are by that definition. -- they are by that definition. there are cautions at the ground level. with that, i will turn it over to malcolm. >> mining is a welcome young. i am with thee chinatown community. we are a member of the community council of housing organizations. i want to provide in the public more detail about some of the infrastructure? -- the infrastructure gaps, particularly in affordable housing. let me give you a little bit of background before i jump into my slides. first of all, it was probably

outlined in the presentation earlier, but the sustainable community strategy is requiring the bay area to hit a 15% greenhouse gas production per capita level for the bay area. in order to hit that area, mtc assigned a certain level of housing production growth in each of the various sub- jurisdictions in the bay area. in santa sysco, based off of -- in san sysco, based off -- in san francisco, based of projections, these numbers illustrate the amount of housing units that need to be produced over the next 25 years to hit that 50%. but a segregated into the two columns.

as we saw earlier, priority development communities have borne the brunt of displacement and gentrification in this city. to explain a little bit further, the orange number is based on projections. in the party development areas, we have to hit about 33,000 units. citywide, we have to hit about 40,000 units.

basically, our debt is about 245 million in priority. president olague: we may end up asking you more questions, based on the presentation. agon turklin? >> i swear this is not a prop. i just picked her up from day care. it really is about the children. that is why we are here. [laughter] that is why you are going to do the right thing. i am the regional planning director of spur. i have not been at the planning commission for a long time because i do a lot of regional work. i've spent a lot of time at a

project called downtown san francisco. a lot of investment is to take place downtown in order for it to grow. it is about bringing resources to bear. there is a lot taking place at the regional scale. i want to commend city staff. san francisco is present in a lot of places, working groups at the regional scale, looking at targets and indicators. san francisco is there more so than in an entire district -- an entire decade.

>> [vocalizing] >> i know. thank you. it is really a realignment of how we saw transportation money. it is about aligning transportation money with a land use vision. that is what sustainable strategy is doing. it is connecting those strategies together. but remember, this is the first time. this is state law. it will still be here three years from now. this is a learning process to make sure we do it right. we will not necessarily get all the realignment of infrastructure funding in this particular round, but it is what we are trying to do. i think the messages a couple of things. san francisco can play an

important leadership role in doing good leadership planning, much better than other cities in the region. even though there is a fair amount of gross san francisco is projected to make, it is not alone. oakland and san jose will also grow a lot. san jose is good to grow a lot more than san francisco, in a much more difficult fiscal environment. there are places throughout the region around transit stops as well. there are priority development areas that are also going to grow. lastly, i would say that growth is going to come through funding. san francisco has really been involved. president olague: we have a couple of speaker cards. we do have someone from bernal heights, brad paul. fernandez marti and calvin

welsh. >> my name is william ho. i am a senior project manager with the colonel heights community center. i am here to speak about affordable housing. growth is a necessary component of any policy. help the communities are diverse -- healthy communities are reversed. sec needs to directly address the need for affordable housing. the market cannot meet

affordable housing needs in the city. from 2009, san francisco underperformed in meeting housing production goals, even though the real estate market was at its peak. i mean a renewed public commitment filling this gap. scs has allocation targets, but there is no mechanism to ensure balance, or regulations. there needs to be a community stabilization policy in place. acquisition and rehabilitation of housing stock is important, along with a focus on new construction. the policy of replacement is also necessary. we must create a fair and realistic arena across the region, recognizing the need to produce affordable housing in

communities and urban corridors. we need a regional funding source to help areas that are most vulnerable. we need to incentivize the production of market rate and affordable housing, to prevent displacement as neighborhoods and low income communities grow. the cannot have a sustainable community without housing at all income levels. president olague: if you are part of choo-choo, you have had your block. >> i want to add a few more comments on affordable housing. i am with asian neighborhood design. in addition to affordable housing, there are a couple other issues going through some of these things, one being employment and economic development as a critical piece

that needs to be linked to increased density. how people are going to afford to live in the housing that is created is not only a question of affordable housing, but also the work force development attached to that. second, i mentioned the question of parking. looking at the location of eastern neighborhoods, where most of this stuff is good to be located, how we create emissions reductions when, for example, in the 900 folsom project, it was located a block away from the subway station and had almost one to one parking. when we look at what transfer development looks like, we need to push not only affordability, but infrastructure parking and economic development.

peter put up in texas study from the eastern neighborhoods -- put up a nexus study from the eastern neighborhoods. it put up these that would provide the infrastructure for all the increased development that came in the plan. a subsequent study that developed a fee structure for what could be charged to a developer came up with a number that was about half of the needed these are needed amount to provide that infrastructure. as we look at 55,000 new housing units in these areas, how will we be providing the needed infrastructure, in terms of increased to of care, open spaces, and transportation infrastructure? thank you.

