funding to do so. liz during her presentation will talk a little about the funding that is connected through the one bay area block grant framework, but just like our local plans try to address things like how we're providing affordable housing, how we're connecting residents to jobs, how we're providing job training or community education, the region is looking at how they can support our efforts to do so and that will be a new component that will be very welcome to us in the coming years. with that i'll turn it over to liz. ~ >> good afternoon, commissioners. liz bryson with the san francisco county transportation authority. and the authority has been very involved in sort of coordinating san francisco's input into the funding process. we've had a really great experience working with all of the relevant agencies, the planning department, the sfmta's mayor's office of housing, among others. there has been some real

successes as a result of that coordination and we've had great wins for san francisco in that process. so, sarah gave a great overview of the new requirements of doing this joint regional land use and transportation plan as a result of [speaker not understood]. just a little bit of background on the transportation component of that. the region a.m. transportation plan, this is something that the region has been doing for many, many years, updated every four years, and it's important to note a little bit about the regional transportation is and is not. so, it kind of has two roles. on the one hand it is a sort of symbolic policy commitment by the region of what the region's transportation investment priorities are. and on the other hand it plays a more strategic role related to being a gate keeper to receiving transportation funding. so, we in san francisco try to make sure anything we expect to need, any funding coming from the federal, state, or regional levels in the next four years

before the next update to the plan, we try really hard to make sure it ends up in the rtp in order to ensure that we can be eligible for the funding sources. and, so, to that end we actually do a lot of our prioritization of san francisco transportation priorities through a county level process that i know we've briefed you on before, the san francisco transportation plan. that's really where we do our priority setting process, and then we forward things to the region and try to advocate for the right regional transportation priorities. and just one more note on the san francisco transportation plan. i won't spend much time on it during today's presentation, but we have been updating it in parallel to this process and are approaching the final throws of that this summer. ~ so, i have two slides that sort of overview what is in the plan bay area in terms of transportation investment. the first one shows a breakdown of all of the funding that is expected to come into the

region between now and 20 40. that includes federal, state, regional funds ~. it also includes locally generated funds. some examples of that would be the prop k tax that we administer here in san francisco. also the type of transportation investment that comes with new development that comes from the private sector. so, there are $289 billion expected from all the sources between now and 20 40 which sounds like a tremendous amount of money. it is actually not enough relative to the needs that have been projected. and this sort of shows how that funding is broken down with the two big chunks representing maintenance and operations. 80% of the funds are expected to go towards those needs and it's about enough -- not even quite enough to maintain approximately today's level of maintenance, which isn't necessarily an ideal state of repair. and the remainder is split

between expense and transit expansion that is a slightly bigger share of 70%, road expansion 5%. so, now moving from the 289 billion, of that 289, a lot of it the region has no discretion as to where it would be spent. examples will be locally generating sources. so, the real important decisions in the plan have to do with the $57 billion that the region has some role in saying where it should be directed within the region. and there are six main strategies for how that 57 billion should be distributed among the region. again, of the discretionary revenue, there is a big chunk dedicate today maintaining the transportation system. a second category is the 1 bay area grant. this is a really important and new funding program. i know when i was here last time, nine months ago, i gave a little bit of an overview about it.

generally this is the first time that the region has really tied transportation money to land use and good land use decisions. so, while a traditional formula for distribution funding from the region to the counties looks at pretty much your share of the population, your share of land miles and you get a share of the money based on that, this time that formula also includes consideration of a jurisdiction's track record in producing housing and particularly affordable housing, as well as future plans to accommodate more housing through the regional housing needs allocation process. so, this is actually a really great achievement of the plan. it's something that we in san francisco advocated for -- you know, we've done the good work and the hard work of doing good land use planning and there needs to be some commensurate investment in transportation. it's not perfect, but it's a very symbolic gesture and a great achievement of this plan. and that funding needs to be

