heard anyone. the restriction being -- move your car in the morning, but no one is parking there any ways. if there was extra time, it did not seem to hurt to allow for additional public comment. i think that if we could send it out without recommendation at this time, so that we could hear more about public process, that might be something that is ideal. supervisor chiu: i have heard from folks in this area that support this project. there is a lot of interest. i would like to move this out of committee. supervisor wiener: i am fine moving it out without recommendation, getting more information before the full

authority meeting. at that point, we can pass it or not. there are a lot of positives in this project. that would be my take. supervisor campos: we have a motion from commissioner of a los -- avalos. let me say that i do support the project and i think it is important to keep it moving forward. i also think that the fact that we have not heard anything from mr. [unintelligible] is a good sign. if we can take that motion, without objection? thank you very much. please call item no. 5. >> item #5. recommend approval of san francisco's one bay area block grant advocacy principles. this is an action item. >> good morning. i will be presenting this item,

which begins on page 59 of your packet. we will present a general update on the regional transportation plan and, also, seek your action on recommending bay area advocacy principles. we have been to the committee at least twice so far in the planning cycle. once at the beginning of the presentation, which was the region being trapped in this planning process. the second time was when san francisco submitted our integrity project -- the entire the project -- and tientirity project. the result of senate bill 375,

transportation and housing planning, which were linked together through the funding process. in the past there was a regional transportation plan created by the metropolitan commission. is an important plan, guiding the investments of the discretionary revenue coming into the region. there are about $68 billion expected to come into the region over the next 28 years. on the housing side, the other regional agencies associated with bay area governments have created the regional housing needs allocation arena, giving the city within the region a share by income level that must be planned for in their housing element.

these planning processes have been brought together for a land use element called the debatable community strategy. it must meet two requirements. one, it must achieve the great house guest production target, by 2035 in the bay area. two, identifying strategies for housing by income level. where are we in the prague -- process? there was the revision scenario, back in the winter. it was the first cut of what a bay area program might look like. in the second phase, alternative scenarios. the difference this that we are actually looking at constraints

in terms of how much grove we expect to happen in 25 years and in terms of how much funding we expect to allocate to different transportation projects. this is the phase that we are in now. we will talk about it over the next couple of slides. we are keeping our eye on moving towards the decision from may of next year. that area includes a land use element that also has the reno. $68 billion in discretionary revenue is to assist transportation projects and programs. more on the scenarios -- the alternative scenarios on the land use side have one thing in common. they all have the same amount of gross projected into the region

, 770,000 housing units and 1 million jobs. ranging, sort of, from the most extreme to the least extreme. the core scenario is the most extreme, with 207,000 jobs projected by 2014. these scenarios will be matched by transport policies. transportation networks are not yet finalized, but they are out in draft form. all of the projects are listed in one of the different networks as a refresher for the type of projects we submitted. i think that the electrification

of cal train reminds you of what we are looking at. that works include regional policy initiatives, like electric vehicle acceleration, technology, telecommunications policy, that sort of thing. the core concentration is also a model for upgrading levels to consider how we might plan for additional units. the reason that the transportation networks are still in that form, mca is about to compete in the detailed project assessment program for every single thing submitted to the region. it will be available in november. the final selection will find them pachinko -- pushing go in terms of our greenhouse gas

emission reduction targets. travel times, savings, that sort of thing. this slide represents our initial response to the alternative scenarios. a pretty significant coordination with our counterparts agency. i forgot to mention in the beginning, steve from the planning department is here. this also represents some of my public input in terms of public events responding to this process so far. the first is concern over low level of growth in san francisco. reflecting about 3700 units per year. over the next 25 years, our average over the last three years is again hundred units.

the highest year on record is 3400. it is not that this is impossible, but if what we know about transportation funding is available, and how much we have accepted into affordable housing or other communities, it is a lot. in terms of underestimating the level needed for these growth scenarios, core concentration has been an area of for all of the san francisco transportation projects. they are necessary to accommodate the level of growth in the immediate area. third, we think that we can focus more growth along the bark and caltrans corridor. taking on growth is ok, but it

is more the other cities with access to transit should be doing their share. four, the region should consider pricing beyond the initiatives we have developed locally and in san francisco. one of the most positive ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. with that, i will turn it over to maria, to go over the one they block grant proposal. >> fenty to liz, our alphabet soup view on this project. -- thank you to liz, our alphabet soup do rooguru on this project. this is just one of the programs created in the past, known as the cma block agency program.

