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? >> any new development with the square footage exemption. the square footage exemption is currently being proposed at 800 square feet. if you were adding a laundry room, that would be exempted. we're still analyzing exactly what the right number is in terms of the exemption. we are trying to focus in on

what point are we generating a new impact in terms of what is the relationship between net new square footage of the impact? commissioner farrell: curious on the residential feet, have you started to do our reach at all? -- fee, have you started to do outreach at all? >> yes, we have. i think that it is fair to say that people understand and appreciate the policy objectives and how concerned with the immediate financial impact of the residential fee. it is primarily an issue more outside of the eastern neighborhoods and market octavia, because residential fees already applied there, and because it is already been paid, it is not much of a new impact. so i sing the square footage exemption is important, and the policy discounts that i will go

over with you are also important in terms of meeting those concerns. so, on that points, potential policy discounts. as we put to good this program and have received a wide variety of feedback, we have presented this item to the planning commission and the mta board. we've been getting feedback around the desire to encourage particular way it used types or incur ridge particular policies by providing a waiver or reduction of feet under this program -- of fee under this program. this would be < allowable maximum parking. we of zoning districts where there are maximal allowing parking. potential fee waiting for affordable housing up to 100% and constraint on the policy

discount program is that it cannot exceed $40 million in value over 20 years. if we exceed $40 million in value, we put a wrist to apply the expenditure program, and because that is serving as a way for the project to premeditate impact of it is very important we build and implement the program as it has been identified and modeled. so that still leaves us with a substantial amount of funding to apply discounts. we are of course seeking feedback from the commission today on the correct application of discounts come and whether there is something we missed in this so far. whatever direction week it will then be implemented through the draft ordinance, which we're going to introduce in a couple of weeks, maybe three weeks. in terms of implementation of the program -- commissioner olague: i was glad to ask, a couple of years ago,

and i do not know if this is still in play, there was a fee of around area plans. is that still in place? >> it is still in place. it expires, i believe, in the fall of this year. i would have to confirm, but it is expiring but with the police soon. in order for to be reenacted thought it would require positive action by the board of supervisors. in terms of how we have analyzed funding available -- availability and what have we can start to implement the project, we assume it will continue to be in place. if it were not in place, it would obviously mean funding would be available to the program earlier than with the referral program. commissioner olague: ok. commissioner farrell: 100% c wfee waivers, how are you

defining affordable housing? >> at this point we're using the definitions as they have already been identified in other areas. we have fee waivers in the plan impact waivers. i do not remember what it is. maybe it is 85% of ami. i can get the specifics around that, but we are chosen at this point not to reinvent the wheel. we can update the definition according to the dialogue as well. commissioner farrell: the price per square foot, $5.53 for residential. how was that calculated? how did you come up with that? >> that was calculated through the nexus study. the nexus identified what the impact of the transportation system from development, the cost essentially to providing that necessary transportation

service to this new development, and based on the cost calculation we identified if you are building a residential developer of project, this is the cost impact to the system, and then we pulled that a proportionate share out and identified $5.53 per growth per square foot. commissioner farrell: can you forward a copy of the index's steady to my office -- nexus study to my office? >> absolutely. it is being finalized now. we will get it to you when it is finalized. and when to go back to implementation. the program is propose to follow the city standard capital programming process in terms of implementation. we do have a steady comprised of transportation staff, mta staff and planning staff.

the planning department's role is to make sure we're meeting the regulatory requirement in terms of offsetting the impact of growth. projects would be included in the relevant agency's budget and go through the process including review or approval at the board of supervisors. we buiwill be required every fie years to update the study. we will be required to update the environmental review to make sure the developmental assumptions are accurate and look at how the expenditure plans are performing against what the assumptions are in the sure we do not need any modifications or to adjust as necessary as we are going. we also felt like it was important for this program to be in very close collaboration with the prop k program. most of the funding, much of the funding is levered throughout proper k.

-- with prop k. it will be reviewed at the board of supervisors every five years and update the steady and in our mental review. -- environmental review. we begin initial stakeholder are reached laoutreach last year. we are expecting to have an ordinance for introduction in march. it will take about 18 months to complete. once we get through the in our mentenvironmental review, we wil bring it to the board of supervisors for review and potential adoption. likely in the fall of 2013. i am available for questions. commissioner avalos: thank you so muchl .

you probably touched upon this, but if you could reiterate to the extent your plan is opposed, how was that different from how funds are expended in the program is implemented with the courage fee? >> it has historically been used as a source to provide increased transit service to offset the impact of development, and so that has meant his has gone into muni's operating budget. commissioner avalos: that goes in the budget and not specific? it is not programmed in any particular way or head way and we have bike improvements? >> if my understandimy address s been used to fund transit service. to provide operator salaries or whatever else is necessary to provide necessary trades as service. the t.s.f. would be much more

constrained in its use. we would be allocating funding to specific routes the disturbing to offset the impact of growth. there is funding available for preventive maintenance, but that is a transit reliability issue to make sure we of the vehicles available to provide the service, fixing overhead lines, etc. i think it is fair to say the use of the funds under this program would be more transparent than what we experience today. commissioner avalos: that is always good to hear. thank you. is there an expected built up between what the current the -- is there an expected delta between what the current fee is and what we can expect? to go about $20 millio>> i thin8

