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 todays economy or factor in any inflation since the original fee inception. The Department Recommends indexing such fee to reflect todays dollars. The Mayors 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 didnt 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 its 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 didnt 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, thats 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. Thats 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 weve 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 didnt bother having any input because the Planning Department and the Mayors Office knows better than the people in the tenderloin. Im 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 well 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 thats 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 doesnt theres no fees in this market fund. Were 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 Nonprofit Developers and under the citys 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 its 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 were trying to do in the communities that were 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 its for, the folks that are affected and really stating our citys 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. Its the first case report that has it so were 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. Theres 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 60. We are on item 7. This is an informational presentation. Id 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 nonprofit 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 publichealth 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. Im here to give you an update on connect sf. This is the Transportation Planning process for the citys 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 FranciscoMunicipal Transportation Agency or sfmta and doug johnson from the Planning Department. So, we know that this commission and the public are concerned about the citys Transportation System and the citys 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 were forecasting for the future, and some of the gaps we needs to address in order to achieve the vision we set for the city. Thats what im here to share with you today. The Technical Work weve done to understand our future. Im going to give you a brief overview about connect sf and the statement of needs. What it is and what its for. And then next ill discuss the findings from the state of needs and after that well discuss next steps. Were not alone in planning for the future of transportation. As i mentioned, im joined today by our partners at sfmta and sfcta and were 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 citys 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 were 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. Were 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 were also working on the San FranciscoTransportation 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 Franciscos 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 doesnt, 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 were 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 an