the discussion involved members of abag and other regional players in this effort. and the discussion focused on drug trends here in san francisco and the region. we talked about the scope of investment in transportation infrastructure, the investment that will be needed to accommodate the growth that is expected to happen here at the region and specifically here in the city. and we also discussed some of the challenges that are facing not only the city and county of san francisco, but the other jurisdictions as the region moves forward with its transportation plan. as you probably are aware in your agenda today, we will have later in the agenda a presentation about the san francisco transportation plan, which is actually the long-range vision for transportation investment by the authority here in the city and county of san francisco. that plan is mandated by state law and its purpose is to really figure out what the transportation needs for the city long-term are. and, so, i think it's important for us to begin the discussion of what those needs are, what the futur

to recap highlights from the transportation investment strategy, approved this past may by mpc and abag. a little background on what the regional competition planning processes.something going on since sb 375 was passed, updated every four years about those regions long response petition activities they do revenue forecast.this update, 277 billion. and then they speak about how this funding should be prioritized. 91 billion is considered discretionary to the region. the rpp is quite important for two reasons. it is a sort of gatekeeperi to federal and state funds for transportation projects in san francisco might need to access. you have to be in the rtp in order to get a federal action on your project. it is also the regions policy statement about transportation. indicates where we are headed in this region. with adding context i want to recap maybe four of the highlights from the transportation investment strategy, moving towards adoption in the rtp next year. we have quite a bit to be proud of and happy about here in san francisco from the process. that is thanks to the extensive inv

the reason we left it at 120 is the standard that abag and others apply. it wasn't that we were against it, but certainly we didn't have many concerns with adding that. but the other issue i don't support the second amendment at this time. i think there are area plans and other housing that comes that are not necessarily going to go to the planning commission automatically. market octavia, eastern neighborhoods, and other plans. i believe that some of the projects because of the way the plans were finally approved, some of that housing won't come back for additional reviews to the planning commission. there are a lot of as of rights housing projects that i assume don't ever go to planning. so it's those projects that i'm concerned that we won't be capturing, if we add that second amendment. and that is why when the planning department came to our office initially asking us to add the amendment, we would not accept it at that time. because even other community housing organizations that we had been working with had raised concerns that we wouldn't be captur

>> our regional goals with abag and collaboration with the department of housing, they provide every five years. and anything else that we want to add we can discuss for further information. we can do it in the reports that we're doing that are not mandated, i guess. >> thank you. any concluding remarks, supervisor olague or campos? >> go for it and i will go afterwards. >> just a quick question, the way it works the report happens every quarter then? it's not going to be every six months? it's going to be every quarter? okay, thank you. >> supervisor wiener? >> thank you, mr. chairman. so i am a supporter of public investment in affordable housing. i was active in the formulation of prop c, the housing trust fund before we put it on the ballot and have been an allege advocate for that ballot measure and, in fact as some affordable housing developers will tell you, i sometimes pester them to build more affordable housing in the market area. he have been supportive of the projects that have come before this boor, for example for transition-aged youth. so i am a strong supporter of tha

. >> and we know we have set goals, abag sets goals and we are not even close to meeting. we can see by everything that we have those annual reports on housing inventory that sort of indicate that we have exceeded our goals as it relates to market-rate housing. >> sure. >> that is part of why we focused on some of the lower-income housing. >> right. and i guess, if we have the rosiest projections possible in terms of our ability to invest in affordable housing if prop c passes and we have a robust investment program what number will be met by the units that we're able to build through prop c and other americaisms? and i think it's probably rather small because the federal government has left the business, you know? we don't get much from the state. and so i guess my question is that the purpose of having it seems to me that at least one goal and it seems like it might be a significant goal. is that every time the planning commission, for example, gets a market-rate project coming forward, it can say wow, we're not really building as much affordable housing as we need to. i

>> our regional goals with abag and collaboration with the department of housing, they provide every five years. and anything else that we want to add we can discuss for further information. we can do it in the reports that we're doing that are not mandated, i guess. >> thank you. any concluding remarks, supervisor olague or campos? >> go for it and i will go afterwards. >> just a quick question, the way it works the report happens every quarter then? it's not going to be every six months? it's going to be every quarter? okay, thank

he called republicans the te abag party. that is not a partisan.u are governor of virginia you have the greatest honor that anybody could be bestowed upon by the people of virginia, and he chose to spend his time going around the country raising money and giving partisan speeches and proposing and advocating for the policies that are so harmful to virginia, whether it is the energy policy devastating southwest virginia communities or seniors with medicare -- we have skyrocketing spending that has deep in debt to china and also sequestration, which is threatening us. we talk about being the best managed state -- while he was going around gathering funds for the democratic national party, he should have been spending time here in virginia and uncovering funds in the department of transportation. maybe then he would not have been shutting down rest areas all around virginia. that is not good management. that is an embarrassment, a bad image for the commonwealth of virginia. if you are paying attention -- you might have found there were over $1 billion