spent 70% in support of priority development areas. so, in san francisco you saw the map of our priority development areas. another chunk of the tide goes to building the next generation of transit. i'll speak a little bit about what that means in san francisco in the following slides. there is a chunk of about 7% that goes to boosting freeway and transit efficiency. this represents two different programs. the freeway performance initiative and the transit performance initiative. now, the freeway performance initiative is something that's been around for awhile. it's how can we manage our existing freeway system for efficiently. so, things like ramp metering, things like infrastructure that lets you know when there is an incident, and clear it, and things of that nature. and the transit performance initiative is a new investment. it's one that never existed before and is another thing that we in san francisco advocated to be there as a counter point to the freeway performance initiative and the

region has made a 500 million dollars commitment to that, to that program over the lifetime of the plan. i think that's a good overview of the main investments here. next slide just talks about what are the aspects of this plan that we see as really strong from the transportation side and for san francisco specifically. one is that the region did what is called a project performance evaluation to determine which transportation projects would be included in the plan. there was over 100 evaluated against the target that sarah described at the beginning of the presentation. out of all 100 plus projects, there were 13 that were called out as the, as the high performers that sort of stood out as being the most supportive of the goals and targets of the plan. and out of those 13, 7 of them were ones that would benefit san francisco. so, that's more than half and

considering san francisco is just one county out of 9 and we're a small share of the regional population, that's a pretty good track record. and the result of that is that the region has made policy commitment to support those projects with discretionary revenues. some of that 58 billion goes to support those types of projects. and the table on the right of the slide shows those high performers with the ones that our san francisco projects highlighted. i talked about the 1 bay area grant program already, but that's another thing that we can really point to san francisco's advocacy as something that helped it happen. in particular, one thing that we did that wasn't in the initial proposal was to say an initial proposal was about making investment in housing in general. we say, william, you should get extra money if you're really doing the hard work of affordable housing, affordable housing is very controversial topic throughout the region. san francisco tends to perform very well in producing very low

and low-income housing and that is weighted within the formula. transit performance initiatives, again, new program, never created before, really good program that was a result of advocacy from us as well as others in the region. so, that said, it's not perfect as any regional plan never would be and it has to represent the needs of a nine-county region and the constrained funding viardthv that ~ environment we're working under, this is one challenge that remains in terms of state of good repair. even though 88% of the revenue that is expected to support maintenance and operations, this is our latest projection of what the shortfall is in san francisco that we've calculated as part of our county wide transportation plan process to the order of 6 plus billion dollars over a 28 year period. that's a challenge that remains. there's others from transit

crowding to congestion to all sorts of other things. we'll be looking at county wide transportation plan coming up with what are the next generation of projects and policies that we need to respond to those challenges. just a little bit to transition into -- so, this plan is going to be adopted by july. what happens after that and what is already underway to implement the plan? well, on the one hand, i mentioned these two programs, the freeway performance and transit performance initiative. these are new programs of funds and typically in approximately a three or four-year cycle, the region then makes a funding -- a programming decision about a tranche of that funding. so, san francisco has the challenge wren now and the next cycle of the funding to really define what do these programs look like in san francisco, what is the specific project that we could get to the point of being ready to implement those funds. so, on the freeway performance initiative side, san francisco has really never benefited from these funds before, but we've

been doing some really great brainstorming between the authorities, sfmta, planning department to put in a caltrans planning grant to look at ways we can racks allies the freeway ramps, thinking in particular about the soma area as one example where the ramps are very closely spaced, less than half a mile apart, and not that well designed, and there may be opportunities to repurpose some ramps for transit or car pools and things of that nature. so, that's an idea of the -- example of the planning work we might do to set up implementable projects. similarly on the transit performance initiative side, there is some thinking that's been done, the authority, sfmta about looking at those sort of hinge points in the metro system and what are the types of [speaker not understood] to deal with the bottleneck be it the embarcadaro turn around or west portal and where [speaker not understood] come together. i mentioned how there's shortfalls that remain for many

