Right. Im very sorry, sir im sympathetic this is you know were talking about a lot of Community Benefit here and sir at this time because of the determination made by the Zoning Administrator no way to proceed with the hearing today legally. There is a little bit of confusion there were sent initially and the only reason to wait 6 months because potentially people have moved thats a very, very small percentage of people. Theres no action we can take but to continue and i think so your complication id like to help you with the actual planning with the Zoning Administrator so find out what happened and didnt happen as of today right now we continue the item. Its not that i need to be heard. Sir, sir at this point. One last thing. Okay. Im preempted to make the continuance i think we said the 15 was go earlier question, continue to october 22nd and if we have to. My motion to continue to october 22nd and also hope staff will continue to work with the project sponsor to try to make sure that didnt occur again. Do i hear a Second Public school or to october 22nd commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero commissioners, that places you under your on item 9 for case 2015 plus establishing a new Transportation Sustainability fee this is a planning code amendment. Commissioners ill introduce this item and then well have several speakers after me this is an longstanding piece of work at multiple departments have updated and expand the citys required fee subsidies of development to support Transportation Systems the Transportation Sustainability fee is one parents of the 3 part program one the fee itself which is the successor to the transportation compact fee and the Transportation DemandManagement Program were working on to reduce the demand for single auto use and the thirds ceqa reform pending at the state level that allows us to streamline the ceqa reviews for transportation reviews so this is a Multi Department effort the one the Planning Department, mta, Transbay Joint Powers Authority and the Mayors Office and a number of other agencies im joined today by director reiskin from the mta and supervisor katie tang from the Transportation Authority and have staff make the actual presentation. Good afternoon, commissioners commissioner president Fong Tilly Chang with the Transbay Joint Powers Authority it is a Plastic Surgery or pleasure to be here to speak on behalf of the Transportation Authority all to express our agencies appreciation for this bodies leadership and the Planning Department were strongly supportive of this thing the Transportation Sustainability fee and the overhead Sustainability Program effort as you may know the work has been in the making over the past decade or so many, many years our collective aim to better align San Franciscos review method and policies with our official policies first, the transit first while it sounds simple we know it is not easy to do but have many foundational policies to work on we built on the foundation of the transportation we broke ground on the ceqa analysis and engaged the public a number of Community Stakeholders from all sectors of the city everyone predecessors how hard to get the decision how fundamentally important it shapes at Transportation Demand we respond to investments in policy on the transportation front but a relationship it is a system as the county Management Agency the Transbay Joint Powers AuthorityTransportation Authority is interested not approach together with our Planning Department and sfmta and the Mayors Office weve worked closely and collaboratively over the years to develop a 3 part approach to managing the demand with the development we know that the funding is just one piece of a larger need it takes a team from multi agencies to build the picture to move our city forward here let me acknowledge and thank a generation of Planning Department staff for bill and alicia and victor and others under the direction of director ram the classification has been build on the innovative policies with the t d i f it will janitor the need investment for the transit systems systems and the infrastructure to respond to challenges like vision zero and growth and we also know this is going to be a Great Foundation for the update the vision for the city that is an upcoming collaborative effort including the Planning Department this will result in an update to the Mayors Office task force and we move into another round of seeking further revenues to invest in the Transportation System and prioritize and fund those projects over the next 25 years and beyond thank you for the partnership the Transportation Authority looks forward to collaborative with the Planning Department on the coming work and looking forward have bringing updates to seek your that guidance and keep you informed thank you very much. Thank you. Good afternoon commissioner johns and members of the Commission Ed reiskin with the sfmta just a follow on what john and tilly spoke to weve been making significant investment in the Transportation System if over the past years to improve the recital and reduce the reliability open transportation by bike and foot those efforts notable advanced by the Mayors Office task force actuary mentioned established are identified 10 billion of needs for the Transportation System over the next 15 years on 3. 7 billion have been identified that task force recommended new local revenues to start closing that gap the first step was taken when voters approved prop a to advance those judges of improving mini reliability and making it safer for folks weve replaced the fleet the bus fleet and beginning the process of expanding and ultimately replacing the light rail federate and the need transportation investment we have weve been using the fund to leverage other regional and state fund a 41 cap trade to support our rail we have a gap if 10 billion need doesnt account for the impacts that all the development coming to the city will bring and this commission knows better than anyone in the city what kind of impact to our city and Transportation System specifically a couple of ways that the development can have impacts on the citys economy and our quality of life just sitting here in this meeting heard 0 so for those are matters of deep interests and concerns to a lot of the san franciscans what we do in terms of investing in transportation to support that development have can have a profound impact much the growth will come to the city from a regional prospective rightly so to San Francisco and it is really our obligation and opportunity to plan how we manage that growth and development so it didnt adversely what it means meanings for transportation if we make the investments in transit and enhancing other affordable and save ways for people to get around the city and they dont bring their cars well have employees congestion and pollution in the skies than otherwise equally for the fact that the more that we invest in sustainable affordable transportation like transit such as a save cycling and walking in the city the ground the range of diversity of people will be able to stay and come to the city the i think people will probably come no matter what but the more to invest in affordable transportation the more to preserve some of the Economic Diversity that makes San Francisco what it is so to that end we are to have worked with the other city staff to bring forward the fee that asks the Development Community to take on a broader and bigger responsible for the transportation developments that their developments need it didnt fossil fuel fund the impacts but a big step towards closing the gap it doesnt imaging eism pigeon the development that brings their increased contribution to addressing the niece of Transportation System that their rely on this matter came before the sfmta board of directors and without opposition recommended its approval to this body and to the board of supervisors so i would i thank you very much for giving you the time to speak for considering this item and would very respectfully and strongly courage your adoption of this fee so we can support and best manage the development coming to our city thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners and thank you directors adam from the Planning Department staff if i could go to the power point excuse me. Im joined by Staff Members from mta and sfmta and the Mayors Office of housing who are here to answer questions and may contribute to the presentation as you recall we made a presentation on the Sustainability Program about a month ago were back to talk about on action item recommending to one aspect as john mentioned the transportation establishment fee well get into the details of the proposal but step back and refresh and talk about the overhead program as you may know San Francisco is growing and expected to continue to grow we have to keep up the ability off people to move boo about the city we need to continue to invest in our Transportation System so this is the goal of the Transportation Sustainability program to keep people moving as the city grows as weve previously presented 3 components that are shown here well coming back to talk about the first two well focus on the Transportation Sustainability fee part of the promote ordinance the subject of the proposed ordinance that is before you today weve done at this time i at this point discussed with with a wide variety of stakeholders from the Small Businesses community and the housing and transportation advocates to craft a proposal that balances the interests so i wanted to sort end by describing some of the things the fee will do this proposal is the first time this city will have a impact fee on transportation on Residential Development and b would be the first citywide fee for complete streets on any dive development as director reiskin mentioned the city made a commenting commitment to invest in the transportation through a proposed series of voter approved manufactured but a multi strategy to work with the Development Community to increase the revenue towards the Transportation System the fee will raise over 400 million in new revenue for complete streets and transit improvements to help serve the new growth with that, im going to turn it over to lisa to talk about the mechanics of the proposal. Good afternoon, commissioners lisa of planning staff im pleased to present the impact fee or t f f insuring the Transportation System fee subsidies it needs so the t s f was introduced by mayor ed lee and supervisor wiener and supervisor breed and commissioner christensen and were substantially amended through the legislation on july and september 8th as september 8th it was introduced after it was published and submitting a recent substitute ordinance and memo describing the changes well continue to be may be small changes to correct the technical code references for adoption so ill be describing the fee proposal and as well as feedback during the Public Comment will during the presentation the chief of staff with the sfmta will talk about how mta will sure to address the refunds for the Transportation Needs do before i devolve into the fee director reiskin referenced this critical funding gap over 10 billion over 2024 this diagram highlights the goals the mayors Transportation Task force aimed is at addressing the core of the system as well as the measures the s f s is designs to talk about the system generated new growth if adopted the t f f insures that the developers with transbay their fair share theyve crafted to create a balance between technical studies im going to get into soon the nexus study and the Feasibility Study in order to apply a fee to nonresidential and residential uses around the city it will replace the current kneeing or t d i f and apply it to more uses there is in addition to the nonresidential and residential uses the fee brown will apply to Large Institutions maine a university for the majority of nonprofits. So before i get into the