descriptions of the fud. the best way to think of it is that right now the zoning there is a combination of m1 underlying sony, industrial protection zoning, and interim controls on top of that. it is a three-layer cake there, and what we're proposing to do is essentially just tweak that by changing the underlying zoning to pdr 2 and creating this sud. what it will generally do, and this is again in very broad terms -- first of all, it will permit most retail. that retail threshold will go up to 50,000 square feet, which is the city wide threshold. under 50,000 square feet of retail will be permitted with several exceptions. just one of those is the the formula of retail above 10,000 square feet would 000a cu.

again, the -- would require a cu. together, there are synergies around the green home- improvement that we have been talking about for a very long time as a city. there are some other very minor adjustments, and then, there is a few things centered around the traffic and congestion concerns that were mainly expressed by neighboring communities, and we are dealing with that by requiring cu for automotive uses. that includes drive-in facilities. we are also proposing to remove the required parking so there would not be any parking minimums. we are not imposing new parking maximums.

whatever pertains now will continue to pertain. that is a brief description of the proposed zoning. the design guidelines -- again, there are 30 of them. i will not describe each one. there is generally a few things we are trying to achieve with the design guidelines. they are first of all meant to regulate how buildings address the streets. right now, they are either blank facades on most buildings or blank facades on the streets or hiding behind an old building. we also have guidelines of where to locate parking on a parcel and manage curb costs and things like that. finally, we are looking at what buildings look like, particularly at their grain attributes because we would like to have the place served also as a demonstration ground for the technologies that will be sold and developed there.

that concludes my presentation, and i can take any questions. commissioner miguel: thank you. i will come -- public comment on this. [reading names] all right. [reading names] there are a lot of people outside. commissioner olague: they are probably not prepared to be here. commissioner miguel: [ -- [reading names]

let me call these names again. [reading names] if you are here. >> good afternoon. i am the program coordinator from the bernal heights center. we also serve a lot of youth from different areas. one thing that i know for sure that i have been observing while we are doing our development work is that a lot of the students are very excited to go into the work force. when it comes to planning, i believe that it is an important

priority to have local hiring happening and also for local businesses, so i wanted to speak for them and make sure that that is being understood because we are very excited. right now, we are extensively working with them. it is very important that there is something there for them as well. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners, and thank you for listening to us. my name is rachel. i'm the director of community engagement with bernal heights neighborhood center, and as such, i know how important it is to engage all parts of the equation. at times, it has been a contentious effort, but i think as a whole, there -- this has

been a really great effort between all of the department's necessary to make this happen as well as the two districts supervisors' offices who really put together a plan that is unified. one of the things i do want to commend as well as the planning department's staff who really approached this with thoughtfulness and really within a lot of the needs and concerns that many of our community members have. what you will see in the plan as mentioned earlier is a result of that, which is a focus on local hiring, support for and consideration for local businesses, both the present and future local businesses, as well as consideration for the environmental impact of the plan for the development along bayshore boulevards, so we urge you to support this plan and to thank the efforts of all the parties involved in putting together a really inclusive proposal before you. thank you.

>> commissioners, bernal heights neighborhood center. bayshore boulevards has tremendous importance to both bayview and bernal heights communities. consider the tenacity of businesses that have thrived during the decades-long vacancies that has now been filled by the lowe's retail store. there are restaurants, auto repair resources, and construction material suppliers. and so many others. it is kind of a unique district we have. with lowe's moving in, we need controls to ensure that future uses support the destiny and needs of our two neighborhoods, of the southeast sector of the city and the city as a whole. it has taken a few rounds of facilitated meetings that over a number of years, but we have

come to understand the commonality of purpose that we have between our neighborhoods to support existing businesses, to prioritize local hiring, and to prioritize local loan businesses, and retain a broad diversity of the types of businesses we have. the zoning ever before you, when you strip away the technical language, represents communities working together and the constituents from our neighborhoods. the youth, seniors, and families who rely on bernal heights center did not just come from bernal heights or the excelsior where our services are located. they come from the entire area. they rely on us. this zoning proves that boundaries can be opportunities for breaking down barriers so we can work together towards a just and equitable community for all. i want to remind you that when

the home depot proposal came before this body -- five years ago i believe it was -- the home depot what have move forward without any public hearings because all that was before the planning staff was a buy-right proposal. the reason he came before the commission was because we appeal. we want to really do community- based planning. i want to applaud the efforts of supervisor campos and amiano before him, and maxwell has seen us through. everybody has pulled us through, and the fact that we are coming to you with support tonight -- this afternoon speaks volumes to their work. thank you very much. commissioner miguel: are there additional speakers on this item?

