may ask there is an area south of market that is not part of western or eastern soma. * summarize and there are parts of showplace square and there are other boundaries, why the boundaries were drawn where they were and how the area was carved out in simple terms. >> sure, sure. our boundaries are basically determined by other existing planning processes that surround us. it would be easiest to say that western soma begins at fourth street and extends more or less west 12, 13 to division street. and is essentially from mission street or just a scoach down to mission street and townsend street. the bow tie is because in the middle there you have the sixth street redevelopment project

area, which no longer exists. but that was included as part of zoning goes as part of the eastern neighborhoods process. so, fourth street to division, mission to townsend, with the exception of the sixth street area. >> thank you, mr. makko. that explains it because that was already preempted being part of a redevelopment. i think this is a very desirable process because what i heard today is people getting together and deciding what collectively might be the best thing rather than -- and i'm not being critical of the other processes, but oftentimes i hear situations, particularly in transportation planning, where, well, let's see what we can get funding for and it's done in piecemeal ways. and i'm hearing what i like to hear is, let's pick out what we feel would be the most ideal solutions. we may not be able to get it. the market will control to some degree. public funding will control it, but at least you have a

blueprint. and that's always better to start with, what you most desire, and try to adapt the processes that are available, funding, or interest to what you have rather than sort of going in the other direction. i'm not saying that's always happened in the past, but sometimes that occurs. a few thoughts in reading some of these things over. and we'll talk about this more later. the cultural parts of it which are going to be spoken about at greater length, and we must not forget the part of area that had a cultural background stemming from the 1850s to the end of world war ii or the 1950s or 1960s. slightly to the east of your area, but there was a large greek and atlantic community which is noted there. i don't know how much of that's in there. and of course the working population, mostly male, that occupied much of this area

during the 18, 1900s and the first 50 or 60 years of the 20th century has to be included. and thenedth -- then the other thing that i think is essential is frying to preserve what we can where possible. one of the worst things is let's avoid knowledge, [speaker not understood] the western addition, and what remains and was not destroyed tends to be very sought after and very desirable and is being developed and prospering in some of the areas which were created new in those areas are the areas where there's less desirable, they're harder to deal with and architecturally are inferior. so, i don't mean that anything that's new is going to be inferior, but we have to really -- these residential enclaves where they exist and all these other historic areas, if we can keep them, i think they have an

appeal that will help funding for other things we want to do. and i like a lot of the things that were presented today, particularly in terms of humanizing the streets. mr. radulavich talked about doing what we can to traffic calm, and we can do that even on the streets we admit are going to be those streets that are feeders for the freeway and the bay bridge. but it's not impossible to, in some instances, make some streets two ways. maybe not those streets, but even on those streets the lights may not always have to be completely synchronized to encourage quicker speeds. may slow traffic down a little, may back it up, but we just have to make that decision. and certainly on the other streets, i think folsom is a key street and i would encourage as much real transit as we can put on there, be it light rail or something in the future would be a great thing

for folsom because i see three major, if you will, east-west corridors, market street being one and of course we've got lots of transit on there already. and 16th street eventually will be. and then folsom might be the middle street, which would be the one can bring transit and make great connections between the eastern part of the city and to the mission district and other areas that lay to the west. so, i think that's really important to look at. and then, i think the task force, i was really impressed with the diversity and the number of people. the only thing missing on the task force, but certainly that may be our role as commissioners, is those of us who don't live or have businesses in the area, but -- or other parts of the city, we have to have some input also into what's there and making sure that it's important what residents and residential businesses say, but we all have a stake and we have to all have

input in what happens in an area. i was really impressed with a lot of the things that were brought in about allowing more densification, more growth of residential, and particularly allowing -- relaxing business and office restraints to allow new businesses. i think given the proper emphasis in this, we can all benefit from those businesses coming into the appropriate sites. let me see if i had any other notes here. yeah, there was talk about development on large sites only or emphasize it, but i think there will be plenty of small sites wherein fill might be appropriate. and i don't think we can completely roll that out. it just depends on what the development is, how large is it, how does it fit in with the fabric of the whole area. but it is easier to probably do it on a larger site, but maybe

