thelowe's -- to the requirement that lowe's is required, there is a high potential for many laborers to stand and try to find work or to develop some kind of agreement on how the flow of workers might take place in an orderly manner in conjunction with the day laborer program that the city and county of san francisco run. the city administrator is also looking at longer-term solutions not necessarily on bay shore, but we are open to looking at that as well, where the day laborers might be able to have a site that is a little bit larger and more suitable to their growing needs at the moment. commissioner sugaya: just a quick question. if this is owning or in place, as it is now, and lowe's came

in, do you think that project could be approved? >> it would require a conditional use. commissioner sugaya: i understand that, but i do not understand how you would characterize them as a green home improvement store. >> that will be an issue that your staff and the community would look at, and it would clearly be subject to the conversations, but we have not defined green or sustainable uses in the ordinance. it would be very difficult to do. we think it would obviously fit within the general home- improvement framework, but as it is, lowe's is potentially providing one of the key anchors for us to build the home improvement district.

the corridor that is left. vice president olague: along the lines of what commissioner moore was commenting on with the day laborers, i do recall in the conditions we had continued conversations. one thing that did come up then is we were not requesting a lot, obviously. just that they have facilities and accommodations that work, you know, humane, really. a place to maybe six. in some areas, they may be had -- when i talk to people at public architecture, someone there had designed a gazebo. i never saw it, but public

architecture had actually designed some place for them to sti and that -- for them to sit and that sort of thing. but it was not something we could get agreement on at the time from the project sponsor. it looks like there are other possibilities, but that was something we raised in our conversation. >> there will be a conversation hopefully by the end of this month to look at possibilities on the site that might facilitate a kiosk, or a more orderly process for day laborers to be on site. the other piece is that part of our bayshore economic action plan addresses within the employment section connecting the day laborer program more closely to other city services and resources, many of which would be facilitated through the city administrator's office. vice president olague: thank you. president miguel: i am personally very pleased this is coming along.

it has been talked about for too many years. it is a much more mixed area than people look at at first, even if they bother to look at it when driving through. it contains one of the oldest restaurants in san francisco. it contains a florist, a wholesaler. and if you take a look at the area east of bayshore, it was pdr before that term was ever invented. if you were going to invent that term, which san francisco did, it was just taking a look at that area. that is exactly what it is. and so i think this is totally inappropriate. -- totally appropriate. >> the motion before you is for approval per staff's recommendation, offered today, dated november 17.

on that motion? commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: sye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president olague: aye. president miguel: aye. >> that is for both a and b. thank you. we are now going back to item 16, case number 2,010.0863t, amendment to planning cut section four to 0.1 through 4 to 0.5 -- planning section 420.1 through 420.5. >> thank you for accommodating the supervisor's scheduling request. i am john lao, from supervisor maxwell's office. the legislation we have put

forth is to strengthen the section of the code by updating the findings supporting the vistacaion valley and community. it identifies the need for various infrastructure improvement. additionally, we are proposing to modernize the program in several ways so it operates in closer fashion with some of the other community impact programs we have established in the city. as you probably remember, it was the first major plan area specific impact fee areas created. since then, the city has become more sophisticated, with market octavia being a more recent example of how we structure those funds. essentially, we need to bring the vis valley program into the

fold in terms of the basic structure, the way terms are expanded, the use of funds, and other things. there is no change to the proposed fee level. in the ordinance, we are not proposing any change to that. the total amount that may be owed by project in the vis valley area will not go up or down as a result of the modifications we proposed. i will highlight two quick points and then walked through the mechanics of the modifications. as part of the effort to bring this the program into greater -- to bring this fee program into greater similarity to those used citywide, we want to use the in kind agreement program in the code. you have adopted policies pursuant to that recently as an

