>> good evening, commissioners. veronica flores planning department staff. the item before you is proposed legislation regarding the north of market affordable housing fund. this ordinance is proposed by mayor breed and amy chan from the mayor's office of housing and community development is in attendance today and also available to answer any questions. the ordinance seeks to abolish the north of market affordable housing fund and have these fees deposited to and administered by the city wide affordable housing fund which is consistent where all the other affordable housing fees are listed. the north of market housing fund was established circa 1985 to stabilize, rehabilitate and retain affordable housing in the north of market residential special use districts.

the s.u.d. allows special height exceptions for the 80.18t districts in these areas the height can go up to 120 or 130 feet if the exception is granted. and the increase height serves as a transition from the higher downtown heights to the generally lower heights of the surrounding residential buildings. conditions of approval are imposed on these to mitigate the impacts to the increased height which is likely to have impact on affordable housing in the area. the code lists an impact fee of $5 per square foot above 80 feet. the ordinance will move the exiting north of market fee into the city wide affordable housing fund making that consistent with other affordable housing fees such as the jobs housing linkage program and inclusionary affordable housing program.

the ordinance also seeks to list the eastern neighborhoods area plan alternate affordable housing feet. this is already established in the planning code and must be deposited into the city wide fund. the original north of market housing fee again which was established in 1985 is $5 per square foot, however, this does not factor in today's economy or factor in any inflation since the original fee inception. the department recommends indexing such fee to reflect today's dollars. the mayor's office of housing community development would have a fee based on the office of resilience and capital plannings annual infrastructure construction cost inflation estimate and we have the figures available from 2011 moving forward and that is available in the packets you received. for the years prior beginning in 1986 until 2010, the feet will be indexed by percentage a year

and this figure is orcps average historical cost inflation estimate. this approach results in a new fee of $25.41 per square foot. lastly, the park et cetera weree published and they received a letter of support from the district 6 community planners group and i have a copy available for review. the department recommends approval with modifications as discussed. and again this is to move an existing fee into the city wide affordable housing fund. all the fees collected will still be earmarked for affordable housing in the north of market residential respect use district. this concludes the staff presentation and amy chen and are both available for questions. >> thank you very much.

is there any public comment on this item? >> sue hester, i was listening for the piece where an explanation was given of the outreach in the input on this fee. last friday, the day after the planning commission meeting, the board of supervisors committee heard about the twitter tax break. which was passed by the city and didn't have the results that everyone thought they would have because there was no real outreach set up in that legislation. i watched the hearing and was leveled by listening to people from the tenderloin that are

still there. and they complained that no one really talked to them about how that whole twitter tax break was set up. and what implications it had moving people from the tenderloin which was pretty severe. the tenderloin is losing housing right and left and it's converted to tekin does does treehousdoes tree.i would ask ye input that should be done. i apologize in 1985 setting it at $5. we were dumb people who didn't know any better. we got the first fees as a threat to get the downtown plan

passed. the irony, i would just tell you what is here. page 2 of the resolution, that's prop 5 and 6. it was a twin of the fee for housing. they were all passed in the '80s by planning department does prop m findings all the time without understanding what they are. the general plan is a result of prop m. that's page 2 and the prop m priority policy findings are on the following pages. they were put on the ballot by the people in the city. those were enacted as part of prop m. not only the office allocation but this part right here. so we've had the full range of prop m in the past two items. the office allocations and the

priority policies and the priority of housing. housing was always a priority for people that lived in the city and struggling to stay in the city and the tenderloin especially. the de tenderloin and south of market and china town were basic to the struggle for housing and the city. you didn't bother having any input because the planning department and the mayor's office knows better than the people in the tenderloin. i'm calling you on it. get your act together, planning department. >> thank you ms. hester. any other public comment on this item?

