tv Government Access Programming SFGTV May 7, 2018 2:00pm-3:01pm PDT
achieve its vision zero goals and secondly, that you exempt transit projects as well. transit reliability is the most important concern of transit riders these days. and improving reliability is achieved through small projects, not huge projects on the street every day. this is these transit priority projects we ask you consider exempting from these appeals. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you. before the last speaker if there's anyone else who's name i didn't call, line-up up. >> public: good afternoon. i didn't mean transportation policy associate. like the others who have spoking, we appreciate the changes that have been made to the appeals legislation from last week. we also echo the concerns that were made by others today about the appeals legislation does not include exemptions. we think this is a mistake and
these projects should be exempt from review. the s.f.m.t.a. needs to be able to act with speed and independence to achieve vision zero and also to improve transit and make it easier for people to walk and bike. thank you very much. >> supervisor tang: thank you. next speaker, please. >> public: i'm paula katz. i support this ordinance because it's about time to create a procedure to review certain s.f.m.t.a. decisions. i would support a fee waiver for all residents because it is hard for individuals to raise money for this and we still want their participation and i oppose the additional exemption that other people have urged. we urge our neighbors to join on the project. our experience is that m.t.a. is
too big to actually change many of their predetermined plans by accommodating input from people they are meant to serve. the park side district and other communities throughout the city are not sustained as downtown market street and m.t.a.'s one size fits all tool box of so called improvements they force on many communities doesn't fit. m.t.a. does not have any outside entity over them, so they don't have to be responsive to the public and there's no way for us to appeal their bad decisions. this ordinance is a great first step in changing that. and we are very glad that you're working on it. i also urge you in the future to try to amend the charter to allow the board of supervisors to review other m.t.a. decisions, including the removal of muni stops. if not for the integration of supervisor yee who came up with a last minute compromise, m.t.a. staff would probably be recommending for the third time
over massive opposition that our local community safely stop to save 20 seconds. they want more people to ride muni, but reduce service instead of coming up with better ways to speed up the lines and board of supervisors review of those decisions would be helpful. but that's in the future. [bell]. >> public: i urge you to approve it. >> supervisor tang: thank you. next speaker. >> public: hi. i commute by way of bmw, bart, muni, walk. m.t.a. is a ward on the face of -- it's politically op -- obtuse. it's not going to work. i'm glad somebody is finally addressing this issue. i live in fear of what's going to happen on lower taylor street
near city hall, which has a relatively high traffic capacity at the moment and which is basically the gate way to chino town. what's going to happen to business in chinatown if that gets closed down? and also you look at the new street cars, the plan. how are you -- with hard bench seats and not enough, how are you going to convince uber people to sit in those seats? that's ridiculous. >> supervisor tang: thank you. next speaker, please. >> public: eileen here on behalf. i wanted to go to the ballot, i'm willing to support this legislation. it is definitely long overdue. it accomplishes checks and balances which are are a basic tenant of this country. even though the legislation doesn't apply to entire decisions as a sign of good faith, i would urge the m.t.a.
