nu funding program created during the lesson strategy process known as the one bay area block grant. first under the region has tied transportation investment dollars to land-use, and would local jurisdictions have been doing in terms of planning for growth. while in the past transportation funding is often distributed based on a population-based approach, but other factors such as how successful counties have been in planning for and building new affordable housing is considered in how much funding a jurisdiction receive. also how large the rena allocation is and how much of that is a below market rate is also considered in the distribution formula. this is something that we have asked the region to do for quite some time to tie vision to resources;

it is not perfect but it is a great step in the right direction and we are excited about this program. finally based on a lot of advocacy, we got the region to create a new, regional funding program known as the transit performance initiative. the region committed 500 million dollars to this program between now and 2040; in the past the region never had a program like this. they had a freeware performance initiative about better managing the freeway system. without there were better ways to manage the transit system better through capital improvements, turnaround tracks, things like that. those are four really important moves that have happenedin this transportation investment strategy. of course it does not cover all the needs that we have here in san francisco. for example it only keeps

operations and make and for the roads and the transit system that about a two-day level. that is not necessarily a great state of disrepair. there is a next-generation transportation ideas that were not scoped out enough to be included that work is now ongoing in san francisco through the creation of the san francisco just petition transportation plan, the next item on the agendaat this point the region is in eir mode; they are working to release a draft eir in december, and then certify the final eir at the time of the plan adoption which is this upcoming may, 2013.

i will close my presentation and happy to help out with any questions you might havethank you. >> opening it up for public comment. if there is any? seeing none, commissioner antonini. >> i have a few questions for whoever is most able to answer these. i noticed the projections show around 191,000 new jobs by 2014, but only 92,000 housing units but one assumes that each housing unit is averaging at least two people;it looks like there is balance there. it does work out if you do the math to about 4,000 per year, the projection of wherever you are at this year, 3200, is probably a little lower.

they will be years where maybe we can produced a few most. my question for staff is, of these projections based on what we think is going to happen or are these goals we are trying to promote the growth in the areas not projected to have jobs and housing starts? >> fax to the questionthere is a level of black-boxness to some projections; we try to be more involved in the projections. at some point it is based on where growth should go; at some point it should be based on the policies of the cities themselves. some points are based where growth wants to go based on economics. all of those are being considered; it is not a clear model per se, but all of those things are considered by the region at any given time. where companies

want to be, all those things that economies you as well as our own policies to entice growth. >> that implies to me this kind of hybrid, taking into account what we think will happen but also some direction because i know is that the projections were high in the santa clara county which actually is more auto centric, more spread out; it seems that would be counter intuitive considering senate bill 375. >> when you dig down to santa clara in general, oakland, san francisco san jose are taking on a substantial part of the growth. the region came up with a few scenarios and one is that they were all kind of anti-sprawl; some more center focus in others.

most of the growth in santa clara will happen in san jose. also in the process we have been coordinating with the cities of oakland and san jose and a big transportation providers, we knew that the big three cities there is leadership in this process; if we were not okay with what was proposed, we have to make surethat we have a voice. a lot of this in san jose. >> unlike san francisco, in san jose most of the job centers are not within the downtown area opposite of what the situation is. , it makes that most difficult it explains why it is that way and why we have low projections in places like contra costa, low, even though the population is much larger than that of san francisco county and san mateo county which is slightly less. i can understand. at least contra costa has more transit than even the south bay does.

my other question for-- in terms of transportation-- and you can answer this is probably not. what i am interested in, i have always tried to figure out exactly what kind of planning goes into transportation; it seems like it moves slowly, with no guiding idea at the end of that make sense. san francisco is a small city geographically, so dense that it is logical that we aim for transit below ground or above ground to move quickly from one part of the city to another. we spent a lot of money trying to keep people from driving to treasure island, it make sense but

you're not creating an alternative. we may not be able to get the funding, but we won't get it if we don't ask for it. the richmond district is undeserved. i ride the streetcar, absolutely packed. we can get enough people on the -- to bring them in and plugging up the street. we should be looking at another n judith, the sunset tunnel and market street to provide initial transit to the people these are some of my ideas; my question is where is the end goal here? we have to have an end goal, and then we can ask after that.

