observations. i heard everything that was said. president miguel: what i have heard our construction impacts, this is something that occurs in any construction project in a relatively short time. it is my opinion quite well controlled by the department of building inspection and their regulations. it is standard, and intrusive in any major city like san francisco, but that is exactly why the regulations concerning construction impacts are in place. i am really not interested in offers, counter offers, offer withdrawals or anything else. it has nothing to do with this

commission, for which i am very grateful. this has been around since 2005, i appreciate commissioner moore's comments. i do not believe that another meeting of any kind will work. everyone has had more than enough time, and in particular, since the november 17 hearing. they could get together if there was a true reason to do so. i live across from the school that started off as an alternative school, it is a high school and now. the high school kids, some of them are there. that is what you do lived in the city. food banks, the distribution center.

that is what you'd do. these are standard items, everything we are talking about our standard items in this city. yes, there will be complaints. i have neighbors complaining that they thought watering my garden was getting into their basement. 7i why community boards are round, truthfully. this is a project that, correctly zone, it is relatively small, particularly compared to what is going on around it. it has been sitting far too long as far as i am concerned. i have concerns about social justice issues. it is my belief that the

organizations that were in san francisco have been a stream the good in working with every neighborhood of the city. it brought of the opposition we have had to transitional use housing and other housing in certain areas. after a while, it just works, and it will. while there may be a few bruised shoulders and the beginning, i think we should go ahead with this. commissioner sugaya: i am still struggling with a conditional use overall necessary in desirable. in some ways from what commissioner moore was insane, we will be creating a nuisance.

one incident where there is a new condominium building, they started complaining about the cherry blossom festival. i want to go into the particulars of that, but it is a small fan, i suppose. there will be complaints. until the vote gets called, i am not sure which way i will go on this. commissioner antonini: thank you. commissioner moore talked about umu zoning which doesn't apply because this was grandfathered in. i know you were talking about where to put what. i don't buy the argument that

because someone is a certain income level, they should be excluded from the neighborhood. that is just as bad as the other way around. i don't like that kind of argument. i would have a lot more respect for those that want this property to think that our use is a better use, maybe we would be able to afford to acquire it. it is argument about, is that what these people really believe? people that own condominiums are somehow less desirable people? that is really hard to believe in my mind. it is something that speaks badly for san francisco. i am very much in favor of this project and the hope that everything does work out. i think the conditions are very

important. if it turns out the rental property, that is a possibility. whthey would have to understand the conditions. commissioner borden: i think we have to figure this out. if we say that these uses are incompatible, the decisions we made in the past, we are saying now is incompatible. if we say that all uses can coexist in a community together, that argument has to hold a matter who is on the side of the argument. we have to work really hard, we will not be producing any more space. we have to find a way to coexist with each other. pretty much most of the vacant lots are not owned by the city.

we will have this use compatibility issue. we have this over and over again, i'd of the solution is just to say, why don't we just not develop those properties because we have to figure this out. we don't have a choice. i think we need to figure it out. we can't discriminate against people because they are condo owners. we have to be a city about fairness for all, and one of the the general plan is like this utopian notion of the city we want to create, how do we help make uses and people coexist to each other. you want a neighborhood where people live so you can reach the kids. i have imagined that abandoned building can attract and savory

elements. i think we have to figure out, a4db to the community that we work together? on the upside, if someone wants to do community benefits, we already determined that is incompatible. i think we run that risk and that is something that we have to think about. r0 $mjpone of the reasons why't think continuing ahead -- if there seems to be an issue where there is a desire to acquire the property, if that is at the heart of what the problem is, no number of community meetings will resolve that issue. -that i have no business in that. people buy a piece of land, they come to us to get the approvals. i don't have any jurisdiction

over who owns it and how they on it. again, if there is a chance for the sides to work together, i think they cannot figure out something that might' amenable. it doesn't help uslkr. commissioner antonini: i think this is very desirable for the neighborhood because what neighborhoods need is vertical economic integration. we don't need neighborhoods that were a certain income level. people of different income levels living together. we don't have a society anymore where people live together.

in many places where we don't have this diversity of people and then come levels, i think it is important. what people learn from each other, it is important to have this kind of situation be very helpful to the activities that are going on in other areas, to have some neighbors they are that perhaps it would be very helpful to them. commissioner sugaya: i think commissioner borden is right. on the other hand, we are supposed to be making a decision using incompatibility as a criteria. otherwise, why do we have a conditional use permit? i would just assume get rid of all the conditional uses in the city had just say that these are

allowed and these are not allowed. and no d.r.'s either. we seem to think that we need these opportunities to discuss matters, and i suppose that is good. it makes it tough on commissioners and that is why a number of us are still struggling with this. >> of the motion on the floor as for approval. on that motion. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: no. commissioner sugaya: no. president miguel: aye. >> it passes 4-2. thank you. we are now ready to start the regular calendar with item 10, an informational presentation on

the transportation sustainability program. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am here to provide an informational presentation on the transportation system ability program. >> i need you to speak right into the microphone. the >> of the proposed program has been a multi-agency effort for a number of years. as well as staff from our apartment, we have been involved and from the environmental perspective. the economic work force development has beenñ1q:tu. very involved putting this together as well. if i could have the slides,

thank you for that. the program itself is an innovative program in that it relates to currently distinct parts, namely the environmental review and the assessment and application of developing impact fees to ultimately better achieve the transit -- we have ceqa methodology that i will go to in detail. but ultimately allows us to achieve multimodal priority. what the program entails, a change to the transportation impact methodology under ceqa. g8zthat would replace the existing t.i.d.s.

in the transportation impact of 20 years of project development of the transportation system. just going into a little bit of history of the program, this conversation was initiated in 2003 by request of the board of supervisors by the 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 all