actual fee i wanted to provide background on the fee so the t s f to strike a balance at the City Commission the nexus and the Feasibility Study we presented the key finding from the each of the studies before getting into the fee so the nexus study has a legal joifd it is based on the new transportation basically how many trips by housing and jobs how much to cost the city with the Transportation Services the t s f Feasibility Study sets the fee subsidies for the ultimate goal do maximize and causing the housing to rise essentially 9 nexus study connected by urban confirmations talked about the establish the total costs by providing those through 2025 that is presented in 2, 3, 4 table identified two categories of transportation transit and complete street the transit identifies the maintenance and capital facilities projects while the street nexus identifies the Street Safety and comfort for pedestrians and cyclists an acknowledgment it easy the system this nexus was established by the San Francisco citywide nexus study but is part of the rate adding those together adds up the nexus in the renewal column from 26 to 334 for nonresidential those figures represent to offset their impact on office in order to help establish appropriate fee subsidies within those ranges the Economic Feasibility studies conducted elevated t f s impacted the nonresidential and residential the study will be updated every 5 years to reflect the Market Conditions or requested by the mayor or board it has ranges if 6 to 16 per square feet and the nonrestricted remain from 4 to 36 a square feet the value analysis to determine house those impact the returns with a goal of insuring that development can occur in order to make sure the fee impacts the Development Across the city the study look at 10 projects meant to look at types the model on common types of applications we receive at the development and include residential and nonresidential ranging from small to large projects in various neighborhood a number of prototypes are with the feasibility addressed the central selma Feasibility Study the study found the current market supports 7 per square feet for residential and 18 per nonresidential without resulting in the housing costs in the neighborhoods is occurring those fee levels represent an increase of roughly one to two percent for Residential Development and less than one percent Construction Costs for nonresidential, however, the study found a significant feasibility depending on the projects and location certain neighborhoods like the excelsior have lower than average rents and might not be feasible given the circulating Construction Costs the t s f will not distance the projects from further feasibility whether the study noted should the market have a down turn the revenues cant cover the costs future costs are more sensitive to impact fees for those reasons the f example t f s be recommended at no more than higher amounts heres the rates promoted compared to t. I. D. If 3 plus a square foot and the nonrestricted is 18 or 4 clrsz more than the rates the pdr rate is 7 plus per square feet that is equal to the t d i f this is the maximum justified transit access the proposal has a few reductions in some area plans that are equal to the transit area fee up to the fuel amount of t d example i f it will apply to most land use covered by the existing t d i f and will be 21 units or more and large nonprofits there will be no change in states go many or are crafted to make sure the t d i f it will contempt Affordable Housing with the lowerincome units serving up u up to ami and up to hundred and 50 percent ami it will exempt small residential of 28 or fewer and Small Businesses that are changing uses those are less than 5 thousand square feet in size ill note 24 replaces the system for Small Businesses in the t d i f and making that available to all qualifying businesses all nonprofits will be exempt except for all universities the intention to expand to cover the major universities and hospitals that have a master plan and as they generate the significant impacts hospitals are undergoing seismic but have the languages that the fee maybe applied to hospitals once the requirements are met estimated for 2024 those exempt the properties owned by the sfgov government and for the project areas or by Development Agreements the terms specifically sent the project from paying fee subsidies the proposal specification that the projects will trigger the fee consistent that is triggered by new examinations of 8 hundred square feet or more it triggers except for Small Businesses that applies from a educator with a lower to a higher fee rate as aside since the t s f has a nonresidential educator there will be fewer instances where a need are for a change of use the proposal includes grandfathering to october accountant for the pipeline that may want have anticipated the fee for residential and nonresidential that are having the entitlements the rates apply residential promotions that have submitted a application but not having an sgiement pay the 50 percent and the nonrestricted residential will continue to pay current t d i f rates in the course of proposal staff has a wide range of stakeholders that is reflected shareholders in the communities Citizens Advisory Committee and policy Advisory Group and housing advocates and the transportation advocates and nonprofit and Market Rate Developers among others a full schedule of meetings is in the case report the next slide is the feedback on the process weve received several questions or comments regarding the provisions specifically on the side structures and the formula retail use 2, 3, 4 response the staff met with chamber of commerce and others to address those concerns as a result, the Small BusinessCommission Voted to have a support of the t d i f and staff receives the february from the neighborhood organizations that the fee revenue should support the investments in high growth it includes mraung theyll prioritize the transportation project that are identified in the area plans during preliminary outreach from the Community Staff heard and incorporated the feedback and incorporated the rates should be no more than 50 percent high as projects can be current in the pipeline unfeasible similarly developers indicated the fee could impact smaller residential promotions because the tight amazing and in response weve developed projects less than 20 units that is projected growth the middleincome of the ami was two hive with the Mayors Office of housing staff said in order to be consistent with the mexicanamerican housing they asked the rates to be increased because they fail whether or not the rates if the nexus study as mentioned the fee subsidies are based on the nuksz and the economic Feasibility Study it indicated the fee subsidies can have a negative impact on some development the fee subsidies try to maximumize them without harming Development Finally we heard feedback the fee should be applied to Parking Spaces and in residential building in respond the staff consumed with the City Attorneys Office and we cant charge the fee based on the nexus study they dont culture parking straight this is actually a policy that staff has investigated previously, however, the research linking parking is current not Strong Enough to add to the nexus as part of citys research on the Management Program another part of the t f p staff is looking at sufficient evidences to suggestion suggest a direct link to add developments for offstreet parking some stakeholders said the fee should be applied to Affordable Housing, nonprofits and so on as a nexus study adu added all studies have an impact the proposal was to align with others city policies such as insuring that africa be developed in the city with that, ill pass it over to alicia. Yeah. I see commissioner avalos here i dont know if you want to take that opportunity if thats okay with staff. Thank you commissioner president fong and commissioners and thank you for taking up this important new fee development and transportation commissioner avalos and i represent district 11 the southern part of San Francisco were actually on the outskirts of san mateo couldnt and daily city a different type of phenomenal o phenomena when it comes to develop the other day we had put a plan into the board of supervisors q the Planning Department to send to the mtc to declare this part of San Francisco is priority along geneva and mission apparently that wasnt done efficiently and so to me this is often not a lot of attention given to this part of San Francisco we have incredible sites close to balboa park station and to the transit like balboa park station there isnt really the type of structure in terms of refinancing and land use that helps to incentivize that type of development from happening we have a new Transportation Sustainability fee that perhaps can be created in a way to create incentives for development in this part of San Francisco that to me t in my he experience and the people in the southern part of city are way behind the rest of the city were back in the 1950s for infrastructure and transportation we would like to get to the 21st century before we get to the big 21st century the sustainability fee will be a great improvement over the t. I. D. F the nexus study makes that clear it is not near sufficient for the new impacts on the Transportation Network i understand there are limits to how high a fee developers can pay and still be able to finance their projects i think we can craft a fee that generates additional revenue without cpac development the hospital exemption the exemption for a large nonprofit hospital is problematic those Large Institutions have significant impacts in or transportation and have the resources to pay this fee we would like to see we take out that exemption it is also important to identify touched on and staff touched on varying the fee subsidies for different areas the economic Feasibility Study shows the impact of the feasibility varies wildly depending on the locations and the small developments in the outer region will be affected but the housing projects like 9 Central Waterfront will still be feasible from the fee were doubled i believe we need to look at creating a available Fee Structure to match the fee amount to the reality of the neighborhoods we have lee all kinds of development the excelsior district it never exams before you it is creating denser housing with the garages and new housing unpermitted housing altogether and it is something we need to be able to address by new land use policies and new ways of looking at the structures that create incentives for the new development this can you be a very a way to incentivize it in the outer neighborhood that are left behind by the current boom this will you been more affordable than the other higher prized neighborhood we should scale the fee based on the projects that will not over butch the developers awhile mitigating more profitable promotions and look at it concerns about the exemption on middleincome housing that, too high of an ami give exemptions up to 50 percent of ami i appreciate the city is for the producing enough midmarket housing im not sure we should be treating those are deeply Affordable Housing ill propose giving a parish waiver to the midmarket or lowering the threshold to hundred and towing percent ami grairt the grairt project in the pipeline seems or terrorly doesnt seem to be a justification to increase this to 50 percent we can develop a nuance approach bans the size of the project and how far through the process those projects are it is problematic to grater a large project like mraishd and Treasure Island those those projects are not breaking ground for many, many years to not burden of proof the promotions with financing since development is jars away there is time to plan how finance can happen and probably changes in the financing structures that enables them to card and the fee subsidies dont