project approved in this process do not pay neighborhood fees. they pay to existing fees. -- two existing fees but there are the properties of under 25,000 square feet. these pay only the transit impact development fee and this is very low. it is $2 per square foot. this covers a portion of the impact of the development. the majority of the applications we receive, about two-thirds, qualify for this to a dollar per square foot feet. properties of a larger than 25,000 square feet, they pay both the $2 per square foot feet and the jobs and housing linkage program, which is $8 per square foot. this the is an affordable housing fee that is supposed to find new development, fund low-

income housing. if the overhead works, under the program, these would be between $2 per square foot and $10.50 per square foot. under the eastern neighborhoods plan, a project would pay $11.40 per square foot. if they had paid the fees that were applicable before eastern neighborhoods can into law, they would have had to pay more. they would have had to pay $20 per square foot. these fees can be paid in five annual installments. i will give you a little summary of what we have seen to date. the department has received 31 applications for legitimization. the majority of those are for

the smaller sites. we have received 20 applications and the last couple of months. we can speculate as to why. we have done a lot of outreach and we do not have a good idea how many more folks might apply, but we are skeptical of the numbers the department is deeply committed to continuing our outreach efforts and we will be engaging our new communications measure, the office of workforce and economic development, community advocates, to ensure that all eligible parties are made aware of this ordinance. that is quite a lot of speaking. and he would like me to review the application process -- if you like me to review the application process, i am available. supervisor wiener: just a quick question. i know we are focused on the

deadline change. to make sure people have a meaningful opportunity to do that. in the future, -- i know we are not reopening the whole can of worms. in the paper this morning, it was reported that one building would have to pay over a million dollars in impact fees to keep their current tenants. does the planning department have a view and what did that is good policy or not? understanding that is the law. >> these are fees that are much lower than if they would have secured the proper permits. people who are playing by the rules would have paid $20 per square foot prior to the adoption of the eastern neighborhoods. eastern neighborhoods provide capacity were you can pro-rate

and only calculate the amount of the new use. the fees are less now than they were before. they would be on maximum of $11.40 per square foot. under this legitimization program, they are even less. most of them are $2 per square foot. as you heard from the public speaker earlier, all of the impact fees, they never even cover the full cost projected of the impact of the new development. it is just a fraction. it will take public money to provide the needed infrastructure. supervisor wiener: i understand the impact fees are never enough. this specific fee is a disincentive to convert from pdr to office use.

>> what we have done in certain areas, this would allow the disease is in all areas where the city has otherwise said the use is not appropriate. supervisor wiener: the impact fee is not so much a transit impact fee or a housing impact fee, this is a we want you to do pdr. if you are going to opt out, you have to pay a fee for it. >> i do not believe so. i do not believe there is a penalty fee. i would like to introduce a couple of people here with me. she has been managing the review of this particular ordinance. let me consult to see if i'm wrong. supervisor wiener: sure.

>> there is not a few forgoing food legitimization process. there is not a few for -- there is not a feat for going through the legitimization process. >> my understanding is that the cac has requested this 90 days to take a closer look at the program. is that 90 days enough time? what are the reasons for the lack of participation among some of the property owners? what did we find when you looked at it? >> the people who are most recently participating could shed the most light on that. some of the folks we talked to, most of them were aware of the program earlier on.

we have done a couple of mailings to all parties who might be eligible. the way the process works is that you are -- if you are in abeyance, you do not have to pay the fee. for the majority of the folks to talk to, they were aware of this, but they were taking advantage of not paying the fees until the last minute. they enrolled prior to expiration. there are some other folks who may not be aware of the program. that is what the benefits of this particular ordinance. we will redouble our outreach efforts to make sure that everybody who could possibly take -- everybody is made aware. >> thank you. should we open this up for public comment? three minutes maximum. i do not see that we have in the cards.

>> thank you. we have martin. welcome, you have three minutes. >> i am an architect at a small architectural firm. we are a tenant in the mission district area. we lease a space. i support the longer time extension because there are some issues that are worth reconsideration. i support the re-evaluation of the levying of heavy legitimization fees. or in this to spread out over a long time. over five years. i do not own a building, but my sense is that these fees will be passed through to small businesses like mine. in these economic times, it is difficult. i moved into a space a few years

ago that was almost empty. the building is half empty. the owner is probably going to be putting these fees for interspace. he will try to pass them on to us. when my lease comes up, it'll be harder and harder for us to state and the city. it is already a tough to stay in the city. i suggest that you support reconsideration and liberalization of the allowed uses. not every officer is the same. there are small businesses that are -- not every office is the same. there are small businesses that are just getting by. we are looking for these marginal areas where it is not that expensive to be. we are in the mission area because we can afford to be there. south of market is a lot more

expensive. we are looking for a place become afford to be in the city right now. -- a place we can afford to be in the city right now. i feel like we are the most affected and most unrepresented groups that will be affected by this policy. we are the ones that will pay the higher rents. we are not a larger office uses that are suddenly allowed to. we are the small offices in the mission area. i feel like they got a benefit and the mission areas were penalized. thank you. supervisor cohen: next person. >> good afternoon, supervisor.

