start item number 19. staff, do you want 19 -- it has to be separate. the case, executive park are a plan and informational hearing. >> commissioners, today you're having your public hearing on the environmental impact report for the executive park development project. i am here to give an overview of of the first component of that. the general plan and zoning amendments.

very quickly, executive park is that the of peace -- se and a san francisco. just on your right hand side as you drive into san francisco. this is a closer version, a coast division of executive park as it exists today. the 71 acre site is under construction. the other half of the portion still needs approval for its development, and that is what the focus is on. executive park has existed in some form or another for quite some time. initially proposed in the late 70's, it has gone through

several iterations. there are several configurations as the years progress. there is another iteration of it. and later, with additional proposals for a robust residential component. the executive park plan as it exists today, it calls for largely -- a hotel component and some residential. about seven years ago, there are four developers within executive park at about seven years ago, two of the developers have applications to move forward on their respective components.

the signature properties a changeover from a previous office proposal to residential. the other developers approached the planning department with a proposal to read and vision the parcels within the outskirts of executive park, and is off to a new residential high-density use. the planning department thought this was a worthwhile endeavor on coming up with a framework to allow such uses. at that time, the planning department prepared, and we have been hoping to have the approval shortly thereafter. the ground changed under executive park.

there were new calls for an environmental impact report and some of the moving ground around the property. since that time, as you know, several other developments have been approved and you approved visitation valley in 2008, and you approved of the hunters point shipyard it is still under study, in the bay lands are under study. with these developments, we are anticipating improvements, the most notable being a line running through all hunters point shipyard and also improvements to the station with

a multi-modal emphasis. these developments, it should be noted that executive park is unlike a lot of the nearby developments. this is not public land. this is not within a redevelopment area. our goal here is not a partnership like you might have with these other developments. our goal is enabling this division with regulatory framework to ensure a general plan and leading principles with good neighborhoods. one of the components that are going to be before you as approval of the general plan amendment, specifically the sub area plan amendment. they will address land use, transportation, circulation,

urban design, and community facilities. the area plan also provides maps and other plants. again, the existing layout of executive park -- where are looking to divide up the central blocks that are under consideration to create a finer grade development in keeping with residential use to keep development is strong public presence. we also want the previous developments that have been developed with the existing neighborhoods and open space. the area plan also provides the circulation plan that will make sure streets and circulation have a hierarchy to accommodate all users and based on the better streets plan. the plan also emphasizes travel by non-auto means.

as well as outlining the pedestrian network plan. we want to ensure connectivity to create a better framework and connecting the existing urban spaces. what also will be before you are proposals for a zoning, currently the entire site is c- 2, one of the older zoning resin -- older zoning designations. and one of the district will of hired -- will allow the higher density and incorporate a special use district so we can incorporate particular provisions that would be specific to this unique situation. similarly, we are looking to rezone the heights. we want to provide a more fine grain heights district including provisions for taller buildings,

particularly towers. here are some of the urban visual settings. that would be accommodated by what we are thinking of in terms of the high. we're also looking to proposed design guidelines that would address streets, alleys, and pedestrian ways. it will address buildings and probably of important is the relationship between the buildings and the street. the consideration for particularly tall buildings and incorporating provisions for sustainable features that we have also been incorporating and other -- this concludes my presentation. the planning staff is looking to engage the community again before we finally come to you for finalized area plans and

reasoning. i would be happy to answer any questions. commissioner miguel: thank you. public comment? >> no cards. >> [inaudible] the existing complex was built within the last couple of years. this area definitely need some development. our biggest concern is high -- height. [inaudible] it significantly reduces the value of our project. over a 7-10 year term, we

estimate cash flow lost at 1.5 million, probably $4.5 million in value. it has been a tough deal. there are not a lot of amenities over there. there is a need for others to come to the community and there should be some concern to the height restrictions of existing buildings and homeowners in the area that will be affected. commissioner miguel: thank you. >> on behalf of the san francisco -- i wanted to bring to your attention that yesterday, our endorsement committee pac, we devoted the entire meeting to this park. we are fortunate enough to have

those from the planning staff to present the city's perspective on it. the entire hour and half was spent looking at this project, and it is early now. but i think it is very exciting. the reaction of the committee members is that this is a terrific opportunity to bring housing and a mixed use to an area that had a pretty sad and confused office park there that wasn't working. there are some loose threads right now. obvious questions come to mind, what is the relationship to candlestick point? alternatively, what are the destination retail opportunities going to be there? the question that keeps coming up and we are looking to see refinement is, what is the build line going to be? how why is it going to be?

