like to comment, please come forward. >> good morning, directors. i am with the san francisco bicycle coalition. in a couple of were the heartfelt support. i cannot think of anyone who is more qualified to be on this body. on behalf of the bicycle collision, i hope you will return him to this seat. thank you. >> commissioners, my name is francisco dicostra. the cac who plays a very important role. i see candidates coming year, and you are approving them arbitrarily, even though you get

comments from entities who are just working with the san francisco county transportation authority to push their agenda. the coalition is like a political action committee. they take monies from their membership and push an agenda. it is their prerogative. you, board of supervisors, who sit as a commission, must pay attention to what is really happening in our city. whether it is the $700 million that was spent on the light rail, the future of the central subway, but is really happening with high-speed rail. so, in view of such types of

projects that need a different type of experience, i have suggested and others have suggested that we need a better caliber of candidates. we have some, like candidates to have represented the same sector forever. we need infusion of new blood to make progress. thank you very much. supervisor avalos: thank you. if there are no other members of the public to comment, we will close public comment. we actually have another candidate who is here. my apologies. introduce yourself, please. >> hello, mr. chairman and members of the community.

i am a strong supporter of public transit. muni is my primary way around the city. this coming thursday, i will be attending the next central subway community advisory group meeting. for over one year i have been coordinating with the market street railway preservation partners. as many of you know, being a docent in the downtown area has given me insight into what i believe is the cause, but also for partial solutions, saving muni millions of dollars each year. for example, tourists have the areas where approximately 1 dozen mines pass through.

so that buses do not have to wait behind left turning cars. as a software engineer by trade, i am used to making complex decisions in compromises based on data. i think it would make me an excellent candidate member of the citizens advisory committee. thank you for the opportunity to serve the city and county of san francisco. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. is this your first time applying? >> yes, it is. supervisor avalos: i am sorry, i did not catch your name again. >> paul lukas. supervisor avalos: colleagues, we have before us several members who are interested in the citizens advisory committee. i know that i received an e-mail from supervisor wiener about

supporting canon's reappointment to the commission in the district that the supervisor service in. is that correct? so, more or less? yes. so, colleagues, we have this item before us. any motions? commissioner calling? >> i would also like to put a motion on the floor -- supervisor cohen: i would like to put the motion on the floor to support greg doxes for this position. supervisor avalos: is there a second on the motion? supervisor olague: second. supervisor avalos: any other motion? >> can i question something --

this is district 8c? >> there are tests -- technically not district seat, but diversity is one of the criteria that we look at through geographic equity. there is one member from each district, with the exception of district 8, at this time. supervisor avalos: thank you. supervisor farrell: i would say that, given that, i will put the motion forward for this seat. let me say that it is because of the district 8 connection. i am new to this policy, but it makes sense in that think it is something that we should support.

supervisor avalos: thank you. supervisor olague: i think that some of the things i am concerned about is the lack of diversity on this committee. i think that a lot of the issue that we here at this level, which concern transportation, has a heavy impact on communities, particularly communities of color. to that end, i am in support of commissioner cohen's motion. i think that we really need to think about having a more representative body to represent the city. i think that the impacts are pretty significant. i just wanted to put that out there. supervisor avalos: colleagues, let's go ahead and do a wrote --

roll-call vote on the motion. can we do that? director moskowitz? >> first of all, congratulations on your appointment to the committee. a quick clarification. as the chief deputy said, the committee over a number of years sought to get to a district by district representation pattern, because it was felt that it was important to have at least one person from each district. in addition to that, i wanted to clarify and review the concerns for what the commissioner has put on the table, which is something we have been pursuing for years. that all of these appointments are staggered. if you look at the chart on page 37 of your packet, you will see

that there are opportunities coming out for appointments or reappointment, throughout 2012. there are two in july and one in december. in fact, they are distributed amongst several different districts. 10, 1, 4, 5, and so on. there are several opportunities per year to have this discussion. you do have a detailed representation at the bottom of the chart, on page 37. the other thing that i should clarify is, because i have been asking myself this question, what is the challenge on this

committee member of this is a committee that gets to do a lot of work. late meetings that go three hours, at least, every month. it is hard to find people who are available to attend the meetings. you would only missed two meetings per year and otherwise would be automatically of the committee. it is a dedicated group of people. supervisor olague: i am not saying that people of a certain community cannot adequately represent the impacts, but i believe that there are plenty of people who are off of a diverse background that have the skills

and commitment to fulfill the requirement. the skills and requirements for cup -- that the role requires. supervisor avalos: i have known greg and have worked for him -- with him for a number of years. i think he would make a great member of the committee. i also feel that it is important that we look at what the tradition has been in terms of having district seat on the cac. to me, that is an important consideration. this committee has often deferred to the supervisor. there was a request for the supervisor to continue with the appointment of the community member.

