city, octavia, hunters point. an excuse corridors, -- in mixed use corridors, these are quite important. looking at el camino, some other key corridors that are served by bus and will need you to be served by bus rapid transit. the task at hand is to find projections to meet the projected population growth for the region of roughly 2 million people in a way where we no longer assume people will drive to manteca and find a house they can afford. and to do that in a sustainable way where people will drive less. if you look at the chart on the screen, you will see the 2035 regional plans. that is our forecast. that is already heavily focused on transit-served areas. then you see the growth. our path was to accommodate the growth increment. unsustainably as possible. the road beneath that, that is the regional housing target. in terms of the overall housing distribution, this is a very focused-growth scenario 70% would be a priority areas as opportunity levels. it is a transit-oriented approach. it encompasses very little marine field development. in terms of the house in distribution, santa clara and two other counties would take on the lion's share of the region's growth. san francisco would see its percentage of the region's households and populations decline from 13% to 12%. that would be in part because we really work to recognize the existing plan, recognize that making these plans have been will take a lot of investment. but as we move forward, we are open and want to hear from all the jurisdictions, certainly san francisco and the region, in terms of how growth might be accommodated here. there is certainly no better place in the bay area to accommodate sustainable growth. within san francisco, you cannot really read this slide, but it shows the different neighborhoods in the city. again, these are largely based on planning cities input. -- with the city's input. overall, the initial vision scenario has a number of measures to reduce pressure on conservation areas. it significantly utilizes existing transit. my colleague will get to some of the details in a moment. in many respects, it provides for a big change in our population. there will be a significant shift in the types of housing people want to live in. a lot of these occasions would arguably be good for senior populations. it leverages our existing infrastructure and limits for lower steeper use related to both the location of the growth and development. a lot of work went into the housing distribution component of the initial vision scenario, and its relationship to transit, to places. the employment distribution, however, is really a forecast. it takes our recent growth over the last couple of decades, and with a significant drop based in the recession and a look back over the last couple years, and overall quite a few large -- despite a few large spikes, protest and limited. it estimates to million additional jobs. it does not forecast the location of those jobs. that is something we will be looking at. we will be working with the city on alternative scenarios. the initial vision scenario was our first step. one thing we received a lot of input on in recent months, as well as the past few years, is we were missing part of the equation. in this region, we really did not have a regional planning perspective focused on employment. much more of our work has been on the communication between housing, the location of housing and the location of transit. we're going to look get help employment in certain regions might impact the region's growth. we will be in touch with you on that. supervisor campos: can i ask you a basic question? this is a very aggressive plan if you look at what it means for san francisco. we're talking 90,000 housing units. that is a lot of people. you know, you have to think about the ability of san francisco to incorporate that kind of growth. so, what resources are going to be made available to make sure we are able to meet that objective? this is a very ambitious objective. >> that is really the $64 million -- it is only so much of an exaggeration -- question. that will be leading up to 2013, what is the growth pattern? how can we supported both through the regional transportation plan, related policies, as well as, what will be rtp not be? it cannot do everything. much of what we will be looking for is the back from the jurisdiction, including asset, as to what it will take to make this kind of growth happening. >> -- supervisor campos: i feel that we are being taken for granted in terms of what this means for san francisco. the goals are very ambitious. and yet, i do not know if we're being given the resources to actually do what we're being asked to do. certainly the transportation investment. supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: median 2035 we will not be in war in iraq and afghanistan and we can use those funds for transit and where we really need to rebuild. >> there are a couple of items coming up very soon. one is to identify growth for areas that would potentially expand on the resources that are now available and the assessment for individual transportation projects. that will be moving forward. that will be a big part of the discussion going forward how will we be looking at growth and relocation? supervisor campos: thank you. please continue. >> i will ask my colleague doug johnson to continue. >> good morning, committee members. thank you for the warm-up. i think your questions were perfectly timed. much as ken alluded to, the challenge for all of us is how we think about