>> i'm a 37-year resident of the bernal heights area, and i would urge disapproval at this time. there's a couple of errors in the text, and i think we should get this worked out first. thank you. commissioner miguel: are there additional speakers? >> good afternoon again. i would ask you to pass on this because the most important things that we have been waiting -- the most important thing is that we have been waiting a long time. when it comes to the final date, we always want to have another hearing because we do not know enough. we have been talking about this a long time, especially the pac committee. i'm not a member, but i attend all those meetings. with your support, and with avalos making sure that there is

local hiring from the community, we are seeing people from bayview-hunters point getting jobs that we have never seen before because we are getting rid of that good faith effort because we have always had the faith, but there was not ever an effort. thank you very much. commissioner miguel: further public comment on this item? >> before i start, if i could pass the secretary a brief. i have 10 copies, so it looks more than it is. good afternoon. representing the goodman family who owns a large number of areas subject to this rezoning, including almost 50% of the area identified as opportunity sites as well as the property where ibm lowe's recently opened.

-- as well as the property where lowe's recently opened. it is a key actor to bay shore boulevard, but the surrounding area is underutilized and needs a coordinated development plan. we met with supervisor maxwell earlier this week, and we appreciate them first of all proposing this reasoning, but also hearing and working with us and we look forward to continuing that dialogue. i would like to go over some of our suggested provisions, -- suggested revisions, which are in the letter i submitted, and i apologize for the late said middle of that letter. -- the late submittal of that letter. the red line is some of the ordinances we would like to see. first, we would like to see some revisions on case street at the top. we would like to see it read

that while green home- improvement uses are desirable, they are not the only practices that will be permitted, so we do not necessarily limit the retail type in the district that jeopardize the success of this plan. we would also like to ensure that neighborhood-serving retail are submitted. second, we propose clarification a little bit further down to the retail definition. right now, the language says it is permitted, but if you look at section 218, it limits retail usage to no more than 2500 square feet a lot. we are just asking that the language be revised to correct that. third, all the way further down, we believe that the proposed formula retail threshold of 10 doesn't square feet is too low for this particular location, which is not an industry, and to discourage rival neighborhood-

serving retail uses. non-retail usage is permitted up to 50,000 square feet here and elsewhere, and we believe that the formula of retail threshold should be 25,000 square feet at this location. last but not least, if you turn to exhibit d, it is a proposed plan by the goodman family. the most logical place and location for a grocery outlet is on the lots, which are opposite of the existing lowe's. the other types of usage zone, which we believe to be feasible, are in fact neighborhood-serving retail. first, we would like to see the

lot be included in the rezoning, and second, to some of our concerns and what our suggested revisions in the red light ordinance, is to ensure that something like this that we had in the plan which we think is feasible should be developed. commissioner miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment on this item? if not, public comment is closed. commissioner borden. >> commissioners, before you start, all of you standing in front of the door have created a fire hazard. if you could look to the other side of the room or find a seat in the room or go outside, we would really appreciate it. thank you.

commissioner borden: if i could ask someone to come up and talk about these issues that were just raised. >> certainly. commissioners, the version of the ordinance that your staff circulated earlier is the one we feel represents the compromise. the community dialogue has gone on for a year, and that is the one will work closely with supervisor campos to produce. some of the issues about retail control have been address. i'm sorry to sponsor a representation did not see that fire, and we will make sure they have a copy of that, but we are confident that retail control is written accurately now. frankly, the 10,000-square-foot level is a product of community compromise, so we stand by that. in terms of potential future modifications to the boundaries, as i mentioned, the supervisor finds those opportunities

intriguing, particularly ones that may include a supermarket operator, but it is still conceptual at this time. >> i agree. sounds like from what has been proposed, what the chief is talking about is completely permissible. in the future, did you see the economic development plan? i know there was an overview document, but i would be interested in seeing that. also, i wondered if someone could talk about the update of lowe's. i do not know if you are privy to when they will be opening up. >> they are open for business. commissioner borden: how did they do on local hiring? do we know? >> we worked with our staff and economic work force development team and came up with what we feel is a very strong program. commissioner borden: great. i notice that in the conditional use of three additional requirements that we are adding here, i would imagine within

the bayshore home-improvement specialist history, they will be adding something to that? >> yes, and in many ways, we have added that to the ordinance. first of all, on the general purpose and intent of ongoing work with that is a key goal of local higher, we have added working with your staff. one of the criteria, one of the actual controls is formula of retail over 10,000 square feet should enter into -- thank you -- under -- it was page 5 stating that sponsors should answer directly to an employment contract and policy agreement with the redevelopment agency, which is a stand alone agency, so we have warned that into our control. commissioner borden: great. i'm excited to see this come

forward. we have talked a law about bay shore boulevard. we have seen too many products -- we have talked a lot about bayshore boulevards and we have seen too many projects where it did not reach what it was supposed to reach. >> there was an air of a sheet that was passed around at the beginning. we wanted to make sure that we were up to date. commissioner olague: i have a couple of questions, and perhaps i do not understand fully. why will this be under redevelopment? >> this is a redevelopment area. commissioner olague: it is a redevelopment area? i was not quite sure. normally, -- are you planning to

do any modifications? i always found bayshore boulevards difficult to navigate as a user. while i understand having two major interchanges for people to get on and off the freeway, navigating anything is the new or extended through this usage, and if so, are we associating pedestrian bicycle ways in order to make this a better scene between the two neighborhoods? >> part of the neighborhood is a streetscape circulation document, which we have been working on. it is not yet completely done. we have a lot of preliminary ideas out. we have been talking to the community and other agencies,

