geography, which would could contest also. we will leave it at that. thank you. >> thank you. >> good morning commissioners. my name is jim growden, i am a member of the board of the visitation valley alliance. i and the board do support the infrastructure fee and fund mainly because all of that new development is going to have an effect on vess takes -- visitation valley. thank you. >> thank you. is there additional public comment on this item? if not, public comment is closed. commissioner? >> i want to generally express my support for the idea of streamlining and equalizing a

facilities infrastructure fee for them to be comparable across the city with eastern neighborhoods, with market, octavia and what else is out there. i just find the timing of this particular amendment somewhat curious because i am still completely in the dark about executive park. we commented on the e.i.r. we have commented on a number of issues which were not clearly explained to us. it is within that uncertainty that i am not really quite prepared to sign off on this amendment. i do need to see that the plan for executive park carries its own weight. i'm sure it does, and saying that more tongue in cheek. i think there is a disproportionate amount of

pushing this particular legislation. visitation valley has been with us for quite sometime. it is mature and well-developed all the way into drawings and implementation, while the other part for which we are equally responsible is barely in its infancy. it is in that level of disparity where i am not really prepared today to support this legislation. again, if this legislation is strong and stands on its own, i believe that our new supervisor will gladly inherit and push this legislation forward, and in its time when we hear it again, we can see more clearly what the issues are. >> i absolutely agree with commissioner moore. the standardization that is suggested by the department should go forward. i have no question on that. however, the other questions

and the push at this time concern me gately -- greatly. plus the fact that as we have had the reports, we have no idea what the legislation is at this point. there are amendments that have come in after our pact, and there is more amendments that will come in before the board of supervisors. we don't know what that legislation is. we would be recommending something on it where we -- or at least i -- wouldn't know what i was totally talking about. i can see our recommending the standardization. but as far as everything else is concerned, i could not deal with it because i don't know what it is. >> commissioners, i want to

clarify one thing that may be confusing from public comment. there are actually no changes of the legislation other than what is before you. that is part of the reason you requested a continuance. the one omission which is not part of the ordinance is the change to the nexus study. the nexus study is a supporting piece of documentation. there are no changes proposed. >> there are no changes proposed, all right. thank you. commissioner? >> well, i have similar concerns as expressed by commissioner moore and the president. i go back to the time when we did have this discussion a few years back regarding funding and what direction it should go to, as espinola jackson brought up in her testimony. and of course the continuing question about executive park and whether it rightly is pars

of bayview or visitation valley. i don't think that is jermaine to this thing, but it is something we have to look at. i appreciate what supervisor maxwell has done. as everyone has said, this is important to put this sort of legislation and bring things into compliance, and she was very instrumental in helping with other things earlier that were important. and certainly the broadening of the roads and other things was very important, but it has con stricted executive park. so we have to be very careful about what we are doing here. while i would like to see this passed during tenure of the existing supervisor, i would be ok with continuing it on to study it further. it is probably pretty close to being ok, but there are concerns that have been expressed by the public, developers and others that it probably doesn't hurt to

consider it more completely. we will see what the other commissioners have to say, but i would be supportive of further study. >> commissioner? >> i have a question. back in 2005 when i believe it was supervisor maxwell negotiated the $4.50 per square foot fee, there was no nexus study at that time, was there? or was there? >> the original ordinance including a findings section, which were sort of a defacto nexus, but no, there was no actual nexus. >> so it was like a negotiated fee of some kind at that time. and now we are in the process of having some spoveg numbers -- specific numbers, the 13 figure that we are proposing to use instead of the 458, is that

correct? >> the original ordinance identified a number of improvements in the area and then estimated the cost that would be needed in order to provide those improvements and divided it by the potential developments. that was sort of the nexus study at that time. the revised nexus study brings the methodology that we currently use for other nexus studies in line with what we have today, which is by calculation. we see the new development, and we see the needs that this new development creates in the area in different components, transportation, library, recreation and parks. and then those needs are given a percentage. >> ok. so i am correct then that the 458 addressed only certain

specific projects that were brought up at that time, and now we are taking a slightly different approach, which is more in concert with the eastern neighborhoods and other area plans which have nexus studies and which then address a broader range of improvements? >> yes. >> so that 1313 figure divided up among the their just community facilities, transportation and all that stuff addresses a broader range of services and facilities than the 458? >> the 1313 figure? what is is that? >> isn't that what we are using here in terms of the per square foot, or am i reading this wrong? >> i just don't know what the 13 -- i think you are referring to the nexus number. commissioner you are correct. to paraphrase what you said. the original find i guess specified $4.58.