apply to the park is a big hole im glad this will be hopefully address in the upcoming management and the Transportation Authority is looking at how to structure the t s f with the different structures of housing we have in different neighborhood i hope youll consider a nuance approach thank you. Good afternoon alicia with the National Transportation agency if i could return to the power point in terms of the revenue generations anticipated wear expecting that did fee in total generates 38 million a year in revenue that is under the way it is constructed now because there recent an existing transit fee the restructuring to generate about 14 million a year for the Transportation System this is a stealing critical source of funding for the Transportation System although the mta as has a budget of 600 million unanimously it goes to maintaining the existing assets and frankly we can use more funding for this purpose having a Revenue Source to dictate to the expansion will allow to accommodate the growth thats happening in the city in terms of how the funds will be programmed about 60 percent of the funding will serve as a replacement to the impact fee and used in the same thing those funds are used now essentially the mta uses that money to invest in vehicle and Facility Maintenance captains that campaigns that are two small or too large through the operating budget replacing the doors our the light rail vehicles some of you may be on the train and the vehicle cant move we dont have the funds were having Ad Hoc Services in the system so having the funds in place to make sure this is preventing maintenance and will continue under this proposal the majority of new funding would be invested in captivity expansion sapsz much of that for the muni system but funding for the regional partners like bart and caltrans that play an Important Role from the citys transportation and funding for bicyclist and pedestrians as well more specifically the capacity investments are currently planned to include such as a vehicle expansion, one of the most clearcut ways to add to capacity is simple to add to the service we need the vehicle to finger that service to be provided one of the things we often hear at the time at the mta questions where we run one car thats all the rest are out in the service that is important to provide reliable uncrowded Transit Service we receive form funding to replace the vehicles we dont have Funding Resources for the vehicle expansion so this is an important use of the t f s in that area and funds will be programmed towards reducing travel 7, 8, 9 and when we take time out of the running time from one end of the line to another we get service increase our buses are circulating through that line so thats an important component of transit capacity so we also are planning bus Rapid Transit on van ness and geary on geneva the major over halls of m line through 9 sfmta and there the fund such testimony excuse me. Station capacity for bart as well as bart car renovation caltrans trek indication to expand the capacity of transit within San Francisco on the bicycle and pedestrians we continue to be focused on vision zero that is the goal of reducing traffic fatalities to zero by 2024 and much the investment enabled to the t s f is through the Bicycle Safety and Pedestrian Safety projects. On the programming does the mta gloss a robust budget that has the capital we have that includes a number of public hearings both through the cac and with other stakeholders as well as the mta board, the board of supervisors and the capitals Planning Committee we partner with the Transportation Authority to make sure the prioritization process that is through the Capital Budget reflects the San FranciscoTransportation Plan and the priorities laid out there as with the impact fees the t f s will, recorded to the Planning Commission every two years the Planning Commission have have an opportunity to look at how funds are programmed and implemented one of the concerns weve heard on a fairly consistent basis weve talked with the shareholders how to balance between system wide transportation and investments in neighborhoods that are experiencing an extreme amount of growth the t s f has prior sister those in the eastern neighborhood plan or other area plans at the same time well need to look at the system wide investment for example, if we were to purchase new vehicles with those funds it wounded make sense for us to hold those 0 the neighborhoods the ghetto is happening it will have a system that benefits so the intent to balance between both of them and ill be happy to answer any questions. 0 in conclusion commissioners the t s San Francisco aab Building Inspection Commission you may adapt it with if adapted it will raise 1. 2 billion that is new revenue to insure the new developments are trsht their fair share it represents the first citywide transportation fee and the citywide fee to have the street improvements it increases the amount that the nonrestricted Residential Developers are to pay the fee was in consumption with a broad rage of stakeholders to maximize transportation without an impact on the feasibility ever result in the real estate prize cross the city we recommend approval of the ordinance and do you want a resolution if you have any questions, ill be happy to answer them and share your feedback on the proposal thank you. Thank you for your presentation well open to Public Comment i have a number of speaker cards. Hi commissioners good afternoon thank you for holdings this hearing i speak here today as the president of the union for the faculty of San Francisco but i speak as a member of the u. S. Community im with the i chaired out of the 8 years on the board of supervisors on lufkts and chairs that and have some acquaintance with the transportation the allergy d i f i was the chief author to amend it when it was 5 a square feet for the limited applications that is eight or nine years ago we had a nuking study and Feasibility Study done and upped it more than 10 for nonresidential optimistic and the uses under t d i f this proposal p is 98 percent green there are pieces i want to address one on behalf of ucsf so on behalf of the city the nexus study identified 87 in change to a maximum allowable and 18 in change is 21 percent of what is the max nonremain it hits 26 percent those are the charts we take out of the documents why is nonresidential charged excuse me. Residential 26 it is the maximizing and nonresidential over 21 percent if this is a policy call as opposed to a political call well debate that but ucsf an institution where i teach represents the only as you said post secondary Education Institution a nonprofit that is being basically targeted as it is required to side in a master plan targeted for some of the development that will benefit the students and benefit the city that provides dormitory and would be gains for millions of dollars and appears to be under the cheshl exemption case the only institution that is being pulled away i would ask you, please recommend you have options before you one your recommendations can certainly be to recommend that option that takes away the cheshl opposite from you feel be reinstated it didnt make sense i dont think im allowed to tell you theyre providing hows and making nothing the face of ucsf in case someone has an opinion the fist whether negligent or gender or economic or financial all the Financial Aid to students is unbelievable not a lot of rich kids going to school im sorry is my time up would you, please you know reinstate the cheshl institutions for the institutions master plan that allows ucsf to do something to continue to give Financial Aid to low income students i cant tell you how. Thank you for your Public Service i really appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Im tndc good afternoon. Im perverting construing with the San Francisco transit riders were strongly in supports of the Transportation Sustainability fee program but at the same time, we have concerns that if so not as strong as it should be in a number of easier the comments that commissioner avalos made are in line with our concerns we have a letter along with 5 other organized and make sure we have that improvements us and the organized are address many of the concerns i cant hit 4 issues that are discussed specifically in the letter the first one is that the fee itself is proposed at ratesy building are insufficient given the citys desperate revenue needs with the structural diversities 25 percent is 2w50 although, the level set for residents we feel are too low and the commercial are too low the second issue the waivers we feel are far too expensive and e extensive and need to be rolled back the thirtdz initial the ingratiate which we feel is too generous and needs to be restrained and the fourth issue is those really the first 3 were on the revenue side and the fourth on the expenditure that we feel that the mta should be given maximum flexibility those should be applied and available to be spent for operations as well for capital very broadly and that is consistent with t d i f just the address the first one the city the rate at which the the most critical for the revenue and going up to 33 percent rate will generate 3 million more for the city ill note with the t d i f was put in place established at a 5 rates against this 9 percent even of the economic Feasibility Study says a majority of residential proposals o properties would not be affected 8 out of 10 not effected by a higher rate we feel that is a convert estimate as john said ill also with respect to using friends for operations ill note the mta has the ability to do this sing t d i f was in place and demonstrated the ability to political those funds and not squanderer those funds but the validity of t d i f funds helps the city to avoid service cuts so it is important the agency has that flexibility thank you for your time. Good afternoon, commissioners my name is nicole im the executive director of lock San Francisco thank you for your attendance on this matter today, i time to highlight that we are really excited that the Transportation Sustainability fee is moving forward here with you today and were excited that the, in fact, were so excited we want more of it the fee is less than 25 percent of what the nexus shows its the biggest concern housing and transportation are two sides of the same coin people need to get to their designation safely and inefficiently the sustainability fee will help to do that makes sure that as we accept new growth in our city that those people can get to and from their designation we know that commemorating is frustrating if we dont invest in modes of transportation that are safe we cant expect people people to shift to those modes that is a great model but charging developers such a small percent leaves something less to be desired were sustain this level of frustration around congestion with 3 people getting hit by cars every single day in San Francisco an thinking safety Transportation System or ask the developers at a pay the fee subsidies and invest in our system i know there are Economic Impacts and economfeasibility i you to look at this was it works for you may be 50 percent but at the current waiting rate of 25 percent or less didnt cut did you might want to consider maybe downtown areas the fee that vefrment wont be finished on the other hand, if he should by an increased fee that area pays the full fee other areas of full development and the Development Fee subsidies might be more impactful we want to see more fee subsidies in the parking the fact that parking is if the applicable to the fee for a transportation prospective is really scary that were not actually asking People Developers to pay a Transportation Impact from the probability the largest impact which is parking so as you move on and consider this transportation sustained fee i hope you make sure were setting ourselves on the best trajectory for the San