>> we are taking item number 13 out of order and will hear it next. that is case no. 2007.05 58u transit center district plan. this is program implementation documents. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i'm joshua switzky with planning department staff. when you approved the transit center plan in may you also approved the plans program implementation document in resolution 18-635. that program implementation document inventories all the public improvements recommended

by the plan and lays out a funding program to allocate the projected revenues from the various funding sources to fund those projects. the funding sources include mello-roos district as well as new plan impact fee and other dedicated funding sources outside of the -- whats was implemented through the plan. the program implementation document and the revenues will be allocated and implemented over time through the city's inter agency plan implementation committee which was created by the charter and allocated by the board of supervisors. the implementation document and the funding program while they do lay out sort of a proportionate allocation of revenues, it doesn't express priority in terms of the timing of revenues as they come in. this is a long-term plan, a 20 to 25 years we estimate until these revenues will come in over time. these revenues include the new

open space sea created for the plan which we estimate and the funding plan say it will raise $47 million over the plan area. of that $47 million the fund allocates 12-1/2 million dollars outside of the area which $9 million will be used to fund open space improvementses in the chinatown neighborhood, which is one of the densest neighbors in the city adjacent to the downtown. and as such, growth in the plan area will have impacts on the need for additional open space in chinatown. there was a request at the joint hearing at parks and rec meeting we calendar this item to consider adding additional language to the implementation document to express priority for early investment from early impact fee revenues be directed towards open space improvementses in chinatown. as we are very timely. so, we put together this in

draft lapping wa that is before you today for your consideration, and i'll just read what that language would say. the additional language would go under the implementation and responsibility section of the implementation document. and the language would state, notwithstanding the above growth in the plan area will create immediate needs for open space enhancements in chinatown. several open spaceses in the plan area such as oscar park will be implementedth in the near term with the identified funds other than those from the impact fees for the funding program and all but $2,000,000 of the transit towers early to plan open space impact fees will be dedicated towards city park via an in-kind agreement described in uncodified section of 3a2 of ordinance number 182-12. therefore prioritizing early investment in park improvements in chinatown from the plan's initial open space c revenues including transit towers $2 million payment would serve the greatest public good and the plans and objectives of the district plan.

that is the language planning staff has prepared based on the request from the commission. it's before you to consider as proposed or added language for your desire. staff recommends approving the draft resolution and we're happy to answer any questions. >> commissioner wu. i'm sorry, public comment on this item if there is any. public comment portion is closed. commissioner wu. >> i want to thank staff for working on this. i have made the request last week. thanks, staff, for working so diligently. i'm happy with the language. so, maybe i'll leave it open for other commissioners to comment first. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, i have a question to staff. i just want to be on firm ground here with respect to the justification. it says on page 2, the first paragraph, based on these projections and consistent with the nexus study, i read the

nexus study. and the next us study says that the impact fee documented in the nexus study is sub poed to be applied in downtown san francisco to fund park recreation, et cetera, and then it says see map 1 at the end of the report. map 1's boundaries of downtown san francisco don't include chinatown. it does include the tenderloin, it does include other areas of densely closed in neighborhoods. it also goes on and says that the impact fee revenue will be used to pay for some of these required to meet the needs generated by new residential development and population growth in the downtown. it also states in the nexus study that it is unlikely that

this growth will take place north of market, is my interpretation, because north of market has essentially in the nexus studies where it's been built out. therefore, most of the projected development residential and otherwise is going to take place south of market. my question is, then, how do we justify the use of such amounts of money in neighborhoods outside of the boundary of the nexus study itself? >> commissioner, the nexus study in terms of its analysis of the growth that it focuses on is in these boundaries. new growth is in these boundaries. if you look at other tables, including for instance table 5 in the nexus study, discusses the need for park improvements not just in the downtown, but, in fact, city-wide to support this group. people use parks, not just in

their immediate neighborhood, but more broadly and that's the increased demand for open space in the immediate vicinity of the growth also has ripple effectseses out wards as people use other parks as the area densifies. it does support improvements that could be used not just within the boundaries of the growth area, but more broadly. the -- i don't believe that there is distinctly a legal requirement even the context of this boundary, the money has to be spent within it. we're talking about something that is maybe a block or two outside that boundary. i believe that it could generally be considered in the downtown area for the cost of the projectionses, demand and so forth. but we did have to define a boundary in terms of what was the focus of the growth -- the demand associated with the