option for sponsors in the vis valley plant area that would want to pursue that agreement. we have had conversations with sponsors of a number of sponsors in the executive parking area o area with your staff to give them a better understanding of how the in kind process works. i expect those conversations will continue. they raised concerns about how the overall in kind process my work. i would respectfully submit to you that if staff believes this rises to a level that should be left to the commission, that that happens. ultimately, that legislation that we are bringing before you is to modify the visitacion valley program, not to address the broader in-kind policy. there is a section we want to modify. i think it is clarified in the

staff memo that has been circulated or is about to be. it is a section that provides a credit against the fee for the provision of on site community facilities. we are proposing to leave that section in the ordinance, but to modify it slightly by reducing the capita, which will limit the total amount by which a sponsor could take advantage of this particular credit. by leaving it in, it the knowledge of the changing landscape of visitacion valley. we find a number of community centers in the neighborhood, including the john king community center, the village, which until recently is being operated by the community development corporation as their clubhouse. unfortunately, some of the centers are lacking in terms of programming and operations, and even the physical maintenance in some areas. but we do have many important shells of community centers in

the area. given that fact, we found it would not be appropriate to continue to incentivize the development of a significant amount of new community facilities in the area. but in the spirit of compromise we have proposed not to eliminate that section entirely, but to clarify that sponsor should come before you, the commission, to obtain full credit under that section of the code. of course, that is all voluntary. it is simply an option for sponsors who wish to pursue that. i know it is a rather technical modification to this, but i think stuff will walk you through the mechanics. -- staff will walk you through the mechanics. i will be here to answer any questions. president miguel: thank you. >> kate mcgee, planning department's staff. on december 28, super buzzer maxwell introduced an ordinance that would modify the visitacion valley fee and code.

the amendments bring the administration into line with the city's other impact fee programs. the amount and area subject to the fee does not change. the requested action is to recommend adoption. the impact fee was adopted in 2005 on the coattails of rincon hill community infrastructure fee. since then, a number of impact the programs have been established direct the city. in july, the was legislation that improved code applicability by creating consistent definitions across the area of plan impact fees. this passed on october 26. the legislation before you today trails that effort. generally, it expands the fee's

applicability rather than allocating funds to specific projects. it allows funds to go toward types of and the structure projects. for example, the previous order and stated -- had stated money had to go to blankin avenue improvements. the current order would allow money to go for street improvements, allowing other developments in the area. we have previously discussed the stopping affordable housing from paying impact fees. this proposes to do that. this amendment would establish a fee waiver for affordable housing units. affordable housing units are defined as an affordable at or below 80% ami and subsidized by the housing authority and the san francisco redevelopment agency. the administration of the fee

has changed so that the prioritization of funds is considered by the interagency planning committee first, which will ensure interagency coordination rather than individual agencies going directly to the board to request funds. lastly, the supporting visitacion valley nexus study has been updated to show the demand generated by new development in the fee area, per california legislative requirements. a number of amendments have been discussed, summarized in the memo sarah is passing up to you right now. while it is a bulky memo, everything is summarized in the cover page. i am happy to go into detail if the commission requests it. as such, a revised ordinance recognizes these potential

amendments. thank you for your attention. i am available for any questions you have. president miguel: thank you. i have one speaker card. espinola jackson. >> she is gone. president miguel: is there no public comment? >> espinola has excused herself for a minute. i think she has gone to the -- >> she will come back. president miguel: other folks can come in. >> i am michael burke. i represent a developer who wishes to develop at the park. they are talking about a total of 1600 units. i gave you copies of a letter on october 27, and sent you an e-mail today. i had to wait until today to

send you an e-mail because i did not find out what was on the pieces of paper that are being handed to you now until 9:30 this morning. i have two points i want to make that i think are very important. one is economic. mr. lao said that the proposed amendments will not change the fees and the developer pays. the proposed amendment will change the credit has a right that mr. uribe would have now under the ordinance for a community center he is proposing to locate in his property, in the center of x park, where the urban center is going to be. the community center would be available not only to the x park people but to those from bayview and anywhere in the city in the same way it is available to the uribe residents.