and this board to re-evaluate the following. city wide decisions regarding emerging transportation technologies on the west side transit only lanes as after one year there's clearly no demonstrated purpose and need. i would strongly urge the m.t.a. and this board to approve their removal. as for concrete boarding islands, i would urge the m.t.a. and board to modify specifications and instead install more alternatives. there are modular and eco-friendly islands currently on the market. los angeles transit has already installed one. you should also have received an email from the president of the park side merchants, also known as pops, on related issues and i also would oppose any exemption being proposed to the
legislation. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. any other members who wish to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you chair tang, and sponsor safai. i wanted to say a couple of things if which if you're sitting here, which exceeded the authority over m.t.a. to what's almost a parallel body that has the same legislative powers as the board of supervisors who are elected and you saw the experiment roll out for a decade, and i remind everybody that prop a actually included, e pressly included a provision that the board could take matters up on appeal and the way supervisor safai and i crafted
this is again very narrowly tailored and the amendments that have been made actually contrary to some of the public comment that we hear today do not allow as originally intended members of the public to bring this, but can only be initiated by a member of the public, whether it's an individual or individuals or an organization and then requires five supervisors to sign on i think is very healthy because it is going to build a modicum of public trust in the entire system. so, let's try this experiment out for a year to the s.f.m.t.a., i think it is very important and i'm looking at sara b. jones, who hails from the planning department. so, her and mr. rahaim and mr. star and others can collaborate, which is that the planning department i think has done a
very good job over time in its public noticing to let the public know where and when there are opportunities to initiate are. so, for you that is going to be in the transportation code division ii at section 203, which i think is going to require some work to make sure that the public is informed. that notifications include very clear language like you see on the notices that neighbors get and we as members of the board of supervisors get that say this decision is or is not subject to review by the board of supervisors through a certain process. i think it's also very important that section 203, which is again under your commission's legislative jurisdiction be very clear as to what is a final decision that somebody can then
petition five members of the board to sign. i just wanted to put that on the record. finally this is really i think a housekeeping issue and maybe is for the m.t.a. to answer, but i think there may be just a little bit of redundant language which is bicycle lane is defined as a class two bikeway or class four separated bikeway or cycle track. and subsequently, the provision that defines a final s.f.m.t.a. decision includes creating or eliminating a class three bikeway or route. i think a cycle track, does correct me if i'm wrong, is a class three. this may be redundant. you may have staff here. but i think we're saying the same thing, which is that all -- that class two, three and four bikeways are excluded.
so, just for chair tang, would be page one, line 18, the definition of bicycle lane and page 2, line five. >> supervisor tang: we have mr. jones here. >> public: yes. sara jones. i'm not the resident expert on the design features of different types of bicycle ways. my understanding is -- and i'm going to ask brian of the bicycle coalition to come up to clarify. but my understanding is that the idea was to specifically call out bicycle lanes rather than what we term shares which is a street shared with bicycle facilities. i will let brian speak to that. >> public: thank you. this is guidelines and it's very
confusing. but a class two or class four cycle track or bikeway are what you see painted on the feet or fully separated protected bike lane, the idea not exempting class three bikeways is we feel they are sub standard. they are just paint on the ground. so, should the s.f.m.t.a. water down a project, we would encourage the board of supervisors to review that on appeal. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. i will leave that issue alone. thank you for eliciting that. and you said something that is very important, which is the right of appeal goes both ways. >> supervisor tang: supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: i just want to say some closing remarks. i appreciate the hard work from supervisor peskin's office in collaborating on this issue and engaging on something that he's dedicated a good portion of his
legislative career to getting right. and there are aspects we have seen over the last ten years people are happy with and are moving forward. i just want to say for the record, vision zero, pedestrian safety, on time performance of muni, all of those issues i think have been moving in the right direction. but there are a very loud and vocal i would amajority that are upset about certain aspects of the decisions that have been made and the manner in which they have been made. that was an important point supervisor peskin and i talked a lot about on the record in community meetings and meetings with stakeholders that there needs to be a more formalized process for which the s.f.m.t.a. must follow for its public noticing and for its way of notifying people how decisions are and process by which members of the community and public can influence those decisions before they become final. and i think that's in many ways
a part of what we're trying to do along with additional oversight, along with separation of powers, along with having some level of review at this board. which i don't think is a bad thing. we sit as commissioners on the transportation authority. we review every single project that is funded by the gas tax, prop k money. we have review but we have created this additional process by which members of the board of trustees have a very similar legislative power but don't have that level of review that we do as elected officials. i think this is also going to be an experiment. we have seen some changes in s.f.m.t.a.'s behavior. all of my colleagues have come to me and said that the way in which s.f.m.t.a. is behaving and interacting with members of the board of supervisors has changed since we put forward our charter amendment. i think that's a positive thing.
we are going to have more flow of information with staff. we're going to have more involvement in understanding the community process by which projects are noticed. i think that's all a positive thing and i think that's what a lot of the members of public are looking for. i will say people do want to be involved in the smaller neighborhood projects that revolve and safety. one point to clarify, this doesn't slow down the decision making. we have 60 days to act if we intend to review a project and that's five members of the board of supervisors. but that does not slow down in any way. the only way it would is if we decided to engage on appeal and using the example that supervisor peskin used before on the cu process. i have been on the board for a year and a half and we have done that twice on two projects.
