meetings throughout so, 4 to 6 public meetings over the next six months, open to the public. so, the end result is 2012 revisit is we will be amending the redevelopment plan -- we'll be amending the design development based on revised community priorities and revised changes. and the [speaker not understood] redevelopment plan, that was our way because we don't have a redevelopment agency. so, we'll incorporate sort of the pieces that are relevant into different appropriate binding agreements and, you know, whatever they need to live. and this will be sometime in the spring of 2013. so, that's kind of the general updates. there were two -- so, the formal part of the presentation, we had scheduled something back in october and we weren't able to be here. there were a couple requests for information. there was a request from i

believe commissioner sugaya on the [speaker not understood]. we are tracking that to look at -- kind of keeping track of it. we know the e-i-r will be released in the fall. we're looking out to see whether the city proposal seems fairly compatible with the schlage lock site. we're looking at a community less compatible, but we're still looking at the e-i-r. there was request for information on caltrain and high-speed rail i believe from commissioner moore. we still think that the schlage lock project is [speaker not understood] caltrain is trying to electrify, making it quieter, more friendly to transfer into development. with regards to high-speed rail, we're keeping track of that. we know it would use the tracks. it would go through there, but

they're sort of -- the stations are further to the north and further to the south of the site. so, that kind of -- we're keeping track of those things. that is the extent of the information that we have. so, i'll leave it up for questions and more details. >> thank you. we'll open it up for public comment. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll go to commissioner comments. commissioner moore. >> thank you for the [speaker not understood] and good sense of humer. [laughter] >> i have a separate question. you addressed some more comprehensive issues sub fronding the project. that being leland. but i have a focused question and then the issue of bay lands and brisbane because that is a megaproject and i hope that we will be able to create a dialogue with the city about projects which are compatible with each other across jurisdictional boundary lines.

the other issue is way back when at the north and to the east there is a small community, almost like a pocket residential. i think it's called little hollywood, i remember that, it's stuck in the back of my mind. i can't remember the streets any more. one is called [speaker not understood] or something like that. is there still a discussion in some way or another to address improvements related to that particular [speaker not understood] of housing? even as an idea, it might not be phase 1, but to tie this community back to the larger emerging context of the larger community is i think we'll need something i would love to see continue. >> absolutely. [speaker not understood] sarah [speaker not understood] with the planning department. [speaker not understood] clarify the community commissioner moore is speaking of. if we can get the overhead for a moment.

thank you. little hollywood is a neighborhood to the northeast of the site. sort of the northern east, top right corner of this. obviously carries on, it is not intend today show little hollywood. that gives you an idea of where it is. just for reference. tying both sides of the community into the schlage lock site has been a key goal of this plan. we were pretty challenged in the schlage lock site because of the rail. that obviously is a barrier along the schlage lock division. the rail goes underground at the top of the schlage lock site which runs into blanken avenue. there are a number of things happening now which i think are parallel to this project which are going to increase that connectivity. the first i'm thinking about is where the rapid transit that is planned for the hunters point

shipyard comes in and lands within the schlage lock site. what we'd like to do is have it land as close as possible. there is an opportunity for it to come in and potentially connect at the northern tip of the schlage site which will not only connect it, but all the way across the freeway in terms of executive park and hunters point shipyard. so, that's one positive thing. the second project that's underway right now is a project called green connections, which i believe you may have had a briefing on. it is a project the planning department looks at the shape of the road, how do we better connect communities on foot and by transit to open spaces that already exist. we picked visitacion valley community as one of our pilot neighborhoods. right now we actually are planning a connection that would follow through little hollywood along blanken avenue, connect at the top of the schlage site and back through visitacion valley connecting with the greenway. so, i think that project development, when we did have

our october workshops for the schlage site, we actually partnered with the green connections team to look at how we make that connection better so we talked to the community at the same time and didn't make them come to two workshops. so, that connection is developing, but i think that's one more step towards what commissioner moore is talking about. and i look forward to my partners and the department coming back and talking about that project as well. >> it would be interesting when you talk about phasing if you're taking on a project to talk about the technical difficulties of the site. the people remember has an incredible grade and difference 40 feet from one side to the other, very difficult to develop, very difficult to plan. particularly like you have to basically almost build a high wise building to come level with 3rd avenue and the light rail extension in that area. that's planning issue as well as physical design issues, and particularly green connection issues. if you want to have green connections before the whole side is fully built out is a

tough problem. a few weeks ago, it's probably 6 or 8 weeks ago, i came with a [speaker not understood] to the planning commission because i had read an article in the paper there was some specific developer who was expressing interest to start on this side. if that's the people with you today or is that somebody else? >> the only developer interest we're aware of is universal -- >> is that the same group? wonderful, it's good to hear. >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you. a few things. i know we mentioned infrastructure financing, which, of course, has a lot of promise, i think, and the ability to transfer a certain percentage of the tax increment dollars. i think it's maximum 65 cents depending on whether you have the assessment for schools in there or not. so, that seems like a promising possibility. and the other thing would be, and i guess a lot has to do