public comment is now closed. >> commissioner fung. >> two questions for staff. the change in the fee structure is applied to new projects? >> planning department staff. yes, this is to confirm that if the recommendation to index a fee is accepted, then the existing projects, including the 450 project will be -- we'll collect the fee at the intext street so no projects to date have actually triggered this fee so any projects moving forward will be collected at the rate. >> thank yo >> thank you explain to me the

oversight mechanism for expenditures of the north of market fund versus the city wide fund? >> so for this specific fund, all of the collected fees will be dedicated and solely used in the boundaries of the north of market residential special use district and that's located -- the boundaries are highlighted on page 2 of the packet. if i can invite amy chan to speak a little bit more about the way of the other city wide housing funds are allocated. >> the question really relates to who controls it? pro ve ides the oversight to it? >> amy chan. so, this north of market fund doesn't -- there's no fees in this market fund. we're recommending through this legislation that any future fees be deposited into the city wide

affordable housing fund. we oversee the fees for affordable housing and preservation and specifically north of market fees. our office is directed to apply the use of these fees for the preservation of affordable housing which our office would be doing and in terms of the oversight of how we use our fees for this particular fee and other fees, we have a city wide affordable housing committee which our office, the office of community infrastructure investment and the office of homelessness sit on that loan committee and they approve loans and grants we basically provide to non-profit developers and under the city's charter loans and grants up to a certain -- that reach a threshold are required to go to the board of

supervisors for additional approval and so those are the two layers of primary oversight for the use of our fees for our bond funds it's different. we have to go to a citizens oversight committee for the oversight of those funds. so there are various entities that oversee the application of our fees and our funds. >> thank you. >> thank you ms. chan. commissioner johnson. >> thank you fellow commission fung for asking that question. thank you to staff for that presentation. i did have correspondents for folks in the community that were concerned about this shift and transparency around making sure these funds were earmarked and confusion whether these funds were earmarked so i feel like just if we can do a better job of letting key community members know and getting the words out about that i think it would be beneficial. the other thing i was excited to

see and our case packet was a racial analysis and implementation analysis which was exciting. yet on the social and racial equity analysis, i was a little confused by it. i think specifically in thinking about social and racial equity around this topic, first just kind of understanding why this fund was created and what we're trying to do in the communities that we're trying to center would be the beginning of that analysis and the second piece of that analysis for me would be about transparency and about making sure that folks know that these funds will be earmarked for their intended purpose. and so just an invitation as we kind of move into creating this analysis and recognizing who it's for, the folks that are

affected and really stating our city's commitment and making sure that we are stabilizing these communities as something that would be great to see. >> thank you. i will just add to that, commissioner johnson. thank you so much. you are always on point. periodically reviewing our policies and procedures to make sure that they are yielding the intended results that you just spoke of in terms of the racial inequity analysis that would be really great. did you have something to say? >> i just wanted to thank you for the feedback on that. it's the first case report that has it so we're trying to figure out what will go in it. we are going through training on how to do that so it will hopefully improve in the future. >> great. >> thank you. >> commissioner hillis.

>> i move to approve with modifications. >> second. >> thank you. there's a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with staff modifications on that motion. fung. >> aye. >> hillis. >> aye. >> johnson. >> aye. >> moore. >> aye. >> richard. >> aye. >> and melgar. >> aye. >> so moved. that motion passes 6-0. we are on item 7. this is an informational presentation. >> i'd like to introduce you to a staff member who you have not met before. this is selena chan. selena is a planner in the city wide division working on connect sf which is our transportation planning. she comes to us with a range of experience in non-profit public and private sectors. before joining san francisco planning she wok worked in econc

health. she holds a bachelor of arts from boston university and a master of public-health and master of city planning degrees from berkeley and we welcome her to the commission. >> good afternoon, commissioners. selena chan staff with the city wide planning division. i'm here to give you an update on connect sf. this is the transportation planning process for the city's future. i will be co presenting today with camille from one of our partner agencies, the san francisco county transportation authority. and wire also joined by other members of the connect sf team. the san francisco municipal transportation agency or sfmta and doug johnson from the planning department. so, we know that this commission and the public are concerned about the city's transportation system and the city's future mobility. we can get ahead and make the effective and equitable transportation vision a reality. to plan for a future of great

