Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Central Corridor topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning staff outline Central Corridor draft: targeted growth near transit, protections for small‑lot character and study of height alternatives
Summary
Department staff presented an informational draft of the Central Corridor Plan, which focuses growth on limited opportunity sites south of Market and near transit, proposes MUO zoning in parts, offers a higher‑height alternative, and emphasizes protections for small‑lot fabric, historic resources and new public‑realm and open‑space concepts; staff plans a draft plan release and EIR kickoff in the coming weeks.
Planning Department staff gave a comprehensive informational briefing on the Central Corridor Plan, a South‑of‑Market area study intended to guide future job and housing growth near the central subway, Caltrain and other transit investments.
John Grama and Steve Wertheim summarized the regional projection context (ABAG) and explained that the department is planning for San Francisco’s allocated share of regional growth, emphasizing transit‑served priority development areas. Staff identified a relatively small set of large opportunity parcels south of Harrison and near Caltrain as primary sites for additional density and jobs, while proposing measures to protect fine‑grain neighborhood fabric, historic resources, and residential enclaves.
Key policy elements presented included a proposed MUO (mixed‑use office) zoning approach south of Harrison, a targeted entertainment SUD, and a possible “no housing” variant for certain overlap areas where entertainment and commercial uses may conflict with residential uses. Staff presented two height alternatives (baseline and higher‑height alternative) and said both would be analyzed in the EIR. The higher‑height variant concentrates larger massing nearer major transit nodes and the Caltrain station.
The plan includes recommended tools to preserve character: expanded historic district consideration, transferable development rights to reward preservation, and focused limits or incentives to avoid wholesale lot consolidation that would erase small‑lot streetscapes. Staff flagged open‑space opportunities including a possible park on a PUC parcel near Brannan that could be secured if the agency relocates a streetlight yard.
Community groups, advocacy organizations and development interests responded in public comment. Some urged the department to convert projected job numbers into square footage and hotel‑room counts for transparency; others asked for stronger protections against displacement and for explicit youth‑and‑family zone mapping. Several commenters urged the department to analyze sea‑level rise and bay‑fill implications for waterfront parcels.
Staff said the draft plan and EIR will be released in the coming weeks, with a draft EIR scheduled over the next year and a return to the commission for adoption hearings in 2014. Staff proposed focused roundtables and technical outreach to refine design and implementation details (lot‑consolidation rules, TDR parameters, bulk/setback controls and public‑realm design standards) during the EIR process.