FranciscoTransportation System. Thank you. Next speaker, please good afternoon, commissioners thank you for your service im tyler the policy director at the San FranciscoBicycle Coalition and as usual i ask say what invoking said but well take a few minutes that is a strong supporter of the sustainability fee as was mention in the pregnancy by staff it is leading model for the rest of the country how to acknowledge our commercial development has huge impacts on the Transportation System and if were going to provide our residents and visitors and the people who work here with a transportation that lets them get around the city effectively and minimum anythings the pollution were seeing increased thought the city we need to find a way to pay for it this links those critical components we urge you to take into account what the most fee is as noted the current proposal is 25 percent of what the nexus fee suggests the true costs of Transportation Impact and if you read through the economic Feasibility Study it is lower in many areas than a xhibl feasible supervisor avalos point is welltaken the haiti appetite changes in the city very robust and downtown and other parts the city including his district the current fee is sufficient and much higher than youll reach the development i hope you consider and think about other opportunities whoa whether the development is happening and the strength of the interest for the development in those areas i want to emphasis from peter straus and others around the parking Square Footage is concerning that the parking is not knit as part of t s f it is part of the Square Footage of the residential building and so we lived that that area Square Footage should be included when leveraging a fee upon the developer we suggest and hope youll consider those changes i want to reiterate strongly supportive of that proposal overall and hope to see it in San Francisco soon. Is there any additional Public Comment . Good afternoon, commissioners tim collin on behalf of the Housing Action coalition i wanted to commend the Planning Department weve followed that and want to say broadly were solidly the project we support and the guidelines to evaluate that type of urban ism is inadequately funded this is a way to get another it with that said i want to say on the central question of the fee subsidies the theory being the best fee subsidies are the ones that someone else pace and wear in a situation our membership is going to pay a significant fraction of the fee subsidies we get it we want better transit the city needs that badly our understanding the fee subsidies before i were the result of an extensive Feasibility Analysis a quantitative analysis to estimate how it would be looked like without causing harm and improvement and what appears to be the conversation is that the projects that in transbay or rincon hill couldnt absorb the fee subsidies forgot it make no mistake no allusion 774 is not an amount that will build smaller scale and lower cost destruction outside of the urban core thats precisely the housing we need and is absent in any the building we see going on it is painful when Large Institutions that might under a different circumstances boast about the numerous jobs they say we cant say were to poor we get it the fee subsidies seem to be an Economic Analysis behind that we dont think that saying lets raise it to the nexus level it seems a little bit outlandish is it based on an analysis that relates to the feasibility we variant heard if it is or not ill urge to consider speaking that capturing some of the fee generations from this and using it for physical tangible improvements in neighborhoods one of the narratives we hear frequently gosh we see all the development and nothing gets better we dont see it the prospective the numerous revenues produced by development as benefits to the citys the financial benefits to the city disappear and cant be identified in any tangible was as an improvement to the neighborhood Something Like that might go to that argument i urge you to consider it. Thank you. Sue hester its been a Long Time Coming that fee generated in the 19 or dick was on the seat from the Planning Commission from the puc and soon after the passage of the property 13 how the muni will be impacted by shutting off prashgsz it deserves more consideration than a report last week for the scene today weve heard really good comments including supervisor avalos you have to look at what is the correct way to show i think much of your role you have land use and certainly within the board of supervisors or even the mta you get the project week by week and you go through them all when the intent i d was passed the ratio was basically half now it is gound to 25 percent i find it hard to understand we have a serious transportation need in the city if you live in an outlying area like district 10 or 11 district 4 is the beneficiary of Rapid Transit but if you are on the bus lines you feel it when youre in the boundary of the city so im asking you to a take a deep breath this is big legislation i dont think youre ready to vote today based on the comments youve heard how will you change what youre recommendation is to the board of supervisors and mta i think they should be changed i agree with the what jake said about institutions weve found an institution basically says too bad on the planning codes were not going to have an institutional master plan and take 25 years without compliance they do no hosing they have buses all over the city and havent paid a penny which has been really good about file their institutional master plan has a cap an enrollment and has to pay for transit passes they buy transit a pays for the entire body as a result of the master plan and if you dont have the same standards for all of the institutions in the city that you can regulate that youre not doing your justice thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. Commissioners carolyn chase of patch duffey on behalf of the university of San Francisco as you may know the legislation before you eliminates the longs standing cheshl exemption for the institutions including i was as dratted the legislation will newly impose a fee on Residential Projects like student projects and explained in more detail by ucsf this is of concern because ucsf proposed 6 hundred beds student projects on behalf of the i was we respectfully request the cheshl exemption be remained at the anytime the Student Housing should, expected particularly the Pipeline Projects that have a e application on file as youre aware a shortage of Student Housing in the city and in recognize of this need the city adapted legislation in 2010 and 2012 to incentivize the development of new student hows we ask you continue to consider the amendments suggested by ucsf again doyle the cheshl exemption will be remained based on the research it appears that ucsf is the only university that would, in fact, be negatively effected by this proposed amendment notably as cca and the San Francisco art insult those are smaller and have this to no future Development Plans thank you for your time and consideration. Good afternoon. Im litigating miles lives the Master Planner at San Francisco thank you for the opportunity with you today im here to request on behalf of the you thought that the existing cheshl exemption be remained in the proposed fee legislation the San FranciscoState University is a private in time the onuniversity that will be negatively effected by the fee that is a disprompt impact there are two points i want to brought to your attention first is carolyn indicated were in the process of developing a 6 hundred beds residential hall on mountain, the currently, we have about 35 percent of our students and this we hope will get is to in the mid 44 percent of our student body on campus the significant in a number of ways students on campus on behalf of better and learn better and stay in school and graduate and it is builds community on the campus from our prospective a lot of incentive in having students on campus a a beneficial consequence new housing on campus relieves housing in the city well bring in 6 hundred students out of the mandatory housing into campus and additional benefits to expanding the housing on cpas campus two point we have a policy on campus where students in the dorms are not allowed cars that takes cars off the road in the city and also with the students living on campus it reduces the commuting another point i want to make that every undergraduate this year 9 graduate students get muni passes from the university the university pays sfmta one . 7 million a year between one half to 1. 7 and distribute those passes to the students that is part of robust Transportation Plan we have a 2 it percent drive alone rate and 26 among the community as a whole thats less than half the driving in the city so in conclusion ucsf is. Again, institutional citizen and weve been simple mind out in this brother and sister process were developing housing on campus acronym threequarters of our folks use transportation and we respectfully request you remain the cheshl exemption thank you good afternoon commissioners peter cohen with the Housing Organization weve a party to the letter that was submitted to you earlier along with the walk sf senior disability action and upper habitat and actually, i think Historical Alliance with the San FranciscoBicycle Coalition we all understand the implementations of that fee parole and its been a Long Time Coming 3 years overdue it is unfortunate with the Development Since 2012 how much lost revenue by not having this in place here we are i dont normally call process issues to the floor but i want to say i find it fluflt that today at 11 00 a. M. Substantive amendments introduced at the board of supervisors for which no notification of any kind im rapidly scanning through the memo you got today those are not nonsubstantive or minor changes they are nuance and significant i really think this is inappropriate frankly to force action today it is a moving set of goalposts including the amendments you sue yesterday as a case in the the increase of the exception for the pdrs businesses that colocate in a building is effectively allowing fullscale pdr thats a policy question you should be asking it is different from a single 5 thousand square feet business when you have. Bunch of them into the pdrs hubs youre talking about exemptions for very Large Development it is not a bad thing but to do it quietly under the coffers we need a robust conversation one thing that was different from the june version we saw with mta that came out shortly afterward a changes to the initial waivers and rescues the initial waivers was for up to 26 ami low and behold the office of development wanted it to 50 percent ami not other rational thats the price point for live the Mayors Office but we dont have Housing Program at hundred and 50 percent ami there is a strong persistent to keep it capped at hundred and 20 that is moderate and have public funding hundred involving is a symbolic role and reductions a 25 percent reductions initial that changed to 50 percent reduction for the scaled a grandfather like the market rate vendors with no policy conversation and youve heard how much lost revenue we suggest to keep it at 25 percent or perhaps tier that for projects in the pipeline get two reductions and large a smaller reduction thank you very much. Additional Public Comment . Okay. Not seeing none, Public Comment is closed. And open up to commissioners commissioner antonini very important subject and important issue im pleased by the fact that is being addressed i agree with some of the speakers i wish that had been earlier but we show this need of 10 billion and from Justice Department what is presented it deals with present systems some augmentation and replacing the light rail and buses and perhaps a little bit of expansion in the systems the number it a lot bigger what youre pointing out out especially in the suggestion of supervisor wiener that we analyze subdue citywide to solve our transportation problems that is going to be done so i think in the future we probably should project our real needs based on what it is going to take you can only clog so many buses and cars into the city streets a city that is a conduit for them people have to pass whether or not they want to from the peninsula to the north bay and highway 101 that is not going to change with that said shows that we only are going to project one . 