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 themselves to those, but some streets bike should be discouraged because of th

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? seeing none -- yes, please come forward. good morning, board members. once again, i would like to submit further information that is c-e-q-a. i would like to be able to respond to some of the open areas they were talking about. and i really would like to

respond to relevant -- this is the matter of planning and commission, and then, too, i want to make sure i seal my identification when people are calling the mayor's office or board of trustees and submitting information. for business professionals that are in an office to feel very comfortable when you call them and you would like to do something of a legal and professional manner for me. first of all, i want to address this information was equalities of human right commission and there was a u.k. address. this is the direct u.k. and i want to respond to the royalties over there. they wanted to make sure they had the correct precise information. the san francisco information is precisely correct. this is maya addendum, my personal information because significantly, one of the realtors or brokers or someone called in reference to the open

items that were open, i think they were retailers. i think they were interested. i think some of the panel [speaker not understood] and i want to submit that and that is verbal reception. however, there were cards, information for some of the san francisco precinct that felt interested for some of the openings they felt interested in some events, other information that they did have at the mayor's office regarding planning and commission. and someone started taking the signs off of these signs and they were not supposed to be removed. these are the no trespassing signs and they to be so-called removed. it had a sticker and it had teeth around it. that means the parcel belongs to [speaker not understood]. the individual at 205 ocean avenue almost had him removed

from his office. there was entering and exiting out of city hall building. this is more than four or five times previous. then there was a purchase addendum, information for san francisco housing authority for individual that are not business literate, that do not know what the state, title company, they feel more comfortable at san francisco public housing authority. please make it short and simple to the housing authority that you feel interest in purchase. if it's a vacancy, i feel interested in vacancy. and when i [speaker not understood] and i'm interested in moving in, i would like to have the rental leasing. we went through this before about planning and zoning. so, this is insignificant, but i want to make sure i put my identification on the record of note. for the oft, i dismiss you -- >> thank you, mary, your time is up. thank you. >> any further general public

comment? okay, seeing none, general public comment is closed. >> commissioners, that will place you under your regular calendar. item 10, case no. 2011.0558e - transit effectiveness project (tep) informational presentation. >> good afternoon, president fong and members of the commission. i am deborah dwyer, planning department staff. and this ha previously indicated you would like

periodic updates regarding efforts by the sfmta especially given the connection between land use development and transportation planning. this informational presentation is an update regarding the sfmta transit effectiveness project or tep and we last presented information in april of 2012. i am the e-i-r coordinator and i am joined here by sean kennedy the tpe manager of the sfmta. the department published the initial study for the tep in january of this year, and the draft e-i-r will be published in july and the draft e-i-r hearing will be before this commission in august. this is a city-wide project with multiple components. i'd like to turn the present atheist to sean kennedy for a project overview and update. >> thank you. so, good afternoon, commissioners. you should have a hard copy of

the presentation in front of you and i've also got a presentation i'll put on the overhead there. so, it has been a year since we have been in front of you. i want to start the presentation by giving a quick overview of the tep why we're pursuing this project, how it fits in with some of the other proposals that muni is working on. and then go over the environmental components of the draft e-i-r. so, there are a lot of great things about muni. muni, muni is number 6 -- i have to start with the good stuff. [laughter] >> we are the number 6 service provider in the country in terms of rider ship, over 700,000 daily boardings. we, we serve the city well. we have 95% coverage, so, 95% of the people in the city and county of san francisco are,

are located close to transit service. and we have some great policy backing. 40 years ago roughly that the transit first policy was initiated. and because of that policy, have been able to implement some really that hader thinking transit priority projects [speaker not understood] in the existing network. however, even with all those kind of improvement and positive things coming out of specifically the transit first policy, we are also the slowest system in the country. basically a system wide average, we average 8.1 miles an hour. to put that in comparison with some of our peers, new york city mta, they average 14 miles an hour for system wide service coverage and l.a. county --. l.a. county mta averages 13.3 miles an hour. even chicago, chicago is about 12.8 miles an hour. so, we've got our work cut out

for us and we're obviously operating at slow speed. so, the question then becomes why, why do we operate at slow speeds. obviously there's a number of reasons. there's no one specific reason, but they all kind of rollup, we operate in a dense urban environment, we have a lot of stops [speaker not understood] every block and a half. we have aging equipment so our vehicles breakdown often and we have narrow streets with constrained right-of-way. all those relations to the customer, you can see these pictures right here, how those challenges relate to the customer. there's a lot of gaps in service, crowded conditions, the buses are overcrowded especially on some of our major corridors. and buses get stuck in traffic because we operate at grade with the congestion that's out there right now. so, what is muni doing to address some of these issues?

there's a lot of different attacks we're taking. system wide we're really focusing a lot on trying to improve the mechanics, the operations of our service, and from a management perspective so we're trying to manage lanes differently, manage our service differently, including our boarding pilot and our brand-new management center that we have. real continueheim supervision. i'll also be replacing our equipment quicker. [speaker not understood] we're trying to make people aware of when the bus is coming. then there is the tep. that's what we want to focus on today. the tep has two major categories. it's improving service or redirecting service to some of the crowded -- to address crowded conditions. and it is also coming wake up some travel time reduction

proposals and that's a mouthful, but essentially it is a traffic engineering changes that give buses [speaker not understood]. so, the tep in general is like -- a similar introduction to city-wide project. there are a number of proponents to the project. and we're hoping this quick overview gives you guys some ability to help facilitate the review of the e-i-r system in this document. we have four major objectives, improving ride ability, reducing travel time, the customer experience in terms of delivering efficient service. so, the ero document itself is really broken down to foremajor components. we have our service policy framework. service related travel time improvements and [speaker not understood]. these different components