what are the uses going to be? [inaudible] how this is chosen will affect how the property is built along the way and we would love to see an active use taking advantage of the -- [inaudible] another concern is, what is the relationship to a little hollywood? we would like to see more guidance given to that so that folks that meet the community amenities, it is easy access. there is a lot of movement of people there. ultimately, what is the orientation goal? [chime] commissioner miguel: is there additional public comment? if not, public comment is closed. commissioner moore: there is nobody in this room that would

like to seek a more graceful -- and that would not like to see a more graceful solution. how do you do that and gracefully combine smaller homes at the top of the hill to transform it into something that is that sir? what is currently happening -- that is denser. i think it would have to be worked out, three-dimensional plan. it would be the approval for bayview hunters point. there is a continuity for developing a new neighborhood and connecting it back to the city. also physically, the day is important. one of the things that i have not seen in this work is the full integration with the effort

currently undertaken by designing the candlestick point recreation area which i looked at a couple of weeks ago. i realize there is no common ground in using the same map or the beginning points. i strongly urge the department and the executive park designers to start having that dialogue and work with the same set of presumptions not only about where the park is, but also where mta is relative to the way and implementation of the line. and outstanding questions about what is now probably a venue that will develop candlestick

park into something else that is not a 49ers stadium. having said that, i think there is support for this project. but a number of questions that i hope can be done, that is comprehensiveness. commissioner antonini: i don't know where that slide came with the rendering of future buildings, but that was very well done. i would like to see more of that. i thought it was a very tasteful rendering of some of the projects and the architectural feel for it, i pretty much know where it is. i often will get off of the light rail and bloc candlestick

through the area. -- and a walk-through of the candlestick area. unless you are back there on the way to a game, some of the homes along the hill are very attractive. i think it is really important that we have this dovetailed together as commissioner moore was saying. we need dovetail onthe -- on the improvements. it should be at least a light rail going all the way through the service of hunters point and coming around, connecting. that makes all of these things work and it gives definition to the developers, they know exactly where things are going to be and

when it will happen. i think we are moving in the right direction. this is a very important subject. i am hoping we will be calendaring more in the future. the next item deals with the draft environmental. there will be the project coming forward. i heard concerns of the one speaker and making sure the heights are corporate and things that together well. height is important. we have to figure out how to make it work. president miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i would like to hear more disclosure about what happens to the existing buildings. this one dominate the entire set him. other office buildings, i only see it indicated in the eir diagram on figure two. perhaps the planning department could give some preliminary design presentation to the

commission. i think that would be helpful. we don't have to wait until the last day when we say, we did not know anything about this project. perhaps there is an update to us that the public would appreciate. it could be very helpful. president miguel: i have some basic problems with some of the material. i am looking at statistics and i find some engrossed for residential. i find others in a number of residential units. there is no consistency in the information that i see supplied. that disturbs me. i am not satisfied with the transportation options. i am looking at a map of parking spaces for the project.

yes, theoretically, we are trying to go to mass transit. i am not satisfied the mass transit that is proposed at the moment is anywhere near sufficient. they are talking perhaps a thousand residents, let alone the commercial and the office in the space. i would not like to see an isolated community. at the moment, i have great fear is in that regard. i don't want -- we have got away from that, hopefully. we have had examples of that japan -- of that going back to the projects we are doing now, taking what were isolated communities and bringing them back into the city.