37 billion net or 30 billion out of this particular program from the 10 billion goal wheres the other money coming from where is the other 7 billion. Commissioners alicia with the mta when the mayor initiated the process a couple years ago to look at this broader question of funding we identified 10 employed that was collected with the task force a need of 10 billion 3. 7 billion is identified that might be formal funding from the government or state the task force recommended that the city pursue a series of revenue manufacture that require the voter approval which will ultimately raise 3 billion in revenue that includes 2500 million general Obligation Bonds were previewed in november of 2014 and increase for the licenses fee and to the sales tax those raise 3 billion and 3. 3 billion unidentified sources the t f s is one piece to meet the needs we also have with the passage of local funding measures in San Francisco were better able to leverage state and fell funding to raise our local share and anticipate that weed whacking be able to compete at the federal level but the realties there is not an entire program for the 10 billion as yet it is a sixth amateur of funding needs in a short time. I presume this explicit exclude the use for special district for area plans that are formatted for the future. In terms of anticipating revenue. Well, im thinking about like central selma that is going to be before us and even though this is the baseline and as you said certain special use district are expected exempted they have hair rules in place such transbay but i assume those past and future that is baseline but were not be preclude from asking higher amounts u amounts from those particular areas. Thats right ill speak to that well. Thats an opportunity for a lot of funding i have a few other thoughts on what could provide funding thank you. Ill continue with my comments yeah. I agree that we have to get more and one thing i think that people have spoken about the idea of possible having higher fee subsidies i think there might and also a couple of speakers said fee subsidies in the areas where the most growth is happening a better chance of possible a little bit higher line the Outer Mission you know doesnt seem to be an interest and precludes the development that might be lower you should consider perhaps a dollar or two more important residential and nonresidential in the higher growth areas but you know maybe a dollar or two less than some of the areas something to look at the other things youve got all those exemptions realistically the impacts of Affordable Housing, of nonprofits housing of all those things are great as market rate in fact, their even more a higher percentage the residents in those areas probably ride Public Transportation increasing the need for Public Transportation so there is an impact and i dont think that exception is the right thing to do everybody should pay a fraction maybe 2 bucks a square foot or Something Like that for all those institutions to contribute at least part of impact by the way, from the nexus that much higher it is the same for those groups as for market rate so that maybe another source of funding to include some fee subsidies for all Developers Even those were courageously were courage Affordable Housing but theyve got to pay their way and nonprofits can be ineffectively efficient and have high salaries didnt mean their efficient this is a way to gain a little bit more too i agree with the speakers who said that if there recent a cheshl exception for ucsf it should be applied were trying to courage the Student Housing seems like theyre being singled out you off other institutions that dont build Student Housing are not being charged and fee theyre not building housing the one is are shouldnt are singled out or a lesser fee ive talked about lesser fee subsidies maybe ucsf should pay something but make that significantly less than what everybody else so those are my main things and the parking issue i think that that is pretty hard to establish a nexus that is appointment were including the actual Square Footage of housing developments; right whether not including providing parking actually, their doing us a favor there will be fewer people using Public Transportation if they have cars they add to congressmen but not utilizing what were approving which is what were trying to fund and i think the money should be used exclusively for capital operations well run it more on a Business Rates the fee subsidies are the lowest in lowest in the country it is rare to find someone to pay a full fee a senior not full and disabled low we have to apply those rates to have a higher rate of the operations funded by the revenues that are generated by usage because wench got plenty of needs for capital if we start stealing that for operations well have a less usage was people are not going to ride Public Transit if it takes them one half hour to get to potrero to the Outer Richmond theyll drive a car or take uber or Something Else that will benefit us a lot and i agree with yeah. Some of the things what the speakers said those are my main thoughts and yeah, thats the summary of my thinking thank you. Commissioner hillis. Can i ask some questions on who is exempt from the person. So under people are exempt from property tax you can file for a exempt from property taxes you occupy the property seems like those properties are exempt from this; right . So daycare or private high school that is nonprofit is it true theyll remain exempt from this. Correct the existing t d i s is a cheshl program if you exempt from property tax and to do that owning and operating for nonprofit then youll be exempt and the new t s f the only change the recollection or recognize of the larger institutions and the impact on the Transportation System and as lisa said outline in terms of pulling that back for larger post secondary institutions. If i may just to clarify for Profit Institutions are not exempt. Correct. If youre exempt by prop 13 from paying property tax their exempt except for ucsf whats the thresholds that ucsf falls into. It is tied to from the institution is required to file a plaster plan out of downtown 50 thousand square feet of the institutional use within the city if youre downtown it is kicked up to one thousand square feet. It not large weve had universities ive not heard of that pay i mean that would trigger an institutional master plan that triggers the plan even though their exempt if property taxes. Sure right away right now we have i think we have 4 or 5 institutional master plans for nonprofit universities so on the beacons bookstore now a handful of institutions objective cant count for new institutions establishes over the life of the fee subsidies. Right what is the policy i mean, i guess i get did dont get the institutional under prop 13 i guess why are we singling outpost institutions that file. The issues we started to try to capture such as impact and recognizing the uses and major uses that create a lot of impact on the system and the questions are answered by one of my colleagues. Hi commissioners the major institutions are numerous trip yes, i did. We have a 10 billion investment needs for transportation and we have been asking all kinds of people to come forward to contribute to meeting that pike Property Owners that are paying nor property tax for the general Obligation Bonds we looked at the level of impact that each of those different types of development are placing on the system the major institutions the private nonprofit universities and the hospitals are some of the biggest impact creators of all the types of developments in the city there was a decision made to postpone the fee on the hospitals until after theyve implemented their seismic requirements and the board of supervisors would have to affirmatively vote we couldnt force that vote you know in the future on the board of supervisors so because of that consideration the hospitals fee will essentially be poenld and the reality has been for many of the hospitals that are rendering significant work in San Francisco weve ended up with a Development Agreement theyve troubled the equivalent of the impact fees weve seen that from at least a component of the major institutions where thats not applied not realm of post secondary education in the past for reasons like high schools for instance, there recent a lot of high schools that generated trip generations theyre not i mean, i get the hospitals i dont know if i quite get the posts secondary. The thresholds of the institutional master plan requirements was intended to capture the essentially the Large Institution in the city so 50 thousand square feet rash in the downtown, within hundred thousand square feet in the downtown this distinction within the larger institutions part of it to just as weve looked at both the nexus sort of the amount of impact created an commercial development and market rate Residential Development versus the feasibility of those to pay as were looking at the Nonprofit Community a difference between a small nonprofit with limited funds resources and a major institutions in terms of capacity to pay the fee weve tried to strike a balance and putting forward what we think is the best solution to meeting the Transportation Needs. Did you consider recycle the size thresholds will be nonprofits that really not that big. The thresholds is embedded in the institutional master plan paw no, no but i guess were singling out schools but there are other nonprofits that have on their own buildings and have more than 50 thousand square feet of space dont get captured here they are nonprofits not necessarily their schools. So i dont know. I get point were trying to raise as much revenue as possible certainly whether or not i can high schools or private schools theyll be lifted but they generate magnificent generations of aggregate you know were not necessary judging them were not creating all nonprofits as equal it is odds on the posts secondary id rather see hospitals charged now and posted secondary exempt because i dont know. I, see more of a rational for charging hospitals than kind of singling out some schools under the i mp post secondary 19 if it is ucsf that is ended up doing it just do clarify is this the housing portion of the post secondary or if they its any aspect of that. Not just the housing if they expand their campus. Can and clarify its not just ucsf that will be paying the fee outlet posts secondary institutions that will be subject the projection and the thought prepared those other institutions dont have an Expansion Plan but for now in the future they do very they have a pay. The cac has to charge the fee. Thats right as all right. So thats my i mean, i see i would i would advocate more for the hospitals not being exempt and the posts secondary institutions making them consistent i lump them into educational institutions ill see what my fellow commissioners have to say but on the Affordable Housing in this discussion of the ami threshold i dont see ami listed in the ordinance where does it come up . Civic section. Its in section 406 article 4 is the article in the planning codes that deals with the impact fees and section 4 of specifically talked about the configurations we have this in place as mentions for the many impact fees but currently at 80 percent ami. But this doesnt include the inclusionary housing. Right theyre required to pay the impact fees as