and they get back on again. i think this would be impacted. i would encourage muni to look at alternate roads. you have the great bus street, there is plenty of room, they can get where they have to go and going in the other direction, they can go on fourth even though the subway would be underneath, they can still run buses on top of there and ultimately they go on embarcadero. this is a good street for walking, a good street for some traffic, but if you are doing all these things then probably the buses are going to turn it into total grid lock because it's one of the streets that services the area down by the ballpark and beyond. so those are a couple of my concerns with this plan. the other thing i'm concerned about is where you square off the corners, you make it harder. cars used to

be able to go to the right and get ready to make the right turn and allow traffic for buses to continue to go after but now that you square it off, they are stopped there and they make a turn on red without moving to the side. i think it's even more dangerous for pedestrians in that way because i think the way to solve the pedestrian problem is lights like you have down in the financial district when there is traffic light one way, the other way and then pedestrian onlies that they cross diagonally in both directions and that's a better system less apt to be conflicts. thoser some of my thoughts on the plan. >> we have three mitigations for the impacts to transit. one key measure, key element to the project

is restricting left turn along the corridor because we know that we've left only one lane and transit to one lane and we want to make sure the buses keep moving along the corridor. one thing different from the photos that we have discussed staggering the bus stops so we don't have two buses stopping at the same point along the corridor. we are also currently there are no bus zones along second street. i think there may be a bus zone at the northern end at market but buses are stopping in the roadway on second street to unload or load passengers and you get dropt off into traffic lane and you have to go through parked cars to get to the sidewalk. the boarding will give passengers that

refuge but the boarded islands are supposed to also decrease the dwell time to allow passengers to get on and off. about second and harrison, about the corner, right now as someone walking along second street if you are trying to cross harrison, that dual right turn is pretty uncomfortable. off peak you have cars that are traveling, they are not required to stop so cars take that turn pretty quickly and you are dodging fast moving traffic and during commute hours, that is backed up and you are trying to dodge two lanes of traffic to cross. so we felt that scoring off the corners and having all vehicles to go to the corner would be a safer design of the intersection. we have worked with mta and we are discussing split phasing so we do separate

pedestrians from turning traffic or bicycles from turning traffic. so we are looking at issues that you raised. >> thank you, i agree with you because i walked on there and almost got run over because cars coming along there in a hurry to make the bridge are making the right turn and not acknowledging pedestrians. it wouldn't be a bad idea if you squared it off, even if you didn't, you have to calm them to realize there is a quack there. thank you. >president cindy wu: commissioner johnson? >> >commissioner christine johnson: yes, i have a couple of questions. as a bicycle commuter 80 percent of the time and i go between on second street between market and king street all the

time. that's how i get from mission bay to any other part of the city unless i'm going up here then i go up 7th. i was a little bit confused coming into today about how to prepare questions or comments that might be helpful to you all. there are no materials presented to us so i didn't know if this was kind of like when we looked at the embarcadero plan in terms of schematics and hey there is going to be an eir and i apologize if there will be another planning meeting and i will comment for the future when you come back. my first general comment and all of this comes from i'm a pedestrian along second street, i walk, i bike every other day at least if not everyday when i'm bike commuting and just a couple of things. the first is i really encourage the

mta to marry their creativity for how to get muni and bikes and cars to work together for those coming out of the embarcadero envision for the bike plan because i see a lot of similarities with the conflict issues that are there along the second street corridor, i see a lot of conflict along embarcadero which has limited space to work so some coordination there would help and see if you can

take that if you will and then we'll see the eir for further comments and second is a beast because going north from king to harrison is a disaster from 3:30 p.m. to 630 :30 p.m. every day. sometimes i shed a tear as i bike along 7th street and i'm weaving and watching those poor people in their cars trying to get home anther there at least 45 minutes. it's a mess. i don't know, i kind of feel like we will find that the squaring off harrison street will create more problems than it solves because it looks like chaos but i feel again from the bicycle perspective because this is a bicycle plan eir and getting that

car in that pork chop at least move from the right side of the street versus squaring that off presents more issues for bicycle safety good from mayhem from king to harrison to market to where there is less traffic during traffic times. i reallien encourage to look at the impact because i don't think it's safe for cyclist. and coming down from market to harrison is also horrible. from market to folsom at least is always a mess. right now there are 222 second story building is going up and they have narrowed the street because of the construction and they

have the scaffolding coming out farther but in general even before 22 second street, that part of second street was always pretty dangerous for cyclist. people were making right turns onto howard street, the muni stops and goes around you and it goes actually uphill so people who don't have bike messengers and it can be a little bit dangerous for them. i reallien y encourage us to look at this again. just as the embarcadero plan that's coming out now that it has to be two complete separate responses northbound and southbound. those are just my comments, i look forward to what's going to be in the actual eir and i'm sure there are other forums

