legislation because it was forcing us to think of the to but more about coordinating transportation and housing and addressing through greenhouse gas the whole issue of regional planning. some of the presentation today seems like -- i do not know the entire background on the legislation. i am sorry. it seems somewhat backwards to me now that we're being forced into this through what i see -- maybe this is heresy. artificial greenhouse gas targets. why are we picking 15%? why isn't it 20%? why isn't it 10%? i do not think there is a real scientific basis. but we are stuck with it because it is state law. that is one concern.

the other concern is how equitably all of this housing distribution is going to take place around the region. communities from alameda can have ordinances that prevent housing. how are they being treated by abag in terms of the regional housing allocation? lastly, it was not part of the presentation, and i apologize for not being familiar with the legislation, but all of the approvals were done on the regional level, according to the floater to have here. and suppose the only way we influenced it is to continue to be involved in the process. it does not look like things are

inequitable. what kind of penalties are there? but if communities do not meet their targets? >> is more of a carrot than a stick. we are required to demonstrate that the land use plans are in accordance with the adopted plan in the region. you can use the alternative. in our community, and the other communities that are not doing the same planet everybody has talked about, or are not meeting responsibilities toward

housing -- because it is ^ based, by not conforming, -- because it is carrot based, by not conforming, you do not get funding for transportation infrastructure projects. we hope it will include affordable housing funding. there are some very vague and unsure benefits about reductions the proposed. commissioner sugaya: as long as you are still up on your feet, can you describe a little bit more what these projects are supposed to look like?

>> the rtt projects? commissioner sugaya: there was mention that you would issue a call for project ideas. >> the regional transportation plan -- this round of projects is seeking project ideas for initial vetting. in order to contain the universe of projects, the most important project to be included that is going to need federal funding or state funding -- in order to seek federal or state grants, you need to be in the rtp. ne capacity-enhancing project needs to also be in the rtp. finally, a large project that

cost a lot should be in the rtp so we have consensus in the community. ideas that are most important fall into that project there is the trans pay terminal, the central subway, and all the lines we have been working on -- balboa, glen park, and the south of market area, the eastern neighborhood, central freeway and octavia. we have a list of projects. we know a lot of them are partners. we do invite members of the public to submit their ideas, just to make sure we have the

right list. commissioner moore: i sense a great deal of discomfort between the idealism of the idea, responding to the challenges of the legislation, and the reality of how it relates to the state of california. the city is easily jumping onto every answer without asking the next question. i would agree that realizing the funding vacuum and asking ourselves who is affected sets the right way to respond to the challenge. if they set a state law -- we

found ourselves last december being challenged by proposition 23 to overturn the entire thing. what are we rushing to be the first one to respond to something which we have not even been asked to examine how it can work? i believe there is an examination of the type of housing we have. we basically do not have rules which speaks to how you identify existing housing stock and still maintain a livability which will be guaranteed into the future. i find that discussion basically a discussion which is not based on the same type of equitable way. i have lived in this city all my life. on the other hand, i have lived

in a country where the higher density rules are much more fine grained. they have light, air, and livability as a metric for how you fill in and what you can do. building spacing, tower spacing, hours of sunlight in your home are all protected rights of ability. we are identifying this without ever having asked that question. here is another variance. have we really asked all the questions? are we displacing the real heart and soul of the city, which is the entire variety of people who live here, and move it bunch of people packing because they cannot afford living here anymore? i found mr. rand paul's comments

challenging. mr. sullivan had important things to say. we need to look how we are responding to this. i find this diagram frightening. i am not prepared to sit here as planning commission and say where to go because we are responding to a state mandate. i cannot do that. commissioner borden: i will reiterate what other people said, and think members of the public. -- think members of public -- of the public. we do not even on land for the most part. other people have land. they develop it as they see fit. the cost is expensive. we all struggle with what would be the right policy or responses. dealing with infrastructure is smart. i think it is challenging. it is a thing we grapple with when we look at projects in issues around parking, the

reality of transit and the promise of transit. i know you were handling the funding and the bigger projects. talk about muni. when we talk about the plan and the transit effects put forward, how is that all working together? >> that is a great question. there is a big disconnect. it goes back to the disconnect other commissioners have identified in terms of our goals, which are aspirational. we do not have enough funding for basic services that meet existing population needs in terms of any number of service areas, but especially transit. the funds for transit operators in the whole state have legislo plug the budget crisis. that instability is worrisome. the long-term trend that has been more worrisome.