well. So for stand alone hundred percent hundred and 50 percent configuration. Up to. But hundred percent affordable. It requires all the residential units in the project be restricted so theyre at the hundred 50 ami or less. Okay. All right. So that clarifies that i thought inclusionary housing were not necessarily building Affordable Housing at that level we may i know its called that in the bonds its national a debate but if we do its part of a large project of other levels of ami it should be exempted thats what were saying here i agree with that. And then on the combraisht was there any talk so whose grargd if you apply today for a permit you start the Environmental Review review your 50 percent grandfathered. So the proposal as currently worded essential the thresholds would be whether or not youve submitted a Development Application and the ordinance clarifies that will not include a pta so thats determination of the thats United States cut off two whether or not our exempt versus paying volunteering percent the fee and for nonResidential Projects both the projects that submitted an application and those had their application approved theyll take take the current t d i f raised so for the proposal to really acknowledge if you have your approval you have an exception about your finances for the project. And what clarifies as a Development Application. Maybe corey can specify. For purposes of grandfathering you need to file a Environmental Review operation or application as any one of the various entitlements we may require in the codes whether the conditional use or the variance or the downtown interrogation or on office allocation. A couple codify folks. I should say a Building Permit that qualifies as well. A couple of people brought up make sense those who filled the applications in the last year were more aware of this coming down the piecemeal than those who filed two or three years some of that grandfathering for the larceny ye 50 percent if you filled the year before, did you consider that i mean the rational. So there actually was an in the initial round of outreach we discussed 25 percent fee grairt rate for the Residential Projects but in conversation with Housing Organizations and developers the feedback was that is not enough particularly for Residential Projects in the pipeline to accounted for their pathway Financial Decisions a wide variance across the project types. Ii am open to 25 percent of the filed a year ago from the time to maybe 50 percent if you filed our Development Application prior that that but again ill see what my fellow commissioners have to say and on the amount i mean this is the most challenging portion it is kind of you know were making sausage per verbally and looking at this study and doing study off that study and coming up with numbers item it is a little bit of guesswork what the predicament rates are kind of looking at what existing rates are can you remind us of the fee subsidies what they if anyone has that where they are generally like the eastern neighborhoods or my mind fee just a general idea. It varies a lot arrest eastern neighborhoods generally between 10 and 20 a square foot and a market octavia a 20 and Transit Center is higher than that or 5 conflict of interests a secret Something Like that. The fee subsidies cover. Currently they cover transit and complete streets and childcare the proposal is that the transit portion will role into the t s f with credit. I within we can go down the paths of every one of the uses ask for hospital and police and fire everybody can justify an impact fee we we realize think Vice President s to pay for that i get it the transit folks want to charge the maximum doesnt leave room if you want to do Affordable Housing are add a rec and park fee or Something Else i agree with commissioner antonini at some point it cant only be on the backs of new residents or projects it has to be spread out i did a contraction a modest hundred and 50 thousand parcel tax it should be in in addition to sails and there is 3 hundred and 70 thousand units thats 55 million a year its 1. 6 billion over thirty years and to me thats a hundred times better source of few minutes its there every year and you can bond this comes and goes with development theres not a limit also appetite for additional fee subsidies i get the needs for the fee id like to see this added to the future of fee subsidies i dont like in a new development ive lived here for a while id gladly pay for other things so thats beside the point laughter . I wouldnt know where to go with the fee it seems right you know, i see is it right for a 2 million you know condo being a little bit low maybe 10,000 for the unit. Commissioner avalos was talking about in other areas of the city it may seem high i agree we look at this is that allowed to change that based on this where in the city or based on the sales price of the unit. Commissioners kate stacey from the district Attorneys Office are two components of the analysis in studying in fee i think staff has explained the city conducted. Nuking study in order to establish what is the burden of proof created by new development thats the maximum fee that under the californias mitigation act that the city could impose but the second part it is the feasibility issue and the city can certainly determine that a fee is more feasible to pay a higher amount within that nexus ceiling and in some part of city for uses it is really more of a policy question and to insure that the commission and the city when it adopts the fee subsidies has a rational explaining those difference feasibility sort policy determination are but certainly the city can determine a new development in one area will be sixth less able to pay a fee whereas another development in office of the city administrator another area of the city could pay a higher fee it is feasible. If i may as long as its within the nexus the nexus sets our ceiling from a legal prospective but the feasibility is really more of a weighing of policies and also an analysis of what feasible for a particular kind of project and that could vary depending upon the area. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner johnson. Okay thank you very much staff a great presentation and all the work thanks commissioner hillis and commissioner antonini for taking many of my questions so far so maybe ill not have as many just a couple of quick things commissioner hillis talked about the exemption for cheshl organization and applying to the secondary organizations i agree it seems age called out or the there are other types of institutions that have a master plan hospitals and second post secondary and other ones but overall i agree with the policy that larger institutions that are inducing growth from the neighborhood need to support the transit improvements i dont know if it is enough to pay the fee subsidies for muni that is clear those fee subsidies are not supporting new Capital Infrastructure as well as ongoing operating costs we need to look at the growth of those institution with inducing commissioner hillis pointed out a gray line i went a discussion of San Francisco conjecture try are master plan if their coming up to us today, i wonder if we are having the same conversation whether or not theyre trying to grow engrossment theyre talking about more students housing and their smaller im not sure i agree although the policy was not clearly called out in the staff report i agree with the sentiment in terms of commissioner avalos brought this up it is called out in the staff report as the legislation there are many areas the city with major developments not subject commissioner avalos called out a few Hunters Point and particular case and ill plug those this is the greatest way to get the conflict impacts of the areas seeing large growth at one time youre putting a lot of development into one concentrated period of time i think that is something im not sure how many other commissioners may share the sentiment that commissioner avalos was putting out there today, i for one am total comfortable with projects for the redevelopment projects with the agreements and the other agreements to, exempted from this oftentimes they pay an unequivalent amount and we see i think tangible results because what they build or fund is part of the plans so i agree with keeping that in there i think in terms of the level of the fee it is challenging commissioner hillis said it right sort of like making sausage a nexus study we agree was very well done and puts a cpa cap out there that most poem agree upon but i think what youre talking about is okay. Whats the band below that maximum the feasibility assessment was one but i think there is less agreement an whether or not the fee assessment agreement accepts that band and some maybe below that band im challenged because in terms of can i opine on what the fee subsidies shall be perhaps higher because we still have not had the joint meeting with the sfmta one of the things id ask for pushing them to really be specific being what is were trying to prioritize in terms of Capital Infrastructure and maintenance of different portions the mtas asset it is hard to push for a particular number whether it is Square Footage fee or the cumulative question fee well get over 10 over and over 20 years you also know youre not going to be able to fund the entire bankruptcy it is a big piece missing how to file that bucket, in fact, thats a fantastic idea but not to hundred percent so the question what can you do with what you have if youre going to try to put a few more drops if the bucket when i been should that fee be higher or lower whats is additional impact that well get in terms of of the Capital Infrastructure development and the operating maintenance investment and because the mtas has not been clear i dont know; right . So other than saying the fee can be higher its hard to advocate for a specific level i dont know what you know sort that credential impact what the Capital Investment lists sow hopefully, the supervisors will get that and be able to maybe think about increase that fee to get those specific things right now it not that specific and things really challenged i like the idea of fee graduations in different areas but id like to hear from other commissioners clear ideas what if actually means im not sure that means by just areas like you know circuit courts or areas of the city would that be by zoning types or size of projects that idea is too nebulous for saying it sounds good but the general concept of fee subsidies for different areas how high growth make sense. Commissioner wu. So ill go off the commissioners comments as far as the grandfathering it is helpful to hear the independence of the applications 080 so if it can be in the actual language it is good to be specific ill are supporter supportive of some idea of graduated garth maybe projects that were approved one year ago or Something Like that jill 2014 maybe they get a 25 percent reduction whereas others get what is prototype. You mean approves or submitted applications and submitted im sorry following the structure that was laid out as to the fee amount the garth is a one time but the feasibility studies states i think it was said in Public Comment at 50 percent or hundred and sro percent of what was previously proposed there is it and impact most development all that to say i think that is room to push the boundary the letter signed by the coalition suggested 33 percent of the nexus i think that this is our chance to set it Going Forward and seeing how Much Development is coming through. One other question i had was about area plans so could staff answer in the t f p is approved and implemented does it reduce the fee subsidies in the existing area plans. It will pay the difference which is higher they already the area plans pace the transportation fee and the difference. The theyll pay the new fee theyll pay the equivalent of the new fee im sorry. So, yes it is sort of a complex proposal so essentially as john stated theyll pay the existing area plan that politics to residential uses and this area reductions is for residential uses first of all, the nonrestricted residential pace the fee subsidies 0 residential theyll pay the new fee the t f f and the transit component theyll bet considered by that amount up to the full amount for instance, market octavia this is the reduction of 25 square feet so the reduction fee will be 5. 