growth that we were investigating might have to be drawn has somewhere, but that doesn't mean the open space must be spent specifically within that boundary. similar to the downtown park fund which is only assessed on projects in the c-3, it can be spent on parks immediately or nearby the 3c. it's been spent for instance i think on [speaker not understood] park, city hall. none of those are literally within the c-3 boundaries. they're nearby. they're close enough, they're a reasonable distance to serve the growth within the area. >> if i might understand, it might refresh my memory, how was the decision then made to target chinatown instead of the tenderloin, for example? >> it's -- more of it is more proximate to the plan area. >> the tenderloin is in the plan area. >> more proximate to the transit center district plan area. tenderloin is within the study area of this nexus study. this nexus study could be used

to justify open space impact fees beyond this plan. this plan is only a subset of the nexus study area which analyzed open space needs for downtown and south of market more broadly. this is actually a broader neck us study that we're using for this plan. >> i guess i'm having difficulty understanding how the nexus study says about the needs being generated for new development then translates to the use of the money in other areas outside, when in fact it says application of the relevant waiting factors, the increase of 32,000 residents in the downtown -- not around the city -- translates an expectedth increase of just over 17,000 park users and that the increase of 69,000 employees translates to an expected increase of 50,000 park users for a total of

67,000 additional park users in the downtown area. and it just seems to me that if there are that many new park users who are going to be located mainly south of market, then, you know, you would think that the attendant facilities park, recreation and other things, would then be in close proximity or reasonably close proximity to where the growth and development is happening on a locational basis. >> maybe i could also jump in here, commissioner. i understand the point. the monies are being raised and development is happening south of market. in fact, most of the fee money is being spent in that area. but it is true, and i think we have done this elsewhere, where the -- where the actual usage by the -- by people who are in the plan area, whether it be residents or workers, is not

just in that area. they use parks in other parts of the city. therefore, there is the direct impact, we believe, that goes beyond the boundaries of the plan area itself. it's not as intense as it is in the plan area, but there is an impact in the use that goes beyond the plan area. >> given that, though, then, how is the priority given to the particular neighborhood that we're talking about in chinatown? >> because it's the closest parks outside of the plan area. there are no parks within the plan area today and there are -- there are parks south of the plan area, i don't know what they are. there would be one or two in rincon hill. it's the most proximate parks outside of the plan. >> commissioner moore. >> i express my support for prioritization. all fund for chinatown parks,

however, i would have appreciated slightly more definition. since chinatown is heavily impacted by the studies -- by the shadow studies, we were presented last week, i think there are certain parts of the four parks which are being affected which are more critical to chinatown thans others and most effect $the critical park, largest being portsmouth square, it would have been a little more definition in this prioritization which would address that those fund would be directed early on towards portsmouth square. i would be more comfortable than saying that it randomly implies could be used to all four before anybody else come in line. i believe that the effects of shadow on just newman plaza for larger segmentses of the population given the condition that particular park is in also warrants action.

so does some to be determined target open space and the tenderloin. so, if indeed there could be further clarification and more definition that it would really target itself towards one of the four parks, i would be more comfortable. >> commissioner, if i may, we had discussions about that very question and we're advised that because specific park improvements or specific park projects that money might be used for outside of the plan area having been specifically reviewed forsee qua, it would be a problem to designate the money to be used for certain projects. * for c-e-q-a so, it was more categorized to be spent in this neighborhood with the specific uses to be determined in the future. >> if i may respond to what you're saying, i got a call from the public which basically

said, well, where are we? and that is that four parks in chinatown which under this verbiage -- and i don't know how to say it better or to say conditional -- could find themselves way at the end of the receiving line because the rest of the implementation of the transit and the district will take time while those parks, four parks by definition [speaker not understood] priority the rest will stand [speaker not understood]. i think that is a reasonable comment which came to me. and that's the reason why i'm asking the question. >> commissioner antonini. >> well, thank you. and, of course, as was pointed out by director ram, the lion's share of the $47 million in open space, 34.5 million is going to be spent in the plan area. and we're looking at the 12.5 million and i think we had earmarked 9 million of that for

chinatown and 3.5 million elsewhere, if i'm reading it correctly. and, i mean, he i think the impact is probably heaviest obviously in the plan area itself where you're creating the most impact by having the development there, and you need the open space to complement that. and then, you know, you have to kind of decide where the impact, next impact is the greatest and that was the decision that was made and that's what's before us and it sound reasonable to me. you can also conjecture about relative impacts here and there, but it seems to be a reasonable position to take. and i'm fine with it, especially the prioritizing of the first of the monies as was mentioned at the end of this document to be used in chinatown as they pour forward. so, that sounds fine with me.