mobility, we need a detailed understanding of what is happening now, what we're forecasting for the future, and some of the gaps we needs to address in order to achieve the vision we set for the city. that's what i'm here to share with you today. the technical work we've done to understand our future. i'm going to give you a brief overview about connect sf and the statement of needs. what it is and what it's for. and then next i'll discuss the findings from the state of needs and after that we'll discuss next steps. we're not alone in planning for the future of transportation. as i mentioned, i'm joined today by our partners at sfmta and sfcta and we're bringing our specific expertise in land use, transportation funding, deliveries, capital projects and transit plan to go a full fourth collaboration. this powerful partnership creates unprecedented opportunities. the thinking of the city's major

agencies involved in transportation planning will position the ideas for implementation like never before. and through our partnership, we will identify major transportation investments and policies that are needed for the next 50 years. we already completed the first phase of work for connect sf and this involved developing a vision for what the city will look and feel like in 50 years. this work was informed by more than 5,000 individuals and 60 organizations who contribute their thoughts on what the future of san francisco should be. briefly the vision for san francisco is a growing diverse equitable city, a multitude of transportation options that are available reliable and affordable to everyone. and strong civic and government engagement resulting in swift action. i also wanted to briefly note that the vision was adopted and endorsed by you the planning commission as well as the sfeta board and the sfmta board. these are the five goals of

connect sf. equity, environmental sustainability, economic vitality, safety and liveability and accountability and engagement. the vision will guide our studies and all projects and policies that emerge from our collective efforts. as we just discussed, phase 1 of connection sf involved developing our collective vision for the city. today we're at the beginning of phase 2. increasing our understanding. this is our step to understand needs and challenges for the future given our current transportation system and the projects we already have planned. we're calling this the statement of needs. and then next to meet the challenges we spell out today, we will develop project concepts for transit streets and freeway networks. priorities for the transit streets and freeways will be formalized as policies in the new transportation element of the general plan and we're also working on the san francisco transportation plan which is the city wide long range investments and policy blueprint for the transportation system.

the purpose of the statement of needs is to establish a baseline understanding of how san francisco's transportation system is performing today and in the future. we know we need to do more. we have to see what is in store for the future first. does this transportation system performance meet the goals and aspirations we set out in our vision. if it doesn't, what are the gaps or areas we need to do better to reach a vision. so we use the travel model that was developed by the transportation authority and this is a tool we use to understood two things. what is happening today and so for that we use 2015 as our baseline year. second, we used it to forecast how the transportation system will perform in the future year of 2050. the major inputs into the model were land use and the transportation system. then to help us assess how we're doing, we identified metrics corresponding to the visions, goals and objectives.

to model the future, we had to input our current transportation system and what we assume the transportation system to be in 2050, if we did no further planning today. and to build the model, we used both physical infrastructure and program attic considerations. we started with what we know about the network during our baseline year of 2015 so streets, regional, bike networks and for the year 2050 we used the assumptions from plan bay area 2040. large infrastructure projects and transit capacity improvements and some examples we included 2050 are gary bus rapid transit and central subway and cal train downtown extension. san francisco will continue to grow. we estimate 24% growth in the number of jobs. there will be nearly 30% growth in residents. i also want to note the bay area

region will grow more than san francisco. so how do we calculate this expected growth? starting with the growth that was projected in plan bay area 2040, we added other inputs for development capacity based on adopted plans and policies. this includes programs such as accessory dwelling units, the state density program, home sf, city wide development sites, large developments and plan areas such as candlestick point. it will they are com pot able with housing and the connect sf vision goals and with these two inputs, we can run the travel model. where do we expect this projected growth to go in the future? this map shows the change in tense tee of people and jobs in

san francisco between 2015 and 2050 and the largest increases in growth will occur in the eastern parts of the city and this includes major developments and area plans that have already been improved which are called out in the map that you see here. and to review what we just talked about, the model run will form the basis of our strategies. and it shows what would happen in 2050 if we did no further planning. it gives us a baseline to test our ideas. some good news first, more jobs will be accessible to san francisco residents in 2050. in 2050, drivers will continue to have access to more jobs and absolute numbers than transit riders. with that said, there will be a greater percentage improvement in job accessibility by transit than by auto.