that is just one of the many decisions that we make here as a body. but we can have a roll call that goes. commissioner cohne: n. commissioner cohen: thank you. i am not sure this is how you intended, but i feel like your comments are almost justification as to why we should not support him, and i would disagree respectfully with what you pointed out. i believe if we have several different appointments coming up, there will be another opportunity for peter tannen. what i am saying is we have an opportunity to make a decision today. why wait until june?

why wait until june when the district can see it is expired. we have an opportunity today before us to make an incremental change that will, i believe, have a lasting impact on the southeast part of the city. thank you. commissioner avalos: madam clerk, if we could have a roll call. [calling roll] kim absent. olague, aye. two ayes. so that falls down the middle. commissioner avalos: the motion fails. a motion from commissioner farrell. can i second the motion?

i will second the motion. if we could have uppea roll call vote. avaolos aye. cohen aye. farrell aye. olague aye. item passes. commissioner avalos: motion passes. >> transportation sustainability program proposal index steps information item. >> chair avalos, in commissioners, i am pleased to and ferment -- present the information on the sustainability program along with our partners of the planning department and the mayor's office of economic and workforce elements.

in particular chief of staff. as you may recall, authority began this work to try to it explore alternatives to the sequeua implementation measure many years ago. -- ceqa implementation measurement years ago to try to better align the city kids petition with the city in merman to review policies. today we're pleased to bring you this update in proposal for a programmatic approach called the transportation sustainability program. it will have reflected a truly collaborative effort on the part of four agencies. we're extremely grateful to the planning department staff for their partnership to sfmta staff, including their leafbiad

on this effort, who are here today. i would be remiss if i did not appreciate reach a heigachel hyd others. i will turn this presentation over to alicia, and you should have some slides at your desk. >> good morning, commissioners. felicialicia jonbaptist. this is been a long-plant effort between the four offices. the program itself is innovative in that it relates to the develop a process, which are currently distinct and separate from the environmental review process and the impact fees in such a way to allow for the city

to comprehensively fund assets of systematic transportation network improvements that better meet our transit first and other mode tight -- multi-modal transportation components. we have three components. first is the way we conduct impact analysis under ceqa, six -- specifically by using automobile as a metric. the second is the establishment of a city-wide transportation ability feet. the third is completion of an environment of had report, which would study the cumulative impact of 20 years of projected development activity on the transportation system as whole and the effects of a variety of transportation affect on that growth. this effort was initiated some time ago at request of the transportation authority board

at that time. the commissioners recognized the difference between the way we were conducting transportation impact analysis, and the city's goals in terms of supporting transit first and other multi molecule transgendered petition abilities -- multi-modal transportation abilities. in 2009 the city formed an interagency committee comprised of the agencies mentioned, and at that time we commissioned a study to understand the impact of development on the transportation system as a whole and to establish a nexus between those two. in 2010 transportation staff spent a great deal of time modeling the effects of growth coming in through that effort we were able to a dignified the

highest impact, most cost- effective ways of addressing the impact from growth over time. in 2011 we put those pieces together, the nexus study, and the modeling to produce a comprehensive feet and expenditure program, and in 2012 we are completing the drafting of an ordinance that would enable these changes. coming back to the purpose again, all of this is in service of better meeting the transportation-first policies. it is a way of modifying the way that we do business in the city, so that we can better meet the goals. getting into the specifics of each of the components of the program, the change to ceqa methodology will focus on looking at transit delay in transit crowding at the methods result for when we're doing tram -- transportation impact analysis.