>> brad paul, speaking as a father and an uncle, as you'll see in a minute. why should we care? why should we care affordable housing is not bill? i want to say what my nephew said, who just turned 32. he just got his first living wage job is his entire life. until then, he worked at shopping malls, where there would not hire him for more than 20 hours a week. he drove two to three hours a day to go to work. what did he drive? he did not drive a car for more than 18 months. the cat dying on him. he drove cars that got a terrible gas mileage. the belched black smoke out the back. he drove it until it died. the problem is that we keep not building affordable housing. wiki driving working poor families in the city and the region further out into the

suburbs. they will be around no transit, no drums, no walkable places. there will be buying $3,000 cars. one of those undoes all the good that 10 or 15 priuses does. as everything gentrifies because people want to live there transit, where did those people go? where do they work? most importantly, what do they drive? a year ago, i was at a conference in washington, d.c.. a white paper was presented at a ford foundation gathering in new york, written by nina the ulcer -- nina belzer. the vast majority of tod in this company is a giant retail over giant parking garages.

if that is smart growth, i missed it. we think of a transit village. those of the exceptions, and not the rules. my fear is that well as operationally smart growth mean something, we need to look to what is happening to our population patterns of dispersal, and especially today. the few years back, and during the housing boom, we had more resources for affordable housing than ever. we never reached more than 50% of our goals. what do we do now, when there is no more local money, no inclusion mary handing money -- no inclusionary housing money? how do we replace that? if we do not, more people are going to live in fairfax, driving $2,000 cars, polluting like we have never seen. president olague: thank you. gendan fujioka.

>> we have an office in oakland. i sit on one of the equity working groups with mtc. i wanted to raise a question or to request. the whole bay area is looking to san francisco as providing leadership in this area. i think it is great to have the participation of staff from the planning department in a number of these discussions. i think one of the challenges we face is to get real numbers about what we can get in terms of affordability over this next time. i think some of the previous commentators raised this concern about not portable housing. it does not do as good if we

build affordable housing at the same time we are losing it through displacement and gentrification. a recent study from abag called "development without displacement" researches displacement effect in san francisco from 1996 through 2006. the data results were stunning. another is not time to cover all the data in there. there is information worth considering. one of the findings was that a replacement levels in areas that are considered high transit in san francisco have the highest rates of displacement. the communities that were being displaced were primarily lower income households.

this chart shows a decline of 32% of low and very low income households and high transit areas. that is in six years, from 2000 to 2006, in san francisco. the study tracked by ethnicity and income where people were going. it found that is proportionately the population is being displaced were communities of color. there were being displaced to communities with poorer transit. the outcome of this process may be that although we continue to provide greater access to transit, lower income folks will have to drive in, and in essence generate more vehicle miles traveled. you do not seem maids, cooks, and gardeners taking light rail to work.

they do not have transit. as people get displaced further and further out from the urban corridor, the result is going to be the opposite of our intended efforts, which is more greenhouse gases. there is also in equity. -- inequity. president olague: any additional public comment? >> good evening. marc solomon, mission resident, ground zero for ted next to have ways. i worked on the transportation plan for the western settlement. i associate myself with the remarks on community housing. never say never. greenhouse gas reductions. is there evidence in a full life cycle analysis that new san

francisco housing, as built, competes with suburban sprawl? if someone is going to choose between a rincon hill condo and tracy, i do not think that is a realistic economic comparison. the land-use plans in san francisco were built at the height of the bubble. the presumed realistic economics were normative. it turns out there were an aberration. yet we are still dealing with state laws that were built when real-estate and money to invest in lobbyists. with current economics, or economics likely to take place over the next 20 years, that is cold water. how can we expect the city to reduce greenhouse gases when all tod is located within three blocks of an exit ramp of a highway? this department is planning to up-zone the area just south of the freeway under the theory that it will be tod.