whatever one thinks about it, it was an auto-centric isolated community, and not as much as this. are we creating another isolated situation here? that bothers me. i am not satisfied a solution has been presented at this point. commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: this is an extremely difficult side to work with, given the freeway on one side and that hill situation, and the unknowns with the stadium rearing its continuing head, so to speak. commissioner antonini would love to have it there. anyway, it is a difficult site. to echo what commissioner moore

and others have said, for me, it seems that, given that kind of isolation, we should not try to isolate it even more. some additional consideration of connections, i guess, and how it relates, especially to the east, since that seems to be the most direct connection at the moment, away from the freeway, and to encourage, i think, some additional information, as commissioner moore suggested, back to the commission would be great. commissioner moore: while we have on the east side a project that was guided by a development agreement, and has set in stone obligations that will have to be realized over a time frame, i would be interested to see how these communities, these two new communities, really interact. it is to not -- it is not just

two lines in the sand. 8000 new residents in this area have any chance of becoming a neighborhood -- what are we encouraging more asking by code that appears in terms of commercial support? where would be the obligatory small neighborhood shops, which hardly ever happens? what do we need in terms of kindergarten, child care, elementary school, etcetera? these people are supposed to live here. if these things are not provided, where do we find enough room for them to be accommodated? this tax on to president miguel's comment. this requires a lot of push from the planning department in order to not have this look like a 1950's high-density something

else residential development. >> as you all point out, the typography and highway make this challenging. i think when i hear you talk about the connections, it is not just physical connections. to the east, there is only one road that connects. it is a question of making that the best possible connection it can be. what i also hear you saying is we should make sure there are institutional connections, public services. maybe the thing that we can do is map those out in a simple way to understand what is out there in the broader community, certainly what is planned for the shipyard and candlestick point, and understand how these residents would be using the services that exist in that part of the city. we can do that. president miguel: ok.

commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: thank you for that comment. that is the direction i was aiming at. i was just reminded that earlier in the day, we had a discussion about fees and that kind of thing, and whether or not this community center, that is supposedly in the middle of this thing, is going to be there or not be there. maybe it does not need to be there. maybe it can be provided further to the east. maybe not. that development, maybe this community center could supply facilities for the development further to the east. i don't know. but, i think you got the idea. commissioner moore: this is something i was not aware of. candlestick point state

recreation area, at least on the furthest western part, stretching probably for two or three blocks in length, is about 10 feet above harney way. there is no physical connection between the neighborhoods and this park. i think the state park itself is very much puzzled about what to do. that is the existing physical condition. they do not know how to do it. there has to be an incredibly integrated effort from all parts. -- from all departments, from anybody with creative ideas, to figure out how to tie this together and make it work for the different demands being put on to this particular area. president miguel: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: the

biggest thing we have to have is to put all the pieces together and make it all work. there is the waste facility and recycling facilities, that are in very close proximity -- proximity. we have to figure out the transportation peace. hopefully, the light rail and others, the geneva bart eventually coming all the way through -- little hollywood is a distinct neighborhood with a park and two schools, if i am not mistaken, and a church. you have the brisbane baylands there. i think it could all work together involving two counties. i think there is a lot of potential. the more we can get a cooperative effort going and have hearings that include all of these things at one time, it would be really good.

>> thank you. with that, we can move to item 20 on your calendar. it is case number 2006.0422e. it is the executive park amended subarea plan and the yerby company and universal paragon corp. development project. >> good evening. i am from the planning department major environmental analysis. this is a hearing to receive comments on the draft eir. the executive park amended subarea plan and the yerby company and universal paradigm corp. development projects. staff is not here to answer comment today. comments will be transcribed and responded to in writing in the comments and responses document,

which will respond to all verbal and written comments received. this is not a hearing to consider approval or disapproval of the project. that hearing will follow the final eir certification. comments today should be directed to the adequacy and accuracy of information contained in the drafty i are. comment should speak slowly and clearly so the court reporter can produce an accurate transcript. , mentors should speak their name and address so they may be properly identified and sent a copy of the responses. after hearing comments from the public, we will take any public -- any comments from the planning commission. the public comment period began and extends until 5:00 p.m. on november 29. this concludes my presentation

on this matter. unless the commissioners have any questions, i would suggest that the public hearing be opened. president miguel: is there any public comment on item number 20? seeing none, public comment is closed. i would ask the secretary if a transcript of the commissioner's comment on item 19 be submitted in regards to item 20. >> the court reporter did not record those comments. president miguel: i think they are quite pertinent to this item, rather than have everything totally repeated. >> ok. she has agreed to do that. president miguel: good. thank you very much. otherw