again, i think this is not going to impede the progress that we've made over the last decade and i'm very happy to send this to the full board. i have heard from the planning department on clarifying the language. i think that what we are proposing, deputy city attorney, will not slow down the review in any way. is this going out as a committee report or going out to the board is this >> supervisor tang: going out next week. >> supervisor safai: we have time to get the language right. but in favor of citing the section of the code whether it is the transportation code or planning code and we will refine that and introduce it to the board next tuesday. >> supervisor tang: thank you. supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: i just what want to add a few words. i like some members out public was a little concerned about what this might do to projects we prioritized and vision zero. i think the change allowing --
permitting only five members of the board to appeal does change how my support for this when we originally included neighborhood appeal process. i was incredibly concerned because i know that that would put a lot of our vision zero projects potentially on the line. and of course would lead to many delays. but i am in agreement to pilot this for a year and to see what the outcomes of it are. i do want to support stronger communication relationships with s.f.m.t.a. and this board. i do want to reiterate last week i said that i felt like i had a good communication relationship with s.f.m.t.a. so, this has not been my experience on many of the projects i have been working with on s.f.m.t.a. have moved through. the only thing that i would add was two things. one was figuring out how we can do residential permits in multi-use neighborhoods that are both commercial and residential.
but i think this will be the future of san francisco neighbors. while not everyone should drive and park, i think that that's -- we should be thoughtful about that as we move forward. and finally, i think part of the reason why we have been able to get many of the vision zero projects that our office has been pushing have unfortunately been by-products of the neighborhoods i represent. i hope when we move forward on vision zero that we are not motivated by the news of fatality but based on data where we have identified corridors. so, i think over the next year, let's see how this process goes. i have a lot more faith knowing that five members of the board -- it will be in the hands of five members of the board to appeal projects. but at the end of the day i think it's important to strengthen communication
relationships between the department and the board of supervisors. i will be supporting this. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. and i made most of my comments last week as well. but i think there are a lot of other issues we have to address with the agency. i think i'm willing to give this legislation a go and to experiment with it as well for potentially a year or so. but yes. so, with that said, supervisor safai had some amendments. >> supervisor safai: yeah. nothing additional as in what we read into the record. we will make that final amendment with planning over the next week. i make a motion to accept all of the amendments as proposed. >> supervisor tang: we will do that without objection. >> supervisor safai: send it to the full board. >> supervisor tang: and we will do that without objection as well. >> supervisor safai: thank you colleagues. >> supervisor tang: madam clerk,
item two, please. [reading item #2] >> supervisor tang: thank you. i will turn it over to supervisor peskin, the sponsor. >> supervisor peskin: thank you colleagues and madame chair for hearing this item even after mr. rahaim, the planning department i believe dropped the ball and missed the generous three-month window of time allowed under the charter to bring it before the planning commission even though we had several meetings to plan for the item and entertain staff thoughts on the policy and were told the item would be heard a month ago on april 15th. later asked if we could move it to april 19th and then later told after the debacle with other items noticed, namely the central soma plan that our item has been pushed out actually without mine or my staff's knowledge to may 17th. and so, here we are. this item is properly before
this committee and the board of supervisors pursuant to the charter and i have been looking forward to having this conversation for a couple of years because i think it's one that is long overdue. we have been a transit city for over a generation and yet the responsibility to put forward a thoughtful long term plan for maintaining our existing transportation network and expanding it to accommodate the city's booming residential and private sector job growth has fallen short. while we have intentionally expedited projects that have added thousands of bodies to the city's work force, kor responding transit improvements continue to fall behind. a couple of years ago, voters let us know how they felt how we
were doing when they approved proposition j and at the exact same time by a two to one margin voted down prop k sales tax revenue source by roughly the same apt amount of votes. we can all agree that transportation infrastructure is an unmet need in san francisco. but we want to make sure those causing the most impact to the system pay their fair share to build it out and to maintain it and operate it. and we're not the only city that has woeng -- woken up to this reality. we woke up to it very early on. other metropolitan areas from new york city to seattle have come to similar conclusions. you must contribute to transportation infrastructure city wide, particularly and i say this because it's been stuck in my craw for a while as we have given tax breaks for
