doesn't make a lot 6 sense. why isn't that an option? we talk with our local assembly folks about the legislation, it seems like a small ask to get -- >> [inaudible]. it seems like a small ask, but it's actually been a big deal because of everything going on in sacramento around this issue, the demise of redevelopment. so, it's been caught up in all these discussions and the follow on legislation that's happened and it's really -- [multiple voices] >> right. the political more as. -- morasse. using redevelopment makes sense. there is enormous public benefits. [speaker not understood]. [laughter] >> why don't we exhaust that option before moving on to

affordable housing or parks or making the density something that it shouldn't be in this neighborhood? >> that is a a message from the commission we'll be happy to carry on to our partners in city hall -- [multiple voices] >> at least one commissioner. we'll sign the petition. >> commissioner sugaya. >> a couple things. isn't upc involved in bay lands? the primary developer of that, i assume? given that situation and their continued interest in this one, i guess there's another, not ifc related, but it seems like the only thing in the way in some sense are the city boundaries. and there isn't a way to bridge the two in some fashion. i don't know what i'm talking about here, but it seems like if you have a developer that's

already moving ahead in the passion on one side of the line and they're interested in something on the other side of the line, you know, the only thing preventing some cooperation is the city boundary, you know, it's a strange situation to think about from a developer standpoint, i think. but anyway, given that barrier is there. and there could be economies of scale, i assume. i'm not a developer. it's too bad that we have this kind of situation arise. another question is going to be a dumb question. the redevelopment agency did own schlage lock site ; is that correct, no? >> no, actually most of the site was owned by -- my goodness, i'm forgetting this. ingersoll-rand, by the ingersoll-rand corporation. a small part was owned by

[speaker not understood] as part of the agreement over the contamination of the site ask clean up of the site, ingersoll-rand's portion was transferred. so, they are the owners of schlage lock. [speaker not understood] if the redevelopment plan was fulfilled and the site was dedicated for affordable housing. that would be the only way they would come into ownership. >> and just on the bay lands issue, do you think you would ask john switke to attend one of our presentations? >> yes. we can tie our presentation to you with the release of the draft e. i. -i-r that is coming out in brisbane. i would emphasize that staff in brisbane has been excellent at coordination. again, they are very sub portvv i have of a plan that bridges the line that looks at one consistent thing. * supportive

b i shouldn't say unfortunately. [speaker not understood]. that is the challenge. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah, i just had a couple of questions regarding the status of the land. it was a redevelopment area, but it is now going to be governed by the agency, successor agency, i would assume. but from what i'm hearing, it's not eligible for any of the funding mechanisms that were available under redevelopment before because they're gone. so, we're kind of in limbo. >> and schlage is a really unique -- i think it is the only former redevelopment area that is in this position. it is an area which went all the way to get adopted as a redevelopment area which in the stateside makes it a redevelopment area and therefore ineligible for things like ifds, but there were no contracts. there were no obligations signed. so, there were never the

participation agreement or documents they would sign with the redevelopment agency to commit to the provisions of the redevelopment plan, never happened. and because those obligations -- the only obligations that are going to be carried forward after the demise of redevelopment law are those existing obligations. since there were no obligations in this case, nothing gets to be carried forward. so, the only redevelopment area that i know, which is we are qualified as a redevelopment area so we're disqualified from things like ifds. we do not have a contract so we do not go forward under the successor agency nor can we benefit from any sort of increment financing. >> commissioner, if i can jump in here, that is exactly correct. it was a redevelopment area, but it was never under the new state law called an enforceable obligation to actually obligate the tax increment. if that step had been taken, it would have allowed us to move forward like we're doing in the shipyard and mission bay and transbay. but in this case that last step

had never been taken unfortunately. that's why it leaves it in this kind of strange limbo. because it is a redevelopment area under state law, but there was no contractual obligation for the funds. >> my point being this would seem like have to be discussed at a slight state level. there would have to be legal opinions on it. it would seem if you're not getting the benefits from redevelopment, that you would get as being a redevelopment agency, you may not have all the same obligations. i'm not saying there is anything wrong with putting in a large percentage of affordable housing, but it is a lot more expensive to develop it. and you might be able to move forward -- you shouldn't have to play by the rules if you're not getting the benefits. so, it would seem to me we should explore the possibilities of moving more towards a market rate development and making it more attractive for developers to come in while still keeping the same plan, the land use plan, allowing for the open spaces and put some of the more costly

deterrents from development might be -- we may not be obliged to do that because we're not really a redevelopment agency. am i reading that correctly? so, i think that's something we ought to look at. and also, i think the cac is a great thing. the people in the general vicinity should be participants and they will be impacted by what's there. but they shouldn't be the only determinants -- i mean, i think here at the planning commission, the supervisors, other city agencies should be involved in this and try to realize the best possible project and take into considerations what neighboring present residents and neighboring areas might want. but we also should not be bound by necessarily what was proposed before entirely. so, i think we have to be flexible and make this thing move forward. >> commissioner borden. >> i know we're looking at revisions of the plan and you've talked about some of the different things people are willing to consider.

