connecting two points in the central valley to begin with, but i just wondered if there was a reason -- perhaps what ms. jim just said -- that need to go slowly, or if the vote you are anticipating here today would be one where we as a body would be advocating the entire fast start program? >> i think it is largely a matter of timing. the decision by the city family to get a resolution, the one before you is an example that would be adopted by all the different relevance of the bodies such as the transportation authority board, the planning commission -- was developed before the fast start proposal crystallized in our formal comments back to the high speed rail authority. they are not meant at all to be inconsistent. i think the fast start is just may be thinking that a slightly more advanced than the

resolution that we initially had drafted, but i think they are entirely consistent, and i think we as a city are aiming to move forward with the resolutions of the different bodies to advance the proposal and, as ms. lee said, to do it in a way that is respectful of the communities that would be impacted. >> your anticipation is that if we pass this resolution, you will be signing this letter, which talks in more detail about the program on behalf of this agency? >> the letter actually already went out. that was issued, for some reason, as an unsigned version in your packet, but we issued the letter -- i think there was a deadline to issue that in order to get our comments into the draft business plan. we sent that letter from the department heads about two weeks ago. director heinicke: sorry for the

length of this, but would it help the project if we were to endorse the fast start program in its entirety, or would it be better to just leave this as calling for electrification of the caltrain corridor? >> i think it would be no harm in amending it, and perhaps it would make the intent of the board clear. i think that would be a good thing. >> if i may suggest, may be endorsed the concept of the fast start project. we are still working with all the details that have to be done, so maybe that would be my recommended freezing. thank you. director brinkman: thank you. shall we hear any other questions from directors, public comment, and then move on? public comment please. >> we have one person who

submitted a speaker card. >> i wanted to be supportive in this case. i think caltrain is very important to the peninsula, to the region, to san francisco. i have been troubled for some time about the high-speed rail proposal to build in the valley and disconnect that from the rest of the world, and to the extent that this strategy proposal suggests local investment that has a near-term benefits for the state, for the region, for caltrain, that is all to the good. i am aware of other efforts to talk about the sustainability of caltrain and funding mechanisms for that, certainly making the downtown extension and electrification actually happened in our lifetimes would be good. i would be remiss if i did not mention norm rolfe and his long advocacy for this project.

unfortunately, it did not happen during his lifetime. perhaps we can all see to it that it does happen. it is unfortunate that caltrain does not go downtown. there was long debate about whether that competed with the metro extension. i think the final answer was it did not. they serve different markets. they are both important transportation projects, and i hope we do all things necessary and possible to support caltrain and high-speed rail and make it useful, so i am supportive of this item. thank you. director brinkman: thank you. we need to have a motion for the amendment first? sari, one more public comment. >> good afternoon. i actually hold mr. rolfe's seat on the cac, and i do so with humility. so much of this is predicated on a witch and a prayer, and i

think without any funding identified, with the budget for high-speed rail but i think everyone in this room supports doubling over time, we are seeing a lot of wishful thinking here, and it requires looking at why high-spe budget double ol amount of time. have the implants gone up that much? i think there are some legitimate concerns on how this is being managed, and it seems to be consulted-full employment ad. talking about extensions downtown for the past 15 years with little progress, talking about electrification of caltrain down at the peninsula with little progress, it is important to get to the point where we can put some of the building blocks in place of public confidence to make this happen instead of just going around in circles. will this happen in our lifetimes? not at the rate we're going. i did not seem like that is the goal here. when you are looking at the culture of corruption we have seen in government of the past 30 years that has evolved into an art form in its own right, that is the main impediment to

making this work. it is not about transit or building structures. it is about the right people getting paid. until the problem is solved, we will not see anything moving forward. thank you. >> thank you, mr. sullivan. >> i would be happy to move an amendment to this resolution, if that is okay with the chair. i know is boomer will appreciate this. add a result clause that says the "mta board of directors supports the current concept of the fast start project to expedite service increases for san jose, the peninsula, and said francisco." >> thank you. we have a motion and second on the amendment. we will note that the motion is amended and now vote on the motion that as amended. all in favor? all opposed? great, thank you. >> directors, moving on, and 13,

presentation and discussion regarding the transportation sustainability program. >> as they are setting up, i will introduce this to say that this program is something that is really important to the future of how we plan for and manage transportation relative to development that happens in this city. this program is taking a look at how we manage, regulate, and mitigate development as it relates to transportation to develop a process that is more transparent, equitable, meaningful, and provides a much better nexus between development and transportation between land use, planning, and transportation. it has been an extraordinary amount of work by collaboration of city departments for the mta. our cfo, for the planning

