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.

>> in addition to the to 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 nd 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