so, are we thinking it would be a lot less of a dense community that we originally had envisioned or just kind of tweak -- kind of more the realities of ways to generate -- >> it will be less than. we are in that process of figuring out -- of all of the community benefits which ones are the top priorities we really want to keep. and as commissioner antonini suggested, are there sort of other tweaks that we need to reduce or change or perhaps eliminate to make it all feasible. but we haven't talked about [speaker not understood] at this point. >> i wasn't saying you would. i was wondering what kind of tweaks you were specifically -- >> i think it's early. there are small height increases, not anything kind of that we anticipated substantially higher. i think by the time we sort of move further in the community process, we'll be able to tell you a little bit better what

those tweaks are. and i guess -- >> and i guess i'm not as familiar with the bay lands project. is that the bay lands project, the one happening -- >> i don't think -- is it -- >> [inaudible]. >> does it have the ifd or any of that sort of capability? no, it doesn't have it, okay. the same challenges, okay. i was going to say to commissioner antonini, you were asking about home depot. they have an application on file for bayview right now, a new application. i don't think they're looking for other sites. thank you. >> that concludes that item which places you under item 13, case no. agenda%back [speaker

not understood]. >> a second meeting is scheduled for next week which has planning amendments and other specific issues as needed. for example, your packet for next week includes requested alternative zoning scenarios for the 11th street nighttime entertainment corridor. it also contains a resolution from the historic preservation commission that contains several comments regarding the manly. the specific actions in front of the commission today are three separate resolutions to initiate amendment to the general plan, the planning code and the zoning map pursuant to the adoption of the western soma community plan. a dottionv these will allow the commission to set notice for public hearing on or after december 6, 2012, to consider

taking actions on the on the proposed amendments. the initiation packet provided to the commission consists of five distinct sections. section 1 contains a summary of all the components of the initiation packet. section 2 contains the required resolution ordinance and other materials related to the proposed amendments to the general plan. section 3 contains the required resolution ordinance and other materials related to the proposed amendments to the planning code. and section 4 contains the required resolution ordinance and other materials related to the proposed amendment to the zoning map. we also have a copy of draft ordinances approved by the city attorney which is materially the same as a draft included in your packet. section 5 contains proposed amendments to the administrative code and the plans implementation document. the planning commission is not required to initiate amendments to the administrative code nor to initiate the adoption of the implementation document. however, those item are included for your information. the department recommends that

the commission adopt the resolutions of intention to initiate and calendar the adoption hearing for december 6th. that concludes my presentation. i'm available if you have any questions. >> open up for public comment. seeing none, public comment portion is closed -- oh, sorry. good afternoon, commissioners. tim colon on behalf of the coalition. i was out from the last hearing and trying to catch up. we followed this with interest for years now, i guess, and are still trying to make sense of where it stands and what is actually going forward in the initiation. and in particular, i guess there are some parts of the western soma plan that have been part of the discussion for a while that don't appear to be part of it now, of interest is the metering of affordable

housing. the metering of jobs. we're aware of the letter from the city attorney that certainly called them into question if not all those ideas legally silly, and we think that they raise far more problems for the city if they're part of this package going forward, then they can possibly solve. so, there's a lot to like in the west soma plan. a lot of work was done on it over quite a long period. planning provided a lot of resources in support for it. but to some extent, the task force suffered maybe a little bit from group think in the sense that, you know, it called itself a community organization, therefore, they've done their outreach because they're the community. i think it suffered in comparison to the planning work done in the central subway

corridor and certainly the eastern neighborhoods which had vastly higher levels of outreach to get a lot of viewpoints in, a wide range of viewpoints and i think they're excellent plans. i think the planning department has done excellent work on those. i think there are still some serious questions that have not been answered as to what's going to go forward in this initiation. i'm not sure where supervisor jane kim stands on some of this. my understanding is some of the questions that i've raised are in her office. is it going to be part of it going forward or not? but i think there are still some serious questions, you know, for instance, how does it integrate with the central subway corridor? where is the boundary between the two? there's an enormous investment going into the central subway corridor that perhaps the western soma plan is not as eager to look at in terms of the height and density and development that is going to go with it. these are big questions we had going forward.