department. that group of folks along with others from all of those agencies have been working very hard to get to the point we are at today. it really would be a significant benefit to the agency and the transportation and development in san francisco, it is exciting to be at this point. as you will see a live presentation, we are still a long way off from realizing this -- as you will see in the presentation. we wanted to bring this to you at this point so that you are fully up to speed on where we are and what the next steps are. >> thank you, good afternoon. mr. reiskin pretty much summarize it. i will just remind you that we approved a consultant to start on both the next studies. the tidf and tsf hopefully will

be before the board of over alicia jean-baptiste from planning, who has been doing these presentations and has become quite a master of it. >> i also want to emphasize the collaborative nature of the project. we've been working closely with the mta staff to put this together. we have been working closely with the office of economic and workforce development, it truly has been a collaborative effort. so the program that we are presenting today is a distinctive approach to the development process and relates to aspects of the development review process that are currently separated, and that is

the environmental review process and the application of development impact fees. by relating this two components and establishing a citywide fee, we are establishing the ability of the city to find a comprehensive set of high impact improvements to the transportation system as a whole, which will ultimately to offset the impact of development over the course of time. the program itself has three components. the first is a change to how we conduct transportation impact analysis methodology under the california environmental quality act, or ceqa. specifically, we are proposing to eliminate the use of automobile level of service as one of the metrics in that review, and i will go into each component in a little bit more detail in a moment. the second component and the establishment of a citywide transportation sustainability fee -- that would replace the transportation impact development at the and apply to residential uses. the third component is the

completion of an environmental impact report steady in 20 years of projected development in the impact of that development on the transportation network as a whole over the course of time. just to give you a little bit of background on the history of this, the conversation was initiated at the board of supervisors sitting as the transportation authority board in 2003. the board at that point requested that transportation authority staff to an analysis to reconsider the use of automobile level services and metrics under ceqa, recognizing that using that methodology often resulted in inconsistencies with achieving the city's transit first policies as well as our other multimodal priorities. in 2007, the transportation authority staff developed a report initiative report recommending the elimination of it and replacing it with an alternative measure that would be coupled with a mitigation fee. in 2009, the city but together an interagency committee comprised of the agencies i just

described, and we at that point initiated 8 nexus' study that looked at the relationship between development and developmental impact on the transportation system as a whole over time -- we at that point initiated a nexus study. the staff is responsible for setting ceqa guidelines, and inserted language into the ceqa guidelines allowing for an alternative measure. in 2010, we spent a great deal of time modeling a variety of potential improvements to the transportation system, what their impact would be relative to offsetting the impact we expect from growth over 20 years. we booked able -- we were able through the comprehensive modeling process to determine which projects would have the highest impact for the least cost and coupled the results with our nexis study, which

should be publicly available in the next couple of weeks to establish a feed program and corresponding expenditure program. we are currently addressing an ordinance which would enable the changes i am describing now. coming back to the purpose of the program, it is worth emphasizing. by making a change to the way we look at transportation impact under environmental review, coupling that with in a citywide impact fee, we can have a full systematic program that allows us to comprehensively offset the impact of development on the transportation system in a way that is consistent with our transit first policies. looking in a little more detail about what these programs are -- looking in a little more detail about what these program components are, we do look at when we did an environmental review today and looking at transportation analysis, we consider transit the late entrants a crowding as metrics, but the backbone of the way we do that analysis is by looking at automobile level of service,

and automobile level of service, for those not familiar with it, looks at what is the speed of automobile group put in a particular -- throughput in a particular section. what we find is that the medications that arise out of an annulled the -- the mitigation that arise on an analysis tend to be in contradiction to the city's policy objective, so if what we are concerned about is how quickly automobiles are moving through a particular intersection, illogical mitigation might be to expand roadway capacity, to add a line of traffic. that is, first of all, often invisible and builds our urban dense environments such as san francisco. it also can be in contradiction to our policies supporting the bicycle network and pastry and -- pedestrian amenities. we also have a fairness problem.

