transportation authority board. they asked the staff to consider alternatives for the use of automobile level of services under ceqa findings that the use of automobile l.o.s. might be in contradiction to our priorities. they recommended a eliminating its. the city put together a committee comprised of the agencies i have described. there was a study to determine the projected development of the transportation network as a whole. staff also worked with the state resources agency to modify ceqa guidelines to move away from automobile l.o.s. in 2010, which underwent an

extensive process of considering a variety of different capital improvements and what their impact would be on the transportation network as a whole. this is assuming there is a certain amount of development over the next 20 years, based on that development activity, and modeling the performance of the network had once we have included the capital improvements in the system. also working through the next study process, there is a fee and expenditure package under these improvements and we are currently working on drafting an ordinance that would enable the changes we are describing. so coming back to the purpose on this, the change to the transportation methodology coupled with the establishment of a citywide impact fee would allow the city to find a set of improvements that could enhance

the transportation system that has the ability to address developmental impact over time in such a way that will be consistent with city policies and priorities. going into a little more on the components of the program, the changes would move our focus away from automobile level of service and transit delay in transit crowding, both measures we currently consider and analyze and transportation impact. the use of automobile l.o.s. is a portion of that analysis. we are recognizing that of eliminating its could better achieve our policy goals as the city. many of the medications that a rise from considering it as a metric can be in contradiction to the city goes the other multi-modal -- city's other

multi-modal goals. it could have a negative consequence on a bike lane or pedestrian safety. we also found that thepk litigation's can be unfeasible -- mitigations can be infeasible, pushing an intersection or roadway segment when it is a cumulative contribution of development over time that has brought that intersection or roadway to that -- it is capable of mitigating the entire impact of the development. it is also a bit of a fairness issue. by allowing every project to pay a proportionate share of the impacts, the city will be in a better position to program improvements to the system that can be comprehensively8u

and we can really consider the system as a whole and produce improvements that are city-wide and systematic. the city will be conducting an eir for looking at impasse over 20 years. individual development projects with no longer be required to do cumulative transportation impact studies. the work will already have been done. we will, of course, still require significant analysis, ensuring that the project -- it directly aware there is a bus stop and creating conflict with transit. land-use project will be required to pay the fees with proportionate shares for the system.

payment of a citywide basis allows us to offset the community impact. the transportation projects are not expected to pay a fee or undergo transportation impact analysis under ceqa. they are not in conflict with crowding measures. there may be significant or sustained destruction to a transit corridor where additional analysis would be required. we would be looking at design options. the transportation sustainability fee is supposed to replace the t.i.d.s. it is intended to offset the cumulative impact of the transportation system, charging a proportionate share to the land use project.

the planned area impact fees, there was an assumption during adoption of the plans that if a citywide she were to come into effect which covered a particular category of public benefits, the area fees would be credited to both city-wide fees. +it is in excess of the proposd city-wide feed that the differential would remain for geographic specific improvements. briefly, on t.i.d.s., until there is a sustainability fee, those of the mechanisms to offset the impact on development transportation systems. as such, it will remain in effect. the next study has not been reauthorize and we are legally

required to do that every five years. not only would a reprieve -- it refresh the nexus, it would bring land-use definition into conformity with how they are identified under impact fees. there is a proposal for a modest increasefq"ra6r that we haven'n a number of years. it would be only on commercials, it would not extend to residential, and it would be consistent with what is being proposed. it is anticipated to be extended to non-product uses. we have heard a number of concerns with non-profit entities that have gone through many years of international campaigns, we are considering an appropriate grandpa's for those

concerns. in terms of the expenditure plan, we expected to generate $630 million over 20 years, used to leverage another $820 million in state, local, and federal funding to provide a $1.4 billion expenditure program overall. because it is targeted at both offsetting impact of the state mitigation fee act as well as offsetting impacts, the program is highly constrained to the most cost-effective fuel system. in terms of where the funding they go, this shows the allocation to the four project categories. it is a way of addressing transit and crowding because