the tunnel, the leland avenue. the knee study does it on a broad level. a person takes this many trips and therefore there is there much of an impact and it broadens the categories of where it can be spent. it can be spent on transportation projects in executive park, in bayview community. it broadens where the fee can be spent. it doesn't expand the fee, but because the methodology is changed, it expands where you can spend that fee. >> thank you. >> commissioner? >> although i respect supervisor maxwell's desire to see this resolved before she leaves office, and i respect her work -- she has always been a real ally, but i would like to see more time spent with

this. i remember when this discussion came up five years ago. i think there are still a lot of issues that need to be looked at closely, especially as it relates to executive park and how it relates to bayview and other issues that i don't think have been fully vetted. i think at least one commissioner was here at the time, and this same issue came up as i remember it. so i support given it more time . if the new incoming supervisor lives in that area, i'm not sure that would preclude her from being part of this. all of these are kwlinth issues around where you live and what you can participate in. but i support more time with this. >> commissioner? >> mr. lyle, maybe you can answer any question, i guess. i think this is something, as we deliberate on what action. i believe we are on a clock as

far as this is concerned, is that correct or not correct? >> well, there are a few clocks as always. there is the 90-day clock, the clock of business that the supervisor is trying to complete before her time is up. i'm not sure which one -- >> well, i guess my question is i hear a lot of the commissioners wanting to look at this further, and i can study that, but i don't know if we can continue this into january and have an ability to take action or if we just have to take whatever action we take today. >> i believe the 90-daytime frame for commission input does expire in a day or two. staff has the original day of introduction. it expires fairly soon. >> yes. >> if i could make a request to the commission, i think, as has been stated, there is support for the elements of the ordinance which come from the

standardization with the other fees, and that is really the impetus for the legislation entirely, which came largely from efforts from staff to do that. if we could identify the elements of the ordinance that don't fit, that would help us. that is the entirity of the legislation, is to standardize different fee areas across the city. there is kernel a sferings -- conversation to facilitate going forward about that. the currently supervisor's office it happy to do that, and the future will be happy to do the same. but there is nothing in the amendments before you today that changes the boundaries or the fee amounts. we would like some guidance as to what sections people feel actually accomplished at. again, the boundary is the same as it was seven years ago when

these discussions took place. that is simply a fact if you look at the legislation. we would appreciate some guidance. we feel we have really expanded the menu of options for sponsors wishing to enter into an in-kind agreement. sponsors can do that on-site, off site, or they can pay the fee. we are dramatically increasing the options available to a sponsors, whereas before there was a limited section. we would appreciate that guidance. >> thank you, mr. lyle. well, i can tell you what things for me i think need further answers. certainly i was confused about the crediting for the neighborhood center, for example, at executive park, but it might apply to other instances, too. and whether 100% of it could be used as a feeoff set.

thou i am hearing 50%, but maybe not. it is confusing as to whether they can use the cost as an offset. >> with the proposed amendment. sponsors can seek 100% of their fee obligation waved. we have tied directly into the commission's own in-kind agreement policy, which you adopted in the last few months. sponsors have already come before you and utilized that and had up to 100% of their fee waved. that is the system we are tying into. again, the legislation before had only one or two limbed send ose, and now we are expanding that. >> mr. burke, can i ask you to comment? is that your understanding of how this legislation reads at this time? >> that is not my understanding. there is a specific provision that deals with the on-site community facility and puts a