by focusing on zero thruput at a specific intersection, we can better focus litigation's on the projects, which ultimately serve transit. we find using l.o.ws.l today can be in feasible and in contradiction to our broader priorities and policies. many of these are long-standing. 40 years ago it was adopted. what we find is as we are solving for speed of automobile throughput, litigation may be to expand roadway capacity, adelaide of traffic coming and that can be in contradiction to our other goals. for example, establishing a safe and secure biked network or insuring pedestrian safety. -- bike network or insuring pedestrian safety. we also find the last project

that comes in that tips the scale from accessible to an acceptable in terms of how quickly the automobiles are moving through the area and of being with 15 years of activity. so by establishing this program we feel we will be able to provide a more equitable approach to achieving the necessary medications to growth as we move forward. so in terms of what this means or what the program would need for development projects, all projects in terms of the review through the environmental review process would be conducting impact studies, because the city will be conducting an e.i.r. to look at the growth and understand what the growth in sales, and an understanding of how the proposed projects will relate to growth. they will have a site-specific

design review. we need to make sure when we're looking at a particular building that they are not proposing becker cut of this in contrast to a bus stop. and all projects resulting in the new growth would be required to pay debt transfer tillage -- transportation sustainability fee. payments of up the allows the city to comprehensively uprising -- payments of the fee would allow the city to comprehensively apply them to growth impact. and as a result, the majority of the transportation projects would not be required to conduct studies under ceqa. in some rare cases where we anticipate disruption to transit service, we may be required to

take a deeper look at the transportation impacts. an example of that might be if we were proposing to establish a bike lane on mission street where we have heavy transit service all the way from first to 30th in terms of the corridor-level of tax. we would anticipate being able to resolve any of these issues through design, and we would hope we would be able to balance our goals between transit and other moves as well. the transportation sustainability fee is propose to replace the impact fee and applied to residential uses. i should mention that because we are conducting an e.i.r. we are 18-24 months away from the program being able to be realized, and in the meantime, we continue to serve as the city's mechanism for addressing impacts to the transportation system, so that the mta will propose an update to the t.d.i.f. in the next couple of

months. that will include a modification to the rates to make them consistent with what is the proposed under the t.s.f. it does not currently apply to those, but would not extend to residential at this time. it would make administrative streamlining changes, which is to make the fee collection and assessment process simpler. going back to t.f.s.f,., we will be able not to charge a reasonable fee to all land use projects, rather than the handful that come in the trigger litigation's under the current metric. commissioner avalos: just a question, currently on the t.d.i.f., when does that fee apply? >> it is assessed when projects come true planning department review, but it is not actually

collected until the first certificate of occupancy. commissioner avalos: will it be the same if that is implemented? >> all of this city impact fee couple went into the matter of assessment and collection. two years ago there were changes to article four in the way we collect fees. we do have in the eastern neighborhoods and market octavia plan areas, we have fees better assessed on development, including residential, and those are community infrastructure impact fees and part of the funds improvement to transportation to offset that offset -- to offset the development in those areas. to the extent -- i should say when those were adopted, it was legislated if there was imposition of a city-wide feet addressing one of those

categories whether it is transportation, child care, the list of public services provided, that those would essentially pulled out to the city-wide feet. -- fold down to tthe city-wide fee. they will double down so we are not double charging. in terms of the expenditure plan, we expect it will generate $630 million over 20 years that will be used to leverage another $820 million in transportation revenue in local, state, and federal. they find a comprehensive, high the-regulated expenditure plan. the reason i am stressing how regulated it is, because we are meeting the requirements under the state mitigation fee act and the nexus study, as well as requiring these improvements serve as ways to use this under

the review process, we are very constrained on how the funds can be spent. going into how they are proposed to be spent. 65% of the t.s.f. will fund service expansions. this is the most direct way to get it away and crowding. all of this has been put together in collaboration with the mta transit effectiveness project. the routes and winds and particular projects that are identified under the expenditure plan are building all of what has been analyzed and understood from the t.e.p. the second are the typical capital projects. they included dedicated rights of way. the third category, regional transit improvements. the program does recognize that part and caltrans -- bart and

cal train provide a critical service. this provide some funding to support those services, in the final category is bicycle, pedestrians, and pricing programs tallows us to put funding to do some programs to provide an enhanced by a network or pedestrian network. this shows the fee rates as proposed today. these were set as a result of two analyses. one was the nexus study. we received it very clear from the direction -- we receive very clear direction from the city attorney. none of this tries to capture 100% of the nexus. we also looked up financial feasibility. we conducted an analysis to ensure that the fees would not

result in widespread negative residual we add value. we are very aware of economic conditions, and we understand applying the fee to residential would be a new fee on the residential community and wanted to make sure every said at a rate that was manageable for those types of projects. the non-residential categories generally speaking are marginally more than what is currently charged under t.d .i.f. when it comes forward for the update, it will mirror the rates, but it would not extend to residential. we're not proposing that an extension until the entire program can be implemented. commissioner avalos: a question on residential, does that apply to only multi-mobile units or single-family homes as well? >>