not exclusively. and those are my main comments so far, but i think this is really a good step in the right direction. i'm interested in seeing the next phase of it. >> commissioner mar. >> i would like to humbly commend everybody for an incredible piece of work. i think the most comprehensive bottom up piece of work i've seen for the first time in this city and i think it's exemplary. hopefully for many other processes we will engage moving forward. what is important to me is every aspect of this project is so balanced and so well presented that there is nothing you can really say. you can acknowledge its strength and you hope that it will hold together. and the only thing i'll say, and i'm saying that to the planning department, i'm saying it to this commission as we move forward, i hope that the creation of the central

corridor plan can proceed with an open dialogue, avoid conflict and contradiction, and indeed carefully balance in between. it's very difficult to develop a plan on something that has taken so many years, has so much detail and so much quality, it's again confronted with a plan which is the usual from the top-down planning. we need to be comfortable using these words, not pitting them against each other. planning is typically done by the planning department. the city engages a very large number of people at very high cost to do the planning. but this process very clearly shows that we don't have hundreds of people in this room speaking about what hasn't been done. what has been done is the result of what is presented today. so, we are not in these 12-hour meetings discussing what

doesn't work. this seems to come forward in a manner where things are working. and i'll say in short, i'd like to just basically say that what i expect for the creation of the central corridor plan, that we carefully balance where potential conflicts are, and work in the spire i of engaging this group of dedicated and experienced lay people as well as professionals. and it's a presence of quite a few professionals in this particular [speaker not understood] who have done the work which we should use as a tool to move forward. so, i see that positively, but let's not try to plan too far on the limb and overturn what we're creating here. >> commissioner wu. >> thank you. i think to follow on those thoughts, i really appreciate all of the work of the volunteers over the years and

for coming today to present. really like seeing the values of the collaboration and the focus on education in particular. i think mr. cohen talked about technical assistance direct to the community as opposed to the planner as a filter. and i think that's really a lesson for us to take going forward especially as we think about the principles of outreach and engagement. as i think about central corridor, so on and on, i think in this, in this process there is really deep investigation and a real focus on local knowledge which takes a long time, takes a lot of groundwork, but i think that's how we really understand our neighborhoods and can respect the history as we plan for the future. so, two issues. on the issue of entertainment, following on the comments of supervisor kim, i would want to ask staff to please look at a couple of alternatives for entertainment on 11th street when there was an informational

hearing last, i think there were a lot of members from the public who were talking about that, asking to look at different alternatives. and then talking about central corridor. i think that what we're faced with in some ways, and maybe what this plan has dealt with is the tensions that come up when we are asked by the region to accommodate housing, accommodate office with the abag goals, but what does equitable work look like? what does equitable transit link look like? i think that is going to be the challenge going forward in central corridor and just want to state that i think there has really been a careful look at it in this process and we should follow on that work for central corridor. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, thank you. i think it's a tremendous planning effort. glad to see it finally coming before us.

not only me; the community for sure. and just to echo mr. warmer's comments, i think japantown that i've been following, again, for a number of years, i think they thought they could get it done in two, but it's been a number of years now. i think it's benefited greatly from the experience in western soma. and especially i think the concept of addressing cultural resources through the social heritage district concept. senate bill 307 what on the cutting edge of identifying and funding and identifying cultural resources in the three japantowns in california, los angeles, san jose, and san francisco. they might say a lot of the cultural planning work started with that particular bill and implementation of survey efforts through the japantown community and the planning

department. that, unfortunately, was not well funded. and although the identification process now i think is contributing tremendously to the japantown planning effort, i think the next step really emerged from western soma and the social heritage district concept. so, really, i don't know how much in the next iteration that we'll be receiving in terms of general plan changes and zoning changes and whatnot, address the kind of cultural heritage desires that the filipino and the lgbtq communities are expecting. but in japantown i think we've moved a little bit ahead of the game, you might say, where there are ongoing discussions

now how to implement this concept. and there was a meeting several weeks ago that was called by diane matsuda who is on the historic preservation commission together with alan martinez who is on the hpc in the japantown area. and there was quite a robust discussion, i believe, on the kinds of things that might be done to actually preserve businesses, try to keep the parades, the social activities, the language schools, that kind of thing, in place in the community. and it was less zoning, less physical planning, less planning department activities and more the mayor's office of economic and work force development and other economic tools that might come into play.