the goal of the revised program is to incentivize housing into sustainable growth at all local level. this is accomplished by a number of ways that the program is structured. the basic skeletons, first of all, these funds will be distributed by formulas to their respective jurisdictions. the proposed formula right now is half based on population and one quarter based on the store housing and future housing population. this is a significant precedent. if the block grant program, comprised of a number of programs in it, our local street and road resurfacing, transportation, project paid

access, safe routes to school, and bicycle programs. so, in order to incentivize the right kind of growth policies, we proposed accomplishing this through a series of carrots and sticks. agencies would see significantly more funding than in the past. roughly double the amount that was available in prior cycles. eliminating regional transportation from the community, rather than adding funds to the block grant program. the other major carrot is the complete flexibility over how much of the funds a particular county has. growth for the project. that is the plus side. anna stick -- on the stick

side, there were self-identified areas that had minimum thresholds that were excepting growth. the requirements are that jurisdictions receive these funds, but to do so they would need two of four policies in place. related to affordable housing and community reduction plans, they must also have certified housing. so, without worrying about reading these numbers, this chart shows you who the winners and losers are in the proposed deal. all of the congested management agencies would get double the

funds available, so everyone would be a winner in that sense. i would note that in san francisco, while we get a higher portion of the block grant fund compared to other counties, in reality is a walk for us, fiscally. we do extremely well in competitive programs. without that, in terms of flexibility, we are not getting more money. the question is, why are we not asking for community support? it is all because we have incentivized land use. i want to point out, this is only 3% of the $68 billion in discretionary funds that are up for discussion. but they are the most flexible funds available to the region in terms of mitigation and quality funds.

we have seen a great deal of respect, particularly from some of the other management agencies in the region. that is one of the reasons this committee recommends action in support of this program, to be able to influence the inevitable program. there is time to make that statement. you can see this on the slide, our statements, the principles and the main messages. san francisco strongly believing in the intent of the program. we think that one way to strengthen what we talked about -- i mentioned housing being included? we wanted it to be a heavier weighting supply, whereas market

forces would require public intervention to make that happen. we also think that one of the policies, anti-displacement, should be mandatory. i would like to see appropriate levels of public input and transparency. there has been -- significant push back from the other stakeholders, but there are a couple of ways that we can offer significant changes to address those concerns. for instance, the connecting bicycle route bicycle routepda -- within that pda. san francisco is practically covered by pda's, so that is not

an issue for us. completely pulling out of that one area in the block grant proposal. we do not support this at all. giving something back in return, pulling out of the block grant program, with support street projects doing the same work at the same time. leslie, we have the modifications that we would suggest -- leslie -- a lastly, we have the modifications that we would suggest for anti-displacement policies. we would recommend at least a good faith effort. if the region moves towards

significantly lowering that threshold, rather than looking at science, a regional competition for those who can meet the threshold should be held. with that, i will hand this back to liz. to give you a teaser, we are looking forward to coming back to you with which funds might be once i can be targeted by san francisco project. supervisor wiener: this presentation talks about pda's. you also talked p aboutda lite. -- about pda lite.

i in there? >> i should have said it the pda's and the growth opportunity areas. i do not know my terminology here. >> the growth opportunity area has another acronym that abag invented. but these are supposed to be pda's that could receive block grant funding of the good for process to have them approved not just at the staff level but that the elected officials level. there is the doa which is potentially pda, and then there is the pda light. we're not suggesting they should be eligible for funds at this time. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you.

