accelerated to meet the schedule of adoption by 2013. we have been working very hard to keep track of it. the initial vision scenario, what is it. as you may know, there are 100 cities in the bay area. they have input on how much they plan to grow. we will talk a little bit about san francisco's input. we will distribute about 270,000 more households that have been identified as housing needs for the region. they are putting it where they think it is best placed. have they have assumed this and transportation investments. what will this division scenario show? how much trouble there is and how much miles are travel, how many tons of emissions are

produced. other equity and performance results will also be analyzed. we suspect the region will get some of the way toward our goal, but it will not be sufficient and we will need to make more specific investments have and strategies to reach the housing and emissions goals. we will also have to do more with less. the next step after the initial vision scenario requires us to use what is known as the financially constrained set of revenues. we do need to follow the region and's guidance on how much available revenue there is. we will need to prioritize investments in infrastructure within an investment unhearresos envelope. and there'll be the form of more concentrated or dispersed land- use patterns.

we will also test alternative transportation strategies. some of which might be more policy based. these are the types of strategic meet our goals cost effectively. those scenarios will be analyzed and the results will be shared with the region. we'll be collecting input from the public on those. he prefers scenario is expected to be identified by the end of this year. the preferred scenario will be a regional transportation plan, but i will speak to that in another slide. this speaks to how the agency is doing the court nation on behalf of san francisco. there is a lot of policy level coordination boards. we're trying to keep everyone

apprised. they are interested in trying to coordinate with us in sending a very strong and coordinated message that san francisco is trying to do our part to grow and a sustainable manner and that we need investment resources to bring the transportation infrastructure and service levels up to the necessary levels. the agencies involved are the whole range of agencies that are providing input into this process. as well as within the peninsula. as you could imagine, the transportation needs are both local and regional. in addition, in terms of public our reach, he there are a number of mechanisms and committees. there is a set that will be

planned for march when the vision scenario was released. andrea maintained online resources to provide information as well. my final slide before handing it over to syria to explain why this all matters, the metropolitan transportation commission doesn't have an update to the plan that i mentioned. it distributes about $200 billion of funding. that is about $6 billion in the last plan that is not quite keeping with our significance in the region in terms of how much trouble we accommodate, transit trips, he had a we are closer to 14. the funding formulas are based on population and outdated things like freeway lane miles.

it's not really pertinent to policy today. how do we reduce our carbon footprint? the policy question is to what extent will they redirected discretionary funding? let me give this back over to sarah. >> i will talk a little bit about the other process. the housing means allocation that you will have heard me talk about plenty, basically our housing target that we are required to meet for the five- year housing elements. as you know, we are assigned a regional housing target to buy

income level. it will become an eight-year target. the difference here is that the area that is allocated to us has to be consistent. the state is trying to make sure that all the things they are asking us to do are lined up. there is confusion as to what consistent actually means. we are participating here in the allocations committee phew for the next allocation to make sure that things work out in an equitable manner and we don't use it as a way to forget about the affordability goals. what does this mean for us? what we are hoping is that what it does, it ads state and regional level support for all the work we have already been doing.

for example, the planning work we have already done, as you can see, if it has already -- we're looking at 70,000 housing units. almost all of the plan areas, we are in really good shape. it means that while we are

relatively low in terms of population share, we are hugely important in terms of transit. we have already sent -- and these are posted on the web site. there are really at four major points that they are trying to get across. they have to prevent

displacement and ameliorate the effects. the second big one thing is accommodating regional growth. we need to prioritize the resources to words places like us so we can keep running the assistance that we have. as you know, that is really important. it is absolutely critical. we are asking them to prioritize expansion resources for jurisdictions they are proactively planning. and lastly, we want to see them prioritize discretionary funding for projects that not only reduce greenhouse gases in terms of emissions, but also do it in a way that is equitable and cost effective. it includes affordable housing as a good example of that.

those are really the take away is that we are pushing. we would like to work with you and with members of the community as we are already starting to meet with them to decide whether these of the ones we continue to hammer or if there is more that we need to add to that as we follow this process. how do people get involved? this is a hard thing for us to provide as we are a participant in the process. we don't have much control over it. we are doing our best to provide avenues and connections so that people can get involved here in our agencies and directly with the regional efforts. we set up a local web site hosted by the planning department, but it is the agency's web site. it will tell what it does, and

we have not added it yet. we're trying to add a component that would serve as a discussion forum where we can have people talk about their feelings so that we can give those comments directly to the region which is kind of a hard thing to do right now. they do have their own web site set up at onebayarea.org. they have been promoting the information on their homepage for the transportation plan update which is strongly linked to this. both the authority and other agencies are willing to talk to neighborhood groups as they are interested and as it moves along. the very last slide, we are issuing a call for projects.

