the site permit and they pay 80 percent of the balance at first occupancy. >> that would be once they start to be occupied, the rest of the fee is paid? >> that's correct. right before. >> so that would presumably be fairly soon. you probably anticipate the fees coming from large projects. >> if you remember the bump in fiscal year 17. >> it would come quicker than that as the speaker mentioned because they are finished fairly soon and assuming they would have to pay the whole fee when it's first occupied or is it a unit by unit payment? full fee, once it's occupied. i would figure it's before 2017.

too -- >> the way the fee works, the fees are due at construction. which is generally the first major permit you get. that's due for all projects except for those that have the deferral program. >> thank you. >> commissioners, sugaya? >> i think that's some of what's reflected in the table of your last page because you have in rin con -- monies coming in. so that must account for the second tower that's being constructed now and others. trying to think the boundary between rin con -- and transit is it folsom? >> i believe it is folsom. i'm

not too sure. we are working on integrating the improvements in rin con. >> some of the other projects and this captures the fees also. >> yes. >> okay. >> commissioner borden? >> just two small questions. because the emerald park was given to the city, does that then move around money anticipated for the park and where does that money go? >> that's correct. the revenue projections you are showing was generated from the park and it will be placed forward than in 2 years. >> in the cases of the various transportation projects, i noticed that some are in conjunction with tep planning.

are some of the dlans -- dollars with the tep project. >> the tep is still under environmental review. we used the impact fee money and working closely with the tep money and matching up where they have funding identified. >> i think the other part of that answer is some of the projects could be funded and they have other sources as well. a lot of the large projects the impact fees represent partial financing and leveraging of other dollars along the way. >> you mentioned the central freeway and dog park, i haven't seen that start. is that going to start happening this year? >> that's what i have been told by the project managers on that and this we should anticipate

the construction soon. i look at it everyday and i think they have a short-term intervention right now and kind of warming it up until the construction starts. >> that's been a beneficiary of these improvements. >> commissioner hillis? >> that park started construction. so, just a question on in kind contributions. we have a couple of in kind projects and we have a couple here. i always wonder if we can do them. they have in kind improvements and they tend to directly relate to the project and they tend to be blocks away. so what percent, what percent of the funds that

have been generated are in kind. >> that's not a number off the top of may head. it could be no more than 20 percent because we have to dedicate 80 percent to those projects. it's been less. in this strategic plan, the 5-year plan around what the community and the agency's priorities are and makes it clear what that revenue is for and we can make a decision about whether there is some efficiency from the improvement of market and dolores where the plan called for improvement at that intersection and having the development do it in concert with their own improvement. there is some efficiencies gained and delivery both in time and savings. that's great. but if it's competing with a priority, we have a plan to help with that section. >> they kind of needed that

street to get into the development. it's an interesting area. >> we department -- do have a commission policy. that's another item we've been talking about updating. we'll be happy to provide you with numbers on how much we've done on in kind to date. >> another area transit impact development fees, do they just have a separate process or because they have monies available. >> sure, the city light through programs and there has been established. when we meet with the finance team all the revenue sources including that are all revenues in coordination. >> there is a big gap obviously in some of these fees. so we

take it obviously along market street and improving towards transit service. >> i think that's a great question. we use impact fees to leverage and the grant and the folsom street piece that we'll be working on. when we look at that last fee and what are those other sources. i will be looking specifically at that source. >> thank you. >> commissioner moore? >> i think this is a really good piece of work and i very much appreciate the ability to visualize the different stories of how revenues are being used. is it possible that this will be put the on the website that there could be a large number of people who want to see it. the only thing i would ask if you could sometimes reference the cross streets so that people who do know what they are looking at would help. if you could, that would be indeed

a great tool for other people to see what you are really doing and what the action plan for implementation is. thank you. >> sure. >> if i can add a couple comments. the cac plan, not everybody has a plan, right? >> that's correct. >> where is the public process to sort of get input on what projects should be funded? >> generally we are relying on most of community plans and balboa and valleys there were communities identified than eastern neighborhoods in market octavia, they had a second year priority and when mta decides to do a transportation or

street scape improvement they do a lot of work and all of these areas benefit from that input. >> those smaller plan areas because they are geographically much smaller, they are actually very specifically identified in the projects that were funded. the plan areas were so much bigger. we never got down to 5-6 projects or 20 or 30 projects we should actually be doing. part of the cac does is identify the projects that should be funded. that never happens. >> i wanted to make a comment to say that i really agree with what commissioner hillis says. i think it's work our time and i think the projects are self-serving for that project that is in particular being developed and how much does it have a neighborhood wide