there are deep service cuts july 1. we have known this for all the transit operators, who of been struggling and trying to look for revenue. that causes other distortions in public policy, like raising parking fees, when it is not parking policy, but the need to shore up operating deficits. this is not a local or state problem. it is a national problem. our national funding problem is week. the gas tax has not been raised at the federal or state level for decades. the highway trust fund is funded by the gas tax. we do not have enough to maintain our federal transportation system. it is discouraging. transit is something the mtc is

acknowledging. we have led a transit system ability project. looking at the region, the bay area has six transit operators. are there ways to better produce transit in this region than to have 26 operators? are there other ways to create more stable funding options, whether from automobile user fees, parcel taxes, gas taxes, sales taxes, and a range of potential sources? that discussion is happening in parallel. we cannot be pursuing this growth policy without a having the resources not only to pay for the capital, but the operating funds to run that service. commissioner borden: would that be our get out of jail free cards? you just discussed a constraint scenario we had to take into

account with the public plan. we have the reality that we do not have the funding for existing transit. >> this time around, the mtc has offered to you as discretionary transit sources for the first time. in the past, those funding sources were considered committed or non-discretionary. mpc is putting on the table certain funding sources, including transit funding sources. san francisco has an opportunity to grow the share of the pie or places that are producing all of this planet -- all of this transit. oakland and san jose will also have some claim to that. a dollar that goes to transit operations may not be going to road maintenance, may not be going to highway development or other parties in the region. san francisco has to advocate clearly and strenuously -- we succeed best when we speak with

one voice in the city family, but also when we coordinate with san jose and oakland to build a coalition of advocacy within the region that pushes back on the rest of the region, which has a lot more density -- not density, but a lot more population than san francisco. we want to grow the piper san francisco. there are opportunities to create more revenues in a thoughtful way, in coalition with other partners. commissioner borden: what is san mateo county doing? >> interesting. they are concerned about transportation operations, perhaps not as much as oakland and san jose. we have been looking at that problem. we have a lot of debate over

what to read with to solve that is. i think that is pointed to be worked out of the next few months. the all looking at it. people are looking at parcel taxes, sales taxes. the likelihood of either of these passing without looking at the main operator, and bundling that together in the package -- that is probably not the most viable way for san francisco residents. they are looking at putting an hov lane on 1012 santa clara. -- on one 01 t -- on 101 to santa clara. there could be a high occupancy tolling. these are new ideas coming through to try to rationalize

the funding sources, to grow the funding sources, to manage the corridor within which 101 and california trained to operate. we are looking at this in partnership with the other counties. commissioner borden: are the meeting yet? the conversation where we are -- is there anyone else at this point? is anybody else having a hearing talking about this right now? >> mta i think is taking a look at it. there are conversations on the policy level. commissioner borden: the issue around transit is ongoing. i mean, we have a plan around transit, but no plan to fund the transit. it is counterintuitive as the thinking process.

at the state level, there needs to be an effort to look at how we locate things we do not fund. it is an unfunded mandate. it is something i think we cannot not think about any more. new york and new jersey have a regional transit authority for their airport, for the transit system. the opera cost is not serving the bay area well, especially when you see empty buses in other corridors throughout the bay area. i think you could reduce some of the policy conditions.

"can look at how -- >> you can look at how to do trend to more effectively. some operator costs run quite high. when costs run higher than inflation, that is unsustainable. i think as san franciscans, we need to acknowledge we want good transit. but we need to figure out how we're going to pay for in a stable way, and not subject to economic cycles. commissioner borden: next time, it would be great to have mta here. whatever plan you guys put together has to work together. it does not make sense. we are struggling to meet infrastructure needs for existing plants we have already improved -- already approved.

the thought of adding more infrastructure needs that are going to go unrealized is a difficult thing to consider. it pains me to hear that a lot of this is displacing people, and not the kind of affordable housing we were hoping for. >> to commend the commission, the parkmerced coming forth -- those plans help address transit needs by attaching to every household requirement of pain for a transit pass. that is tightly linked to the ability to fund transit and provide service with the growth, unit by unit. we need a transit pattern as we grow our city.