projects and a couple of -- there's an entire advocacy platform that the region has put together to couple to highlight of particular note, one is cap and trade as an entirely new revenue source and there's been some talk at the region of let's make sure the region is clear what our priorities are so we can make sure that we're successful in bringing down a share of the cap and trade revenues locally. and secondly, sarah talked a little about this, the challenge of this goal of achieving all of the housing needs by income level and the region. the plan is predicated on assuming there is some sort of a replacement to the redevelopment tool that was lost. so, that's something that i know there will be a lot of attention on, trying to achieve that in the coming years. and finally, i talked a little about how the -- we go from this 28-year general idea of how funding will be planned,

distributed to specific tranches of actual implementation funding. so, a cycle of that funding is underway to be programmed. it's known as the 1 bay area grant framework. and within that framework there are specific funding programs which include this block grant that i described. so, the authority has been working to program that cycle of funds. we did a call for projects process that began in the fall and we've been working with the implementing transportation agencies in san francisco to distribute and program $38.8 million. and the final recommendations for that funding i think are to go throughout our process in the next month. a couple examples, there's so far been a sort of process to rate the projects in terms of being in the high or a middle high tier and some that came through the first round being the high tier include the 2nd street scape project, masonic project and improvements around the transbay center for

bicyclists and pedestrians. so, one other thing to note on the near term funding horizon, the same funding program that created the block grant also created -- didn't create, it programmed a share of funding for our program called the priority development area raring program. now, this is a program that previously was administered at the regional level and in this plan it's been decided that half of it will go directly to counties to be administered at the county level. in san francisco the planning department will be administering that fund source. it is expected to be -- it will be $2.38 million over a four-year cycle. and it's a really cool way to think about the next cycle of this 1 bay area grant and doing the planning work you need to do to set up a project to be ready for implementation funding that comes with very strict timely use of fund

deadlines. so, in order to think more about these questions of using the pda planning funds and future abag funds, the authority is actually required to prepare something that we call the transportation investment and growth strategy which is pretty much an exercise to synthesize a lot of work we've done through all of the priority development area plans looking at transportation needs, bringing it together in order to help us be able to think about what the transportation priorities are within each of the pda's. so, i will leave it at that. we put together a draft document with input from the different agencies, sort of being refined and we'll take it through a board process at our authority board in the summer. and i'm going to now turn the presentation over to victoria to do the e-i-r section and at the end would be happy to answer any questions.

>> thank you, victoria, [speaker not understood]. we've been reading the draft e-i-r and the plan bay area as are many jurisdictions have as well because the draft e-i-r is currently out for public review. as sarah mentioned, that 45 days closes next week on thursday. so, i will just give you a brief overview, sort of high level about how the e-i-r, a little about the contents and focus the discussion on the draft e-i-r potential for ceqa review and implications surrounding that. as all of you are very familiar with and the e-i-r focus of course is to analyze the plan bay area 1 into bring to decision makers the impact the plan will result in. and just as importantly to put forth mitigation measures to address those impacts. and of course, as with any e-i-r, identify and analyze a reasonable range of alternatives. and then provide the basis for modified c-e-q-a review.

just very briefly talk about the alternatives. as with any e-i-r, this draft e-i-r covers the new project alternative which assumes all the land uses and local policies that existed in 2010 along with the 2010 transportation network. and then the proposed plan sarah and liz described to you already, and then an alternative section talks a little about the transit priority focus alternative, and that basically focuses future household growth and concentrates on the pda areas which a map you've seen earlier in the presentation. and then it has an mtc's preferred transportation investment strategy which as liz mentioned provides 90% of the funding towards o and m existing facilities -- i'm sorry, i misspoke. the transit bay area focus alternative actually is a little bit different from the preferred [speaker not understood] strategy in that [speaker not understood] bay bridge tolls to fund some of