one idea that mr. martinez had was, for example, to have a system of identifying and recognizing cultural resources, which the inventory system has done in both western soma and in japantown. but then to use that to say, well, perhaps those identified businesses, for example, might be able to get assistance not so much loans and grants, but maybe something like tax breaks, whether that be property tax breaks, whether that be business tax breaks or something like that. so, that's the kind of thinking i think that's been going on in the japantown area. easily can be extended to western soma. and, so, another idea was that both western soma, of course, and japantown want to continue to move forward. i said, you know, it would be really great if the communities could get together. talk to supervisor kim outside,

about the common needs and kind of ideas now emerging through the j-town effort and how that could be applied in the broader sense not only in western soma, but i think there is interest in the mission. and, so, i'm encouraging the supervisors to perhaps call some kind of summit or whatever you want to call it to maybe address this particular issue because it seems to be percolating up from below, really, at this point. so, thank you, jim, and everyone else in western some a. >> commissioner moore. >> i have a question for the director because i think commissioner sugaya is raising an interesting question. the comprehensiveness of the western soma plan is indicative of how you can do comprehensive planning with all elements activated.

by japantown, the transportation part for me is not quite as visible, although it's a very strong transformative possibility in japantown. it has never been brought forward. so, my question for the director would be because he finds himself equally tied down with not all the resources he might need. what can one do to replicate something as comprehensive as this particular plan in other areas, such as japantown or someplace else? >> that's a very good question. it's not -- there obviously is a resource question. but also i think the -- what happened in western soma was that a lot of the work was in fact done by community volunteers and students, and is something that was quite impressive in terms of its scope. japantown's plan is a little different because that plan, the way it's heading, is the community is choosing not to add a lot of development capacity to the neighborhood. there is not a lot of growth planned.

in fact, to the point where it probably won't even need an e-i-r. so, it's a fairly modest set of recommendations that are coming out of that plan in terms of changes to the neighborhood. so, but it does -- i think what you're all suggesting -- i will say i think the department and the city has learned a few thing over the last 7 or 8 years about community process. i think we do better than we did a decade ago. but i do think that there are other things we can learn in terms of the nature of the process that was done here and how to engage the community at a more robust level without necessarily spending millions of dollars. and i think that's the challenge that we have. if i may just comment on the cultural heritage issue, i think one of the reasons why we think that would be a follow-on item and not necessarily part of what you adopt in december is that -- is because we're doing it in two or three different neighborhoods right now. we want to make sure that the

model works across different neighborhoods and, so, we do think that will come back to you as a separate stand alone item, probably early next -- hopefully early next year. >> thank you. commissioner antonini. >> oh, yeah, just a couple final points. and i'm happy to hear the emphasis on sensitivity to cultural preservation, but we also have to be aware that we will have new residents that are moving in there. we have to, you know, try to balance the cultures and needs of new residents along with existing residents and those historic residents who may not even be here any more. and finally, and this is largely our job on the planning commission, make sure that what is new or what is renovated is done in an architecturally sensitive way that fits in with the neighborhood. and i think we have a group of

very receptive to making sure it's done the right way, because sometimes in san francisco we've seen housing thrown up very quickly, both market rate and affordable housing and sometimes the product is not as good as it could be. and we have to be more careful to make sure that we build something that has, you know, value and appeal for the long run. >> well, it's always difficult kind of following up being last and not repeating incumbents or similar, but i'm in support of public-private projects like this. i know how difficult they can be. but i also know that you can walk away with a great sense of pride that you were able to get somewhere and wrangle different opinions, different groups together. so, hats off to you guys. the process also brings a pride of ownership that you can't buy. [speaker not understood] hopefully maybe you begin to engage sort of a younger set,

the new habitants of the area and start to carry out what the dream is that started several years ago and hopefully ends this year. so, to those that are still of concern to me, that's the 11th street entertainment corridor and still maintaining a buffer. as one of the speakers points out, it is just an obvious potential rub and i think here's an opportunity to really solve that problem. also the essential corridor, four-block overlay, that could be a rub. i'll take the optimistic side and say it can feather two districts together and dovetail and take that opportunity. so, i am overall supportive and congratulations to all of you for the hard work in the process. >> all right, commissioners. that will place you on your final item under the regular calendar. item 8. >> did you want a break?