34 compared to the 74. This focused fee subsidies in the area plan will be. I dont know. Foelthd down. Essential so did staff consider asking those in the area plans to pay the fee and the full t f s as thats something we received february and the neighborhood cac that was not a universal sentiment but one idea and actually for the questions on the methodology the slide showing the circulations. Okay. If you could quickly run through that. Heres an example with market octavia the fill impact fee is 1092 per square feet that is 1866 and even the transit is credited at 2 and credited for 16 plus. Id like the xrgs of not doing the credit. Commissioner richards. I guess several things that was interesting it comes on the hills of the subway master plan that supervisor wiener talked about ill below this up in a worldclass cities the growth to help to pay for the growth of the worldclass city it is a good huge start Small Business mentioned amendments and that concerns me because we dont have that before us i dont know what the impact was can Small Business elaborate on that. I want to make sure i know exactly what we are dealing with if we take a vote. So as specified earlier the memo were submitted last night and wrought and paper copied to the commission so theres 4 key issues that were addressed with the substitute owners theyre considered minor and nonsubstantive the first was that the ordinance adams a timing of payment saeks section that is language in the other areas basically clearly states when the fee is paid the second sat application of the mixing so in section 406 exemption the mixing that was not the intention the proposal were dealing with the t f s. Thats a correction. Thats a correction solemnly swear similar for the hope sf to exempt the entire project hope sf is both the market rate and below market rate those are blended projects we want to see those projects being built so the substitute ordinance cleared the exemption to all ordinances and it was mentioned the Small Business exemption was all the time previously the exception applied toize spaces along the cumulative space was less than 5 thousand square feet and what was amended now the proposal allows for small operators to colocate in a singlespace this coffers for example, we have a large commercial kitchens or several kitchens operating those facilities but theyre each less than 5 thousand square feet will be exempted. First place an entrepreneur and wanted to have a space that is shared i was like the master lease holder and this cube and that cube and that cube would it apply to me Everything Else is sub leasing it is generally, you dont get a cohort space by a hundred square feet and someone else how how does that work. Well coming if an office space 0 another small office space. So theres a building out there. Okay. 6 thousand square feet i want to create a Colocation Office space so i rent the space within code; right . But parcel everything out to 60 entities do i have a pay this. Corey with the Planning Department staff that specific example youll not be exempt the core right now thank you d i f has a limited fund of money that goes toward the policy credits it, it is a Small Business credit stipulates that the existing and the resulting business had to be loneliness 5 thousand square feet youre starting as a Small Business and ending as a Small Business with 6 thousand square feet what is a Small Business that sierra club removes the criteria for example, an empty calories that is 25 thousand square feet from the current Small Business policy credit if you want to carve out 25 thousand square feet or under 5 thousand misquotes youll not get the credit the existing credit is thousand square feet we want the outcome and in this situation the minor correction was that in that somewhere scenario if you have over 5 thousand square feet and breakdown were talking about pdrs to nonresidential if you beaked it into individual units that are less than 5 thousand square feet theyll have individual business tenants and then all the spaces will essentially their thousand square feet theyll be exempt from the fee if youre talking about an individual use or facility by its nature break down into coworker well look at that as one use overall. Thats not my concern. But literally great wonderful thanks. Another question an overarching question the 3 billion needs we have a bonds that coffers this over 2030 period and a gap 6 is . 6 billion; right . So i kind of think everybody should share in the bonds really the Property Owners and maybe some passed that on to the tenants im not sure that is allowed through prop a the developers and the new residents are paying this through the t s f and the new residents and the other two sales tax it is disproerpts it is a large amount fall on people that may not be able to afford ii want to make sure the burden is look at as well. Understood. That comes up to say this the right amount to charge developers. Understood there are certain types of goods noting not subject to sales tax just to be clear from the when we starred it process a couple years ago look at globally the Transportation System we had a 6. 3 billion need weve realized why the this is an Obligation Bonds were at 5 point will 8 so the proposal to levy a vehicle license fee and increase the savings and geobonds thaichl theyll invest the 3 about the 3 of those measures are successful. I must have read this slide wrong. We would like to materialize that. Okay. So were not 3. 3 billion short weve begun the process of raising the resources but it is a long road and the number of actions that still need to be take place with the t f d just to clear the transit impact fees this is the expansion of that to residential uses and the major institutions that generates over 15 years that same timeframe 2 hundred employed to the 1. 2 billion is captured under the identified funds so i do think theres an ongoing question around the appropriate sources and what does any individual or different type of empty the unfunded issue is that we have moved to a position where we have taken more local responsibility for this type of investment than weve had to do in the past the reality is in prior generations weve been able to count on federal funding the fact that federal fund has not kept pace with the system is unfortunate is a and it is spilled that he local level youre seeing more and more local jurisdictions to solve this issue if we have 80 are to look at this is commissioner antoninis issue . The trust amount of investment required in the Transportation System i dont know if we can ever solve that without sate state and federal support because of the magnitude of the dollars. Like Affordable Housing. Correct so i think part of the goal with the transportation 2030 project tomato misses the local support and the local investment to position ourselves to better articulate our need at state or federal level. I guess another question can something walk us through are we charging the right amount i know if it is a sausage making exercise i looked at each one of these and kind of think i got it is the Sensitivity Analysis especially on the for sale one you start with the price that can be released by Office Rental start subtracting and get this amount how does that work i mean is if was it the developer margin was always 22 and a half percent what number well in is the right and this is the wrong amount. Ill pass this one to lisa. There were a lot of tables boil it down what was that kind of right line i dont want to cross that whatever the reason incentivizes. Thats a great question as you mentioned a process to develop the methodology together all the potential costs so for the hard Construction Costs and but except for the lands that is calculated separately and subtract all our excuse me. From our revenues so in that 53 vary versus ownership and renting and the return of the developer margin so that is also part of the kind of costs side of it and then your left with the land resingling suicidal to the windows were looking at first of all, you know as we develop those before we apply the fee is the project viable and certain projects in certain areas the city where development is for the supported and the next step now we know the baseline lets set levels and hundred and hundred 25 and hundred 50 and 250 that went through with each are prototype this is the guts collect a reasonable rage in terms of the fluctuation and land crisis the idea being that you know when developers are entering into agreements for the price of the land may not have incorporated the cost of the fee as part of their calculus so 10 pears was a reasonable thresholds. Thats the contingency. It is the contingency. I see the logic so a lot of the fee subsidies we have that come if market octavia this is 25 and the pdr of 29 i said parts the city it doesnt pencil out the residual lands supports that im supportive of the fee subsidies by location to drive the kind of fee subsidies in that area i think that goes hand in glove with the transportation i think a few commissioners mentioned that that is a good thing to explore and do a flat fee so is the fee amount right. I see with the Sensitivity Analysis i said it it could be a little bit more if we had folks that want to explore that how much you know it is on index for each year. So all our impact fees and develop fee subsidies. What about revenue inflation i saw some one thousand square feet and next year 12 hundred no indexing for that the capacity is pay based on the inflation is not counted can we counts for that. Currently the way the fee subsidies that are administered by the Planning Department are in nexus with the single Construction Costs circulation so that doesnt necessarily account for all the dynamics of the market im sure we can get the possibility of what youre suggesting. Im talking about the conversation i had with a developer they said i dont care about the inflation so i keep cob do that why not look at the windfall why cant we get more. I wanted to add one thing we wrote into the ordinance every 5 years a nexus Feasibility Study that will make adjustments in the fee the market can go up and down we will look at. When the market went down we did the deferral so maybe you want to make that 3 years 5 y k years might be too long and sausage making maybe okay. I guess the exempts i look at whatever we decide in the policy goals; right . So Small Businesses are hurting i dont want to burn them weve land there and small development, Profit Margins are less than half im okay with that avenue, i think that commissioner antonini mentioned that you know, i talked to e talked to don fawning they have to get money together my thing is this from a Public Policy will discourage this if we theres a fragile way to build. Mr. Cohen. I think you mentioned you represent nonprofits. Would you be surprised at the answer i gave to you, of course, im actually frankly commissioner antonini surprised to hear you say what you said earlier the longstanding exemption for nonprofits not just housing but Nonprofit Development activities has an absolute logic this is city funding infrastructure it is called nonprofit for a reason there is not profit laying around and expected to invest in the City Infrastructure nonprofit Affordable Housing is built with public funding if you talking about shifting money from the Mayors Office of housing to mta that should be proposed were talking about shifted money from expelling to mta i should proposed