the bart and ac transit investments and then it has a development fee linked to vehicle miles traveled. then if we take a look at the enhanced network communities alternative, it's similar, although this is an interesting alternative in that it allows for more disbursed growth pattern and concentrated in pda as much as the preferred plan. and as far as the transportation investment portion of, it is very similar plan, but it has [speaker not understood]. number 5 equity jobs [speaker not understood]. focuses on job opportunities [speaker not understood]. in terms of e-i-r alternative number 5 is what we call the environmentally preferred alternative. it results in fewer environmental impacts in the plan but i think what's important to note about this is

that it really is marginally better in terms of impact on the environment and that's really key. just in terms of overall impacts of the plan, you know, it's going to result in 39 significant unavoidable impacts on the environment and then about 42 total impacts would be less than significant or we are going to be able to mitigate them in the region. one of the things that is important to note about the significant and unavoidable impact might strike you, 39 significant unavoidable impacts, but actually great proportion of those are determined significant and unavoidable because mtc and abag have no ability to control local jurisdiction and positions the mitigation measures and project sponsors in different projects. for ceqa purposes and conservative analysis they say, well, we really can't control if local jurisdictions are going to implement these mitigation measures. and because of that we're going to say that plan results in significant and unavoidable impacts. so, with that just wanted to

focus the discussion a little bit on the potential of c-e-q-a review implications of the draft e-i-r. so, one of the goals is to provide for modified c-e-q-a review with the intent to encourage land use planning and development that's consistent with the sustainable community strategies. and specifically what that means is after adoption of the sustainable communities strategy of this plan, certain projects, mixed use projects, transit priority projects, and sustainable community projects, that meet a very particular set of criteria and do not have additional impacts on the environment like historic resource, for example, may qualify for an exemption under c-e-q-a. now, i and my staff have spent a lot of time examining the various criterias that these projects would have to meet in order to qualify for this particular review under sb 375. and we have spent a lot of time looking at those.

it's our opinion that the environmental review under this particular branch under 375 would be very similar to what we performed today under our categorical exemption review standards, particularly exemption number 32, and also under our community plan exemptions that we do for adopted area plans. and i think it's worth noting adopted area plans cover much of the city where we expect a lot of the growth that sarah has talked about would occur by 20 40 ~. so, having said that, though, i did want to highlight a couple of implications that if the city chose to perform c-e-q-a review under sb 375, there could be some potential benefits that could be gained and those are the standard of review would be different for a negative declaration. right now the standard of review is [speaker not understood] under sb 375 or under this plan it will be the substantial evident standard which defers to the lead

agencies and expertise. if we do end up performing an e-i-r, for instance, one of the benefits would be that we would not have to look at off-site alternatives in our e-i-r analysis. it is relatively rare for us to do that in the city, but we do have projects for which we do that and in the future if we opt to proceed c-e-q-a calls under 375, we may not have to do that. similarly, and i think this is probably the most important one, is when we do an e-i-r for residential project under sb 375, we will not have to look at a reduced development alternative that's driven by the traffic impact to the project. so, oftentimes what happens and as you know, we look at alternatives in an attempt to mitigate the project's impact. as we've seen a number of times, transportation, of course, causes a number of impacts in the city. so, then, the e-i-r forces a look at a reduced project alternative and explore how we can mitigate the level of service impacts that we've see in our local network. if we pursue [speaker not understood] under sb 375, we

will no longer have to do that. and then we will no locker have to look at work inducing projects specifically cumulative impacts related to vehicle impacts in global warming and regional network. that doesn't mean that we won't have to consider transportation impacts on our local streets, though, for this one. wanted to highlight that. so, with that, what staff is going to be doing over the course of the next number of months is once the e-i-r is finalized, we're going to take a look at this again and come up with some guidance as to what is appropriate to use the sb 375 c-e-q-a process. but ultimately i don't anticipate that we'll be using it a lot because our existing exemptions, particularly the community plan exemption, offers many of the benefits that this would as well. so, we're a little ahead of the game in implementing our cpe currently in the city. and then just to go about -- there are a number of draft e-i-r issues that we're working with mtc and abag on resolving.