and if any response to what i have just said, i would be happy to hear it. >> debra dwyer, planning department staff. thank you for your comments. i think our purpose first and foremost was for the environmental review process itself because there has been so much time since the bicycle plan eir and i can certainly provide you with the information where you can see the full project description and certainly obviously any member of the public can come on directed to public sponsor public works mta on the project design and our role here from the planning department is for the environmental review of this. although our citywide staff did have an involvement in the

outreach and design process. does that answer some of it? >> commissioner as debra said the purpose today is just the environment al review and the project. we'll get into more detail as the project evolves. the issue of these free flowing aren't turns comes up a lot in the city and it came up a lot in the van ness brt and what we find is they are the most dangerous intersection because of pedestrian access because there is the misconception that pedestrians have that cars will stop. so we are looking very carefully at those intersection and the city's policy is to generally get rid of them where we can because of the

fairly pedestrian conditions on the turns. i'm sure the mta will be happy to talk to you about that and i want to make sure you hear that concern. >> i definitely hear that concern and definitely agree that those are more dangerous and this one has a lot of pedestrians going to the ballpark. it's really dangerous. if the eir is a bicycle plan eir, i think we need to look at that as well and not always but in that particular where they are going and coming from it's more dangerous for cyclist because there is more cars turning right to them and there is no way to ensure that cyclist are going straight and there is no way it can safely proceed unless we do a no right on red deal which will be a disaster. >> the request doesn't

incorporate the signal changes and we did a full impact study on this with the eir with the information provided. >president cindy wu: thank you. city clerk: commissioners that will put you on item 10. the citywide nexus study, the informational presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners, planning department here to discuss the citywide nexus study. this committee had a hearing on this adoption. we have scheduled the adoption hearing for next

week. since the initiation hearing staff also met with the eastern neighborhood puc to discuss this in more detail. i'm going quickly through why what the legislation is doing. as a reminder the department created the nexus study to update the existing nexus study and they are kind of out of date and also use the analysis approach. we also wanted to update how the administration of the fees worked. so this ordinance is all amended article 4 of the planning code which is where we host the development impact fees in the downtown and area plan fees and citywide fees. the main thing we are doing is incorporating a reference to the citywide nexus analysis in updating the findings. we are also, and again the focus of this

effort is really up to the administrative. so the existing around the existing program. most of the fees that we have are established 32 you a community planning project through stakeholders and neighborhood organizations. this legislation is crafted to maintain the priority and decisions made in those processes and update the administration of the program. there are also a few administrative changes that i wanted to highlight and will discuss in more detail one is to establishing across the area plans and that is not changing what the programs can do and describing the fund and allocation of the funding process. each plan was written by a different planner with different language. we are making that consistent and describing the monitoring program

consistently and i have been working with the city attorney on a few other minor changes one is around the timing of the fee collection as a result of the recent confusion on that point and also we are making minor changes to the percentage allocations by each category to mostly match the extending program. we presented those to the neighborhood cac with no comment on that and establishing funds for affordable housing dollars for neighborhood infrastructure fee. right now they are in a combination fund and we are separating it out to be easily to track. and we are removing the library from the program and this will improve the legislation and to the market cac and we were here before you in october for the hearing and went back to the neighborhood cac in november. in the november

eastern neighborhood cac there was one must be who brought up a number of comments around expanding the program either expanding the geography or fee rates or adding new expenditure categories. we really feel that the goal of this legislation is to kind of administer the existing program and to do any expansion to the program would require a feasible analysis and outreach. we are working on expanding the fee program around the transportation sustainability program. we are also looking at the central soma work which will include and updated fee program building the citywide nexus analysis and finally as you recall from a hearing the mayor's working group is looking at the inclusionary housing program and looking for ways

to increase revenue through the affordable housing program. we'll be back next week for adoption. >> if i can add to the comments. we have had a few changes and particularly for this piece of work the nexus that is required by law to update on a regular basis. if you recall what a nexus do is the upper limit of what we are required to raise for fees. if the city wanted to move ahead with changing fees, there is nothing in this work that would preclude us from doing that, in fact this would become part of the

legal basis for doing that, but if we do change fees there is a process around that to discuss with communities especially with the planning efforts where all of those fees were established. i anticipate that is coming just given the current development climate. this piece would be necessary in order for that to happen in the future. i just wanted to clarify that. what you are seeing here is not looking at a new fee structure, but the nexus that legally justifies the fees we do charge. >president cindy wu: thank you. let's open for public comment. is there any public comment on this item? >> sue hester. i have been around long enough time that i went

to all the meetings on the eastern neighborhoods plan, and the studies that were done were based on 2006, 2007, 2008 data. guess what? we were in an economic slump during that period. so all of the assumptions the grounding for the area plan are out the window. i have no idea who the guy was who testified on the dog patch building. he was talking about eight projects going on under construction in a very small area. he is a real person. what has happened is everyone assumed the conditions were going to continue to the date that their plans are implemented. they are not. the transportation problems alone

