City may ‘blaze a trail’ by building near transit
By: Tamara Barak Aparton
Examiner Staff Writer
October 6, 2008
 |
| Transit first: Building in transit-rich areas, such as Third Street in The City, could save developers money under a plan being considered. (Examiner file photo) |
SAN FRANCISCO — Developers building near transit would save money and those whose locations encourage driving would pay more under a new fee system being considered by San Francisco officials.
“This is likely to blaze a trail in the state, if not nationally. It’s momentous,” San Francisco Transportation Authority Executive Director Jose Luis Moscovich said recently.
Since the 1950s, U.S. cities have calculated developments’ transit impacts by how long drivers must wait at a traffic light. San Francisco officials want to change the formula, basing impacts on the number of new automobile trips generated — something routinely calculated by developers. The result, proponents say, could encourage building in transit-heavy, walkable areas.
City officials began looking into changing the formula several years ago after determining that time spent at stoplights didn’t take into account carbon emissions, pedestrian safety and noise, said Rachel Hiatt, transportation authority senior planner.
The old formula also favored mitigation measures like adding more lanes of traffic, which led to more cars on the road — something at odds with The City’s “transit-first” policy, Hiatt said.
Officials from Los Angeles, Oakland and San Jose have expressed interest in the plan and are watching San Francisco closely, Moscovich said.
Moscovich said his preference is for the fees to someday replace current impact fees, so that developers are not overtaxed. Part of the money collected would go to large-scale transportation projects that change traffic patterns in San Francisco, while the other part will go directly to improving the project’s surrounding neighborhood. The $200,000 study, if approved, will recommend the percentage split.
Currently, impact fees are often negotiated with developers on a case-by-case basis, leading to project delays. The new formula would be more straightforward for developers, easier for the public to understand and would speed up the planning process, Moscovich said.
Dave Snyder, transportation policy director for the public-policy think tank San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, said the new formula makes sense.
“I think it’s going to transform transportation planning in the state,” he said.
The policy has similar goals to a state antisprawl bill recently signed into law. The law provides incentives to counties to build more housing near job and public transportation centers.
Next month, the committee will vote on whether to fund a six-month study to determine the appropriate fee amounts. The plan would then have to be adopted by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.
