relevant page change for you today. additionally both planning staff and the supervisor's offices have met with the developers in the area. it was requested that the ordinance directly acknowledge the various planning processes in the area and clarify that in-kind improvements can be used to cover 100% of the required fee with commission approval. these requests represent nonexpansive amendments that the supervisor will introduce at committee. since you have already heard staff presentation for this case, i will be brief and focus on the nuances of this legislation. generallyly the intent of the proposed amendments is to be in line with the other programs and to have the supporting documentation. the fee amount and the area of subject of the fee does not change. on that note, the revised ordinance brings the policy

movement on the part of the supervisor. a number of our concerns were corrected. it turned out that we were right, that it wasn't a wash. and changing from gross to occupiable made a big difference. we are back to gross now, but the credit is back to occupiable, so it is sort of apples and oranges. i notice at the end of the ordinance there are three other that effect this matter. you are being asked to approve an ordinance that asks the city attorney to mix, match and meld and make it alled work. i have no idea what it is all going to look like when that happens, and i don't think you do either. so i would suggest that if we

are going to change something that affects us, that we do it right and delay this. thank you. >> thank you. >> francisco decosta, fran martin, jim roden? >> commissioners, if you have been to candlestick point, if you have been around san bruno, you notice there is a rail. and following the tradition of this nation, on one side is candlestick point. the other side is visitation valley. i love in the area. and forever people will tell you that candlestick point and executive park never ever come within the jurisdiction of visitation valley. so, we have a supervisor that is being termed out, thank

goodness. and even as she is being termed out, in a dubious way she is trying different employs. a former employee that worked in the planning department is now her aid. it has been told to you by a man of character, that at the 11th hour, changes are being made. this issue came before the land use, and i spoke about it. this issue came yesterday, and somebody had the awe disity -- audacity to say you know what, executive park is in the jurisdiction of visitation valley. no. now if you as taught planning commissioners, if the director of the planning department, if our new zoning administrator wants this to happen against

the wishes of the people that live in the bayview hunter's point, let us have a discourse. let us have accountability. let us have transparency. have this meeting before the community at large with proper outrage, and let's see what happens. now, coming to the developers, i happy to know the developer at executive park. in fact, i have an office there . this developer wants to do good , but the planning department and you commissioners must ask yourselves is it a fact that his development was put on the back burner so that a rogue developer would be brought forward. now today -- and i have partners that work in canada and in china.

today they are reaching out to us so that we can work with them to take over candlestick point, to take over treasure island, to take over hunter's point, and so on and so forth. this is a joke. and i told my partners i am not going to have anything to do with the devil. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> my name is fran martin, and i am with the visitation valley deny and planning alliance which developed the ordinance with supervisor maxwell. i am speaking today on behalf of the planning alliance and our board of directors, which

is representative of our diverse community. historically our community has been neglectled by the powers that be and is consequently severed from a lack of infrastructure. we have been struggling to bring better jobs, educational opportunity, open space and opportunities for our community. it became that the infrastructure could not support the influx of population. and now with the infrastructure fee, we are building a new library that will serve all the neighbors. we have built the most beautiful and visionary street escape improvements on lee land avenue. things are turning around, but much more needs to be done in anticipation of the unprecedented development and increase in population. i urge you to support the amendments to the structure

fee. one thing i would like to point out, in terms of executive park only, this is the current e.i.r. through the yerby and universal pair gone projects. we support new development there. if you look at this carefully, you will see the negative impacts are going to be on virginia tech, particularly on traffic, the tunnel, intersections and the neighborhood. this is about impact, not 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