>> commissioner wu? >> so, i have some comments. i don't think they pertain to the nexus study in particular, but i think that overall logic is that chinatown is the densest neighborhood in the city. these parks are the most heavily used in the city. i think the call for a need for a particular attention to improvement is there. i would agree that i would have liked to see what's actually called out to be first in priority, but as i understand, there are c-e-q-a problems or other kind of restrictions that wouldn't allow that. so, i would move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner moore. >> would the city attorney be able to advise as to whether or not there are any other tentative language that could be added in order to satisfy both concerns with other

citizens that for parks will take up all funding priorities? and that is their concern. i'm not speaking about myself. that is what the public asked me to communicate. and is there a way of adding additional language which indeed supports the idea of what is implied and described by commissioner wu yet does not basically say because of the way generalizes [speaker not understood] expression chinatown parks, that that freezes all other funding for anything else? and this project will be implemented over a long time frame where many other people will have impacted parks and deficient parks to live with from now on. could you comment on that, please? >> john malman from the city attorney's office. i'm not quite sure how to craft this concept that's been

communicated to you by the public. i would point out, though, that it is the commission that is -- that has the administrative authority over how this implementation plan is drafted. if you feel that there's different priorities that come forwards a the city develops and changes and you'd like to change the priorities, you are free to do that. this doesn't lock the planning commission in or the planning staff or if it would actually implement things. so, there's still quite a bit of flexibility that's provided within the implementation plan process. so, i mean, that's the best way that i can address it. it seems your concern is that funds could be used elsewhere outside of chinatown rather than being more explicit about how they would be used within chinatown. >> i'm not quite sure i

followed. i would think it is in support of prioritizing chinatown except not at the exclusion since chinatown has four of the seven parks in question. others because of need or need of repair or number of people [speaker not understood] where they are would be given second choice, third choice as funding is being available. the funding stream will be not all there at once so there will be small slices being dished out over larger period of time and i do not want the [speaker not understood] to stand empty-handed. >> i think even with the prioritization put forward, it will be up to the group called [speaker not understood] which is representatives of various city departments to look at funds as they come in and make determinations about how they might best be used. ultimately the board of supervisors is the one that

allocates those funds. so, there's a number of checks and balances where you look at the amount of funds that are available and how they can best be used. this just gives some direction to the [speaker not understood] how to use those funds. >> may i just add that the echo the city attorney's comment, it doesn't say every dollar of the first 9 million has to go to chinatown. it just says it prioritizes early investment in chinatown, but it doesn't say to the exclusion of everything else. but as priorities come in, if there is something that comes in that is a very timely park improvement outside of chinatown that is worthy, then it could be funded. there's nothing in this document prohibiting that from happening. >> perhaps that kind of explanatory sentence to this

particular provision would just be enough. everybody supports and wholeheartedly agrees that that area which indeed served a largest impact would be one to one support. that is not even a question. but it is really the interpretation of how the language stands at the moment which makes it an absolute statement with no qualifiers to open it up for considerations of needs or priority as the process evolves. maybe we could possibly add an additional sentence, something to the effect of to the extent that park improvement or high priority park improvementses outside of chinatown become timely they ought to be considered given the overall

projections for revenue out in the near term years or something to that effect. >> i think josh and i can try and work on some language if we want to -- maybe we could continue this decision or take a break for just a few minutes, we can put something together along those lines to read it into the record. >> as long as you're working on it, i am fine. >> i think you can probably just direct staff to give us the gist of what you wanted to say, direct staff to add a sentence is fine. >> i have described the issues or i cannot give more, but you are the experts to put that in the language, but which is tentative enough that it's part of the record. >> so, if the commission could add just a direction to staff to work on that language per

the direction of the commissioner. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is for approval with staff to continue to work with the deputy city attorney on refining the language. on the motion, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commoditier? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> [speaker not understood]? >> aye. >> thank you, commissioners, the motion passes unanimously. commissioners, we'll go back now to item number 11, case no. 2008.0789k and case no. 2012.257 x for 2000 20th street. >> good afternoon, my name is [speaker not understood] with planning staff. if i might be able to get the