>> that is a great question, also appropriate in the context of the next item that we will discuss. a useful way to try to explain the difference between having both a regional long-range test rotation plan as well as the county level san francisco transportation plan. we had to identify the priorities for the city. the ideas that you mentioned are not quite at that stage; hold your thought in your question until my colleague present the san francisco transportation plan. >> i may have jumped ahead little bit, not looking at the advance agenda. >> mission commissioner -- >> back on the housing goal, 28,000 for the next decade, 67%

below market or affordable, you mention how we achieve the annual goals, -is that compared to what we did over the last 10 years? are we close to that number? >> that is an excellent question. it gets back to the way that we interpret the original housing needs allocation. it has for -- most of its history been a requirement zone, the intention is to prevent smaller, wealthier jurisdiction to create exclusionary zoning, preventing multiunit buildings being developed in there. by those exclusionary zoning practices there for pushing population out into potentially

lower income areas, and so the regional housing needs allocation is a requirement to zone for all of these. we believe that the world be a better place if we build of those units in all the different income categories, but the reality is that the resources don't match the needs. there is consistent underperformance in lower market units in everycity. we were about 50 percent in terms of meeting the very low category; this is truly off the top of my head, do not take these estimates literally. san francisco focuses on the highest needs, lowest income.

the challenge with those moderate income communities is that in many places they are naturally produced by the market whereas in san francisco they need to be subsidized. many other jurisdictions have a slightly easier time meeting that moderate income goals that we do here. >> what are the consequences of not beating the goals? >> there is a consequence of not zoning to accommodate; there is no consequence to never building them. unless you consider the social consequences. >> commissioner wu. >> thank you. i want to raise a couple of points i think along those lines,

because i believe that what happened is thatyou want to have more affordable housing in the corridor; what happens in san francisco is we are incentivizing the zoning two words the pdas, there is no money for affordable housing. we are in a situation where we zone to allow more developer but the only categories are the week to see above 125% above ami. a i think that i have always seen this tension; we want more development, no one wants to -- we have to be careful about what it means to thelow income neighborhoods where there is a lot of transportation. i have another question about jobs.

i want to understand also see the projection for jobs but i want to understand what has happened with jobs up until this point chucky are just a been quite stable over the last 10 or 12 years. what might be different over the next period that we are seeing an increase in jobs and need to make the housing and transportation to accommodate that? >> our job totals have been relatively flat for the last 30 years. we've gone through great periods of boom and bust, especially the dot com. there has been a shift in the kinds of jobs. i agree that historically the region is done a lot of planning the city jobs are coming to san francisco and housing is coming to san francisco. the housing is common met projections of the jobs have not come. there's a fundamental difference this time -- is that

we havethis conversation the maturation of , urban renaissance or the last 15 or 20 years, generations are willing to move to the city and not move to the suburbs; jobs are coming to the city to follow them. it used to be that you would google whatever location, silicon valley and all people who work there, than the started working in the city and demanding transportation. not the companies are competing for people by coming to san francisco. you are competing for global talent in the marketplace today. the companies have to come to where the workers are. the talent wants to live in seven cisco. not all of it but we see a lot of tech workers and others driving the economy are coming in san francisco. we see a lot of shift in that direction. >> mission commissioner --

>> can you talk a little bit about the -- i know what the arena goals are, but some jurisdictions wanted to pull out of the process, and some of them have restrictive zoning. in the past what happened as a consequence of that, if anything? >> i'll do my best. the housing element has in some cases than a tool for advocacy organization to pressure those places the tenta be resistant to development, to actually allow for multifamily and affordable housing development to come into those places, in those situations the housing element requirement tied to the arena allocation is a tool for advocacy; i think that, in terms if there are

restrictions to zone the college for the arena housing allocation they would not be a consequence in the never being in affordable housing in the place in terms of the process, influencing who receives a higher allocation i believe that is part of your question -- the last time happened a little bit differently because of the way that different jurisdictions have participated in a sustainable community strategy has characterizedby whether they're willing to have a large priority area. [indiscernible] yes, we believe the growth in our cities viable and transit oriented and plan for it in this pda; therefore we will get

a higher allocation in the arena. conversely falsehood did not plan to get-- got a lower arena allocation. [indiscernible] >> more of a question about transportation. mention with the new one bay area grant; i was looking to get more of the money to pdas that took on more of the arena goals? is there a formula that, say you zone for affordable housing but you don't build, do you get any of the funds? >> hey, you play ball, you need resources.