property owners gifted by the trump administration. bottom line is you got to pay for it. if you want it, you got to pay for it. on march 1st of 2016, the board passed then supervisor ava loss transportation fee by a slim six to five vote. supervisor kim and i voted to pass it with the acknowledgment that an increase to the city wide fee was necessary to ensure that growth anywhere in the city was mitigated everywhere in the city. the tsf replaced what was around in my day actually started by then supervisor or mayor feinstein and ensured it applied to not only commercial but to residential projects where the tidf originally only applied to commercial really office in the
c-3 and in a few places outside of the downtown core. after exhaustive battle to reform our inclusion fair housing -- inclusionary housing laws, i decided not to pursue a residential increase but focus on the commercial side. and that is what is before you today. planning subsequently did two separate analysises including feasibility as well as a nexus study and the commission heard those findings last summer as you all know in your incarnation as members of the county transportation authority. i co-chaired along with mayor lee a six-month long process to identify new revenue for the city's unmet transit needs. it was facilitated by the
controller's office and included a really amazing diversity of stakeholders from every district as well as almost every single city department and regional transportation agency including the planning department and of course our own s.f.m.t.a. it was data driven and exhaustive. and many of our constituents gave hours of their time without compensation to put forth a list of recommendations that all of the members of the county transportation authority board reviewed and signed off on. the transportation task force 2045 identified an astonishing $22 billion in need for transportation in infrastructure and operations over the next 27 years with the approvaled expenditure plan outlined in prop j, which was already behind schedule. our local contribution -- i should say our second local
contribution because the voters of san francisco generously voted a one half billion dollars general obligation bond paid for by property owners and in many cases passed through to tenants and subsequently we all agreed, mayor lee and the board, that we needed to find an additional local source of revenue in the amount of $100 million annually. in december of last year, i introduced what i thought was a reasonable gross receipts tax measure that would apply a modest increase to commercial revenues from office rents after working with the controller's office, the treasurer and tax collector and city attorney, that was thoroughly vetted and garnered the most overall votes from the ttf to 45 task force
members and -- 2045 task force members and here we are with no ill will or offense to my colleagues on this panel. some of them chose to pursue an absolutely laudable measure for child care. others chose to pursue an equally laudable measure for housing and the source of revenue for transportation has thus far been left on the cutting room floor. so, colleagues, in your incarnation as members of the san francisco county transportation authority and as members of the board of supervisors all of whom in both of their incarnations have a duty to deal with our monumental transportation obligations in this transit first city, i have been thinking about ways to reduce that $100 million nut.
and one of them as chair tang knows is to go back to the tsf increase, which planning in its studies have showed are feasible and will not stop development. now, because -- and remember, when we considered this in 2016 and i acknowledge that supervisor tang voted for that legislation, which mayor lee vetoed, i acknowledge that supervisor kim voted for it when supervisor tang voted against it and supervisor safai was not a member of the board of supervisors. we have an opportunity to reduce that $100 million a year going forward. had this been passed or not vetoed then, this fee would have been in place and i know that
the current conversation is we have -- i should say had this been heard in april by the planning commission, had the scheduling screw up not happened once, twice but three times it would have been before us. all of that is water under the bridge or over the dam and i acknowledge that now. central soma will be here in late june and there is concern that given the -- what i believe is appropriate level of fees and fee structures for central soma, there is concern that this will make development in central soma less than feasible. i differ with those concerns, but will ask the committee and will pass up to you shortly an amendment to reduce the $5 increase to the tsf in central soma where there are some 30 projects that would be impacted
to a mere $two as was considered -- $2 as was considered in 2016. the nexus study shows commercial developments generate almost three times the impacts on our transportation system as residential developments do. commercial properties got off pretty well in the tsf discussion last time. though a supervisor tried to increase the commercial fee by $2 to make up the gap prior to the veto. by the way, all of this should be seen in light of the very real and massive hole that may be blown into our budget if sb-1 is repealed. i want to put that on the table. all of these discussions have been very known to the development community who were involved in countless hearings and city meetings on both nexus
>> supervisor peskin: -- the impact on residual land value is only - 7%, which is below or well below the - 10% threshold for a financial project's fiscal responsibility. it also showed the tsf would still be economically feasible which is why i opted to start there for the tsf increase because i don't want to leave any money on the table. according to the central soma feasibility study, which i know planning will speak to, planning assumed a 7% increase in commercial rent over the