that is a hit of several hundreds of thousands of dollars. that is hard for someone to tolerate with a building that has been almost empty, to accommodate the san francisco forty-niners. that is something this commission should take into consideration. my second point is process. we negotiated the full credit to under 24 pap five or six years ago. i believe mr. anthononini was on the commission at that time. the fee ordinance was roundly opposed by bayview and existing residence at x park because it would transfer development dollars to vis valley. we were able to work with the community to come to an accord so there was no discord before this commission when the vis

valley ordinance was introduced. the reason we were able to do that was the guarantee the credit would be set aside for a community facility that would be used by x park and bayview. there is not a single community center planned for x park, and x park is going to have 2800 residents. i do not think anybody wants them to go through the tunnel to have a community meeting. we just got this and have not completed our discussion with the supervisor. we recommend you take no action. thank you. president miguel: is there additional public comment? >> hello, commissioners. my name is steven sugata, and i am here on behalf of universal parent corporation, doing the

project in exposition park. we find ourselves in an unfortunate situation where we cannot support this legislation in its current form only because we have not had the opportunity to review these materials. we have been working with the supervisor and we are encouraged by what has been said. in fact, i appreciate what mr. lao has said today, that there is no intent to increase or decrease the obligations of any developer as a result of these amendments. however, the way we have seen them thus far, they do, as far as we are concerned, and we need to go through them a little more carefully. we have just received amendments at 1:11 this afternoon, and just received some at 3:45 this afternoon. in the past when we have dealt with this ordinance, there was time to review it. there has not been such time as in the past. you know universal paragon corporation has had an enormous contribution and commitment to

these neighborhoods. during the last several years, while the recession has hit developments hard, they have continued to make huge capital expenditures for cleanup of land out there, for planning activities in vis valley. yet this could seriously derail any potential projects in the future. i am optimistic we could continue to work this out with the supervisor's office, but we really cannot do it with what we have now. i urge you to postpone any action on this until we have had an opportunity to go further with it. i do not want to get into the details of some of the other issues because i still have not reviewed all of the other issues. but there are also considerable issues with regard to the nexus study which we feel are inconsistent with further planning efforts which have occurred in this area. there is a huge park planned in

vis valley. that is the result of this commission's actions. in the nexus study that was prepared, it said there are no new needs for parks in vis valley. i do not know how that can be consistent. i do not understand. perhaps this can all be worked out, but we have not had the opportunity to do that. i urge you to continue this matter until we have had a chance to sit down further and review the issues. president miguel: thank you. >> thank you very much. espinola jackson, bayview hunger'ter's point. i had to go to another commission and that is what i did not hear everything. do not vote on this today. we have thanksgiving coming up and christmas coming up. this will be done next year. when i was here to hear this, it

was put over. there was supposed to be community meetings. i have been on the executive board for over 30 years, and they have not been a meeting on this issue. that is before you on no. 16. as was stated, we come before you to tell you the truth on things. not all of you, because you were not here. you rush things through. i am requesting that you do not vote on this issue today, because pretty soon we are going to have a new supervisor for district 10 and we want to make sure things are done correctly and in order. because they have been done in that community, things that should not have been. i came here and almost was in tears to how these developers have been treated. they have been forced into doing things that should not have had to been done. i am requesting that you please, please do not vote on this today. thank you very much. president miguel: is there

additional public comment? >> dan macarino. i have been a resident of little hollywood in san francisco since 1989. i attended last saturday a meeting in visitacion valley concerning the developments fledgelock, excecutive park, and other issues in our neighborhood. this issue never came before us to review. i want to agree with mrs. jackson that this community should put this aside, allow the communities to review it. do that before you vote on it. we have been working very hard with developers out there to find what is necessary in relationship to what the community needs are. if they are in fear that this ordinance will stop those projects after the long public process we have been in, it would be a very unfortunate for

us to have to start over. so i encourage you to put this aside and allow us to take a bit of a closer look at it. >> good afternoon. my name is claude everhart. i work for uribe park and paragon, and community outreach. i am part of the job developing an agency in hunters point. we are the agency that was charged with hiring bayview, hunters point, and visitacion valley resitents fodents for the loweepss project.