despite the large population in job growth, it won't change much and average commute times in 20 other where people live. this is for all modes of transportation. the darker the shade of red in the map the longer the average commute time. commutes are also longer for residents in the western and southeastern parts of san francisco. in addition to city wide analysis, we want to look at results with an equity lens and we looked at how the transportation network is working for communities of concern in the future and communities of concern or c. o.c.s is used by the metropolitan transportation commission ex to find communities with high levels of low income households and minority populations. they have shorter commute times and better access to high-quality transit. in the future access to transit flattens and they lose this

advantage. in general, jobs access will incheese for everyone, however, cocs won't see as large of an increase compared to residents and non cocs. by 2050, they will see less of an increase in jobs accessible by transit and auto and the non cocs and residents and non cocs can access jobs by transit and by car. now let's look at how people get around the city. as you know, an fran is one of the most sustainable cities in the country when it comes to transportation. the city is pushing itself to go further. it has set an aggressive goal of having 80% of trips by sustainable modes by 2030. according to the travel model, over all mode share will hold steady in 2050. absent any new policies and infrastructure investments. the model forecast that the number of trips on all modes will increase. unfortunately, trips using

unsustainable modes which is showing here in the red, increases more than sustainable modes which is shown in the green. the greatest increase is transit and the greatest relative percentage increase in trips is by companies like uber and lyft. we won't reach our goal of 80% sustainable trips. personal miles driven is to and from and within san francisco. personal miles driven per-capita is still lower than the region as a whole. we see this number in san francisco increasing a fraction while it drops in the bay area over all. and since that numbers are low and it's more challenging for san francisco to do better in the future. our already low miles driven helps the bay area achieve goals in 2050. this slide show total miles driven and grown house gas emissions for all cars driving in san francisco.

amount will increase at the same time emissions are anticipated to fall. this assumes that greenhouse gas emissions from transportation will decline with technological advancements and continued fully efficiencies. the city has an ambitious goal by the year 2050. it will help us how to get to zero and given the state of the planet, it's not enough to just decrease emissions. as you know, traffic is bad today. we expect that congestion will get worse in the future. speeds drop by 2050 especially during the mid-day periods down 15% over 30 years. this tells us we'll need policies and make better use of our limited roadway space. they will explore policies and strategies to improve conditions on major roads through the streets and freeway study.

transit will be more crowded in 2050. the share of passenger hours on money' increases from 18% to 23% and the share of passenger hours on bart that are crowded hold steady at about 11%. this is likely due to service capacity increases between now and 2050 which is the number of trains that go through the transbay tube. it is expected to be more pronounced on the market mission central subway and trance bay corridor. this is despite projects in the pipeline like market street, and more bart and muni vehicles on our roads. we know more can be done to address transit crowding. connect sf will explore major concepts through the transit corridor study. i'm going to pass it over to camille from the transportation authority to summarize our key findings and tell you what is

next for connect sf. >> good evening commissioners. to summarize the slides that selena presented, the city will continue to grow and we will see more jobs and people in san francisco in 2050. san francisco residents can access more jobs and we're closing the gap between the number of jobs accessible by transit and by car. while it's good that the average commute times are not changing city wide, considering our expected growth, performance is uneven across the different parts of the city. we have challenges for san francisco's future. our plan, transportation investments, will not get us to where we need to be in 2050. in the future, we will have inequitable outcomes for residents of communities of concern. we will meet our city wide

