about how we are spending impact the money, which is the map on your left. the map on your right shows other agency projects that are ongoing and really important. we have some traffic calming project south of market. that represents the full picture of the impact fee money. this shows you how much impact fee money of the total project cost is expected to go in there. you can see some of the intersection projects that we are talking about and upper market. there projected to be have funded by impact fees and have funded by some other public resources. -- half-funded by some other public resources.

on to some of the projects, we will start with the roncon hil l. this will be accomplished through an unkind agreement. public sponsors undergo a contract with the city to provide infrastructure in lieu of paying impact fees. this space was identified due out the community planning process. -- throughout the community planning process. they have been coordinating with developers to work out the details of the agreement. >> can you explain that process again? they do not pay the impact be? they worked out an agreement with the infrastructure in this particular area? >> i do not know the exact cost, but let said the project sponsor

of $1 million. they could either pay the city of million dollars to contribute towards the development, or in this case, they have chosen to sign an agreement to deliver the park itself out of -- at a value of the city on the project sponsor agree is a fair value for delivery of the park. at the end of the day, the city will own the parcel of land and will have access. if that makes sense, it is a another way to meet the obligation. the rincon hill park will be funded in part by an infrastructure finance district. here is a more detailed view of the park itself. there is a community garden, a children's play area, and also

some open space. in the eastern neighborhoods, there was priority projects identified throughout the planning process. the city is obliged to spend at least 80% of all of the impact fees on these projects. folsom street is one of those projects. it is recently designed and vetted. it is projected to cost over $53 million from a fit street to 11th street. -- 5th street to 11th street. the implementation of this product will be followed. >> this is on folsom street from fifth straigeet to 11th street.

>> that is correct. they're trying to figure out how to use the impact fee money appropriately. finally, a new park in the mission neighborhood. this park is 17th and folsom. it is one of the great stories of plan implementation. the planning department was able to secure a grant for this part that covers roughly half of the total cost. the total cost is about $5 million. the in impact fees will match that amount. there was a goal to create one new parks in each of the three neighborhoods. this is one step toward reaching that goal. most of the funds will be used for site acquisition. i believe the park is scheduled for construction in the next couple of years. that is our short story of what is going on. if you guys have any questions, i am happy to answer them.

thank you. >> colleagues, any questions? was adam going to present as well? it looks like the 17th and folsom park is a great example. a lot of these projects seem great with engaged neighbors and merchants and residents. thank you so much for the great report. let's continue this item, if there are no objections. is there anyone from the public who would like to speak? >> supervisors, dan murphy. as a mayoral appointee on the eastern neighborhood cac and

as a land-use professional, i want to make a simple point. it is a reminder of sorts. the impact fees in the original eastern neighborhood legislation, they are only program to cover 30% of the overall public need for infrastructure. i do not know what those metrics look like for market octavia. in the aftermath of the reselling, i was appointed as a member of the public -- i forget -- it was a working group to come up with some ideas on how we might fill the funding gap between what the projected need is and what the projected sources of impact fees are. in the primary recommendation, and the structure finance

district program, which staff mentioned is being used right now. i want that financing tool, which is really what it is, which relies on private development, to be on the supervisors radars. i find it interesting that there has not then -- it has not been applied in the eastern neighborhoods. it is characterized by large properties under single ownership. there is a fairly robust development pipeline there. from my point of view, it may be a missed opportunity that we are not moving forward aggressively to form in that specific location. there are other areas as well that may be good candidates for that tool as well. i just wanted to share that. thank you. >> any other comments from the

public? public comment is closed. >> item #2 -- ordinance, ending the san francisco planning code to extend the 90 days. supervisor cohen: this item before us today is a proposed extension to the eastern neighborhoods. as many of you know, the eastern neighborhoods plan was a long committee process based in the neighborhood planning that was focused on creating a zoning category and a place for blue- collar manufacturing businesses. after a decade, the result of those planning process was the eastern neighborhoods plan, that included several new zoning categories, including pdr.

only after three years, we have already seen remarkable success in the neighborhood with an increase in pdr activity. there is a demand for pdr space. these businesses are creating jobs in our city. the goal of the eastern neighborhoods plan was to create a balance between uses while protecting and encouraging mixed uses. included in the eastern neighborhoods plan was a three- year amnesty program to allow buildings with office use is not permitted under the plan to legitimize and pay the applicable feet. at the request of an eastern neighborhoods citizens advisory committee, i introduced this ordinance to provide for an additional extension on the

program to allow for additional notification of the legitimists -- legitimization deadline. after meeting with interested parties at a hearing, i am requesting that the fall in three amendments be made to this ordinance. to provide for a full six month extension of the program from the effective date of this ordinance. the amendment before you extends the program through october 31 of the share. however, i recently learned that we will not be having a land use committee meeting on march 19. because these amendments are substantive, this will need to sit an additional two weeks. i would like to extend the deadline to november 12, 2012, to give potential applicants a full six months from when this ordinance is likely to be operative. at the request of the planning

department, establishing a 90- day tagline -- and 90-day deadline. i would like to first call up anne marie rogers to talk about the legitimization processed. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor. as the supervisor has described the commission is grateful to revise the ordinance consistent with their unanimous recommendation. my presentation, i will give a little bit of the background, applicable fees, and the process for applicants. this area plan balances uses to provide space for housing and the production, distribution, repair. the final plan was a compromise.

as adopted by the board and commission, it did allow for an additional 10,000 dwelling units, but these units and the increased land for housing did come at a cost. this rezoning would cause a loss of 10,000 pdr jobs. we have seen these jobs continue to thrive and expand at a rate faster than other job growth in the city. according -- san francisco saw an increase of about 10% in these pdr jobs. the overall job rate only increased by about 2%. the plan was seeking to provide this balance. part of the balance was providing a means for this existing property owners of nonconforming uses to legitimize their businesses. the benefits of this legitimization period iis that t

provides the city with an opportunity where property owners who have been illegally operating could have an avenue to acquire the proper permits. this program also provides an exception to allow use this that would not otherwise be permitted. the city is seeking to ensure that in the future, office uses are located in the most appropriate areas. where there is infrastructure. under this program, property owners are paying large fees. there has been some misunderstanding about this. these fees are not only from the current eastern neighborhoods, there are also lower than what they would've had to pay if they were properly permitted at the time the established their uses. property owners are being exempted from meeting the other code requirements. including parking, street trees,

all of these requirements pre- existing at the eastern neighborhoods plants. we have 14 other projects legally pursue their entitlements. these projects. the required impact fees. the impact fees were developed -- the are established by calculating what the demand for public infrastructure would be as greeted by the project and insuring the project provides a fraction, but not all, of the public expense. the development will cause a public cost for schools, parks, libraries, and those who play by the rules pay those fees in full. let's review. 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 m