impact. and lastly, i want to ask a question, i'm trying to think of the larger framework here. does, so the hope is that the fees fund maybe 30 percent of the project, it's what you are saying, right. >> it's eastern neighborhoods. is it somehow biased of other transit needs or open space needs is that taken care of through other process. >> the fact that the impact revenue match bias? >> the fact of the impact money, the 30 percent and the city is somehow encouraged to put more money into these areas? >> right. towards the plan area. >> right. >> i haven't really notice that to date. i noticed the citywide

programs that it focuses on geographically. our general planning work helps balance out our focus on the area plans. >> thanks. director? >> i want to thank kirs in and adam. we know the plan better than other agencies and the idea here is that we can help implement these plans in a way that is consistent with what the visions were and especially working with cac's. the challenge on the funding side, that 30 percent is largely, the gap is largely around transportation because the transportation cost are so much greater than anything else. and

so, what is happening like the haight street project is they are leveraging money. that you mentioned how much of that money should or should not be focused on the growth areas versus city would it. haight street happens to be the exception because of the nature of the 2 blocks. transportation projects usually run through the entire neighborhoods or across the entire city. the money is high because of the areas. that is a chunk of money needed in this area. >> commissioners this will place you on item 11. amendments to the planning code

transit impact development fee xemsz. -- exemption. >> lisa chen. is new here. she most recently work an is a planner as a non-profit that provides technical assistance on transportation and healthy food and other public health issues. we welcome her to the department. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i'm lisa chan with the planning division. the transit impact development fee. the proposed ordinance would clarify language for transit

impact development exceptions. the proposal also includes minor administrative improvements to deadlines to provide certain exemptions and calculating the fee. collective changes are intended to simplify the administration and make it easy for project sponsors to understand the policies and make it more consistent with other impact fees. currently it's mostly non-new projects. and direct many capital cost and increase to service. the fee includes residential projects, projects less than 800 square feet of new development and certain land uses. the proposed ordinance does not create new

nor eliminate current categories of the assumption. it's to clarify the language regarding exemptions particularly in the case of other developments. this could be a development plan or development agreement. for these types of projects, the propose ordinance specifies that the term of that relevant agreement or similar document would determine whether or not the project is exempt from transit impact development. the proposed ordinance is amending the existing language and applies to other areas of the development and development fees like transit impact development. this larger development projects may have more extensive and complex transitive impacts than smaller

projects than are in better position to make improvement themselves. by ending the development agreement, the city may negotiate and appropriate package of transportation improvements that are more fully scaled and appropriate than a citywide fee alone. the other ordinance are to improve the administration of the fee. it is required the rate is at the time of the issuance of the first construction document which is consistent with other development impact fees charged by the city. currently the fee is calculated based on the rate of at the time of the issuance. this would apply the projects benefits owned by the city and projects with automotive services and materials and equipment. during the last update to transit impact development in 2012, the fees expanded to these land

uses and provided a grandfathering period to allow sufficient time to adjust their capital plan. in summary, the department's ordinance to a more clear and efficient administration of the transit impact development and recommend an approval. i will be available. >> let's take public comment on this item. i have one speaker card. calvin welch. >> thank you, president wu. commissioners, i defy you to look at exhibit a and come to the conclusion that owners of the developments in mission bay that have an affordable housing obligation within a market rate development is exempted in this language. additionally for you to understand the way in which

the city participation of affordable housing works in mission bay is a transferance from our private developer a plan of the city for affordable housing. i can't figure out given the changes and the curious language referring to redevelopment areas subject to redevelopment agreements in a certain way, what the heck is going on. since the drafter of this amendment chose not to discuss this measure with any affordable housing entity that i'm aware of and given the fact that this same drafter of last year was a clean up to charge non-profit housing development of fee, i would urge you to include ib -- in your

resolution in an abundance of caution to final language that i'm submitting to the clerk here which would simply add a new sub -- e to make it clear. the transit impact development should not charge for affordable housing or other projects, develop to buy or for the use of agencies funding by the city and county of san francisco to provide such services to low fixed and moderate income san franciscans. i'm sorry to bore you with belted sensors, but since the drafter chooses not to talk, we are forced as the community housing organization to request this clarifying amendment. thank you very much.