sustainability goals and total vehicle miles driven and we'll continue to have congestion on our streets. and transit crowded. what we've shared today is just a snippet of what is in the full statement of needs report that we are preparing to release later this summer. not everything can be modeled and so we are learning about those issues we can't model and compile the collection of available present day data including our progress receipt towards vision zero, and maintenance and repairing needs. these results will be included in our statement of needs report. now you have heard the statement of needs and you know our challenges let's look at how we'll start to identify solutions to get to that vision. the transit corridor studies and

the streets and freeway study will identify a major project concept for new investments and policies that will seek to address the challenges we described today. work on these two studies will start this summer. all of the work will feed into the new transportation element of the city's general plan and this work is also started this summer. at the same time, connect sf will work on the san francisco transportation plan that will identify san francisco's local transportation priorities and they must be included and be consistent with the regional plan plan bay area 2050. if the project i project is seeg numberinfunding. please check our our connect sf website. we have created six members where you have members of the public and members of the public can explore the data further and there are maps on jobs growth

and housing growth and jobs accessibility by auto and transit and travel time for commute trips and transit crowding, vehicle miles driven and we'll do outreach on the statement of needs and you can find a list of events object our connect sf website and members of the public can e-mail us to credit the presentation to their group. we hope to provide you the mission with periodic updates of connect sf progresses. because integrated land use and transportation planning will help us get to that better future. thank you. >> thank you, very much. great presentation. we will now open this item up for public comment. i don't have any speaker cards. >> steve. there's a gridlock crisis in san francisco as most the residents are aware. it's more and more difficult to

get around in san francisco combined and deregulated transportation businesses that we have in san francisco. but you the commission and the executive director have actually approved projects without any transit lie viability agreements. that's what you've done. so the planning commission and the director of planning in san francisco are responsible for the gridlock. we'll discuss later the next point on the agenda about city college. you know there's going to be gridlock by the massive amount of construction you are improving and you have no plan for it. is this the planning department that we the citizens of san francisco are paying for? we're playing for a planning department that is not examining the cost of transportation and the dangers of transportation increasing the gridlock.

you are responsible for this. frankly, again, as i raised earlier, the mayor and the developers are running san francisco and they don't give a damn as long as they can make profit by building more construction. this is insane. it's outrageous. the fact you have nothing to say about it, you don't get to the specifics tells me you really don't care either about what is going on in san francisco. the gridlock is a responsibility of the planning department. you are improving more and more construction, mass construction without agreeing there should be transportation, proper transportation. that's political incompetence and malfeasance in my view. where is the planning commission? where is the director of planning in san francisco about the gridlock? what is your solution in 2050? can we get by next year with all this new construction? all this new construction in san francisco is going to add

massively to a transportation gridlock but it's not on your radar. again, where is the planning commissioner is the executive director of planning? what's their plan for all the new construction. is it a massive transit, a public transit being planned in san francisco to address this new correction? hell know. no. because you are run by the developers. you are run by the developers. the developers don't want to have a transit tax for more mass transportation. they're interested in building their projects and making profit from that for the next project. that's what they're about. you are responsible for that. it raises the question to remove the director of planning and to put someone in charge who is going to be responsible to really deal with the gridlock in san francisco and be accountable for all its massive construction without any planning for mass transit. >> next speaker, please.

>> laura foot. i really appreciate the thoroughness of this report. i wasn't going to speak because this is the kind of stuff we should just get through and it's great to have these kinds of educational materials to inform us as we make larger decisions. i kind of want to speak to the audience and remind everyone here that being a planning commissioner sucks they get yelled a lot all day, sometimes by people like me. please treat the commissioners with a little bit more respect. it's really hard to get people to decide to spend hours of their life just having people come up over and over and over again and blame them for all of san francisco's problems. a great place to take some of that frustration might be the board of supervisors, the people are elected and they can change a lot more of the laws. the commissioners are supposed to take the law as it is and interpret it and make a little