as a san francisco resident and a san francisco business owner, i think we should delay the amnesty just to take a better look at it and see how the citizens and resident of san francisco could benefit off of what is going on. we provide bigger companies who are downsizing in smaller buildings who are able to pay the small amnesty fine, or fee, that you are giving these companies a cushion. as a small-business owner in the eastern part of san francisco, i have not heard of that before. i do not see work my business

benefits from this, or the residencts in the eastern part f san francisco, are benefiting from this. are these companies networking with the local business enterprises? i think we should delay and regroup and take a better look at it. thank you. supervisor cohen: next person. >> angelo king. i was part of the eastern neighborhoods planning. i went to a number of those meetings. we had to protect blue-collar

work. given our population, and it seemed like we needed to safeguard against. currently, it is not as if the time line has not already passed. i know you need to provide lots -- laws, but i feel like there has been announced outreach. we do not know what kind of al aipac -- what the impacts are. i was looking to do some type of intervention or networking with those groups to see if some of those businesses could be relocated to our area. we have a number of new development going in new office buildings. it is very important that we hold to the zoning of what areas are supposed to be. when we start planet -- and we start to plan around, we end up with these kinds of losses and other kinds of issues.

it is important that we -- if you have an area and you planted a certain way, you hold to it. that is how you will foster infrastructure expense for that -- and the structure for that land use to grow. as of right now, when i start calling people, at a number of people who went to those meetings, when we start talking about it, people on both sides are like, i am not happy with either side of the deal. the people that were pdr folks were not necessarily happy after going through that long term planning process. even though you knew it was there, those people were not happy. the people were getting the amnesty, some of the fees are still too high. we still do not want to move.

neither side seems to be happy. i still think there is an opportunity to talk to more people and get a little bit more in tput. supervisor cohen: are there any other questions for public comment? >> thank you for attacking this issue. i am a member of the eastern neighborhood cac. we were making a recommendation for there to be some delay. in talking with most of the members, six months is ok, too. we did not have deliberations to say it should only be three months. working in our sector, as you probably know, we only work to support manufacturers in the city. the good news is since we have been working and sense the eastern neighborhoods

legislation was passed, we placed about 23 different manufacturers in space in the eastern neighborhoods. on the one hand, in reaction to this morning's article, i would take issue that there is no demand for pdr. i've also seen were certain buildings are up much more effective for industrial uses than others. during this process you choose to take, in addition to outreach, it is important that we reach out to some of the smaller buildings and understand if the fees are too high and if there are certain buildings and not appropriate. the same goes for the largest buildings. we are aware of multistory buildings where there is pdr

space on the third four fourth floor that is not appropriate. we have a lot of detailed data. we have 320 companies that we have pretty detailed usage data on. we're happy to work with any of you as you undergo this exploration process to figure out how it might be refined. since we passed the eastern neighborhoods plan, i think everyone is still struggling if there is a useful way to be able to apply that. one idea that has come forth, thereno one has really taken a bandage of it yet, but might there be a way to look at that same rebate structure, based on hiring income barriers to employment, and might that be something that could be applied to the opposite -- office as an offset.

the only action that we took was to say that we feel, and i personally feel, it is in everyone's best interest to displace best -- displace any business from the city. we wanted to make sure that we could get a message about one week before the expiration. there was not any real debate beyond that. we are looking to provide updates as the work starts to move forward to actually look at other ways to treat the current process. thank you. supervisor mar: anymore public comment? >> dan murphy, again, this is just to pick up where the last conversation ended. staff presented the eastern neighborhood monitoring reports to the cac a couple of months

back. i took the time to review them. they are quite -- there is -- is quite a lot of information. i presume that those reports will make their way to the land use committee at some point. one of the observations that i had as a member of the cac and as someone active in the marketplace was a kind of observation on how the housing portions of the eastern neighborhood land use plans seemed to be working pretty well, actually. looking back on the deliberations that went on between 2005 to 2008 in the eastern neighborhoods, i can tell you for sure that there was an incredible constituency focused on the housing portion of the policies that ultimately made their way into the legislation. i would not say that so much on the commercial and job growth portions of the plant.