are monumental. what plans do we have for managing the traffic when there's not the incentive for ups and fedex and amazon to make delivery at will at every block and block muni buses as well as traffic. what assumptions were made of chaos in basic construction disasters. i witnessed one today just south coming to city hall. everything is is grieding -- grinding to a halt because of construction. no one is adding the addition that anyone who builds must have traffic control and traffic control must include the towing away and ticketing of vehicles that interfere with muni. i give you the

intersection of market and van ness. how is the city going to sustain itself while all that construction is going on including construction for the planning department? so i would say unless you affirmatively say we have to look at housing and housing cost and transportation and payment of muni fees, all this is nice window dressing. it doesn't mean a damn thing because if the city grinds to a halt and everyone that is low income, not making $200,000 a year has to leave the city. and eastern neighborhoods maybe in market, but you didn't plan it in the mission, south of market, in dog patch. that's the reality. so i would say next

week you have a lot to do. thank you. >president cindy wu: thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner >commissioner michael j. antonini: i have a question about these area plans because for example the transbay district plan has it's own extraordinary district fees that are particular to the building going on in there and buildings over a certain height if they got height bonus. did your plans include this in >> these include the area district plan fees. that area is an

unusual case, we have the trd fees for each parcel. in market octavia we have a formal tiered where they have a second type of fee, they have a higher rate of fees for those high towers. >> rincon hill also? >> yes. >> there is a possible difficulty in determining those. is there a possibility of fees raise generally to help solve this problem? >> this legislation doesn't affect the transbay. >> i think we are getting the two things confused. this is a nexus study, this isn't changing any fees. >> right.

>> so citywide. the city issue is the mellow roost. which is not an impact fee. it's a special taxing district. that is not addressed in this per say, correct? >> correct. this legislation doesn't cover that and also there is a scale question. over the next 5 years the amount of revenue that all the plans are generating is not a contribution towards the transbay project in the dtx. i understand what you are trying to work on and there will be presentations about that moving forward. >> i understand the issue around the entrance bay but the benefits extend well beyond those few covered by the mellow roos and it's where the areas you are considering the general citywide nexus fees

throughout the city that will include the areas impacted by this. >> i hear your question. >president cindy wu: commissioner richards? >commissioner dennis richards: richards i find myself agreeing with ms. hester. i think it might be something to do. i may have been the one asking a lot of those questions. i have a question, how did us this tie into the affordable housing fees, when is that nexus up for review or fees? >> that's a great question. the mayor's housing on community development manages the affordable housing nexus study and as far as i understand they are looking at scoping a focus update to that to answer some of the questions about reaching the mayor's goals and serving a variety of income levels. so as soon as we have more information about that, i will be happy to report back to the

commission. >> thank you. >> sure. >president cindy wu: commissioner johnson? >commissioner christine johnson: i will keep my comments to the nexus study here with affordable housing and transportation nexus study are different and will be done in the future by different teams and different groups and they will be here later. i just want to focus on this one for now. a couple of things. the first is there was a statement made in the report which makes sense that fees could be adjusted, i know you have a maximum neighborhood by neighborhood but it makes sense to adjust them based on the neighborhood they are on in a particular area. the gross square feet calculation maybe different when you have a high rise compared to a 1 story

building. what i felt was missing was some indication how you would do that and it seemed to me, i understand, i don't know that it was their place as the consultant to calculate that out but it felt to me it left it a little bit arbitrary and i don't like arbitrary things and i feel like we would have a better indication of maximum supportable nexus fees is going to be for these areas that we are building into if we understood how the density level of the development should impact the fees that we are charging. if we are saying that on average for a development we need $1 per square feet

for bicycle structure should we need more for density or high density or are they together. i felt like i had to come up with some ratio in my head and as a legal basis inform what we should charge and some information for how we impact the infrastructure that's needed, other than just saying, well, there is just more people. i think if you are going to say that you can have higher fees and higher density areas, it should be made clear because that is a bigger population with more people and a per person type of deal or because there is actually more material, more space, more efficiency that's needed in the use of space. i will stop there. >> i have a few comments that might be getting at what you are asking. there

is two reports, there is an infrastructure report and on the nexus study and on the infrastructure report i find very interesting because what it's trying to do is have a level service or a citywide basis in an area with lower density residents you don't need as much transit as the higher density area so when we worked on the capital planning meeting, is to affect all impact fees and if you are in a neighborhood with a high person per acre which is the term we use or person per block then your service levels are different for all different facilities, streetscapes, parks. we might be coming back to you to talking about how the capital planning committee is interested in using that information to do our overall city capital plan for all infrastructure.