million over 20 years. increased revenue under the new program. commissioner avalos: great. thank you. commissioner ofolague. commissioner olague: the graduated fee impacts, can you be more specific? how does this look? >> i do not get have the details on exactly what the percentages would be. but we are looking at is 50% discount if you build -- let's say the maximum is one to 1.5, but that will be more clear as to finalize the ordinance the implements this. commissioner olague: i am wondering if this would include if they decide to go with less

than the parking requirement. would there be some consideration given to bike parking or city sharing, will any of it be factored in somehow? >> it is a really interesting idea. it is one we've been talking about internally as well. how'd we recognize projects that are supporting the multi-modal goals. we're still trying to figure out exactly how it can apply anti discount would be meaningful. that is something we're talking about. commissioner olague: i am not suggesting we go around discounting and end up without the revenue we need to support increased muni service, but i think if there is increase consideration given to the other issues, it might be good. congestion pricing come is that something we're still looking at? -- could just increasingestion t

something we're still looking at? >> i should the transportations that refer to that. commissioner olague: i am interested in the topic. it is an obsession. >> we probably need to bring you an update. the one thing i would point out is we do have come in addition to the efforts that have been ongoing of the federal grant that we finished last year that was called the mobility and pricing study, we have an effort currently underway, which is part of the development agreement of ther, and we will discuss that with the staff anin

the weeks to come. in addition to the ongoing efforts to try to secure funding for studies and so on. commissioner olague: thank you. commissioner avalos: great. one last question for me, and that is on the discounts -- capital discounts of $40 million. i think it might make sense that it is like a yearly allotment, that the cap can exceed to greater amounts come a greater time or perhaps the to cap -- you say it is only sustainable at 40 million, but perhaps there is another way to look at it. i think it is support to have it over many years. >> thank you. what we've been looking at is like a prop m office allocation

to make sure we're not exceeding the amount of allowable. we've also been considering tying it to an expense, rather than an actual dollar value, because that would help as meter the program as opposed to what growth is happening. commissioner avalos: think you for your presentation. if there are no other questions, we can go on to public comment. -- thank you for your presentation. if any member of the public would like to comment, please come forward. >> andy zorley. we of the talking about this for a very long time. i am looking at commissioner olague and getting rid of o.l.s. as a process of ceqa. this body really got the conversation going in 2005.

it is exciting. and try to pace myself. we have some time to go even if things go well. i do want to think of 40 staff and planning department and the mta and the mayor's office for pushing along on this. -- i do want to think the staff, and planning department and the mta and the mayor's office. it is also a great opportunity and obligation to rationalize our impact fees. that is a good thing, to. o. i'm really encouraged to see the great questions coming from the committee. these are questions that will h we will have time to ask, but the more we ask, the better the program will be. a very much looking forward to seeing the draft ordinance, and that will be a draft and devolve a little bit.

on the notion of outreach, we it to talk to as many people as we can about this. let's keep this going and get this done. commissioner avalos: thank you. next speaker, please. >> right now, in the city and county of san francisco we have very few areas where we can have that big developments, so we have one area right now that you commissioner should go and review and see what is happening right now, and what can happen in this area three years from now, five years from now, 20 years from now, and that is mission bay. just see how well you have performed on mission bay.

the second area where outreach should be done. where meaningful data should be given to the people is the area here, it may be hunters point -- maybe hunter's point, sunnydale. we do not need to go everywhere. these are the kind of ideas that are used in other countries, but a kind of difficulare kind of dn san francisco because of various factors, one of them being the hills and another because how the city was planned. thirdly, over the past 20 years we need to find out of a vigil history othe financial history .

i know they are projecting the data and a conceptual way. how well are they going to do? commissioners, you have not asked any benchmarks, and i suppose you cannot come up because some of the documentation tied to it is not available. it is going to be available in the queue days or few weeks. so i would say we need a hearing on this. thank you very much. commissioner avalos: thank you very much. if there are no other members of the public that would like to comment, we can close public comment. madam clerk of information i. >> recommendation of allocation

of 209,514 in propek k funds. this is an action item. >> i am a planner with the authority for this item which has request from the mta and on page 43 of the packet. my colleagues will present on the traffic comi calming reques that will be followed by a presentation. sfmta is requesting a long-term bike storage plant. some of the tasks include a review of best practices and codes that could inhibit it -- the needs assessment and a final report. through this project we will work with other agencies as well as perform public are reached

through surveys and interviews in forming a final strategy that will be outlined in a final report. staff will perform all labor position diassisted with the pr the final strategy from the plan will guide the sfmta in the future of bike planning projects. commissioner avalos: thank you for your presentation. >> welcome. i am going to spend one minute to give you a quick overview on the five-year prioritization program that is significant for the item. this body approves every few years but includes a

prioritization methodology for the categories in the project were they all work together. it is supposed to have a five- year project list with full funding plans. today this item is about the traffic coming category come in this is one of the categories where prop k provided the first able funding. the authority has a long history of this. in 1998 be a story -- the authority board adopted a strategic analysis report that was developed in close coordination with the mta. that laid the foundation for them to develop the traffic coming progralming program. we will give you quick overview of the item before you. most of offices have been briefed on this, but because of the extremely important role that prop k plays,