that there is no infrastructure money thats as apples and oranges for Affordable Housing works from market rate housing morph to hear there is insufficiencies or overpaid staff is rather offensive it is terrorizing the picture we see in all the brochures about San Francisco development a typically Affordable Housing their some of the most efficient and proud pews of developments i beg to differ about that and i think the exception is well placed where it is. I think that clears up any question i have on that thank you. Student housing i guess a couple of requests it looks like we want to sensitive vices universities to build the institutions we have Large Institution that is for profit not building Student Housing i dont know. I dont feel good been singling out one entity may be one sharing the burden maybe someone under 50 thousand pay a little bit maybe if theyve over this their senior should be more sharing arrest waivers one other question i have so we have a large for Profit Institution if so coming before us on october 1st they buy a residential building and housing to housing is that a change of use you know this as happened over and over and over and over. Sure from the building was housing to begin with and their remarketing it for Student Housing not a change of use for the impact fees were with the t s f were collapsing the land use buckets to 3 theres only residential and unknown residential and pdr so individual dwelling units, Group Housing is considered residential youll trigger the impact fee from a lower to a higher fee use from pdr to residential or nonresidential. Thank you, thank you. I guess on the reductions of any third point from i looked at what kind of triggered me we looked at the Mission Controls and why would we say this project in and out when necessary filled the application they knew it was coming january 1st or whatever there should be some type of graduation how long have you had our project going if you had it three or four more exempt than someone that filed recently, i support a reduction and the late issue thought we had how you raised and spend money the eligible use for under the t d i f pretty be flexible you have money that could be used for capital plus partitioned or whatever maintenance but under this only that portion that the 61 percent the base t d i f fee has the remaining portion can you clarify. I want to make sure we have enough flexibility. There is still funded for the flexibility for operating purposes the ordinance essentially puts in writing around the use of t d i f in practices the funds were using to replace the doors on the vehicles or over hauls are sitting in the operating budget in a practical terms the funding we receive that is more practical for the general fund well put towards that we dont have to we have funding to pay for that quad capital expense but. So hundred percent of this new t f f could go to whatever. No what the nexus study did there are different categories of need that are generated if new development so it allocates the percentage table indicates you know 60 percent of the funds go to the t d i f and the operating bucket for the prevent maintenance and the bike projects and the capacity Expansion Projects for muni, bart and caltrans. Maybe the master is not working in my head it is not midnight it is me, you have an ever increasing number to apply the 50 perris to so that door problem over a large fleet is met by the 51 experience percent. It is 61 percent. So you have a capital portion that can be more flexible. Right audience so okay each one combruz more money goes out so the same proposition. Right. Thank you. Commissioner moore. Great program the devil is in the details you see by all the questions many enter linked questions questions you dont know i dont why i dont how to make sausage but i have a question would you mind coming up one more time there are 3 function in the system called buy, build and run those are the 3 categories in our previous t d i f the funds raised addresses all 3 of them i want you to firmer or explain think t s i f addresses those only buy and build. It is buy, build and run. In the new system. In the new system. Are there any changes in the irrigations how funds with being used are they same or less or more in the 3 categories. The concern youre hearing from the previous speakers the difference between the t s f and the t d i f under the existing transit Development Fee subsidies no language constraining the use of the funds to any particular purpose within the realm of the noouks under the t s i f the ordinance contains the languages the run goes toward prevent Maintenance Programs so it adds language that constrains the use of few minutes to that purpose prosecute a practical stand point no diverse between what were doing today and proposed under the ordinance. Im concerned that change in language somewhere politics change in the way you do things when our running a large Transportation System with technology that changes much, much faster they do not have the flexibility do what you need to do when you need to do it thats a push back to the restriction on the fee ill have that and have it over with thank you when it comes to the issue of fee subsidies amount were in a bio ant economy im practical about money i assume with the nexus of a spread youve carefully detailed ill not grab for 50 percent but a minimum economic 33 percent or 35 percent knowing that when the economy resends from this place will have to go go counsel from 25 percent to less or 33 percent and then go to 25 percent looking at the Transportation System all San Francisco in comparison to other cities around the world and im going to stretch it out to look at the Transportation Systems around the worldwide or world we have an interesting Transportation System that grew along the premise of a suburban system rather than an urban system its a clear in the way that bart stations dont serve the city other than in incredible stops to outline communities what happened on the tail of having a successful bart system came the ideas of expanding transportation the way it is in comparison to others cities fantastic im happy about it; however, there are many holes when you move into different parts of city you know very well whether there is not enough frequency of buses and no streetcar cars and many, many holes with gentrification across the system will ultimate be required does this particular economy will not make us want to grab money to plan examinations of the system into those areas where theyve always been missing not only those areas where there is never been i dont want to take that much further but grab the opportunities of expanding this system in anticipation that growth will our everywhere growth equally to the entire city the second point i share the concerns of the fee waivers id like to see fee graduation as indicated by commissioner avalos and the one reminding question the area plans and difference between ordering new rates that is logical why are suds exempt i believe that suds are from my prospective not the best way of managing transportation because the length of time that suds give themselves as a base for the agreements are far too far to long to treat them as islands suds are as much part of the citys system they were lucky enough to get a special deal i believe there should be regulated similar to what area plans do. Thank you and i think unifying youre referring to the Development Agreement i mean those are practice writing these prongs that either have existing agreements in the future it is not their necessarily exempt but spelled out in the terms of whatever the agreement the contract that was made at that time that goes before the commission and board it is up to you whether or not their pay the fee subsidies higher or lower theyre not exempted by a legal instrument it trumpets anything else. Their agreement we cannot undo a contract with a piece of legislation. And any future suds. Not an sud. Suds have Development Agreements and mraishd and 5 m and Treasure Island will have one with the developments agreements that should be completely integrated and particularly to what everyone else has to pay im not the maker of Development Agreements but for the treated in any in any way, shape, or form differently including the times in which the fee subsidies are featured feathered into the larger picture. Im just throwing that out ive been questioning that all along. Commissioner antonini. Yeah. Im not sure what our process is going to do be today ill assume well be voting to recommend approval although im not sure well be able to have anything with all those technical points we may have to have those findings theyll be forwarded to the board of supervisors that maybe a practical way ill make a few comments and maybe where we will have those included in the recommendations so, anyway im very much in agreement with commissioner johnson where Development Agreement we could a have redevelopment we have something similar in taxing from the finance but the money goes back to the area in which the project is took place to mitigate the impacts of that project we have to make sure it is high enough to not only mitigate it but provide some funds towards citywide needs and that i think the applicability of this towards the existing developments is a legal question i think whether or not you can charge this above and beyond what wear agreed to say problematic i think so you know 0 thats just has to be researched by the City Attorney and others but i would certainly be in favor of the getting the fund as high for this need also someone brought up the point of revenue from other sources and figuring out the revenues from others businesses that will not be building something new and have their own impact on the Transportation Needs that is a decision for another day it is a tax on what is being build new rather than what exists there maybe a way whether a parcel tax or whatever in keeping with prop 13 or whatever in place legally there maybe a way to unlock the evaluate amount of revenue this comes up when we talk about transbay all those existing building not paying the transbay fee theyre not in the zone or not under the agreements they have the same impacts as some of the ones that are now obligated to pay thats a great source of funding if we could find out a way. Faster casting the net im a Small Business owner ill saying ill be happy to pay but understand a small fee or 0. 50 or 0 per square feet of anything in my business in addition to the 8 hundred fee or in addition to my office make sense and helps i think this should be broadway and mr. Cohen makes the example of robbing passport to pay paul not sure but if an impact small fee make sense for all small developments and nonprofits and affordable and all helps towards this need they generate an impact that is as great as anyone else but we understand the take a look budget it should be a low impact fee. Fee subsidies for different areas it looks like a lower end of the feasibility i think we talked about numbers here between 6 and 16 and 14 and 36 and erroring to the lower side of the fee subsidies so certainly, if the city feels it the prudent to add a dollar are two where the areas the demand is higher and subtract a dollar or two in areas where the demand is more challenged to be able to build anything im thinking specifically by the supervisor district perhaps sgriblts 11, 4 and 1 or 7 those are areas where theres a hard time generating a lot of construction of new commercial space so there maybe an argument made for that being lower ive mentioned the exception for ucsf should be included not to single them out if they have the charitable thing we have to equal in the institutions and grandfathering some commissioners brought the grashth it is reasonable if sms something in the system for a long time they should get the garth or maybe the last year maybe a lessor orer amount and they would be many will be