i do not think that will be the case. our apartment is facing 100 new parking spaces under the guidance of tod. every dollar you invest in transit capital is more important than transit investment. we have to be sure we have no new investment in transit capital until we have operations resources that can run the existing transit system. only when we have additional operations resources to run the new capital investment -- or else we are going to be falling further behind. can we make developers pay their fair share for development and infrastructure under these plans? they have made that not happen to political power. as a compromise, we need to make it so developers cannot build until the partner with the community to identify ways to figure out how to get money to keep the transit system running on operations and additional capital infrastructure, as i

remarked earlier. that is the compromise position. we will not let them build until the partner with the community to make this work. that will make developers the best allies of transit and affordable housing you can't imagine, if those were linked. the director made a comment in his letter to the mtc that said it was a threat that neighbors might go to the ballot to demand such a metering. the threat is that we will entitle new development that does not meet our needs and take away from existing infrastructure. thank you. president olague: thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini: a few observations on this. very interesting comments about who are the commuters. one group i think we all will acknowledge are completely underserved our middle income

families in san francisco. i think they comprise a very high level of the traffic coming into san francisco. we know their numbers in san francisco have diminished over the last few decades to a very low level relative to the entire population. one of the things we have to try to do as we look at this growth is mary the job growth which is projected with the housing growth. another thing that was very well done is the area's -- the areas, are also the areas where the largest housing growth is projected. what we do have to do is address our lack of transit within san francisco, particularly in the

areas such as treasure island, hunters point, and parkmerced, which generally are underserved by transportation. we have to figure how we will get transit to the areas where jobs are being created. this is a good graphic, and it sounds really good. much of the 61% our suburban commuters coming in on bart. they are well served. someone in the richmond district is not well served. one reason they may not live there is they do not want to go on a bus that will take an hour to get them to their work from an area that is 5 miles away. even though it may cost more to build transit the right way, with its own right of way in subways or exclusive right of

ways, it is worth doing it once and doing it right. to go around in circles -- i know is an improvement, but it is taking a lot of time. it is costing a lot of money. it is going to eliminate parking lanes. traffic is going to have to go somewhere. people will not stop driving from san jose to the no. they just because we have taken a lane of traffic away. we should look to the big picture on transit, figuring out how we could improve trend -- improve san francisco transit to serve the suburban communities. those of the big things. even as far back as 1918, when we had a problem with non-having enough housing, they did not say we would build a little trail over twin peaks and run a horse and buggy. they dug a tunnel and were able to develop that part of the city.

i think we have to have the same philosophy if we are going to develop all these units in hunters point and bayview. how are we going to get those people to the downtown area where jobs are being created, quickly, so there will want to live there? there will not want to wait around for a bus to figure out how to get their -- there. we need to make the type of housing people are demanding, the kind that isn't being built, particularly family housing. they are going to want parking most of the time. the would like to have a little space of their own. these are the groups leaving san francisco for the very reasons that we are not creating part.

we are not creating housing appropriate to their needs. those are the things we have to look at in this picture. i think we can do a lot to decrease emissions if we address these problems. what do we have to do to keep jobs in san francisco and mary these jobs which residents that hold these jobs so people are not on highways, driving long distances. vice president miguel: i would like to compliment the presentation and the work they have been doing in the departments. six to nine months after sb 379 passed, i was asked to be on a regional panel at berkeley. i had to do a little study to catch up a bit. but i found it very interesting

the representatives in san francisco, berkeley, and oakland got it. they understood what it was about. but if you went further east, north, or south to get it, they did not know anything about it. they are not point to get it. i keep in somewhat touch with the organizations that sponsored this. i read through their e-mails. they are starting to see a little more action. but i do not think i understand what is required in this regard. i appreciated the comments that people looked at san francisco as a leader in this. that does not mean we are perfect. we are obviously not. we do, in effect, get it a little bit more. commissioner antonini echoes what we heard in our morning session regarding glenn park.

when the first electric many of its time started to go out to that area, it had the transit infrastructure and the area that was developed. it is costly to do it that way, to put it in before it is needed. but it is the only logical way it should go. he should not have to build a thousand units of housing in order to afford a transit. i do not know where the money is coming from. i do not think it has to come entirely from extraction's from the new developers in the new area. there has to be some equity involved.

everything the organizations are saying is correct. there is no question about it. that infrastructure -- that for my was that over in berkeley was basically on low income and communities of color. the reconsidering those items predominantly. but everything everybody has been saying today is correct. i do not know where the money is coming from in order to do the planning correctly. commissioner sugaya: i would like to think planning staff and mta for the hard work. i think everyone is trying to meet whatever the requirements are. i also appreciate comments by the audience. i think that sets a different perspective on the issue of how to implement what the legisln