significant upper story set backs above the base height of 65 or 85 feet depending on the part of the plan area and that or those are all part and parcel of the notion of the smaller lots that may not be big enough to incorporate the set backs to not have the set backs up to the full height limit on the sites that will allow the taller buildings and there is a handful and we are working on the appropriate bulk limits like we do in all of the plans where we have the taller buildings, initially, we were talking about this issue about a year ago, we had talked about the primarily the building having a smaller for residential only, after evaluating a little bit more, we seem to allow that the slightly larger plates to allow the high-rises would offer the diversity of the workplace type

in the area and we can develop some bulk controls that really work for the landscaper. >> so, there is a number of issues that we pointed to, that really need to be flushed out over the coming many months before the plan comes for adoption. there are very important issues that we care about that the members of the community care about and they are not necessarily essential for the ier which is focused on the big pictures of building heights and the over all development program and land use mix, specifically the use controls, the specifics of the set back rules and the bulk rules and the tdr controls and the lack of consolidation controls and as well as the lack of guidelines which we will work on identifying the key major sites in the area and some of them are obvious and producing some design guidelines for how the sites ought to be developed.

>> so, the public realm, some discorrection of supporting infrastructure of parks and transit streets, we have been working very closely with the mta over the last several months to look at not just the plan but the south of market at large. and to really, figure out how the streets should be designed to support not just the growth that is coming and exists in this area but also city wide needs, the south of market is not the south of market of 30 years ago, this is high density and working environment and the streets need to support that and needs to support the sustainable goals of city and to get the people out of here. and we then, working with the npa to further assign the concepts for the program for fulsom and howard and the ier for this plan is to look at the

redesign for the streets for from second street all the way to 11th street. other streets are getting the eir in with the bounds of this area, which includes third and fourth street. and the concepts for wider sidewalks and the bike facilities and on bryant and har ris streets looking at maintaining sort of the regional function of those streets but looking in addition to widening the sidewalks and improving the accommodation for the surface transit and then brandon street is going to be an important street and it is almost the main street of this new growth area south of the freeway. and looking at a real transformation of that street and more of just more of a multimodal environment and there is a number of different streets in the area, second, sixth, fourth and fifth and mission that are important of

being dealt with through the efforts whether it is mission street is being addressed as part of the studies second and fifth both have projects under way to redesign them. and so, this plan area, is just sort of taking what is coming out of those efforts and moving them forward. >> lastly, open space, very important as we grow, particularly in these parts of south of market that are really deficient in the open space and many efforts are pointing to that and we really took it as a major action of the plan to identify the opportunities for the new open space and we are building on efforts that their communities are engaged on and whether it is the year that we are going to it has identified a number of opportunities and in the area as well as, working with other agencies and listening to concepts that are coming out of folks like todco. one exciting opportunity that we think is really interesting

is the opportunity on a pc owned parcel, it is a street, light yard off of brian street that extends back into the block. and it is you know it may have been an appropriate use when this is a very light industrial area. but, lots of surface a lots of street light poles and the surface is not the best use of this property and provided that we can find and help them find and find the relocation of that facility and that is to remain industrial. and there is certainly open and interested in allowing the property to be converted into a park and may even have an interesting in maintaining some presence on the block for some sort of a sustainable utility whether it is water or some kind of program to support the district. we see this as sort of a south park west, the location of this possible park, the proximity to

the freeway, but we really see this as an opportunity to create a nice protected open space that it is surrounded by active uses and ground floor retail and residences and office space and really like south park is becoming a real important part of the community. we actually engage in the department of public health when the questions about the location came up and they actually gave there quite a good endorsement for the location, particularly as a possible alternative to locating it on a major ar terial which is exposed to a lot of traffic and the safety in terms of the kids running into the street and of course noise which is a important factor, that said, there are other ideas out there, todcohas developed the ideas on the same block for the arrangement of open space and we will be putting this in the draft plan and describing it in the eir and it is important to note that we do think that this alternative arrangement which

involves a complex a range of transactions using public properties and private properties and just the timing with just or may make that concept difficult to achieve. and there is some other open space concepts that we have been engaged on. one on the block, and bound in by fulsom and harrison, where they have a number of buildings and there is community ideas out there about expanding the gardens to take up some or all of that space, or the plan will carry the breadth of the ideas forward to the process so that that can be flushed out in the coming years. so that concludes the substance of the plan, there are other important aspects which we are not talking about today such as the eco district which is the parallel process going on that will continue to have its own life as well as implementation including impact fees that we can expand on at a later time.

just to reiterate the schedule, we are publishing the plan in a couple of weeks and the eir is kicking off with the consultants are now under contract and we hope to have the draft released in about a year but while this time is happening again, there is a number of topics which we mentioned, and if you see the various things to the controls and the design guidelines and the open space that we plan to continue to have an ongoing community dialogue over and one mechanism that we hope to do that is possibly to have monthly roundtables where we invite the public to open sessions where we focus on a specific topic where it is far rules or lack of consolidation rules and just have these focused kind of open sessions rather than the broad, public workshops where we try to cover everything at once. we have plenty of time from the year to 18 months to hash out these individual issues one at a time with everyone who is

interested. we are happy to answer any questions. thank you. thank you. >> let's open up for public comment, john elberny? >> sure. >> commissioners, john, elberny president, the just on that last discussion that relates to this, please insist that the department turn all of those job numbers and last report and this into square footages, or hotel room counts or things that we can actually use. i have never heard of the 11 million square feet number for the central corridor until today, i have been asking the department staff for that number for 6 months and the most recent number that i heard yesterday afternoon was about 6 million, so i really would

appreciate that. and also, their rationale for that being off the jobs and make them put it in a memo and schedule it for discuss here in public so that we can comment on it further. but we have been doing this developing an alternative plan, the community-based plan and a community-driven plan for the south of market because it is our home and not the corridor. and you have a draft, that is what we called our eir draft and we had a deal of the issues of the department with everything that will be relevant to an eir process and there is a lot more to come. what we are trying to do is to make sure that the future of the south of market, the change that is invisitable will benefit the small businesses and rather than harm them extensively or displace them and we try to avoid or mitigate the consequences and maximize the good posbilities. the one thing of the central

premise of our plan that i have yet to convince the department to esspouse is that the community and neighborhood building is equally as important as building office buildings and it is very bit as important and should be dealt with every bit as seriously by the city's proposal. and we want to show you two examples. they are attached to the points. the air rights development at the subway station at fourth and fulsom, to date the only thing that the department has ever mentioned for this site is a small office building, 75000 feet, 13 stories that is as much as the structure can hold. it is a wonderful site and this is the heart of the senior housing community and it has the most services of any neighborhood in the city and a beautiful winter gardens across the street and as we show here it is possible to develop a

senior residence on this site that is such more pom patable with the surrounding neighborhood and the parking staff showed our plaza south concept for the fifth street property and this is the latest version, and it shows you how it can work. and actually the part, on the east side there is no more complicated with the proposal to put together and there are only two property owners and on the west side, the proposed a project that maintained the flower march small businesses rather than much them out of the neighborhood and they are valuable. i would like to have a chance to meet with each of you. >> your time is up. >> in march to discuss these in detail. >> thank you. >> is there further public 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