-- the plan. i would think that there is an important conversation that we should engage in based on the perspective that there were certain portions of the geography of the eastern neighborhoods that were basically set aside as employment lands and others were set aside to promote a mixed use housing development. as one observer in the marketplace, i think that it would help the city in our economic development efforts and, as it relates to implementing infrastructure, the public benefit portion of the eastern neighborhood could take a fresh look at some of those policies related to job growth. thank you. supervisor cohen: are there any other comments? supervisor mar: thank you. seeing no other comments, public comment is closed. supervisor?

supervisor cohen: >> before you you have a draft of the suggested changes. i would like to make a motion to except the proposed amendments first, then i will make a motion to continue the item. >> -- supervisor mar: colleagues, can we accept this without objection? thank you. supervisor cohen: i would like to make a motion to continue until march 26 meeting. supervisor mar: so moved. can we continue this? without objection, colleagues? thank you. thank you, everyone, for coming. next item? >> item #3. resolution granting revocable permission to golden gate bridge highway and transportation district to occupy portions of the public right-of-way to replace existing bus stop signs and install and maintain new bus stop signs at various locations along existing golden gate transit bus routes and making environmental findings and findings of consistency with the general plan and the priority policies of planning code section 101.1. supervisor mar: i am going to

ask that we recess for several minutes. without objection, colleagues? supervisor mar: thank you. the meeting will come back to order. miss miller, can be call item no. 3? >> item #3. permission to golden gate bridge highway and transportation district to occupy portions of the public right-of-way to replace existing bus stop signs and install and maintain new bus stop signs at various locations along existing golden gate transit bus routes and making environmental findings and findings of consistency with the general plan and the priority policies of planning code. >> good afternoon, supervisors. this is a request that we have been working with with golden gate transit pursuant to the

board waiving the fees with earlier ordinance is back in 2010. this is to replace multiple signs, totaling a little over 100 signs on existing -- on existing and new bus stop locations for golden gate transit. with regard to the new signs, those are going to be put up on new polls. they will not be using any joint polls with mta or anyone like that. this was approved at mta on october 13. the planning department ruled that it was in conformity with the general plan depending on the finding of consistency with better street plans. this will be in compliance with the better street plan whereas all the signs will be placed by the curbside, you know, in the street furnishings zones so that

it will not impact travel or any building entrances. we held it -- the department held a public hearing on december 7 on this issue. there were no objections raised. therefore, we respectfully request and recommend that this item be approved. thank you. seeing no questions -- supervisor mar: seeing no questions, let's open this up for public comment. seeing none, public item is closed -- public comment is closed. let's move this forward without objection. and our last item is before aspin. -- is before us. we have not called the item yet. >> item #4. resolution authorizing the execution of a permit to enter and use property for installation and maintenance of a northeast-facing wall sign at 1650 mission street by and between the city and county of san francisco and total outdoor corporation, a delaware corporation, permittee.

we are -- supervisor mar: we are supposed to be joined by supervisor olague as well. i just saw her, but i am not sure where she went to. i am hoping the you can present the remarks. >> thank you, chair, members of the committee. i appreciate the opportunity to discuss this item. i have some handouts. in handing out some photos of the general area so that we have a context of where this signboard is located. it is a little bit of review as to why we are here before you today. this item was initially brought to the budget and finance committee for the fiscal review of the robo-call will permit between the city and total outdoor for a sign wall located on the face of 1650 mission city

office building. it was acquired in may of 2007. acquired subject to an existing license agreement with -- through successor in interest cbs outdoor. that agreement terminated in the spring of 2011. since early 2011, we have been working on a committed process to secure a replacement operator of the wall signed location. this item has been brought forward to budget and finance with the issues of term. that is an initial five-year term with three five-year options. the funds to be provided would be a minimum annual guarantee of $63,000 per year in the first year, inclusive and in addition to that, it $30,000 bonus payment.

escalators in future years, as well as revenue sharing opportunities, if the net revenues from the board reached a certain level in the city shared in those at 35% of those revenues. we also learned during the process in the past year that there was an assumption that the old location could be eliminated. as it turns out, once we went through the files with the help of the planning department, it was determined that there was an error in one of the files and there is not an elimination rate for this location, which offended -- affected the fee structure. at some point the city in its regulatory capacity, if it were to approve the elimination, we would have a two year structure to allow for increased revenues to the city. i am giving you numbers based on

non-elimination in there is the chance that they could increase if it is granted. it is not expected that that will be the case. after budget and finance moved it forward, there were concerns raised in the community. i wanted to try to get you some facts to look at this from a different perspective. stepping back for a moment, there are three different permits. the idea being that we, the city, would continue -- consider issuing in our private capacity as an owner to attend. one permit is issued by the planning department, a second permit is issued by caltrans. some are surprised that caltrans

has the authority here, the week -- but because it is visible from any part of the system of the 101, where most of those pictures were taken from, you can see visibility that gives caltrans additional regulatory authority. so, whomever operates the board has to get a permit from the city there needs to be a permit from the city that is for it -- which is resolved, and one from caltrans, which is in the pipeline to be resolved. that is important to note. the permit size in the agreement before you is 28 by 99. 28 feet by 99 feet. that is the real-estate we're making available. >> 28 feet in height, three stories, and 100 feet wide? stories, and 100 feet wide? >> if you think about the top of