>> sure. >> one yes, one no. next item, please. >> item 8, area plan, area plan implementation update and inter-department plan implementation committee report, informational presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners thev sorry about that. kaiser stein [speaker not understood] from the city-wide

division and implementation group which is tasked with implementing area plans like the western soma you just heard about. . * kiersten i'm here to talk about the inter agency plan and implement report, the [speaker not understood] report, which is an annual report that i come to you with that talks about how we're going to use the development impact fees that are in all of our area plans and other public funding sources to move the infrastructure side of our area plans together. so, the report is in your packet and i think the most sort of summary way to look at the information in the tables in the back is to talk about how much funding is available for each plan area and what projects the committee has chosen to allocate the funds for in the next five years. the recommendations before you that have been vetted by the inter agency plan and implementation plan committee

which i'll talk about what that is and also the cac is for the related plan areas. after this hearing we'll also be presenting this report to the board of supervisors, the finance committee, and then following that it will go into the implementing agency's budgets and they'll start moving the infrastructure project forward. so, as a quick refresher, the inter agency plan implementation committee works on most of the area plans that we have adopted. so, new this year is the transit center district plan which has a very large infrastructure plan, $175 million over the next 20 years. and also this year glenn park which has no development impact fees and [speaker not understood] development. so, two different kinds of projects which i think illustrates the spectrum of the different kinds of area plans we have. things like rincon hill which had a very specific infrastructure program and

things like eastern neighborhoods that have a few major infrastructure projects, but also a lot of planning work still to be done. ipic was established by the administrative code. just before the market octavia plan and eastern neighborhoods plans were adopted in 2007, and it was thought to play this role which i think it's doing very effectively, which is bring the agencies that are responsible for building the infrastructure together with the planning department and the community who worked on developing the plan to come up with the strategy for building the infrastructure. new this year the ipic has been able to define our capital plan that was built last year and really start thinking about how is the city going to match the impact fee money that we now understand a little bit better and how much is coming in and about when. and we've done this by also

looking at the streets bond which was passed last year and trying to coordinate those projects with the plans projects and also the potential target bond that's coming up this fall. the ipic [speaker not understood] used in a r different places and our capital planning coordination and the ability to operate the infrastructure * . we want to make sure if we're building it we can maintain it. and also coordinating closely with the market octavia and eastern neighborhood cac. this is a summary table which shows you our impact fee revenue projections over the next five years. you can see in the first two years we're calling those the the things that are budgeted or the city [speaker not understood] two-year budget. and in the next -- that table is very funny. so, in the next five years is kind of the period we look at.

we do have -- i think that table is wrong so i'm going to move you from the table i have, but you do see in 2015 that there is a large bump in the amount of projected impact fee revenue. and that has a lot of the projects you can see around town under construction right now that have deferred their impact fee. so, as soon as they get their occupancy permit we'll be getting closer to $20 million in impact fee revenue. in the next two years. so, also the fee deferral program is intended to sunset in may of this year. so, if that does happen, next year you'll zim pact fee revenue projections that are a little bit more gracious than what we're seeing today. >> i think our table is much -- has larger numbers. >> your table does. >> the ones that are in here. >> yeah, great. i think actually this might be

an older powerpoint. i'm sorry about that. but i wanted to talk a little about some of the key infrastructure projects. hold on a second. for each of the plan areas, [speaker not understood]. so, for rincon hill, the three main plan areas are rincon hill, market octavia and eastern neighborhoods that are getting a lot of impact fee revenue in the next two years. and we'll see a lot of major infrastructure projects. the rincon hill plan area, one of the major infrastructure projects is a new park at 333 harrison. this will be established through an in kind agreement which this commission approved. right now the community is discussing developing a cbd, a community benefits district, that would help finance the maintenance of not just the

rincon hill park, but also [speaker not understood] and some of the [speaker not understood] improvements in the area. those are the four rincon hill unique area plan in that the infrastructure projects are very well defined and we have a really clear understanding of which projects, which development projects will move forward. in market octavia the key projects remain the same. the haight street two way will be converting the best for a few blocks from one way to two way and also doing pedestrian improvements. the market octavia we're also able to take advantage of some of the repaving money that came out of the bond and add improvements along franklin, goff and market street will see a lot of that amenities as well. eastern neighborhoods the prop priority projects were identified when the plan was adopted and we, as you know, are moving forward with a new park at 17th and folsom. we