we'd love to see them explored. thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? seeing none, the public comment portion is closed. commissioner sugaya. >> yes. i guess the western soma plan takes precedent over anything in the central corridor at the moment. this plan has been underway for years. central corridor has no public participation process quite like western soma, except for developers, i suppose. so, i think that's a fair way to approach it. we're going to adopt this first, central corridor can take its lumps when it comes along. i'm going to move adoption of the initiation for all of the items 13 a, b and c. >> second. >> commissioner antonini. >> well, i have a few questions and haven't had the opportunity to reach the detail of the plan. but mr. cohen mentioned these items concerning metering of

affordable housing and metering of jobs. is there anything in the plan that, you know, blocks the possibility of housing unless there's high percentages of affordable housing built as part of them or i think we should be aware of these things before we approve something. >> [speaker not understood] staff. the plan does have a policy that basically states that there should be an established policy to help balance affordable housing and jobs in the plan area. it did not go into specific details, the exact mechanisms of how that would happen. the task force did work on drafting a more detailed policy and outlining what those mechanisms could be and that's where the metering phrase comes from. as we talked about last week, that specific element, what is considered the community stabilization policy, even though it is a policy in the plan, nothing in the planning

code changes or the zoning map amendments address that at this time. that's going to be a topic that addressed trailing as a separate process along with a couple other issues including the social heritage districts and design standards. >> we discussed that at length last week and all of that sounded pretty good. but this would be trailing legislation, but it would not -- approval of the initiation and approval of these items wouldn't necessarily predetermine what that trailing legislation would have to be. >> correct. the policy that's in the plan is -- basically states that a policy should be created to try to balance [speaker not understood] balance affordable housing and jobs to keep kind of traditional balance looking at how they balanced historically in soma. but there is no mechanism being put forward as part of this initiation or part of the materials that are proposed for

adoption that would actually carry that policy forward. so, that whole discussion and issue would take place as part of trailing legislation. >> so, the inclusionary requirements and other thing are similar, except maybe a couple of designated areas there might be -- >> it's going to be exactly the same as it is now. >> yeah, okay. and then finally there was something raised about the central. there is an overlap of jurisdiction in that area. just we'll need to know exactly how that's going to be handled a little bit about if there is a difference in the two plans, what would have priority and how it would work. >> sure. >> a street, and there is a small section there. >> right, there is an area of overlap. showed briefly last week and we can definitely talk about that again. it's been our position that western soma, we have been working on that for sometime. and at this point we are moving forward with western soma as it

is proposed and central corridor is going through its process and it will run its course in its own time. >> okay, thank you. >> commissioners, there's a motion to initiate amendments to the general plan, planning code and zoning maps. i'll take a single roll call vote for all three resolutions. commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? absent. commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. that passes unanimously +6 to -0. and places you on your last regularly calendar item, number 14, case no. 2012.0971c at 1963 sutter street, request for conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, president fong and members of the planning commission.

sharon young, planning department staff. the item before you is request for conditional use authorization for an outdoor activity area to an existing restaurant located at 1963 sutter street within the nc-3 district, japantown special use district and 50-x height and bulk district. the proposal is to add outdoor area, dining table and chairs for approximately 08 square foot patio enclosed by [speaker not understood] high fence within the rear yard of the restaurant. the proposed outdoor dining area will abut common parking lot located within the mid-block area of the subject block. the restaurant has been in operation since december 2011. the current hours of operation of the restaurant are 11:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 7 days a week. in the original proposal that was the application. the proposed hours of operation was the dining outdoor patio 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. 7 days

a week. the proposal would not involve interior [speaker not understood]. to date the department has received three letters from neighbors, some petition approximately 55 signatures from residents in opposition to the project. the latest opposition expressed concern that the proposed restaurant seating in the rear patio would create noise problems, pest and rodent problems and will adversely impact the quality of life. the department has also received some letters from the property owner adjacent commercial tenants, from [speaker not understood] association, pacific heights resident association, western addition, neighborhood association, japantown neighborhood association and 66 signatures from restaurant patrons and residents in support of the project. project sponsors have indicated the restaurant received health inspection report scores in the upper 90s from the san francisco department of public health for cleanliness.