the intent is to have the resources follow the volunteerism. who is to say that performance will be followed by housing production.>> the formula for the one-day area block grant, 50 percent based on population, 25 percent based on past housing production, what has been produced; half of that 25 percent is based on production of very low, and low-income housing. similarly the other 25 percent is based on rena, half of that based on low income development. consequences of not doing housing elements in compliance with state law is one of the other conditions of being a jurisdiction eligible to receive block grant funding is a have to have -- housing

element. one of the challenges to the region in the planning process if they don't have a ton of tools sticks and carrots to make things happen; one of the things that they do have is transportation funding, they have done a good job of time something that control to a consequence. >> the other question that we talked about, the priority projects, 13, a lot of other areas have newer transportation systems so they don't have the issues that we have. how are like maintenance and ongoing operations supported? i love the new project and we need those, but especially for muni the challenges are existing. >> of the entire revenue in the plan, 88% is dedicating to operating and maintaining the existing system; the challenges

that -- gets us to maintaining the infrastructure at today's levels. twe may desire to get a higher state of repair than what we have. >> the biggest challenge that we have are the guilt accommodate the existing levels >> commissioner antonini. >> we have to remember the rena assessments are a moving target. i've been on the commission long enough to see changes on those; if in fact you end up with a higher percentage of your population that is in the above 100 percentile ami, your allotment will be a higher amount to service a part of the population. i'm not saying that is

desirable or not, but it is based upon the reality of what happens. these are not locked in stone. they will change as the city changes. on another point i was happy to hear steve talking about the emphasis now, and the pressure on many employers who not have much of their population, or their workforce residing in san francisco and i think that is something that we can use to our advantage and talk to these businesses that have campuses outside of san francisco, up to 50 percent or above 50 percent of employees living in san francisco. what can we do to attract you here? or part of your operational headquarters, whatever is appropriate to san francisco, find out if they need a higher percentage of multi-bedroom homes, better schools, parks, intracity transportation, it directs us

do what we need to do. it was instructive because i think it was some architect i was talking withand he was astounded that apple is building a new campus in a suburban setting, away from transportation. it made sense of the campus was already there, but to build a whole new campus in an area that will be hard for people to get to seem to be a strange development. that is something we can use to our advantage in the future. >> thank you very much. >> thank you commissioners. we cannot move forward to item 9 on your calendar, informational hearing on san francisco transportation plan. >> i'm here to introduce rachel

hiatt from the transportation authority to talk to this item. >> good afternoon commissioners -- that it it for planning with the transportation authority, thank you for having rachel and me the present on the long-range transportation planning update to the transit system partition plan. i appreciate the comments of commissioner antonini and several of you speaking to the tremendous challenge that we have; the existing needs and the mass of the place on it every day for all communities but especially communities who our transportation captive and have fewer choices and rely on public transit. for example we have been in discussions with your staff and the rest of the region as you know about the regional planning initiative; san francisco have demonstrated leadership. we can continue to do so, with the help of the public and you all elected leaders i know by way of introduction to rachel hiatt

will present an update that we have a leadership roundtable, all participated. as well as several board members; they noted that every day the planning commission, mta board, the commission, really do make policy decisions that implement san francisco's vision, and encourage us at the staff level but to us policymakers to engage and convene a local conversation about land-use and transportation. about how the decisions that you make on a daily basis can be mutually reinforcing, not only in terms of the outcomes that we produce so that we desire, but the mechanisms for achieving them. how do we get that affordable housing place? how do we get that below market rate, above the least affordable, and below the affordable market great? how do we use value capture tools?

other delivery mechanisms for both the housing side and transportation side? that is an inspiring idea and we are happy to follow up if there is interest in something like that. i have spoken too long. this is rachel hiatt, senior planner in charge of the transportation update. >> thank you -- good afternoon commissioners. as liz mentioned, the san francisco transportation plan is our responsibility in congestion management agency, long-range, blueprint for investment in our system. we identify needs, estimate revenue for san francisco; prepare an investment strategy.

this is developed to be consistent with and relate to the agency specific transportation plan that also exists in san francisco; for instance the city's climate action plan developed last year, the sftp works closely with the city in developing the climate action plan, consultation sector contribution to the greenhouse reduction goalswill adopt the sftp -- to implement that. priorities such as mtap, cities capital plans brought into the sftp prioritization process.

we know that the region is expecting san francisco to help accommodate the region's gross and achieveand we know it will be a challenge for us, 400,000 new auto trips per day, the forecast resulting from this growth in your employees and residents. we know that it will take different ways of doing things. the way services and infrastructure -- we provide for transportation to accommodate these new trips, and to manage them in the way that helps us better meet our goals. what do we need -- how can we manage these trips? how can we accommodate the demand for travel anywhere the does not counteract the efforts to improve muni

travel time or reliability? we need to reduce conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. how can we accommodate the demand for travel? a lot of the growth that we are expecting in san francisco will be in the so-called core; the map of the priority development area focuses on san francisco's core, the eastern part of the city, soma, mission bay, in the san francisco transportation plan we are paying special attention to that area of our city and the needs associated with growth, as well as the needs that we have today even without the growth; as we developed sftp, i want to urge you to think about