>> i -- sue hesser. i requested clarification on another area. i read a lot of files in application on the south of market where they are used from industrial to offices, mostly technology offices with incredible densities and if the practice is going to be for a change of use comes in then it changes the density. they have to pay transit impact developmentf. if the project comes in with a

declaration with preexisting office space do they have to pay tidf. we are stressing out the transit system southch market in tensely. not everyone is going to bicycle and walk to work. and we don't have the funding for transit. so this legislation is so old. the whole intention when it was done is increase in office space. it was added to include some things. you should get a handle on what triggers the

transit fees. is it the department staff saying it's a preexisting office. is it changing industrial use with really low density to high density 150 -square foot a person assumption in office space that is for the tech industry. what happens if you really explode the density because the uses either in a conversion or just an application for a change of use. where do you draw the line? i ask you to seek this. i shouldn't be the only person trying to figure this out. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner hillis? >> i just want to ask a couple

of questions because this is confusing. this is my take that where you have a redevelopment agreement, when the tidf is paid if that confliction with what is in this ordinance. we are trying to get at that ordinance where the development agreement may say some sets after 10 years but the code doesn't, it kind of exempts mission bay. >> just to be clear, the language is not actually making a change in whether or not mission bay, for example is or not exempt. what it says currently and what it would say in a proposal is that the tidf defers to that development agreement and it falls back in that contract.

>> each one is different. >> i guess what is the problem we are trying to fix. >> it's more of a clarification issue that says if the da doesn't address it, it would apply. there has been some confusion about that. >> and then, the question, the affordable housing exempt regardless of a development agreement. is this language in the code now. >> currently housing is not part of this fee. so it's completely exempt. >> housing has never been part of the tidf. housing projects have never paid. >> they wouldn't change that? okay. thank you. >> commissioner antonini? >> yeah, so, from reading this and commissioner hillis brought this up, development agreements

could have a language that would make their contribution higher or perhaps lower or could self produce some of the transit mitigations to transit impacts. you see a lot of this in mission bay. they are gradually building the new streets and putting in these types of streets and they are being done not boo i the city as much as being done by the developers and mission bay as part of the agreement if i'm not mistaken. >> that's correct. in the case of larger developments what the ordinance would do is negotiating during the development agreement process to determine what the appropriate course would be whether it's tdif or some other package improvement.

>> that is pretty consistent with what you see almost everywhere else. a developer goes into an undeveloped land and they are responsible to put in at their expense the sewers and streets and also the ability to provide transit into those areas, too. so that's the first question. the second i think director ram mentioned that there is no, this fee is not assessed against housing be it affordable or market rate. >> that's correct. in exhibit a which was cited earlier goes to the category exemptions and there is a no on the schedule of the fees which has not changed. that has not been changed. >> that would be superfluous to

think it was introduced by mr. welch so that doesn't need to be. the rest of this seems to be pretty straight forward. >> yes, we do see this as more of an administrative and putting all contracts with development agreement on equal footing with each other. >> can i ask a question about that. so, none of the d. a. or redevelopment agreements ever imposed a tidf fee on housing? >> it never touched housing. if it's a development agreement it's on other fees but an agreement by agreement basis. >> it maybe outside of this ordinance. do any of those development agreements impose transit fees on housing more broadly? >> not that i am aware of, but

it's something we can look into. >> we can go and look in the various development agreements that are existing, but there are developments that are mixed use in nature that have packages of improvement. so there are improvement that the developments have as part of the development agreement agreed to make in the implementation to include housing development component. especially if we called out which relate. >> this doesn't impact or change. >> it depends on the development agreement. >> commissioner sugaya? >> i don't know if this ordinance is a mechanism to look at because it probably needs some additional study, her point about the changes of

use especially when we are going into areas like urban mixed use where there are pdf uses being changed to offices. it would be interesting to study the case where the lower density, lower impact use then changes to something that will have a higher impact on transit. so it would seem like we should take a look at it at some point. >> if i may, when a change of use as defined by the planning code takes place, the fee does apply. so if a use is changing from industrial to office, will you pay the office fees less the fee that would apply to industrial use, to pdr use. but there is no way that we have the ability to base it off

office density. an office is an office and every user uses their office space differently. but a change of use as defined by the planning code does apply. >> there has been a couple of very big profile cases where that change of use was questioned and went to the board of appeals but that was because they an appealed those cases, but in general it does apply. >> thank you. commissioner antonini? >> by variation in the development agreement it's understood that the developer will agree as part of the approval process to mitigate their impacts which often are huge will agree to make transit contributions as that is the case where it was pointed out earlier. it would apply across the board because it would apply to the market rate and the board. e