and the neighborhood opposition also expressly concerns supervisor christina olague's office, [speaker not understood], japantown task force, cultural and community center of northern california, chinatown development community center regarding their concern over the project. during the course of these concerns, the project sponsor has tried to work with the neighbors in opposition and basically have modified their proposal in regards to the hours of operation and also clarified that there would not be any recorded or live music

they have indicated they would clean the patio nightly. [speaker not understood] also submitted a letter or e-mail in response this morning to these concerns and also tried to contact the residents regarding clarification on the proposal. the department adam smallman recommendation is approve the conditions [speaker not understood]. they also include hours of operation of the outdoor activity area to 10:00 p.m. also reducing noise by prohibiting [speaker not understood], and not allowing music in the upper space and adding signage for patrons to dine quietly within the rear dining patio to respect residential neighbors. this concludes my presentation and i'm available to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you.

project sponsor. good afternoon, commissioners. i'm jennifer butler, i'm the project sponsor along with my partner staci judd in the audience. i want to spend a few more minutes giving details on the project. the restaurant opened last year -- thank you -- in december as sharon has mentioned. it is family owned and operated by husband and wife team gerard darien and tracy green who are

also in the audience. they have a focus on very high-quality whole some meals, sustainably grown products, focus on rotisserie chicken. so, the menu is appealing to neighborhood folks for their day to day meals. and in addition to in-restaurant dining, customers from both within the neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods can carry out their lunch and dinner time meals for their families. it is important to note here the establishment's primary focus is on food. beer and wine sales comprise only 10% of their revenue. the type of people who come to the restaurant are not usually lingering and drinking. it's really the in and out food oriented environment. and usually you'll find people enjoying a glass of beer or wine with their meal and having conversation with reasonable level of sound. the restaurant provides a significant number of jobs to the area employing 16 employees both come from within the

immediate neighborhood and other san francisco neighborhoods. basically, the 300 foot radius use map -- and i apologize it's quite a bit lighter than on my slide, but i think you have that in your information packet. you can see that within the 300-foot radius there is quite a mixture of residential, commercial, especially along the north south access, fillmore street, and then going east -- going sutter street, the boxes that are in dark blue indicate other eating and dining establishments within the 300-foot radius. and so, there's quite a precedent in the neighborhood for eating and dining establishments as well as their little starred areas within the radius one, two, three, four different eating and dining establishments that do allow outdoor dining. so, o there is a precedent for that as well. the gray areas, which again, sorry you'll have to refer to your information packet because

it's a bit [speaker not understood] * in the presentation projection. but there are some large gray areas on the 300-foot radius map which indicates open space, either parking lots or green areas. so, you can see that we're pretty fortunate to have a vast open area as a buffer zone surrounding those patios. tracy and gerard selected this area because of the talent and diversity of the neighborhood district and also the location of the beautiful victorian building you'll see in a moev, part of the 1976 san francisco architectural survey. the owners have worked very hard to preserve the character and protect the longevity of this building by making substantial interior tenant improvements through the addition of exterior signage, designing, planting which enhances the appearance and in harmony with the building

exterior. here you see the restaurant plan. one of the biggest reasons the owners selected this space was for the possibility of outdoor dining on this small yet sunny and pleasant outdoor area. the new revised interior floor plan, the restaurant held was taken over last year from a restaurant that was in place for 20 years. and it was a complete gut and remodel and reconfiguration of the space. and the new interior floor plan was designed in such a way to draw the lights through the space from interior to out. so, the middle service areas are low and as you walk through the door of the space, you can see all the way through into the back inviting customers to the lovely back patio area at the rear. as we all know there are very few restaurants in san francisco where we can dine al fresco and customers seek out such establishments. it will be an advantage that will allow their nash entitle business, a, to stabilize, and

b, to grow * nascent * and continue viable into the future. many neighborhood residents and patrons express this would be a very desirable amenity. the very high majority of customers come into the restaurant and ask tracy and gerard if they can sit outside. unfortunately so far they have not been able to allow it. so, i understood i had 15 minutes. is that the timer here? >> keep going. okay, thank you. so, we do feel quite strongly that the restaurant patio is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and community. and this has been substantiated by the planning department's preliminary recommendation. these public front facade photos show the architectural character of the building and you can see how the restaurants have -- restaurant owners have taken care to preserve the character and enhance the quality