they allow for additional service being provided on high impact alliance, and this is what has been identified in the transit effectiveness project. transit reliability improvements include what you might consider more traditional capital programming, things like a dedicated right of way. regional transit improvements, we do recognize that regional carriers are part of the transportation network in san francisco. there is an amount of funding dedicated for caltrain. there are pricing program toshift mode -- to shift mode share. we have impacts for transit delay and crowding, we need to show expenditures. to the extent we are able to

model that, for example, creation of a black network will shift mode shares significantly. that would ultimately be able to be included in this type of expenditure. i should mention that the capital program that this is built on was sent -- built on a set of projects. conditions will change and priorities will change and projects will change. these are the rates that are currently proposed. this is based on both the texas study in draft form that should be publicly released next month. this is 100% of texas. -- nexus. it allows for legal defense ability of the ft. we also did commission financial feasibility studies as part of nexus study to understand what

the impact f of theee would -- of this fee would be on feasibility. the numbers are intending to not result in negative residual land value. every project has its own characteristic and some projects have a more difficult impact from this feedback from others. the major change in terms of what is being proposed is the creation of a fee on residential that would be a new fee outside a plan areas. it reallyw ill -- really will be a new fee for the land use types. in conducting our public outrage and in our own staff efforts, we have considered the provision of the policy discount program so that expenditure programs include an assumption of $40 million over the life of

the 20-year program to allocate for policy discounts. these are either land uses or policy-makers that should be supported. what is currently being a potential fee waiver for small businesses which are using existent they can turn on formula retail and the potential for affordable housing. we are currently considering an office allocation model where there is approximately $10 million available for discounts and that is offered on a first- come first-served basis. we will be able to identify the appropriate provision to determine what the discount should be.

defeat is likely to have a square footage exemption so that if someone is adding 400 square feet -- the fee is likely to have a square footage exemption so that if someone is adding 400 square feet. financial feasibility, because we are conducting and eir in this program, we don't expect it be in effect until 2013. we are expecting to update the exposure to the time when this legislation might be adopted. we are establishing a steering committee which would program

the revenue every two years and is sure that we are meeting our requirements in terms of how the money is being spent. this will be reviewed by the relevant policy bodies and reviewed by the board of supervisors. every five years, we will need to update the environmental assumptions to ensure that our development assumptions are accurate and to take a look at the expenditure program to make sure that the parties that we have put the finding into are having an impact on the system this lines up nicely with the prioritization programming process so that the board can consider the entire transportation program in its totality we are expecting that

there will be a transition time so that it can change, during which we will be working closely with the project sponsors to coach them on the appropriate methodology to be using for their environmental review too ensure the greatest feasibility. in terms of timeline, we have started stakeholder out reached in november of this year and we have been reaching out to supervisors and citizens advisory committees. we are providing presentations here today as well as to the board of directors, the transportation authority board. we expect to be at the land use committee in late february this will kick off our environmental review process. once the process is complete in

2013, this will determine whether any changes will be necessary and we would expect it to go through the adoption process at that time. it will be referred back to the planning commission under normal procedures. 'm available for questions. >> thank you very much. is there any public comment on this report? >> good afternoon, commissioners. good to see you all. the veterans of this commission, i have been coming and talking to you since 2003 perhaps. we are very much in support of this program. we are appreciative of all of the city agencies.

this complicates realizing things that we're trying to get done, every day bicycling being among them in my interest professionally. this is how we do things in san francisco. it is not only the making the business it coherent to our

policies and programs but it will generate some revenue. that is a very good thing for a city that is broke, that needs to have money put into transportation improvements and to transit. that is worth noting and worthing purging. i am sure i will be back to talk to you more as this moves along. thank you for your patience and attention to this over the years. >> it is there additional public comment? if not, public comment is closed. >> this is a terrific day. perhaps it is serendipitous that earlier in the meeting, the director announced that we won two international awards acknowledging the city for- looking measures in transportation planning.

this gives a visual talk of what they are doing and they will be implementing a real end of what it looks like when you start to implement this. i am denied -- delighted. this is about increasing intersections. i think this is a step in the right direction and there will be more questions of participants worry input which i would be very interested in listing to because many are suffering from our people actually coming from out of town and how are we capturing that? i am really glad that we are fast tracking this, the studies, and everything that we need to have been placed in order to do this quickly.