project ideas that should be considered, this was launched late last week. the deadline for submitting all types of transportation projects is march 24. we will take that set of ideas, we will try to fit is many of them as we can into a budget constraint. they will run them through the detailed scenario that i mentioned previously. there will be opportunities to learn more through the web site, to contact us, we can come to neighborhood groups and organizations to give presentations. we're particularly interested in trying to reach communities of concern because of their demographic. we appreciate the help getting the word out that there is an opportunity to forward your transportation ideas to be

included in the regional transportation plan. i think that is the end of our presentation. i am happy to take questions. >> one group requested a block of time. on this one. and we will open up for public comment. >> i have been prepared, calling critical response, so we will give a kind of opening idea here. let me introduce you to this

capacity. we're working with groups, several of which are working this evening. really in a kind of larger community development, it is economic development issues and try to get our heads around what it means to talk about regional sustainable community policy at ground level. we are thankful you're having a first hearing. we want to give you our sense of why this becomes relevant. i think we have all found it very interesting that in san francisco, we tend to focus on intemperances go. there is a role for advocates to play bringing our collective experience to the region. the advocates in the

jurisdictions elsewhere are trying to do what san francisco has done. they try to -- san francisco is looked to as this kind of a bellwether of good work and a progressive and advanced planning. we bring that to the regional conversation in a way that is more intentional. what we are here to do today is perhaps not to disagree with the presentation you heard, but to have of that more of a cautious tale about the lessons learned, the experience of a smart growth over the last 10, 15, 25 years. san francisco has been doing smart growth in many respects. we have a lot of things we have learned. what has worked, what has not worked so well, the differences

between aspirations and the realities of applying those concepts. i think generally speaking, that is the tenor of our comments. a few things i would like to say about the distinction of aspirational concepts and realities, we have heard a lot about what a sustainable community strategy will give us. one is this idea that identification is itself mitigating. it is a better way to grow a better pattern. thereby, it is inherently self mitigating. we are learning that the related infrastructure needs and are critical. they are, for the most part, on funded. it means that we should grow more concentrated, and hope that the infrastructure comes. it is a lot easier to spread things around and everybody has to figure out how to make it

happen and come up with the infrastructure necessary to do that. the other is this idea of affordability. that by design or compactness, the affordability is going to happen. we have all seen that throughout the region the dramatic underproduction of affordable housing at any level of affordability. it does not just happen, it is always hard work and we are always behind the curve. it is complete neighborhoods, the concept of a complete neighborhoods that is a san francisco planning department's term about the community infrastructure that it takes to be sustainable and livable. we find that that kind of infrastructure is not linked to development. the approvals for housing happened in their own pipeline,

but the process for bringing on infrastructure is a very -- is very de-linked. we would like to have them tied together, the reality is that they move on very disconnected tracks. i am emphasizing the infrastructure linkages. it is just an idea, but we wanted to remind the the commission of this particular study that was done for the eastern neighborhoods. where there was a recognition, we can debate on how successful it has become, but a recognition that there needs to be infrastructure. this needs assessment with an attempt to say, what are the various types of infrastructure necessary to meet the growth? there were some cost factors put into that. that should be standard practice.

there should be no sustainable communities without some kind of a real analysis of the infrastructure to match its. another point i would like to make is about the needed funding. with three development under pressure, and certainly, if we are lucky, it will shrink. the worst cases that it will disappear. the process could come down to the local level as an unfunded mandate. whether that is the housing subsidy that is needed or whether that is the street or other things, a word of caution that the funding at this point, the staff is clearly not there. on that note, the big points that were made, we agree with those. we have been working somewhat

collaborative lee with conversations about where the shared values are, and all of those goals are very important to us. funding these is absolutely critical. before i turn it over to my colleague, who is affected by this? this is not just a generic landscape of an increased infill. this is targeted communities throughout the region, and let me point out this map. this is the association of area governments communities of concern. they are defined at where growth might be focused. and also communities that are vulnerable to displacement or gentrification for whatever reason. if you zoom in on san francisco

, you can see that most of the side of san francisco, it they 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