there's a lot of mitigation measures in the draft e-i-r and we're trying to sort out with mtc and abag whether if we do end up wanting to use the environmental review process under sb 375, are we then forced to implement all of the mitigation measures within that e-i-r? can we substitute some of our own that we think work better for our jurisdiction in terms of applicability and our unique environment and so on and so porttion? we'll be working with them to try and clarify some of these things in the near future. thank you very much. >> thank you. thank all of you for that presentation. is there any public comment on this item? sue hester. not one person that spoke

mentioned the fact that san francisco uniquely of all the bay area counties created a lot of plan by filling the bay. they're filling marshes, our entire bay front, starting with the golden gate bridge all the way to daily city's fill land. i have punished you by heming in my map of fill areas and of sea level rise. the department has them. it doesn't register. we have designated the area for exceeding growth in areas that are marshes south of market and mission bay or bay hill. we have a fascination with creating problems in san francisco. and of all people, the planning department should not be making things worse.

they talked about going out 25 years. i will be jane morrison's age in 25 years. and, so, a lot of you will be still around and active. we are going to have a problem. and if the planning department doesn't bring up the issue of the conflict between growth in areas that are bay fill, who is going to bring it up? second issue, the other thing that really bothers me is that everyone ignores the displacement factor. we cannot build ourselves out of our problem. if we build high in housing next to affordable what is now affordable, what used to be affordable housing, and people decide there is a great opportunity upscale the housing, we wind up with a very expensive city. i don't know what the percentage of the planning

department lived in san francisco when i moved here in 1969 and what percentage of it is now. my guess is it has had a decrease because people can't afford to live in this city. we have lost affordable housing. we have lost middle class housing. and we are getting a lot of really, really, really, really high-end housing, especially along the waterfront. people that can afford second and third homes come into this city and the people that are struggling to stay in this city in a one and only home are displaced. so, if there is no comment from victoria on the map of sea level rise, it is unacceptable from the city and i guess i have to do it. but you make an awful lot of money in the planning department and you shouldn't depend on [speaker not understood] like me to comment on this all the time.

>> thank you. any further public comment on this item? hi, my name is gary virginia. i live in the castro district since 1987. i hadn't planned to speak, but i thought i heard one of the presenters say that san francisco does a pretty good job providing low-income and affordable housing. i hope i heard that wrong because i can't believe that's true. we have all this development going into the upper market and castro area and very little of it is affordable. since i've lived here, i've been evicted from a tenancy in common. i'm a person with aids for 20 some years now. my senior citizen friend who just died this year at 81 has been homeless ever since we were evicted as roommates because she couldn't find anything. we left a $1,300 two-bedroom apartment and i got lucky and found a place, she didn't. and she couch hopped for 10 years. i have other friends that have moved out of the city, out of

the state, they can't afford it. and, you know, i just watched a condo across the street on hancock street sell for $6 99,000 six months ago. it's back on the market for $7 99,000. the house that was built next to my apartment that's rent controlled, the top unit went for $4500 when it was built a few years ago. it just rented out at $7,250 a month. if i lose my rent controlled apartment as a person living with aids, i'm paying about $17 83. that apartment is probably on the market worth about 4500 to $5,000. where am i going to go? and to hear the plan say that you're doing something about affordable or low-income housing is really an insult. all of my friends who are senior, disabled, working, middle class, and i'm talking about friends that are making $75,000 a year, we can't compete with people coming in with high income that can do full cash offers on homes.

they can come in and say, i can pay the security deposit, first month, last month, this month, and shell out 5 to $8,000 a month for rent. so, i sort of fell asleep through part of the long presentations, but that part caught my ear. so, thank you, sue hester, for speaking up. and i hope you'll look at the plan appropriately. thank you. >> thank you. any further public comment? okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >> yeah, a couple of comments in regards to public comment. if, in fact, the sea level rise that is predicted occurs, it will be even more drastic in the south bay because that's -- there's marsh land down there that's also been filled below, or is very low. so, that would be an area of concern. that's not something we're talking about, although it's part of this whole plan. and on some of the other