two-year span between 2015 and 2017, and i would really like to fact check that and hear from planning on where they're getting these projected rent prices and how they calculated them, particularly given that the data is coming from jones lang lasalle who are the same firm that the controller has been using in its real estate score card where they projected a 12% increase. so i'm not exactly sure how jones lasalle can given 12% to benjamin rosenfeld and 7% to the planning department. i work with planning all the time now that i am half the downtown supervisor, who can testify to the fact that we are
fully leased before -- before these projected even come on-line. so it's odd to me that the planning department is presuming a 10% vacancy rate. most of the large footprint, 100,000-plus square foot spaces with highly desirable and they will have an impact on the rest of the city, whether you are in the sunset or the excelsior or the richmond. so with that, i will hand to you, colleagues, my amendment which i spoke to which would be a $5 increase except for in the central soma, which would be a $2 increase and look forward to hearing your little bit more c
what we're looking at. i do have the central soma one in front of me, but i just wanted some clarity which study we're referring to, which report, which year, that would be great. >> thank you. john ram from the planning department. first, i just want to say that it is true -- and i will take responsibility for our noticing error that prevented this from going to the planning commission on april 12. it was the same noticing error that prevented the industrial so some -- central soma plan from being here earlier. i would like the committee to consider a continuance until the planning commission hears
the matter, on may 17, a week from thursday. so having said that, i am joined today by a star from my staff, sarah jones from the sf mta, and lisa chen who actually is responsible for that financial analysis. the one thing that i just wanted to mention and lisa can get more into the details of that financial analysis is that we are -- we do have a very serious concern about feasibility with central soma projects. i fully understand the goal of this lemgs latio-- legislation. i fully understand the need to finance our tran set systems, and we were doing the financial analysis for central soma, we were trying to find the sweet spot between feasibility and maximizing public benefits. we did that feasibility i think three years ago in 2015. we redid that analysis this year, recognizing the very substantial increase in construction costs, i get -- i
understand the goal, and i'm not arguing with the goal of funding transit, i'm just very concerned about that sweet spot being lost in this process. and i would also remind you just kind of the community facilities district that we are proposing in the central soma plan, the mello-roos, if you will, that we are generating half a billion dollars in the central soma plan over 25 years for transportation improvement. so there are certainly the large projects in that neighborhood are certainly on the hook to fund a lot of these transportation improvements even as currently proposed. but maybe with that, i'll let sarah jones to come up and then lisa chen from the planning department to talk about feasibility or whatever you want to do. >> supervisor tang: supervisor peskin, did you have a question in the meantime? >> well, i was just going to go through this -- >> i think lisa is the author of that and can go into it in
more detail. >> supervisor peskin: thank you so much. i'm not being argumentative, but this kind of reminds me about where a developer of a large project, whether it's mission bay or the shipyard or pier 70 or treasure island come forward, and they say here is our pro forma for a 30-year buildout time horizon, where in we acknowledge markets cycle up, and markets cycle down, and then they come back 24 or 48 or 36 months later, and they say oh, any god, the sky has fallen -- oh, my god, the sky has fallen. we need to renegotiate the deal. so in 2018, in one of the most robust economic environments, yes, with construction costs escalating, the transit
feasibility nexus study was issued and actually showed a maximum just nexus fee of $23.65 a area foot, and what i am proposing is $24.50 a square foot, and we can still talk about central soma. it still seems to me there is somely way there, and to come back and say oh, three years later, this factoid has increased is not the long-term tore e horizon. we know that this current economic environment will cycle the other way. i was on the board during the great recession. i was on the board during sars. the combination of sars, colleagues, combined with september 11th lead to a period of economic instability in san francisco and other
municipalities on the western sea board of the united states, and i was on the board in 2002 when we had massive budget cuts the likes which i look forward to again. but at any rate, my point is it's problematic to me when we do a nexus study, spend a bunch of money on it, say the maximum square foot feasible fee is north of 25.5 bucks, and then come back and say three years later it's more expensive to build stuff now, and you're welcome to respond to it. >> no, i don't want to enter into a debate, but i think we all know there's a difference between a nexus study and a feasibility study. a nexus will create something that's not feasible. i just want to reiterate, we are trying to find that sweet spot for central soma. i'm not arguing that developers should pay their fair share.