50% cap on it. the specific trumps the general. again, you are being asked to make a decision one way or the other on some legislation that you haven't seen yet. we are negotiating the provisions right now. i was very direct with you initially, and i will be direct with you again. what i am asking you to do is take full advantage of the 90 days, because that is the only way you will enable the various community groups -- and we don't have a preference for bayview hurnlt's point or vis valley. but we want to be in a community where everybody is shoulder to shoulder and moving forward. there is no reason for these amendments now. we would like you to continue the matter. if you send it to the supervisors and say we like the standard station, but we don't like the other stuff, who wants to bet me dinner that the ordinance that comes out of

land use will be a whole lot different than the one you think is appropriate. we are talking about sausage here. we got invited to the sausage factory at the last minute. and ingredients are being thrown into the mixer right now. i forget which one of you said it, but if this legislation -- and it may have been commissioner moore -- if this legislation is good legislation, it can stand on its own two feet. there is no reason why it won't pass next year. the other can't is the ordinance is on the book. the fee is there. we are not talking about a new fee. we are talking about changing the existing fee. >> ok. >> and it is a big deal. >> ok, thank you, mr. burke. i understand. >> sorry about that. >> that's ok. i guess my clarification is when you say and anyone says take advantage of the 90 days, but that 0 days expires at what time? does anybody have a comment on

that? >> well, the ordinance was introduced september 28th, so roughly the end of december. >> so what i'm hearing is the commission will have to make a decision on whether to take no action, take a supportive action with concerns or something along those lines, and certainly i don't feel comfortable approving it as written. we are not sure of its final form, but i think i would be supportive of the spirit of it and the standardizations that are being proposed, with real concerns about the issue of the funding, that specific issue, and then in general the funding distribution between various parts of the areas in concerns, that being visitation valley, bayview hunter's park and executive park, and how that is all going to work and understanding the nexus study. those would be any concerns. >> commissioner moore?

>> commissioner, were you just kind of drafting the parts of a motion? >> well, that was pretty close to it? >> why don't you do that? i was just going to do it, but why don't we do it to go? >> the commission would vote to support the concept of the legislation proposed by supervisor maxwell with significant concerns about the present structuring of the revisions to the preexisting fee agreements, most specifically concerning the neighborhood center executive park, but any others that may fall into this, that that has to be looked at with greater detail. and certainly where funding goes. i make the motion, but i think that encompasses what we are talking about here. mr. burke? >> my concern is this. that if you adopt a motion that says you support the concept of

standardization, you are taking action, and the legislation is going to go to land use on monday and to the board on tuesday, and you ain't going to see it again. so my suggestion would be that you choose to continue this until some meeting in january, or to take no action and let the clock run so that we can all deal with this next year. >> ok, thank you. >> it's a trap. >> well, i probably would be more in favor -- even though a continuance does not allow us to take supportive action, i think we could say we are supportive of the concepts, but we would rather continue it because there are elements that are confusing. >> i want to be more specific and say i am supportive of the concept of standardization. anymore only supportive of the concept of standardization. everything else will happen at

its time, whenever that is. >> correct. >> that is bringing executive park more to the table with a more mature statement where we can really more clearly support how the funds are being used. >> we have no control over the clock on this. >> that is correct. >> certainly here or at the board of supervisors. but i personally feel, inspite of my concerns regarding the overall legislation, that we should support the standardization as the department has put it together. >> so my motion would be a motion to continue with findings that we are supportive of the idea of standardization, and we want to see the supervisor work with all parties concerned to -- >> if i may, you are making --

in my concept, you are making a confusing motion, because it is a motion to continue, which would mean we take no action. >> right. >> but i think we should -- and then we have no control. we make no statement at all. >> commissioner, you could choose to continue with a comment rather than findings. >> all right. well, then let's do it that way. let's make a motion to continue, and rather than call them findings, the other part of my motion with a comment, and the comment is the supervisor should work with all parties to reach some agreement on issues regarding fees that were not -- that we don't feel at this point have been adequately addressed. >> you are referring now to the new supervisor, right? i hear you say that. >> well, the supervisor whose motion it is, and if it is after january, it would be implied it would be the new

supervisor. but the legislation as proposed by supervisor maxwell. i need a second, i guess. >> second, yes. >> continued to what date? >> january something, or february. >> february. >> february. >> ok, early february. >> i think there is a february 3rd date. >> ok, february 3rd. >> let me check to make sure of the date. yes, february 3rd. >> we were looking to move it along, but it's all good. >> that is five with me -- fine with me. >> was there a comment? >> i was just wondering how much is on the table here? are we talking about details like changing the boundary of the area? because that is what i heard

