Skip to code content (skip section selection)
(a) In 1981, the City enacted an ordinance imposing a Transit Impact Development Fee on new office development in the Downtown area of San Francisco. The TIDF was based on studies showing that the development of new office uses places a burden on the Municipal Railway, especially in the downtown area of San Francisco during commute hours, known as "peak periods." The TIDF was based on two cost analyses: one by the Finance Bureau of the City's former Public Utilities Commission, performed in 1981, and one by the accounting firm of Touche-Ross, performed in March 1983 to defend a legal challenge to the TIDF.
(b) In 2000, the Planning Department, with assistance from the Municipal Transportation Agency, commissioned a study of the TIDF. In 2001, the Department selected Nelson/Nygaard Associates, a nationally recognized transportation consulting firm, to perform the study. Later in 2001, Nelson/Nygaard issued its final report ("TIDF Study"). Before issuing the TIDF Study, Nelson/Nygaard prepared several Technical Memoranda, which provided detailed analyses of the methodology and assumptions used in the TIDF Study.
(c) The TIDF Study concluded that new non-residential uses in San Francisco will generate demand for a substantial number of auto and transit trips by the year 2020. The TIDF Study confirmed that while new office construction will have a substantial impact on MUNI services, new development in a number of other land uses will also require MUNI to increase the number of revenue service hours. The TIDF Study recommended that the TIDF be extended to apply to most non-residential land uses. The TIDF Study found that certain types of new development generate very few daily trips and therefore may not appropriately be charged a new TIDF.
(d) The TIDF Study further recommended that the City enact an ordinance to impose transit impact fees that would allow MUNI to maintain its base service standard as new development occurs throughout the City. The proposed ordinance would require sponsors of new development in the City to pay a fee that is reasonably related to the financial burden imposed on MUNI by the new development. This financial burden is measured by the cost that will be incurred by MUNI to provide increased service to maintain the applicable base service standard over the life of such new development.
(e) Subsequently, the City selected Cambridge Systematics, Inc. to prepare a TIDF Update Report, including an updated nexus study for the TIDF. This Report was completed in 2011, and in accordance with the applicable provisions of this Code, used updated data to calculate base service standard fee rates for the Economic Activity Categories subject to the TIDF. The Report also analyzed trip generation rates for these Economic Activity Categories using updated data, and divided the Retail/Entertainment and Cultural/Institution/Education categories into subcategories in order to reflect the comparative diversity of trip generation rates among these land uses.
(f) Based on projected new development over the next 20 years, the TIDF will provide revenue to MUNI that is significantly below the costs that MUNI will incur to mitigate the transit impacts resulting from the new development.
(g) The TIDF is the most practical and equitable method of meeting a portion of the demand for additional Municipal Railway service and capital improvements for the City caused by new non-residential development.
(h) Based on the above findings and the nexus studies performed, the City determines that the TIDF satisfies the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, California Government Code Section 66001, as follows:
(1) The purpose of the fee is to meet a portion of the demand for additional Municipal Railway service and capital improvements for the City caused by new nonresidential development.
(2) Funds from collection of the TIDF will be used to increase revenue service hours reasonably necessary to mitigate the impacts of new non-residential development on public transit and maintain the applicable base service standard.
(3) There is a reasonable relationship between the proposed uses of the TIDF and the impact on transit of the new developments on which the TIDF will be imposed.
(4) There is a reasonable relationship between the types of new development on which the TIDF will be imposed and the need to fund public transit for the uses specified in Section 411.6 of this Code.
(5) There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the TIDF to be imposed on new developments and the impact on public transit from the new developments.
(Added by Ord. 108-10, File No. 091275, App. 5/25/2010; amended by Ord. 247-12 , File No. 120523, App. 12/18/2012, Eff. 1/17/2013)
New division (e) added and former divisions (e) through (g) redesignated as current divisions (f) through (h) accordingly; division (h)(4) amended; Ord. 247-12 , Eff. 1/17/2013.