and it was from the beginning considered to be part of this economic development strategy, the idea that you could walk from store to store, that people could use bicycle and transit to get there, which gives it such a competitive advantages over other clusters of that type. definitely, streetscape circulation was considered part of it. parts of it are still being worked on, so that is the part that is -- one of those parts. >> ok, along the same lines, as we are talking about envisioning a new district, which will be based on your description, i would like to see three- dimensional guidelines, which talked about the overall distinction relative to using distinct roof forms to get right

knee and appearance, and somewhat an idea of what its physical totality might look like. i do not want to criticize the effort. i know the difficulty of getting physical consensus. it would be easier for us if we have been updated along the way of what you're doing. it would help us to think along with you, raise certain questions or issues to kind of in rich what you have to offer to the dialogue. >> maybe we can develop a way of involving the commission more. again, there are other pieces of it that are still being discussed. >> it is inevitable that with some of the larger uses, you will have the same old boring buildings, and even though they might do green stuff inside, they will look as old and boring as it always is, and i think this is an opportunity to

change a corridor in the city, and as people look down, they will see something that they get excited by. while we support you in the general motion, very important to keep in mind that there are other expertises, at least on my part. >> understood. commissioner antonini: i think this legislation is doing some good things, but i have some concerns because i have seen that area sit fallow for many years, and there are some areas that lend themselves to home improvement, obviously, the bayshore corridor is one of the few that would. if the formula of retail threshold is 50,000 square feet city-wide for conditional use, why does it need to be so low in this area? it would seem to me it should

even be higher in this area because it may impose a hardship on a smaller -- even if they are formula retail, they may decide not to go in because the cost of a small out like that might not be worth the process they have to go through -- a small outlet like that. >> you are right. there is a small area of retail control workplaces a statewide stipulation would still be in effect -- where places of city- wide stipulation would still be in effect. because the control of the 10,000-square-foot proposal is only on formula retail, that knocked out a lot of the community concerns we heard throughout this process. and of course, that is all it is. under 10,000, one could still support a bank, cafes, a wide range of neighborhood activities that could go in the corridor

without that additional process requirement. in fact, several of the businesses on the corridor now with staff helping us look at the average size there, so we felt that was a good meter in which to place that requirement and additionally to weed into some of our local higher objectives. commissioner antonini: i guess my concern is with the cu for formulary tell because up until this time, there was no reason why non-formula retail could not come into there, and the reason is probably there is not the activity. hopefully, the lowe's will generate the activity, not just serving the neighborhood but serving those patronizing the home-improvement facilities that may go in. i hope it does not discourage development in the area by

making it more difficult. the local hiring -- that is fine. i guess what i'm hearing is that it is going to go to redevelopment, and they are going to set the threshold based upon policy. you are not giving us any numbers in this legislation that's a 30%, 50%, or anything like that. >> the policy that is adopted by the commission, and we have a copy we can send a around, but it is closer to 50% target. commissioner antonini: that seems to be what i remember from the agreements we had when we were discussing some of the projects in bayview-hunters point and others. that would be if it is realistic, then i think that it is probably what should be in here. that is the thing, and then there were a couple of other things that were brought up by a couple of speakers. i guess we are not disallowing

anything that is not specifically green. sometimes it is very difficult to have a green type of home improvement store. i'm not saying it could not be done, but some of the elements might make it a little difficult. i'm not sure what the requirement is. >> we feel like we have left enough flexibility so that it would accommodate a wide range of services and commercial activities. the green home improvement is certainly an organizing framework, one which we think makes it very appropriate for the district and will help organize businesses. we want to attract state and federal grant funding to help us in that effort, but it absolutely will attract a wide range. >> and then there were concerns about grocery stores which would come under the conditional use if they are considered formula of retail, i would assume, so they would also have to go through the same process. >> that is correct, yes. >> ok, because that is something

that is really needed. the other thing was these loomis lots. >> correct. they are currently is owned pdr2, and i think we have acknowledged that given the fact that they are vacant adjacent to the study area under the same ownership as some of the significant parcels that there is an intriguing opportunity to talk about catalyst-type commercial opportunities there. they were not squarely part of the community conversation thus far, so we simply cannot support a late in the game modification to include them. commissioner antonini: ok, so that could come up later because there are not any changes in the zoning. i think that answers most of my questions on this, and my main concern is we do not want to discourage businesses from coming in there by making it too

restrictive. thank you. commissioner moore: you talked about local hiring -- sorry for keeping you up there. does this include considerations for day laborers? we had previously a few years ago had long discussions about an issue which was not resolved. has this been properly address both in physical planning as well as in new policies about local hiring? >> i may call on my colleagues from across the hall for more help on that, but the upshot is we would feel it would accommodate and a closer look is warranted for that issue. there was a commission requirement that they make a contribution to the city's currency they labor program. they have complied with it, so there is an ongoing conversation with the city administrator's office and other agencies as to how to move that work forward.