it's only what's feasible. >> and quick question on that. i think supervisor peskin is referring to page four of that 2015 nexus study where it references the $23.65. does that take into account sort of any of the other -- or would that be in the feasibility study, where you would take into account all the other different fees that would be layered on as a result of -- >> that would be different. that would be the feasibility study. if i can, i'll ask lisa chen to come up and give you some of the finer detail on that. >> that would be great. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. lisa chen of department staff. if i could get the overhead. so i believe that a number of you have already seen this latest update that the department has created for our feasibility analysis specifically in central soma. i also have a handout describing kind of a quick analysis we did of the original tsf financial feasibility
analysis that i can go over, as well. but just to reiterate what john rahaim said, you know, we're really striving to maximize the value capture in this area, so just to give a sense of how we often do this for area plans, we calculate what all of the needs are, what the public benefits are, and then we cal clalt how much we believe benefit can bear, and how much value we're creating through the upzoning, and we're trying to capture a certain amount. so in this case we're trying to capture between 50 and 75% of the value that's being created by the central soma upzoning. so that's what these numbers are showing in kind of the pass tepass -- pastel. the pink is the more marginal, 75 to 100% body capture, and
then the green is showing the prototypes that are no longer feasible after we apply the exactions. so the first line that i want to point out in green, this is referring to kind of the level that we had set back in 2015. this was when we believed that the adoption of the central soma plan was imminent, and so the 2015 development assumptions were still more or less valid, at that point. the next line shows in yellow what happens when we add 2017 assumptions. so we basically have escalated our costs as well as our revenues by two years from 2015 to 2017. we were unable to escalate it all the way to 2018 because we can't look into the future to understand what 2018 average rents will be? but just to kind of orient you to this, this first column is showing the tier a's -- tier a and tier b properties. so these are referring to the
central soma fee tiers, and this next column is tier c, which is properties that are getting the highest level of upzoning. so we see when we go to the 2017 assumptions, both of the projects that were shown to be feasible in 2015 are now kind of in that marginal feasibility. and then, the next two lines show when we add first the $5 fee increase that was introduced by supervisor peskin, and then, second, the $2 more moderate increase that has been proposed. so when we look at the $5 increase, we see that the tier a and tier b property becomes infeasible whereas the tier c property kind of remains in that marginal level. and then, the same is still true for the $2 increase. >> supervisor tang: supervisor peskin, did you have a question?
>>. >> supervisor peskin: i did. i appreciate the focus on central soma, but let me ask you this as a threshold question, given the history and the nexus study and the feasibility study. outside of the central soma, what is your analysis, conclusion and recommendation relative to my proposal for a $5 increase? >> sure. so with the -- the tsf, our financial analysis looked at two prototypes. one in what we were calling east soma, but it's essentially similar to the central soma type, and then central transit, which was a much higher rise building about 400 feet high, and we were using a different methodology, so that's why it's hard to compare. it's apples to oranges, because in that case we weren't looking at an upzoning, we were looking at what's the land value if we add higher levels of the fee. so in that case, we were hoping to add a certain amount of tsf's and not change the land value by more than 10%.
