Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Debate over TSF increase exposes fiscal trade-offs; committee continues measure for more analysis
Summary
The committee debated a proposed $5 per-square-foot increase to the Transportation Sustainability Fee for nonresidential projects (with a potential $2 rate in Central SoMa). Planning staff said a $5 hike would generate about $26.5 million but could render many Central SoMa prototypes marginal or infeasible; the committee continued the item to May 21 for further review.
The Land Use Committee on May 7 considered a proposal to raise the Transportation Sustainability Fee (TSF) for nonresidential development, a measure the sponsor described as part of a larger effort to recover funding for the city's transportation system.
Sponsor Supervisor Aaron Peskin proposed a $5 per-square-foot increase for large nonresidential projects while offering a $2 rate for Central SoMa prototypes that planning staff said would be most affected. Planning Department analysts warned that, after escalating cost and rent assumptions to 2017 levels, many Central SoMa prototype projects moved from feasible to marginal or infeasible if a $5 increase were applied.
Planning's Lisa Chen summarized the department's feasibility work: with the $5 increase, planning staff estimated the city would raise approximately $26.5 million, and about 88 percent of that — roughly $23.3 million — would come from projects in Central SoMa. Chen told the committee the Central SoMa tier A and B prototypes would be pushed into marginal feasibility under the $5 increase.
SFMTA and planning officials and a broad coalition of transit and environmental groups—including Walk San Francisco, SPUR, the Bicycle Coalition, Urban Habitat, and neighborhood associations—testified in favor of an increase to the TSF, saying additional revenue is needed to support Vision Zero, transit reliability, and long-term investments. Josie Ahrens of Walk San Francisco said the current TSF has not generated enough funding and urged the committee to increase it, arguing TSF funds support citywide capital and operating needs.
Supervisor Peskin asked the committee to split (duplicate) the file so the Committee could advance a $5 increase outside Central SoMa while holding the Central SoMa analysis for more study; Supervisor Jane Kim moved to duplicate the file and amend it to exclude Central SoMa. The committee took a roll-call vote on the motion to refer the non‑Central SoMa $5 file to the full Board; that motion failed on a roll-call (the transcript records multiple 'no' votes and the Chair declared the motion failed).
Given the Planning Commission schedule and the need for additional analysis, the Committee continued the TSF item to May 21 so staff and commissioners can complete outstanding feasibility and nexus discussions. Planning Department staff said they would provide updated analyses reflecting recent cost and rent escalations and clarify assumptions used in their models.
Next steps: The TSF proposal will return to the Land Use Committee on May 21 after Planning Commission hearings; sponsors and staff signaled an interest in refining the proposal and distinguishing Central SoMa impacts from the rest of the city.