earlier from testimony regarding bayview hunter's point. that is going to be a huge issue -- not issue -- huge change. we would have to redo the nexus study. [inaudible] >> no, no, i know that. i am questioning the commissioners. and if that is the case, this won't happen until 2012. >> exactly. >> and in the meantime, the original $4.58 and whatever it applies to is still on the ordinance, and that would just continue to roll along. then we will miss the opportunity to impose a higher fee for broader public benefit. that is what the commission wants to do. >> supervisor maxwell, thank you for coming. >> thank you. i am understanding there is

some confusion about this, and i just wanted to kind of give you an idea of why and where. the purpose of this ordinance is simply to modernize the vis valley fund to bring it into greater consistency with the other impact fee programs in the city. with great community involvement and support, the original program was adopted in 2005. since that time, several similar fee programs have been established, and the city, including the eastern neighborhoods and market octavia areas. most recently, planning staff has been engaged in an ongoing effort to standardize the terminology and procedures used across the different community funds as much as possible, which is the motivation for this legislation. in that vein, we are proposing to utilize the commission's in-kind agreement policy, again at staff's recommendation. this will have the result of vastly increasing the options

available to a sponsor who wishes to meet the fee obligation through direct provisions of infrastructure. that is basically what wented -- what we wanted to do. since that time, the vis valley library is being built. it was through this fee that we were able to get moved forward. the pool has been finished. it was through the fees that we were able to get. vis valley has no big developments like bayview hunter's point, like the bayview district. they need certain things. leland avenue, i don't know if you have seen that yet, but it is remarkable. that was because of the fee. we were able to help pay for undergrounding. when you consider there is going to be a lot more people, and leland avenue is one of those wented to bring in to

make this a complete neighborhood. we wanted to make sure we had this fund and that the fund was the best that it could be, and especially -- it was one of the first. since then, as i mentioned earlier, you all have looked at things and tried to do a better job. i am understanding that, yes, you are going to be able to build a 5,000 maybe square foot room and get all of that. we said understanding that that was on the books, we will then make it so that will be by right. then if you want the entire amount, that you would have to go through a process. we were not saying that is not going to be the case, that you cannot have all of this, but that there would be a process. since then a lot more has come into the valley. we want to make sure that we were using our resources for the community and certainly for the new residents coming in as

best we could, and that is why this ordinance. we were not trying to penalize anyone. we said all right, we can kind of work with you on this. but we just wanted it to be the best that it could be. any questions. >> thank you very much. commissioner? >> supervisor maxwell, thanks. i guess my concern is, number one, in regards to the smaller issue, i guess, in terms of the entire thing regarding the executive park center that they are proposing. i think my understanding was this was something agreed upon a few years ago. i sort of feel that process is finished, and they should have the 100% without more entitlements having to be taken. but the bigger issue is the funding distribution. i'm certainly very supportive of visitation valley getting

the funding it needs to support the things that are happening there, but i guess i am not clear as to the distribution of the funds between the various areas in your district, that being at least the ones we are talking about here of bayview hunter's point, executive park and vis valley. i guess that is where i have the concerns to make sure that everyone is happy with how the distribution is being done. >> that is exactly why we did it this way. if you remember, recently with the project, bayview was going to be receiving an awful lot of amenities. they were going to have transportation and schools. to make this a complete neighborhood, you can't just have devastation on the other side. since vis valley will be impacted by the traffic on bayshore, leland avenue will

have more opportunities for people to shop, and we felt it was important that we really do exactly what you said, and that is distribute and balance. bayview was going to be undergoing a lot of transition and with a lot of money coming into it. it already has. it is seeing a lot of differences. there is no third street light rail on leyland. there are businesses that have a lot more access to capital. that is why we were trying to make this a complete community. you leave one, and it looks like the other one. and because vis is tucked away, it has not gotten the exposure. it has never had the exposure. when i took office, we looked at, since home depot wasn't going to be there, we looked at what could we do. building is going on. people are going to the avenue