Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    October 19, 2011 10:00pm-10:30pm PDT

10:00 pm
air is clean. proof that the soil is clean. that type of empirical data that you have allows the public to go sailing in the area, building houses on a superfund site, so on and so forth. you take the money and you go with of the flow, that is on view. -- on you. those that live in the area speak the truth. you have to ask the right questions to make good stuff happened. fine-tuning or moral compass. thank you very much. supervisor campos: is there any
10:01 pm
other member of the public that would like to speak on this item? seeing no one, public, and disclosed. -- public comment is closed. supervisor wiener: if you look at the materials, it says the elimination of parking in the area, but it does not make clear the seven block or eight blocks stretch in the packet. this may be an amazing project. i am a huge fan of st. scaping. but the elimination of all on
10:02 pm
street parking for eight blocks on a significant thoroughfare is definitely significant. i am not saying that i am opposed, but i do have concerns. usually we get these things the day before. it is not my district. i am sure that there was a process, but i could see moving this forward within eight blocks worth of parking. supervisor campos: if we move this forward, is still more opportunity to get more information from the full authority board. >> exactly, chairman. first of all, i want to point out that i have the same reaction.
10:03 pm
[unintelligible] there was a specific set of circumstances there. the prohibition of parking makes the convenience factor for the residents along the street much less significant. this is a significant elimination of parking. i suggest we have an opportunity, next week, to look at what you requested earlier. asking members of the community to be at a board meeting. we can hear from them as well. supervisor wiener: i am happy to
10:04 pm
move this forward, the understanding that we will get more information before the full commission hearing. there are other ways to get information. i do not think it was spelled out clearly enough in the packet. >> fair enough. we will provide the extra, additional information to you. supervisor chu: i think that when you remove a significant number of parking spaces, it should be something that is thoroughly reviewed. i just want to know what that process was and how intensively involved of the community was. other pieces in the district, where we talked to the community, the meeting may have been attended by a few people or
10:05 pm
infrequently engaged. there is probably a difference in how many people were involved or not. is there some kind time constraint on this project that we should be aware of? >> i will let staff answer that. we have had no complaints or problems from the neighborhood. i do not know that a label would make a huge difference to the project. >> i just know that they were hoping to start sooner, rather than later, on january 12. i do not know if that is anything meaningful to the documentation in the process. what i can do is get some information before the next full board meeting.
10:06 pm
supervisor chu: i suppose that if the issue is the mta trying to start the environmental process in january, even if the item is continued, it would not hurt as long as we make action before january. if that is the case, i know that supervisor wiener would be ok with moving forward. allowing for additional public comment. supervisor avalos: i would rather not the latest and am wondering if there is a way to move it to the full board. we can call it to the full board and here it there. but you think that this is the way that we need to go in terms of promoting livable streets and recycling in san francisco. it is not a part of san
10:07 pm
francisco that typically gets a lot parking. the parking is on the streets that are perpendicular to masonic. and there are no businesses there. just institutions. there are not a lot of places where there are neighborhood- serving businesses there. >> in terms of procedure, it would not be the first time that you have taken an item and passed it along to the board for clarification. as we discussed earlier, we will have more information before the board meeting. we can have more discussion at the board meeting.
10:08 pm
there is additional information that can clearly be provided. i seem to recall some amount has been completely recovered by restriking streets for ample parking. when we do this on erie, it was a perfect way to deal with these concerns. as the commissioner mentioned, there is not much activity going on. from that standpoint, this is an easier picture to deal with. it is a considerable removal of spaces. the next time that you have an idea like this, when there is
10:09 pm
information for the committee that is more so -- settled. part of the issue is that you are not hearing from constituents about parking problems. but for us, it is a little awkward. the agency is doing its job. you should not have to worry about it. supervisor chu: the issue with this item is that we have not heard much from people complaining about this. in other items, we have heard people who are not in support. but on this one, i have not 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
10:10 pm
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
10:11 pm
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
10:12 pm
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
10:13 pm
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
10:14 pm
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
10:15 pm
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
10:16 pm
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.
10:17 pm
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.
10:18 pm
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
10:19 pm
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.
10:20 pm
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.
10:21 pm
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
10:22 pm
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.
10:23 pm
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,
10:24 pm
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
10:25 pm
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.
10:26 pm
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.
10:27 pm
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
10:28 pm
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
10:29 pm
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 performanf