so we have done a very preliminary analysis that looks at what would happen if we added the $5 as was proposed, and i can pull that up. so when we first escalate the -- the assumptions to 2017 and then add the fee, we see that in eastern soma, the land values change by 9%, and then in the transit center it's changed by 12% which does exceed that 10% hethreshold th we had set. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. any comment about my observations relative to jones lang lasalle's projections for different city agencies. >> thank you for that. i'm not sure on that, but i can look at it and get it back to
you. we weren't able to escalate it to present day because we don't know the full rent to the 2018. >> supervisor peskin: yeah. no, it's a backwards looking business. >> can we go to the next page because to the central soma projects, because i do have some questions here. >> this page right here? >> okay. going through the project. and actually, i'd just start with my questions because i think that they're somewhat self-explanatory. so it was good to get a sense of the -- which buildings are in tier c versus a and b, where you say that it may not be feasible for a and b. i notice that a number of those projects are hotel projects. this is, of course, anecdotal, and it's not based on any type of data crunching that i have done, with you we're hearing a little bit more from the
developer community that they're moving to hotels because they feel that is a more profitable project partially because of the affordable housing and affordable fees. however you said this was something that would not be able to absorb an increase in transportation fees. i've been looking at our housing and job linkage fee because i am concerneds that developers are going to move to hotels and not residential. so i'm curious as to how you -- you know, in the calculations you've determined that this increase in transit impact fees would not be feasible for hotel projects. >> okay. so -- >> given, on balance with all of the fees. >> sure. sure. so i think i should make a major caveat, which is the way that we run our financial feasibility analysis which is that we choose a number of prototypes that we say kind of
represent the typical range of development that we expect in an area, and so in this case, we had one office prototype, and then two residential prototypes for central soma. we didn't actually look at hotel, and so i can't make any comment on thousand this fee proposal would impact the phasible of hotel. and then, kind of another assumption embedded into that is that, you know, with our prototypes we're looking at kind of reasonable averages for everything, whether that's rents or construction costs, etcetera. so every project is going to be different, and so on this list of projects that we've presented to the board, even though we're showing that some of those prototypes are on a and b and some are on tier c, we're actually not making any comment on the feasibility of those individual projects as those are, you know, subject to all of the particular agreements that those developers have with their contractors.
>> so when you state in the previous page that it is not feasible for tier a and b projects to absorb either a $2 or $5 increase, it's an imperfect science in many ways. >> mm-hmm. it's definitely an art and a science. >> okay. i think that's helpful in helping us examine the tsf proposal before us. thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. and i also want to jump to i think another spreadsheet that was sent over. i do want to applaud supervisor peskin. i know he was trying to lead a huge undertaking in terms of finding mortransportation dollars, so i definitely do not fault him for that. we all do support him in that endeavor, but i wanted to know how much money we are going to be generating from whether it's a $5 increase, a $2 increase, whether it's all the projects in a particular pitier would n
be reasonable, how much would that result in. i just want to -- i want the public to know kind of what we're talking about here in terms of the revenue we're expecting. >> sure. if i could get the overhead again. so what we projected -- so we took, basically, all of the projects that we know of for nonresidential, offer 100,000 square feet in our pipeline, and then also through your planning and land use allocation looked at properties that are zoned for large nonresidential projects and then leave that to calculate how much we project a $5 increase would raise. so that's in this orange box that you see. so we believe in today district attorneys doll attorneys -- today's dollars be $26.5 million. when you break that down in terms of area.
