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 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. 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