you can have 15 years of development activity contributing to an intersection slowing down or how quickly an automobile is moving through a particular intersection and congestion in that intersection, but it is always within the acceptable framework, and then you have one project which pushes it into the unacceptable level, and that project is in battle with the entire litigation for all of the cumulative impact over time. by adjusting the way we approach this and having every project that comes through pay a proportion a small share of its impact on the system, we feel we are providing for a more equitable approach to achieving litigation's -- mitigations under ceqa. we are not suggesting automobile service would be disqualified completely as a tool. it is something we use internally quite often. we are just adjusting it does not belong in ceqa. in terms of how this impacts

development projects, because the city will be cityan eir looking at 20 years of growth -- the city will be conducting an eir, independent projects will no longer be required to do the same analysis. that can result in significant time and cost savings for individual projects. we will, however, still be looking at projects for site design issues to ensure there's no inconsistency between what a project is proposing -- or conflicts between what a project is proposing and, for example, our transit system. if a project had a curb cut directly letting out with a was a bus stop, we would try to resolve that through site design. we do expect that all products would be required to pay the fee, as i mentioned, and by doing so, they would be essentially pre-mitigating and contributing to a larger, systematic approach to offsetting impact on the transit system as a whole. transportation project will not

be required to undergo transportation impact analysis using the new methodology under ceqa. i large project -- large part, transportation projects are not in conflict with the projects that will be focused on. we do proceed there will be some limited cases where if you have a project that results in significant sustained water level on a trend the street and just, by way of example, you could imagine installing a bike lane on mission street between first and 30th. that would be the category. we might consider needing additional review because we would be concerned about the potential conflicts with transit and transit operations. other than that, we would not expect the transportation projects to need to undergo this analysis at all going forward. turning to the transportation sustainability fee, it would replace the tidf and would be city-wide on net new growth.

i would offset the cumulative effect of 20 years of development on the transportation system as a whole, and we would be unable to charge a reasonable share to all projects. transit bike and a pet project would not be subject to the fee, and we have a couple of areas in the city where there have been area plants that were adopted that included a community infrastructure impact fee, part of which was designed to offset the impact -- the impacts to the transportation system of development in those areas. in this case is, with its plan areas were adopted and fees were adopted, and was legislated that were the city to come forward with a fee that addressed any of the potential public services capture under it, that it would then route over to the city wide fee. to the extent that, for example in eastern neighborhoods, if we're charging $2 a square foot on residential for transportation specific improvements, it would be captured as a citywide program.

if the amount being charged in the area plan is actually greater than was being proposed, the differential would remain toward specific improvements. i should have mentioned at the outset, because we will be conducting an eir on this program, we are 18 months away from it be impossible to implement. in the interim, the tidf serves as the mechanism for offsetting impact on the transportation system, and we felt it was important to bring forward an update in concert with introduction so that we could adequately be capturing -- or addressing this impacts in the interim. as you, and sure, are aware, we are required to update our studies. our study was completed last spring for the tidf, and we need to go through the border supervisors process in order to refresh that nexus.

we will be proposing some administrative changes to how the fee is collected to bring it more into line with how we do impact fee collection for the other categories city-wide. we assume there will be a modest increase in rates on non- residential, it would not at this time extend to residential. at what happened as part of the overall tsp program. the rates that would be proposed would be consistent with what is being proposed under the tsf. the difference would be that it would be proposed to extend to nonprofit institutional uses. we have been talking about including eight grandfathering provision sets that those non- profit and institutional uses which applied for planning department entitlement prior to introduction of the update ordinance would be grandfathered and not be subject to the fee. we recognize that many nonprofit and institutional users have significant lead times in developing their capital

campaigns, and we wanted to ensure that we were not jeopardize in anybody's ability to move forward with a significant project by bringing this forward now. in terms of the actual expenditure plan, we expect the tsf will generate $620 million and generate another $820 million in local, state, and federal funding. because the program itself both serves as a way of mitigating impacts under environmental laws as well as a way of addressing development impacts under the state mitigation fee at is a very highly constrained set of expenditures that has to meet a higher level of requirements or criteria in terms of how we spend the money. i will give you more detail on what is currently being considered in terms of expenditures. this slide just offers where the funding will go in terms of the fee revenue.