commissioner borden: thanks. president olague: i want to thank choo-choo for being here. you are speaking to growth and equity. i want to thank them for bringing this issue to us on the assembly we are hearing the housing element. i think it is critical that we look at this bigger picture and bring some of this discussion into the housing element, because i think that are related. how can we talk about regional mandates and not bring some of these issues that have been raised during public comment to our details of the housing element. one of the things a would like -- i wish i could have a conversation with people in the audience. i think the presentation was

such that i still have some outstanding questions. i will keep it brief. i would want to talk to mr. young. i would like personally -- i do not know if other commissioners are interested in getting a copy of the work you have to communities of concern. i would like a little information in a couple of minutes, if you don't mind giving me some background on how that information was compiled and what your sources were. >> thank you. i will run over quickly. i do not want to go so far. the information was compiled from looking at the background photos -- background data, and also data from mtc on what they

predict as the housing target growth to meet the 50%. based on predictions, we would have to build about 50,000 units, with about 33,000 below market rate. i see below market rate and not affordable, because that captures moderate income units and a very affordable units for low income. the amount of units is tremendous. it equals roughly 60% of the housing growth will have to hit over the next 25 years or so. when you look at the production rate from 99 to 06, what stood up to us is that if you project that ford from 2010 to 2035, we

come out to about a 17,500 unit shortfall in party district areas. the thing that is problematic. i think somebody stated earlier. if this is based upon projections, and this was the time when we had the largest and fastest rate of growth in the city, in which you're able to capture a lot of value from market rate development -- but it really shows is that even if we tax market redevelopment, we are not going to hit affordable numbers. i think that is a scary thing for us. lastly, i want to quickly show the numbers. if you monetize that gap, what it comes out to on an annual basis is roughly $245 million in priority development areas, and about $300 million city- wide.

the numbers are roughly 7 billion, based on numbers i got from staff, in which they are projecting a kind of 350,000 per unit production cost for a portable units. i think mr. shoemaker, our director of the mayor's office of housing, would tell us that in san francisco the production numbers are more on the range of $535,000 per unit. i just want to conclude with this point. i think one of the conversations among the commissioners tonight is trying to really pay attention to the infrastructure gap with regard to transportation, and i think the same lens has to apply to affordable housing. if we do not produce that

housing over the next 25 years at the rates that are necessary based on the housing element requirement, we're going to be in a situation where san francisco is going to transform into a city of high income dollars. i think a lot of studies show that the people who tend to use transit are folks on the moderate to low income scale of things. we can have all the transit and the structure we want. even if we find a way to pay for it, if we transform our population like that, we're not good to have a population that is going to use transit. i think affordable housing is critical not just from the context of equities, but from the environmental goal we are trying to hit. if this becomes a playground for high and electric condo dwellers, that are not going to use transit. a lot of environmental goals we are going after is going to be moot. president olague: if you can share that information with us

by e-mail and the secretary can distribute it, i do not know if anyone else is interested in looking at that. that's what i was good to ask for. >> this whole backdrop about transit is happening in the context of these boats in sacramento right now about the dissolution of the redevelopment agencies. it is not that there are not reasonable critiques, but if you think about the fact a billion dollars a year, the funding for affordable housing in the state, comes out of redevelopment areas. whatever it is that malcolm -- that mr. malcolm young just showed, it is worse if the boats move forward in the way we're talking about.

the comments that mr. paul, fernandez, and peter made about the need for stabilizing neighborhoods -- this is one of our primary sources of funding. i think the problem is it is not easy to opt out of the system. it is a vision anding -- a visioning exercize. it is not like you can suddenly be out of the equity problems or the air pollution problems, or whatever it is. i think the feedback for folks is what mr. paul described. we pretend we are creating a solution to environmental problems. that is a think one of the

things we have been insisting back to the staff at the regional level, who in their defense are trying to ensure the model and help us understand it. if we do not provide the affordable housing, people will need transit. to get more of the regional pi, it is important to communicate back that if we want to get their, the pie has to get bigger. we are talking about shrinking the public's fear in every shape, way, and form. either we have to change the composition of fuels or how our cars work and things like that, or we have to acknowledge that some of these things require

additional funding to get there. we are facing this crazy contradiction between the quality district push, which i think is reasonable and run public health, and the goal to try to make sure we have more transit-oriented development. you try to solve that at the level of land use by trying to govern at your transit-oriented development, are making sure everybody has inoperable windows. the cost to the system is too profound to handle. we need to push the whole production upstream, so it does not have the air quality contradictions for us on major arterial roads like mission arterial roads like mission street, the work we are doing on