bit of a judgment call. they cannot tax all the billionaires. which cannot ask the commissioners to solve literally all of our problems. we can talk about how we need to solve our problems but i think that we should really troy to think about what is this commission for and and inform our decision-making. i want a motion for you guys to be i don't know if we have a coast or something to make you guys feel better. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment on this item? >> >> michael adams. i'm going to speak on the next item if we ever get to it. i'm former city planner. i've had a lot of experience being yelled at, curses, rewarded and thanked so it comes with the territory. one of the things that struck me

in this last presentation is there a connection between these prior items that have to do with building more buildings sense tee increases and a trigger that would enable the planning commission to understand with some code that says for every thousand square feet of new building it will create x amount of traffic impact. it's fairly simple algebra that could be put into the code and the formal questions that come with every presentation on every bit of housing tense tee improvement and it will effect transit. we can't hope for muni to improve very soon and we have seen on one of the rides that there's going to be about the

same amount of density in 2050, the amount of traffic sense tee and all the associated hazards as there is so as you add those things that influence traffic you can create a formula that helps people understand the pain and is everything that that is going to cause and put some value on whether that's worth it. in terms of that particular building and that particular structure. i have in my pocket a parking ticket i'll pay when i leave here and i don't hear anybody talking about eliminating that. can you imagine someone suggesting public land for housing so that we take that civic center, that beautiful grassy area over there and build

a housing on it. what is the limit going to be? panhandle of golden gate park would make a nice site for housing. let's really think about what we're doing as we approach this public land for housing issue and i'll be back to speak to that as it relates to city college. thank you. >> any other public comment on this item? that public comment is now closed. commissioner richards. >> so, thank you very much for this. i remember being on the connect sf task force for a while and it was a lot to be honest with you with everything else going on. there's a lot of information her and i'm a little bit tired. as i look through here, some things aren't adding up for me. what i'm talking about really is

we're looking towards 2050 and we have increasing kind of density mandates from the state that are encroaching on us but i don't see anything about that in here. is they're going to pass and i look a lot the growth in san francisco and i see the western part of the city is like the least amount of jobs and residents in that light green color. we should start modeling our future around where it will go and there's going to be we need to do a plan, a proposed plan or whatever where we're talking about something that we really need to take into consideration. the other thing is, it looks like the growth and i'm doing these numbers in my head. the growth seems to be much later than what i'm seeing the

impact here is so i looked at the page and this is all off the cuff. page it's the mode 2015 and 2050. -- sorry. hold on. i'm sorry. we've got the four squares on the top. so looking at this page, the question i have is that the number of trips we have 1.6 million and 200,000 and zero the bottom and are these trips

per year? >> this is daily trips. >> our model is for typical average weekday. >> so, what you are saying here on this page 16 is number of trips. people who drive alone today is roughly $1.1 million trips. >> yes. >> that's right. >> physical trips. >> these are trips to, from and within. >> 1 million trips in a car per day, ok. that's astounding number. these are trips. even rips that were within the city but also trips that start outside of the city so any trip that involves being in the city. >> this is car traffic period. any trip that touches san francisco whether it's someone commuting in or someone

commuting out. cor commuting within. >> we have tncs right now or 2015 just above 200,000 but i see in 20 other i 2050 it grows. is that kind of in line with the projections that we're seeing these companies are reporting? if you read the uber per specific tus on the shares, share talking numbers that are much bigger than this globally and also talking about really putting public transportation out of business. the large increase in tnc trips is based on existing data that we the transportation authority were able to scrape from uber and lift and it was researched we did with north eastern university and with that data we know how many trips happen in 2016 and used those assumptions

as to calibrate our model and that is how we project the decisions into the future so it's not based on numbers given to us by business plans and it is based on the trips we've observed through our data collection and research and inputting those into the model. >> i would see the population is going to increase by roughly 50% from 900,000 to $1.4 million? the city? >> yes. >> that is slide number nine. >> so population population will increase about 30%. and then adoption rate by those with the increase in the population 1.245 million will adopt uber and lyft.