we see about 88% of that or 23 million is in central soma, and then, the remainder, which is about 3.2 million, would be other areas or plans in the city. so that's the $5 increase. so if the $2 increase were substituted for central soma, essentially, it would mean that the central soma value would be 40% of what you see here. so i think it's about $12 million. whereas my understanding is to keep the $5 for the rest of the area, so it would keep it at 3.2 million. >> okay. thank you very much. colleagues, any other questions, comments, any other staff you wanted to hear from? no? supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: i would only say that central soma has been in the pipeline for a long, long time. so i think it's important for all of us to note that in 2015,
when the fiscal feasibility and nexus studies were completed, while central soma was not fully baked and still is not fully baked, it was something that was being contemplated, so i think we should be cognizant of that, as was the child care that. the board passed it. the mayor chose to veto it, and the board was not successful in overriding the mayor's veto. i think anyone who's involved in central soma, 23 million to be released. and colleagues, when we're dealing with central soma, let us be clear of the financial impacts, which are three times the amount of residential development will be felt all over the city. so the nut that i'm trying to crack -- i mean, this is not about trying to make developments infeasible, it's not trying to address the
impacts that these developments cause. so in the last item, when we're trying to hold the mta accountable, why is it? because we're frustrated, and we're frustrates because our constituents are frustrated. if we captured enough value to mitigate the impact of this project, and that will make developers unhappy because they will realize less profits. yes, i do believe at a certain point, you make projects fiscally unfeasible. but as i said, our job is not to leave any money on the table so that we actually have a city that has equitiable transportation, financial transportation for all of its citizens. why should we vote for a central soma plan that only makes the situation worse when we're not recapturing enough value, and with that, i will yield the floor. >> all right. well seeing no other comments at this moment, we will go to
public comment on item 2. any members of the public who wish to speak, please come on up. >> you probably already know this, but i'll just point it out that originally, the muni was originally privately owned by the developers, and they literally paid for the entire system at one time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is josie aarons, and i'm the senior community organizer as walk san francisco. on behalf of walk sf and our members, i would like to express our strong support for increasing the transportation sustainability fee. walk sf supported establishing the tsf in 2016 because it was expected to capture funds to support our transportation needs to not only maintain by also expand our system as the city grows. at the time we advocated for a higher tsf rate because we wanted to make sure that new
development paid the true cost of its impact on our transportation system. fast forward two years, and the current tsf, which was already too low to start, has not generated as much funding as we thought it would, and we still have billions of dollars of unmet needs. an increase of tsf will be used to support san francisco's vision zero goals by providing significant safety improvements to street does, sidewalks, and intersections. an increase in tsf would also allow us to invest in a public mass transit system that will be the backbone of our city. mass transit should be supplemented by emerging mobilities like tnc's and scooters and not the other way around. and the way to ensure that that happens is by funding mass transit. transit riders are pedestrians, and vice versa. we can't keep missing opportunities to fund our billions of dollars of unmet transportation needs. walk sf is pleased to support this item to help the city
achieve its vision zero transit first mode shift public health and sustainability goals. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hello, chair tang and committee members. i'm karen babbitt. i volunteer with the sierra club. i will say that preparing for this, i want to make sure that sierra club is on record as supporting this, and sure enough, there is a letter from us in september of 2015, so this has been going on for a while. dear chair cohen at the time. the sierra club urges the board of supervisors to adopt a transportation sustainability fee matrix that makes large commercial projects and market housing project pay for their full share of transit and transportation-related impact fees. so because we don't -- we didn't have a meeting about this recently, i can't weigh in on some of the details that have gone on today, but i would say that we've been on record
saying we need more money for sustainable transit since 2015, last time this was going around. we would appreciate the help getting some more money getting sent that way. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. good afternoon. bob allen, urban habitat, one of the members of the san francisco transportation coalition and mayor's task force. i think speakers have made the case for the need. the task force made the case for that need, $100 million annually. we've got the shadow of sb 1 repeal, and we've got the opportunity to get some down payment on that need. looking at the study and the nexus seed, $30,000 over the assumed growth. even with the increase of $5, we're still only about 25% of what the study shows from -- in terms of the additional growth. and i think it's a little bit perplexing for those of us who understand our many needs in the city. whenever we come in terms of
transportation, either they're around things the task force identified that this body doesn't have control over. this is something you actually do have control over. and the idea and the kind of political bogeyman that we're going to stop development, i don't see any analytical basis for that, and i don't see how this fee is going to do anything but capture the lejt latrice impacts of this intense downtown commercial development that are being felt throughout the city. i think walk sf spoke really clearly about the alternative we could have a if we start to fund things. if this body can't take action on revenue that you can control and can intersect with the impacts of the attempted development that we're facing through commercial development in the city, i'm not really sure when we're going to do that. other cities, seattle, los angeles, even other places, are starting to take a little bit more control over raising revenue, but also over surface