs and what they are focusing on and what jobs can be created and the sectors that

we don't know about yet. and so, i would like to sort of at some point, bring in the other spokes of the wheel to the equation, but, commissioner moore has more questions. would i like to pick up on commissioner wu said displacement and creating a city setting that is more retaining and friendly for families that were required a response to looking at it more comprehensive for me and understanding of the sufficient number of schools, and the children and education at large, community facilities, parks and open space and everything which comes when you have a diverse population, which is not just the tech people moving in and out and including those stages, but those people ultimately become the cohesive future of the population of the city. >> thank you, commissioners. i appreciate that. i would be happy to continue this dialogue in other forums. i will say a couple of things

about, i don't think that there is anybody in here that will question the need for mta to get better. um, i and we are looking close with them, and i am trying to figure that out, i will say that with respect to other parts of the need to have amenities grow with plans, with the development, we are, i mean, as part of the reason for doing these plans, the transit center plan adds 11 acres of open space that does not exist today and i think that commissioner moore with more about the financial district and the trend to the older buildings is to convert them to housing. and so i do think there is that and i would argue that we are going to see more of that and we are going to as those buildings become the need for those buildings and renovation to come forward we can easily some of them convert to housing as well. again there is no magic answer here. with the office of economic and

workforce development and ken rich was supposed to be here and had to be called away. there is also a need to give or to have capacity for more than you actually need to provide some flexibility in the market. so that we are not, so that we are not really maximizing and driving up rents even higher. and now, there are those who knows what that magic number is, but for example, some people say that you should rezone the north part of the bay view, but that is not what this is all about, the question is how much above the demand should we zone for? there should be some flexibility there, recognizing the projects don't move forward and that the things, that allows the market some flexibility, in pricing, and on locations that is kind of what we are looking at here too. >> commissioner moore? >> i would like to share one thought with you and that comes up a lot in planning and city,

for me. the one thing that we are always advising the cities and developers to do is avoid the leap frog development which is describing the opportunity side and increase the speculation and i do believe that we are showing minor signs of speculative, or real estate speculation here as well. because i think that ultimately in order to build a cohesive city and district by district and maximize transit investment where it is and rather than randomly expanding out to where it isn't. i think that mr. (inaudible) would also need to make sure that the amount of entitlement which is not realized is not so accessive that ultimately you are not out zoning yourself, because you are unable to fill the 15 million square feet, where you are onlier absorbing

$750,000 a year. the leap frog is that it is not creating the economic efficiency that you are thinking about. >> thank you. >> i hope that we can continue to have this conversation, and similar conversations i think, it is a great forum here. >> thank you. >> likewise. >> commissioners final item, number 1 4 for the central corridor plan, updates. >> john, for the department. i'm going to start this presentation and staff will continue it. the details, i'm just giving an overview about where we are and what we are doing here. just to remind you, the central corridor plan, study area is

bond by the market street on the north and townskend on the north and second street on the east and as you recalled it is back to the eastern neighborhood plan, very late in that planning process, this area was covered or most of that area was covered in that planning process and we made the decision fairly late in that process to not rezone that area. and to take a fresh look at it. and the central corridor, and the central subway, i should say and partially what this is about. so there are key goals of the plan, and one is to support city-wide objectives for transit growth, particularly workplace growth to build on the character of what makes south of market attractive. and i will thank john for kind of steering us on the right course on that and making sure that we are not talking about a

new high-rise district here but what we are talking about is the south of market with the high-rises. we will improve the ground and provide the supporting infrastructure. there are four diagrams that i will speak to quickly and i can speak to the kind of jist of the plan and one is that we have tried to identify the key assets and the neighborhood characteristics, there is a broad range of the destinations on this street. and fourth street is essentially the becoming of the main street and we are trying to reinforcement that and there is a number of older buildings and great architecture that we are trying to address through our residential on claves and there are also several blocks that we are trying to maintain. and so what that results in is that when you look at the potential opportunities for growth. and it really is in these

darker red areas, which is a fairly small part of the over all study area that we are looking at fairly small area to increase the densities. importantly, the reason that we are not seeing the north part, it is zoned in c3, and the elements and that is not changing what i am proposing in the zoning in the northern part of the sight, near where the transit site exists of course. this shows to protect the key

assets and identifying the force as a major corridor kind of a main street and require the ground, floor retail, areas where we will restrict a lot more areas where we would it leads us to this diagram that we have the potential in some areas and higher growth in the south west corner of the sight it is a small part to increase the development potential. and with that i will turn it over