>> to wrap it up, i mentioned that mtc is currently completing a project level assessment on the performance of all the transportation projects under our consideration. we expect to see those results in november, and scenario-level results in december. mtc and abag will do a round of public outreach in january. by march, we will have gone to the different scenarios that the regional agencies plan to adopt by may. so far, we have some -- we have heard some level of input. we posted a directors forum that we had on september 21. we heard some input from the public and advocates at that meeting that is largely reflected in what you heard today. we will be having a leadership roundtable meeting for an

opportunity for our san francisco representatives on the regional agencies to discuss these proposals with staff from mtc and abag. the next item you'll see here at this committee is seeking approval of the list of our financially-constrained transportation priorities either later this year or early next year. the action we are seeking is to approve our wine bay area block grant advocacy principles. i am happy to answer any questions. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. colleagues, i do not know if you have questions. but i want to thank you for the ways you have tried to incorporate as much community input as possible. i think it makes sense for us to speak with one voice. i know that commissioner wiener and i are working closely to make sure that we do that with

respect to anything involving the mtc, and the same is happening in terms of my colleagues who serve on abag. thank you for that. let's open the up to public comment. any member of the public who would like to speak on this item, please come forward. >> good morning. san francisco bicycle coalition. i'd also want to express appreciation to the staff of the agencies. this has been a great process, so far very inclusive. i have been fortunate to participate in some of the conversations, and it really is also very heartening to see san francisco come forward with a coherent and policy positive voice. as staff have told you, san francisco does not really get ahead or behind here. why should we care about the proposal? well, because we need to exert our leadership in the region. i am pleased to have both of our

mtc commissioners here today. it is heartening to have such a good presence of the mtc, and we have a great obligation to lead the reach and and and to help other counties in maine not have come as far as we have to do the right thing. it is a pity. this one bay area grant is only 3% of the discretionary portion of the rtp, and that is even a tiny fraction of the whole bag of money. hundreds of billions of dollars. we, the san francisco bicycle coalition, would love to see this kind of policy conditioning applied to the whole bag of money. this is a tiny step, but we need to take this step. on behalf of the bicycle coalition and many other advocates, we hope you will support this, move this forward, and have san francisco assert leadership in the region. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you.

next speaker, please. >> supervisors, let me stick with san francisco. so the way i would like you all who represents san francisco to look at this grant money is first to really study our housing element. and then we get some of the major transportation projects that we have already done in our city. ford semel, we spent $700 million on the third street light rail. it starts at fourth and king and ends in the middle of nowhere. and about 30,000 homes are planned in the future. we would like to seek what type of transportation goes up to hunters view, what type of

transportation goods to candlestick pond, and how that will be achieved to address quality of life issues. i like when people talk about green in about a carbon footprint and they do not know exactly what they're talking about. so i challenge the mayor. i challenged the future mayors. i challenge the department of environment to gather critical data on the gas being spewed from mission bay all the way to hunters point and across candlestick point. some 200,000 tons of methane gas. 1 ton of methane gas, it was 22 tons of carbon dioxide. that is empirical data. i would like to see the mickey mousing about the carbon footprint, and that is in san

francisco. having said that, we need to make a decision whether in the future we are going to be for affordable housing or market rate housing. just like when we had proposition f, of which i am a proponent, and then we got out of proposition f. at that time, we said we want 50% affordable housing. and if we had all our plans ready, we could have participated with the stimulus that and plan. but we had some supervisor's here who brought in -- [bell rings] brought other type of crap into this situation which was uncalled for. but today we see our nation has been destroyed by goldman sacks, jpmorgan, chase, bernie madoff,

and other stocks type of people who have destroyed our economy. let us be realistic -- [bell rings] supervisor avalos: is there any the other member of the public would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed two colleagues, can we approve the recommendation and the principles? we have a motion and a second. can we take that without objection? thank you. thank you again to staff for the great work on this item. madam clerk, please call item number 6. >> update on the central subway project. this is an information item. >> good morning. i am the project management and oversight consultant. briefly, a little background on the central subway. as you all know, this is the second phase of the light rail

project runs to chinatown. it has three stations. ona little bit of historic background here, the last year and a half has been very busy for the project. last year, the authorized final design. in march of that year, the budget was adopted of 1.7 $8 billion. the board has allocated funds on a $84.6 million in prop k. the latest was in july of this year when $57.2 million was allocated for the early construction of the project. with all expenditures, it is

$136.8 million. on september 19, mta submitted to the fta the request for full funding grant agreement. this was a very important milestone to the project. the full funding agreement is basically the document by which the federal element commits funding to the project, a total funding of $942 million, of which $849 million remains. that agreement is expected in january of this coming year. we all have been hearing the uncertainties that are happening in congress about funding and issues. and even though, as we all know, nothing in life is far short except that and