with the plans universal paradigm corporation. we have a number of things the community has wanted, about we have to find out what is going to appeal to the business community and allow development to move forward. and it may not always be an exact fit, but certainly, you know, if there's something that's out there that is more attractive and it's an area that has a lot of potential with its transit locations and its closeness to the freeway, closeness to caltrain, closeness to muni, it could be a very appealing site for a variety of things and i'm sure everybody is aware of that. it looks as though the plan from looking at this is that the light rail is going to swing south of the site and have the joint station between caltrain and muni metro just

sort of just to the south of the schlage lock site. is that what i'm reading correctly there? >> yeah that's correct bach still part of the current plan. >> good. the other part is geneva extension. and that would be able to bring both traffic and presumably future light rail, other kind of transit along geneva and run it right across the freeway. and will connect up with the joint station so that you have a connection with the t -line so that trains that come down there don't deadhead. they can go right back that way, and also it connects the western part of san francisco with the eastern part. and then that entire line continues on and services [speaker not understood], executive park, and maybe even loops around the 3rd street. that's what i've envisioned.

i think that's probably a really good system if we can try to work with mta. i think there is a joint study -- there has been a joint study between san mateo county and san francisco mta, and i think it's really important that that all fits together the right way so that we allow that to progress in the right way. and i'm sure you have to also talk to others who are located there and make sure there is enough right-of-way to get that thing through. and then the other thing i think that's really important is to work with brisbane with their development and also understand their development on the bay lands is largely commercial. but there also is residential development occurring by toll brother, among others, and some very nice single-family homes being built up in the hills of brisbane. so, you know, this may be an opportunity to see what we can do wherever it's possible to

work together with the city of brisbane on this whole thing and make it fit together would probably be good thing to do. and also dovetail at the executive park development. but i think, you know, i just think of the next thing i'd like to see is perhaps we could see some sort of a plan on what sort of development potential there is where -- what sort of interest, what do we think we can attract to that area. because the thing is going to work, you're going to have to have attracts either retail, housing, probably some kind of commercial. it's going to have to be incentive for a developer to come in and develop the area. and finally, from has been some discussion, and i know this is probably water under the bridge, but i know supervisor cohen had talked a little bit about the home depot. i know we went down that road a long time ago, but it certainly

is worth just mentioning that, you know, they're happy with their entitled site from what i understand, up further north. you know, i certainly thought i would mention it and just see if there is ever any interest on their part or any other retailer of that type to be able to come into the site and provide an anchor and jump start the development of the -- and they have all kinds of different sizes of types of facilities they have. so, those are my main thoughts on the thing. thank you. >> commissioner wu. >> thanks. thank you for the update. it's great to hear that the cac has evolved into the texas tech any cal advisory committee, whatever you're formally calling it. * technical advisory committee i did get an e-mail from marlene train for a translation of the powerpoint. and in my own experience, i think quality control in

translation is really key. so, i'd be happy to work with you in any way. and then also if there is a possibility for a chinese-speaking contact ferment i don't know if there are any staff members that are able to liaison with that community. >> commissioner hillis. >> question back on the financing. i have [speaker not understood] possibility here. i know this was a redevelopment agency -- was a redevelopment area before. the state says you can't do an ifd -- >> [inaudible]. >> you're absolutely right. under current state law this area is not accessible for an ifd. we fall into the exact sweet spot of being a redevelopment area, which makes us on that

for a source. we are not looking at it as a top candidate just because of that. * >> how do you bridge that gap? is there enough -- if there is a $70 million gap in the project beyond the public [speaker not understood], would the work actually get you there [speaker not understood]? >> it's a balancing act. 70 million was a number that was picked at quite a rosy time. projections went down from 70 million by the time -- by early last year, i think we were closer at 40 to 50. so, already we were trying to work with what has -- i think that really is why it is a balancing act what we can do to increasev development potential. whether it is increase types or units, but actually make it more profitable for the developer and allow them more access revenue to put towards the public benefit and reducing

some of those public benefits. and that's really why we wanted to understand the community's priorities because i think the unfortunate reality is we cannot deliver a plan that was as amazing as this was -- and i think it was amazing. we had unanimous support from you guys, we had unanimous support from the community. the developer has been a strong partner. it was a really amazing plan. and unfortunately something that amazing is just not going to be financially feasible. that's why we need to downsize expectations and see what we can come up with that's realizable. >> given that, why isn't changing state law [speaker not understood] to allow -- this is a case -- it's like a perfect case of changing the state law to say it's kind of stupid where we had a redevelopment area can't use rfds. 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 woron