>> we have been seeing the plan for two years now and it is largely interesting, and the bursting ideas and feedback and refining and starting all over again and that is what we are doing for two years and we are hoping to release, in a couple of weeks, the document of the draft plan and start the eir, so that this is moving forward. to talk about 16 months. to hopefully be back in front of you for 2014, for adoption and we will hopefully with these issues to discuss today. we talk about all of the lifting that we have done, and it is important to point out

that, we have met with practically with as men groups as we could find and we did not just say, hey come to us, we went to them and we looked up the groups and called them, invite us to your already organized meetings so we can have greater attendance and we have been here now four times and we have walking tours and we had a storefront in the community, where the people could come in and talk to us. to talk about the remaining issues that we have with the traffic force and we have various conversations with mta about the comprehensive look, and not just for this plan but for all of soma and for the eco districts and for the proposed park site that we are going to

talk about. this is the existing land uses in soma, i think that it was referred to, it is all of the colors that you could have. so here is the base line conditions, the zoning will slightly psychedelic and we have 19 different zoning districts and they are already in the existing zoning and assuming the adoption of the western soma which is in front of the board right now. and the zoning and which is south of the harrison, and the blue sli and the kind of gold colored and all of those districts are flexible, we have c3 which allows anything, and

the nuo, districts and all residential and to some degree, office and retail and pdr and all of the diversity that can happen in these areas. we want to increase south of harrison and allowing a diverse of areas and larger hotel and nurturing of neighborhoods in retail cluster and we have heard disagreement and the housing lot in the south west portion of the planning area and the forming of the retail and the viability that you need to preserve and protect in the arts in this area. we have 11 districts here and maybe most of the area is moved

to to the existing zones and industrial areas, and so harrison, and in the zoning and they are going to change the capacity in the harrison. south of harrison, and the fla and the district that currently allow residential or office. and the in addition to the salary that is along the freeway. on the zoning we have the sud, south of harrison, that would support, the large sites, and job providers and we feel that we can detail and we have been in discussion for the 20,000 square feet or more per site and provide the larger office that people want now that they require to do some level of office so that we can make sure that this is a draft location rather than a housing location. we also have an entertainment

sud from 4th to 6th south of brand. a few partials to include things like hotel utah and other uses near there and make sure that they are permitted ongoingingly. we also want to remove the restriction on large hotels, right now this district, nuo has a restriction up to 75 and only do a hotel up to 75 raols and to do that we need a conditional use and conversations with the community especially with ti co and we heard that the hotels are the great neighbor and they are 24-7 and so, we propose to remove that cap and instead allow hotels as of right up for 75 and above 75, still require a conditional use. and we also want to make sure

that we are nurturing neighborhood retail environments along fourth straight. there is something about an nc district that allows for a fine grain and, fine tuning district that you want in your neighborhood which is what we love about our neighborhood commercial districts and the good thing about the district is that you can't have commercial specifically stores on the bottom and the residential above. which probably makes less sense in this part of soma so we want to come up with some kind of hybrid and fine tuned retain on the ground floor and allow the office use up above. >> finally we want to talk about the potential for having no housing in the area that is

currently zoned the salaries from 4th and 6th. from soma. we recognize that the potential can conflict with the entertainment and push out smaller commercial uses. moving forward and we can continue the conversations making sure that we are covered for the environmental and we can have the conversation with the community over the next couple of years. so another issue that came up that i could probably think about, which was too long for tonight but very important to us is a potential displacement. we want to work onthies you, and all of the time with the

nad and ssa on how to provide for more space in the areas and there is actually more demand for the pdr use and they are all locally serving except for this boom in the manufacturing which is an amazing thing. and so, we hope that we can have a package some time this summer of all kinds of zoning tools that can support the pdr uses and speaking to this neighborhood, under the central corridor plan and there are about 1800 pdr workers that are in the zoning district that would lose the prediction, and i would like to say that these neighborhoods allow retail and they are less protected then say in the districts that don't allow districts. that is 3 percent and in construction and wholesale and there is the swinerton is technically pdr and particularly in the office

building in this neighborhood so we have statistics and it blurs the line of who these workers ares and based on the analysis of the kinds of uses that are in soma about 60 percent of these workers have less than a bachelor's degree. and about 1,000 workers that don't have a bachelor's degree working in the pdr jobs and. and hiring will yield about 5,000 jobs for people without a bachelor's degree, there is a lot more jobs come for the people without the degrees, from these offices. and that being said, we recognize that there is a hardship for the pdr and the workers, we hope that the businesses have a soft landing and more protected. we hope that other workers can take advantage of job training programs if necessary and we are doing the special work with the flower mart and how to