they'll double 97% up? >> correct. >> these are really interesting numbers and i think overtime, really calibrating whether that is true or not and if we see for some reason growth in uber and lyft going up, are these real time year over year we don't have this fixed in our mind but next year for some reason if they run this massive discount it's a it dollar a trip and everyone starts taking them, will we adjust the way we look at this? >> we adjust our model based on existing data so if we get new data we put those into the model to say this is what we know about our baseline year and those assumptions get adjusted. >> if the tax passes in november on per trip tax you will get a lot of good data so that's good so it's a really good thing to make sure as data comes our you are re adjusting these things real time because we can end up far off the mark if we don't. the other thing is, we have a

current deficit of money. we had this given to us when we had the sb-50 discussion informational here. it was numbers pulled from the m.t.a., from the regional things in muni and he said that the unfunded portion of muni between now and 2040 i believe it was, which was reported by muni or m.t.a. was something in the neighborhood of like 22 billion. i know that covered the nine county bay area too. it did san francisco and the bay area. we have this deficit right now on maintenance, buying new buses, servicing the people we have here and we're not up to snuff yet and according to the numbers provided by the m.t.a. we're adding additional capacity on top of that. i guess the question i have is,

that's not discussed here only in terms of overcrowding and commute times going up so the discussion on funding levels and what the new development will do is a really good portion of what this is going to look like because we have to make hard choices in the future with the money that we have. >> sure, the results we shared with you today are based on if we just don't do anything and if we just assume that we do all the projects we have planned and we did no further planning but of course we want to identify more solutions and we want to identify major projects that would go into the plan bay area 2050 to fund those projects and part of the funding goes towards maintenance of roads and state of good repair for transit and things like that. >> in the do-nothing version, it assumes that deficit and we're not going to get additional money to plug those we're just

doing what we do. >> right. >> this is kind of the worst-case scenario assuming that we don't have anything beyond the transportation projects we know of today. and so the next time you see this, we will look at ideas of how to improve these numbers. which is the whole point and it can also include land use changes it's great because you come up with recommendations on what we can do to make it better being that this is the worse case. other questions are, ridership levels, what are you forecasting in terms of ridership levels because bart is down by 5% and muni is down by a certain percent and people are switching different modes. is that being updated? where are we going with all of that? with ridership levels. it doesn't increase at the same rate the population is increases. >> so, the way that our model works is that there's a

synthetic population with the number of people and they have a home destination and work destination and destinations for others trips like shopping and in the model they have the choice of cost of time and actual hard costs of those transportation options so those are built into assumptions into the algorithm of the model that's why you see -- when you look at the increase in t.n.c.s, a lot of that food shift is coming from transit even though transit increasing in absolute numbers and it's decreasing proportionally because we know the cost of tncs is cheap competitive with transit and we're seeing that loss. >> another question, on page 16,

there's a reverse trip thing where i know my fedex driver by name and i know my ups driver by name because he is on my street everyday. does this take into consideration people not going out to get something but having a lot of stuff come to them. delivery services, eating meals. is that included in here too? >> there are freight trips that are at a high level and we're doing research so in the baseline it's a high level number for a total number of freight trips happening in san francisco and then we are going to do more research about that later. >> it has a big impact. i think the two big things that are the big unknowns could be a state rezoning and we don't know what it's going to look at and the other one is, i was reading

the planning magazine that came to me and talked about the future of the way people get around in terms of autonomous vehicles and i have no idea where that is all going to go but if the book that was written that says autonomous vehicles will create such a good life and all this other stuff. it would be something as time goes on and we see what they actually can and can't do to try to consider this and consider some of this stuff in the future. >> we have a whole body of work as part of connect sf. what we're calling the drivers of change and technological advancements including autonomous vehicles is something we're monitoring or continuing to research. it wasn't included in our results today because the avs we're unsure of the adoption rate and how many avs will be on the roads and when that will happen so it wasn't included in our model today but it's something that we'll monitor. >> i appreciate it. this is incredible stuff i'm going to go home and look at it more. even since connect sf was