thank you to everyone. this could not be a better day for hearing it. >> wheat have welcomed some comments which we think have some promise. this is an important matrix to half. fortunately living and working in san francisco, i usually do not have to drive in situations such as the bay bridge or other hopeless situations where you are caught in traffic. this is very first -- very frustrating. i think it is important that this still happens but i think that the matrix has to expand. you have to realize the impacts that other means have on the movement of all means of

transportation, be this pedestrians bicycles cars, buses are often trying to pass each other. they are always out in the street. this causes lots of problems. my feeling is that the money from this feet should go specifically to transportation improvements which is buses or preferably light rail in their own right of way. the only way we will improve people community will get to have people in a situation where they get on a train, it stops only at the stations, it moves quickly and reliably to their destination. otherwise, they will drive into most people's time is valuable. but people, if they can afford to do it, will take the most expedient way to move from one place to another because they

have a lot of things to do. if there is this increase in fee or replacement feet, as you have it, whatever it will be. we have to make sure that we don't set ourselves up for not being competitive with other jurisdictions in the area for business or for residents and to make sure that it is well thought out and that it has precedent and the results are tangible and that it is directed towards the improvement of better transit. trying to change people's behavior is spending a lot of money that the will not happen -- a lot of money that will not happen. you can take away some lanes, they will say, maybe i should ride the bike. they will not do this just because you have taken a lained away. this is an important thing to look at.

i appreciate all of the bike lanes that have been put in. this cuts a laying off between the school for the arts and where you get off on diamond heights boulevard. it would have been too bad, this goes across midtown. that is just an aside on looking at these things and always studying all of the impact. wherever you can place the pipelines, they should not jeopardize major transit streets. it is not safe if they are on a streak like butcher pine -- on the street like busher pine.

>> this is extremely exciting. i was part of the committee. we won 76% of the vote in 2003. it is exciting to see this as a complement at that work. i remember talking about how do we balance in our expenditure plan at the need to do all of the multi modal aspects of what is acquired for transportation. that process specified release specific project and mitigation actions. i am happy to hear that when you look at this every five years, it will coincide with how you look at that expenditure plan. this is a nice complement that needs to happen.

it is really interesting because in my day job, we have this challenge for cities all of the world like to get expertise to look at problems in their city. we send consultants in for free. the biggest problem around the globe in every single country you go too is looking at how you balance getting people out of their cars. they are clogging the streets and they're taking three hours to get into the city center. now looking how to provide better information. the trend around the world, everyone realizes he cannot build more roads. i think that this takes us a long way in that direction. in terms of a policy question

that you raised for our feedback, i think this is a great idea to incentivize projects that go belie the4y parking maximum. i think that that is a strong opportunity. maybe there is a certain threshold of projects. i think that the fee waivers for non formula retail is the assistant space and this makes a lot of sense as well they don't have very large margins to begin with and any sort of fees make it's difficult for them to survive. obviously waivers for affordable housing, most of them don't

involve parking. those people will be users of public transit. kc'ni think this is really well thought out policies you have discussed. i think they are all steps in the right direction. >> i was not thinking about this but how will this applied to square footage for small businesses? we have existing stores on fillmore street and there are retell and someone goes out of business and someone comes in and uses the same space. >> it would be on new only or a change of use. if this is one for one, the

assumption that it has been accounted for and the fleets -- the fee is not applied. >> if we take an example and a new addition to the museum of modern art, it would be charged $13.30 a square foot? :p é right. >> $3 million. >> depending on the square footage. >> the change of use is the new change. this goes from a retail operation to a restaurant. is that correct? bubut as i'm starting a campaign

for having to weigh on the streets. -- two-way on the streets. >> this makes it a lot more pleasant and it moved just as well if not better and it allows it some options for some people that made a mistake. all of a sudden they were trapped going in the right direction. in terms of waivers, i think your pricing makes sense for businesses. smaller businesses should pay a smaller fee. i don't think they should be entirely exempted. as far as