continue in the location as part of the larger development and to move to the bay view to co-locate with the produce mart. let's move on to heights.. so here the base line heights, trying to blow it up so we can see more what the colors mean, straight forward and it is downtown and it is 65 to 85 feet largely along most of the major streets and most are 82 and a half feet wide. and so, that is kind of the golden ratio of building heights used street, and they are lower in the alleys and along the freeway and they are loeg in the valley. so what have we here with regard to height? >> we are generally support for higher height, south, and we have a certain that the major opportunities are not being adequately up zoned and we also have the support for the lower

zones along allies and the other open spaces. so here, the proposed height limits, and basically it tries to make a more uniform street with a 65 to 85 feet along the streets unless you have a building height. and you continue to low and the heights maintaining along the alley and reduces the heights for the open spaces near the car michael school and gardens etc.. we also have the height reductions that are on the fourth side of fourth street, and tgrowth areas there are rise buildings up to 130 feet and that is when we start to move from that from pink to the kind of warm magenta color and one change that we have seen that we need to add to the map is there is a 200 foot on the side of a parking lot on harrison. probably the best way to tell what this means is this match here, which shows, the changes

in heights. so the biggest thing that jumps out is that the reduction in height that we are doing to probably over generously heights and those are going to be high heights, and so we just reduced them a little bit. taking away those, we can see a mixture of light, blues, pinks and moving to the darker colors, the darker colors are closer to the transit in the south west corner. and you know, even put more on the cal train station. so, any way that is what to digest, and you can show the amount of gray area and shown that we are not changing heights in all that many locations. we also have a higher height alternative that we will be studying in the eir and this was created to emphasize the key locations with the additional height and addressing the concern. and to also reflect the

projects that have already submitted a project for planning or a preliminary project assessment and we have greater heights only at the southern end of the corridor. and for example, that station might be emphasized to 400 feet instead of 20. puts more of a focus on 5th street by 150 streets on the parcels instead of 130. extended 200 foot height district on second street south to the freeway and again, both of regular height and the higher height alternatives will be analyzed in the eir. here is a map that speaks to the change in heights from existing to proposed to higher height limits, you know, it takes forever to figure out what the exact differences are, i will just tell you that you will know what the differences are on a handful of sites where there is increased intensity and i spoke to you about the rail stations and the central subway and more towards fifth

street. and so this in terms of development what does it mean? we have under existing zoning potential in this area. we have developed a range, assuming about 75 percent built out over 30 years. and so not full and we don't expect every parcel to go, but to give us cushion, 75 percent, and the range also reflects the notion that potentially some of the close to larger sites might consolidate and there is obvious geometry and if those sites consolidated they are likely to go through the office given the economic now. but it is not huge, but that is where the range comes from. we see that 81, 8300 existing housing units could be built today with no change in zoning, we have 19,000 jobs that could be built. and so in. magenta we have the growth potential based on our proposed plan and so you can see 25 to

100 housing units and 23,000 to 31,000 jobs. and you can imagine that it is not the highest of each of those things, it will kind of be under one scenario the higher if it is the higher residential number it will be the lower job number and individual development sites is going to trade off, don't assume that it is 4100 jobs or 4100 units and 31,000 jobs, if it is 31,000 jobs, it is 2500 units that go for all of the tables below. and so just summing up the growth potential under the existing and the additional under the proposed plan, that is the magenta, and to the tenth and the 12th floor and housing units and 42,000 to 50,000 jobs and that is the number that you saw in the previous presentation and 60,600 in this potential and the plan. and underneath that in blue, we have the growth potential under

the higher heights alternative and you can see that, you know, it is maybe 20 percent more development potential under the higher heights alternative and so we can get to maybe 4600 jobs or, about 36 or 4600 units or 36,000 jobs and what those totals would come to. you can see that this represents about 15 percent of the total planned jobs, or planned units for the city, or about a third of the planned jobs for the city. and i just want to highlight one last thing is that there was a statement to revisit the area between 5th and 6th. a huge part of this area near

the central subway and near the cal train is this location, that is the over lying area between 4th and 6th south of the freeway. and you can see that up to half of the housing units proposed for the central corridor and maybe 60 percent of the jobs go to the central corridor could be built in those areas, so the first row is what the potential is today, very little, development potential and they are mostly in those small parts of western soma that are not industrial right now and that are maybe rezoned by the soma mg but with a change in zoning to have a greater expansion of that potential and we have to turn it over to josh. >> so i will just wrap up the presentation, and emphasize some of the other finer points of the plan that is being developed to address some of the issues that we talked about in terms of building on the character of the south of market and really making