it is one of the best victories we have had in that part of the city for a long while. i ask that you put over this issue. this is a job-killing issue, and it is also a neighborhood divisive issue. this ordinance was passed in opposition to the people in the bayview hunters point community. it has not been discussed with the people. it has not been discussed with people in little hollywood. it has not been discussed with people in visitacion valley. we have 2000 families that currently live in executive park. it would say they are going to be deprived of community facilities in their community without any discussion. that is not how we do business in san francisco. please, let us put this over for community discussion. let us have or community debate.

let us put forward an ordinance that can have a community consensus. president miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment on this item? if not, public comment is closed. vice president olague: i would like to hear mr. lao and department staff respond to the comments we have heard. >> i respectfully ask that you simply look at what is actually contained in the legislation we put before you and not, frankly, fear-driven assertions about what may be in there. this is largely a technical effort that does not change the amount of money collected from the community fund. nothing is at risk here. we have not made assertions about projects that should not be supported with the moneys collected by this community impact fund. we have introduced levels of flexibility and increased the number of options that sponsors would have in meeting their obligations under the fund by

not tying it into a citywide process which you have now established in other parts of the city. there is nothing in the current legislation or the proposed modifications that would prevent the building of a community center. there is nothing that says community centers would out be appropriate. there is still a guaranteed credit we have left in the ordinance. we have simply suggested that this is the more appropriate body to come forward and go through the in-kind process which is now established. it makes a lot of sense. we may want community centers. we may need parks. we feel a more robust stock analysis with your input is the correct thing you and fashion with which to deliberate -- we feel a more robust staff analysis with your input is the correct thing and fashion with which to deliberate. commissioner antonini: the

specifics in regards to the reduction in the credit for the on-site facility -- i remember the hearing when that was approved, and i do remember that part of it, that there was a credit for the community center that would be available for all in the area, not just the residents of executive park. counsel for mr. uribe is representing there will be a reduction in net credit. is that correct or not? >> there is still the same direction of community center and the same opportunity to provide one if the sponsor wishes. the currently structured way that credit is worded, we have proclaimed that basic structure in the ordinance. but we have reduced the guaranteed cap that will be available, given the rationale i laid out that there were community facilities in the neighborhood. a sponsor could still come before you and seek the relief of their entire fee burden for a

community center. we simply think there should be a community process and dialogue about that. i agree with community center statements that they would want a robust conversation about that, rather than legislating it wholesale. we think it should come before you in a more collaborative fashion with more analysis to help inform your decision. we propose to retain that credit program in the legislation. we have reduced the cap, but we feel it is in the spirit of compromise and recognizing that program is in the existing legislation. we have retained it, but we have reduced the cap. commissioner antonini: mr. burke, could i ask you about that please? my feeling is that there is a reduction on the guarantee. basically, that was negotiated five years ago. i forget the exact date of the hearing. i do not think this should be changed, if that was a deal cut them. >> that was a deal that was cut

them. it was cut directly with the supervisor. i know that because i was on the other side, representing the group of owners at the time. the community center has been included in our plants since 2005. -- plans at since 2005. it is part of our financial program. mr. uribe has had to borrow an additional $3 million and had to tap his retirement fund to keep this project alive for five years to accommodate the city. to end at $700,000 at this stage is a lot of money when he wants to go out and talk to a partner and a partner says, "what is it going to cost me for community benefits?" right now, we can tell them. if these amendments are approved as proposed, we cannot. it is a lot of money up front, and there