started when i was on it, we had this thing called chariot and chariot came and went so we thought o. my god, chariot will put me out of business and they went out of business so it's unknowns we need to factor real time and it was really good work, thank you. >> thank you, commissioner. i will also point out that the company uber has not posted a profit in 10 years and their i.p.o. came out and it was very under we wil weunder -- i thinky great data. i will say at the risk of being pegged for being angry, because our climate all the time, that you know, my over arching comments about the language on the presentation are similar in that i think that you guys are

doing such great work and that often other agencies make political decisions that are not in line with what we know to be factual and what the data points out to and it behooves us to be stronger in our positions of what will happen and when we know that it's going to happen. i think that we know very definitively that having single-trip vehicles through uber and lyft will effect our carbon emissions as a city in a much stronger way than if we invested tax money and to making a better public with how we are

doing macro level, you know, thinking about how our city develops and how jobs housing linkage and that we could be stronger about these things. so i will also just give a little anecdote that you know, i'm not up here making lots of money from the developers. i work for a non-profit that does youth development and two weeks ago it was the youth and the arts and they chose public transportation it's the theme and it was a love story that emission 14 back of the bus. because you know for youth public transportation is freedom from the neighborhood and also coming back to the home that you have that means culture and it means place and it's just so important, right. and so your analysis, i'm looking, i would also want to see, you know, a more thorough

breakdown of race, gender, social class and how the different things that get us around effect how the city is developing and how it effects different groups of people. it's not the same. low income people tend to take public transportation more and if they have to live longer, it means less of a quality of life, less time with kids. there's power in politics and this is not so neutral. that was just my point. thank you. commissioner moore. >> i would just like -- i would like to commend the department for the effort of putting this together. particularly in light of the fact we need to remind ourselves about it. that uber and lyft are not controlled by the city and county of san francisco but the control comes from the state of

california. they're two things working at cross purpose and this city really was leading in transit first for many years that has been greatly diminished by losing its control of what types of cars and what quantity and the real effective are circulating on our right of ways. >> a few more points as i was sitting up here thinking. to commissioner moore's point it's a good point. they want to regulate scooters and change the things that we actually were trying to get to in terms of public policy. the other question, several other things, electric vehicle adoption or electric vehicle elimination like norway decided that they're not going to have carbon -- combustible engineers after 2025 or 2030. china said 2040. we're just going to say no more electric vehicles or no more

gassy mighting fume vehicles. >> the department of environment has policy and blue print. they have specific figures and what they hope the adoption rate to be by certain years. i don't know them off the top of my head. i can find out. >> great. i got into an argument with someone a couple of days ago about urban is better than suburban and they said well, when you talk about actually building these projects they said, you are not considering the amount of carbon footprint that is concrete creates, you have to manufacture concrete to build these buildings and they ran some studies on certain projects and i can pull the data but i was completely thrown off guard. they said the carbon pay back on this certain project that they had to concrete versus the people that will live there that commuted before from the suburbs, the fay back was 20

other and the2050.i never consit building a building also creates a carbon footprint too. one other data point someone told me about just a few days ago was there's this company called hatch and hatch looks at car ownership rates and for the bay area, the car ownership rates are going up faster than the population is increasing. i don't know what that means. it might be telling me that because it's take long to get around and on public transportation or whatever, people are deciding to buy cars to do it and i think it's another data point to try to understand. there's a lot -- there's so much here it's world hunger. but all of these things are really relevant data points where we think the world will go. thank you. >> thank you. >> there's nothing further. we can move on to item 8.

for the public land for housing and balboa reservoir informational presentation. >> yeah. >>

>> good evening, commissioners. i'm project manager of the balboa project from the planning department. the rest of my team is here with me. sue with planning department and lee from the office of economic and workforce development and the development team. so, the presentation will start with the project's policy background and the community planning process. lee will talk about the developer teams election process and key compliments of