here is more detail. on the transit headway improvements and expansions, this is one of the most direct way is at getting at transit delay and transit crowding as the environmental metrics we are looking at. it is the provision of additional service on a number of lines. it is very tied in to the transit effectiveness projects and what is coming out of that in terms of the draft implementation strategy. it does provide for purchasing new vehicles. and providing for preventive maintenance to ensure transit reliability. it also funds transit facility expansion to accommodate additional rolling stock. the second category of trends and reliability improvements are more traditional capital programs, dedicated rights of way as well as some improvements to market street redesign, which is under way, but the thinking around that is under way now. i should mention as well that this is a set of representative projects. this is a 20-year plan. we understand the priorities and

needs will shift over time. what we have done is establish a set of criteria that the project would have to meet in order to be eligible for this expenditures, and these are projects which modeled well may serve as a sample set of projects we could work from going forward. the program does also allocate funding to regional transit improvements. that is in recognition of the critical role that our regional partners play in moving people within san francisco and to and from san francisco, currently included in that category are bart car renovation and caltrain electrification. a final category is demand for projects and programs which were to shift mode share and alleviate congestion and improve transit reliability, transit travel times by shifting mode share. they also include parking demand and pricing programs. finally, there is a very small

amount of funding which goes to recovering the city cost in developing the eir for this program. this slide provides the proposed rates as they stand today. rates are established based on nexis studies. none of them is set at 100%, largely for the legal defense ability purposes, but also because as part of the nexus study, we also show connection to financial feasibility analysis. we were concerned that any at the proposed, especially residential, would be a new fee, not lead to residual land values. by reviewing financial feasibility as well as the nexus, we were able to set the fees at rates that we believe will be stayed -- sustain residual land value, understanding that every project has its own characteristics and this will not be 100% true for 100% of projects. as we go forward, we will be -- because we will be coming back

to this item after the environmental review is complete, we will refresh the financial feasibility to ensure we have caught up with economic conditions and have rates that are still possible for people to carry. as we have worked through this, and we have done a significant amount of stakeholder outreach, but to interested parties as well as to supervisors and other policymakers -- both to interested parties as well as supervisors and policy-makers, the expenditure itself allocates $40 million from the $1.4 billion that could be used for policy discounts, which allows the city to achieve either policy goals or to encourage land use characteristics that the city feels are desirable by allowing for a fee waiver or reduction in terms of this program. what is the considered to date in our discussions has been a potential discount for projects which billed less than the allowable maximum parking. we have sums of districts that

provide parking maximums. potential fee waivers for businesses that the use vacant space up to 5000 square feet. and a potential waiver of 100% for affordable housing. we have heard some other ideas as we have been speaking with supervisors and other policymakers. these have been the three that there's been the most consensus around, but we're still in the process of understanding which of the policy -- what the policy programs look like and how they would be applied. i talked already about financial feasibility. going into of limitation, the program itself would mirror the city's normal capital planning process. we are proposing we have a committee comprised of the mta, transportation authority, and the planning department. this would allow us to make clear that we are collaborating on transportation planning between the two agencies and from the planning department perspective, that we are meeting our regulatory requirements in terms of mitigating

environmental impacts. products would then be included in department of capital budgets and go through the normal review and approval process, both at this board and the board of supervisors. we will every five years need to refresh the nexus studies. we will need to update the environmental review to ensure that our development assumptions are consistent with what we have actually seen happening and to make sure the expenditure program and -- the extended program is performing in the way we anticipated. as part of taking the entire expenditure program to the transportation authority board for their consideration in line with their five-year proposition k programming process so that we can see a comprehensive picture of transportation planning and transportation expenditures over time, and because this program is so intertwined with proposition k, we felt like it was important to have that collaborative process built in. we are expecting somewhat of a

transition period because we will be introducing the ordinance in the near future. in the meantime, we will have projects coming forward for environmental review, so planning department staff will work closely with project sponsors to insure that they are performing the review using the appropriate methodology. then, just in terms of the timeline, we, as i mentioned, have been conducting stickler outreach -- stakeholder outreach. we expect to have an ordinance introduced if not this month than in march -- then in march. that would be the kick off point for the environmental review process, which we are fast tracking for an 18-month time frame. once that is completed, we will identify whether as a result of our analysis any changes are required to the program. if there are changes, we would modify the ordinance accordingly and take that through the normal hearing process.

and i'm available for any questions. director brinkman: thank you. while we have read the podium, this is an information item for us, not an action item, so can we take questions from the board first and then hear public comment? would that be all right with everybody? director, this is one of those things that is hard for people who are even policy people to really grasp. could you, as a way of highlighting how important this is for us as an agency and as a city, give us an example of what kind of time or cost savings we could expect from a recent project going on, whether it be a bicycle pedestrian project or even a larger brt project or something? i want everyone to understand how important and the impact this could have. >> i could try. one of the main drivers of the cost --