the region growing. by "we," i mean the region growing. these are trying times. we are looking at housing finance and other key components that supports this kind of growth and know how hard our challenge is. we have the resources to make to the best we can. i think also, just to carry forth on your line of questioning, there is work for us to do going forward. with supplying new sources of funding. really, we do not have the tools we need. to look forward in a visionary fashion, we tried to do was take what we know about our future transportation system, and assume we're able to continue with identified funding sources, but also to expand services across the network -- caltran, muni, bart in the city. we have been working very closely with your staff on the availability of transit service. we've had a clear back and forth. you can see we are trying to propose the initial vision scenario, increasing by roughly 15%, for the ability to increase a substantial amount of service capacity for rail transit. i would also note our planning scenarios do not suggest a potential increase in growth anywhere in the region. our road planning is not slated to increase very much. we talked about greenhouse reduction. for the bay area, we have huge shuttle endeavour. for 2030 and 2035. there is a reduction of 15% per capita. with the initial vision scenario, we see the 2020 figure and can make a substantial chunk of progress to our 2035 figure. that is good news. the bad news is we have to figure out, in a more constrained fashion, how are we going to meet that target? we do think that the initial vision scenario does show, as a region, the benefits of taking targeted growth, a targeted investment strategy. well we are interested in climate change and greenhouse gas reductions, at the end of your evaluation of the plan -- i would say when we look at it, we have a broader set of evaluation criteria. we see two things. one is the objective that the initial vision scenario does not allow us to identify how to place housing units in our region. we've not been able to do this as our region of the the last 20 to 30 years that creates a massive amount of spillover and adjoining regions and expensive real estate here in the region. as you were alluding to with your question though, one of the trip to find when you start adding folks -- and you know this from all of your eir's -- you start to see ingestion and impact on communities as well. one of the big challenges is to balance those objectives. i will try to not make you look at this slide for any longer than absolutely necessary. it is a bit confounding. essentially, the first two bars show the way the initial vision scenario does allow us to make substantial progress to our greenhouse gas bowl. -- goal. also, it does allow us to reach the full housing goal we have set for ourselves. now we have a lot of work to do, to get back into those numbers and see how we are going to actually make this a reality. i would encourage you to look for some of the other metrics we have used to evaluate the full senate areas. i would also draw your attention to the second bar. you see the initial vision scenario does allow for a more affordable future for low income households. where you look at the combined cost of housing and transportation. i think the initial vision samarium and sustainable -- scenario and the sustainable committee strategy looks at how these pieces put together. the ability of households to serve a lot of these needs with transit, on foot, and so forth is going to make them -- make this a more affordable region, basically. and it also creates a region where rates of driving to decrease by 10%. supervisor campos: i think supervisor wiener wanted to ask you a question. >> jump in. supervisor wiener: thank you. just a follow-up -- in terms of chair campos's comment on the infrastructure, and just to be very tangible about it. in the octavia area, we have -- and i am very supportive of transit-oriented development and a lot of projects that will be coming forward for a lot of those in elected office. it becomes very difficult to do the right thing regionally and have the system to its fair share when there is a lot of pressure otherwise. one of the concerns that a lot of people express, and i think it is legitimate, is we're looking at a 60% increase -- i think it is a 6000-household increase? anyone who commutes on muni metro during rush hour knows there is not much more room on those trains already. i do not know if it is technically over capacity. if it is not, it is close. it is nightmarish for a lot of people who rely on it. i do not think we can just put more lrv's into the system, unless we have dramatic improvements in our infrastructure. the needs to be a lot of investment. if you look on market street, west of van ness, for service -- i give that a c-minus, at best. it is just horrible. it is so important we be able to upgrade that. i guess my question is, in terms of funding, i know a number of us have concerns about the way that the funding is -- the way the formulas work in terms of nighttime verus daytime population, and when you look at the trip begins. it is a way disproportionate to our population. and there is concern about how the funding is allocated and how san francisco in stock. -- ends up. obviously we are disappointed that the mtc is supporting a measure that would skew support away from the nsf, which is the dominant transit center in the region. >> it might be wise to not comment on that, actually. [laughter] i will only say the ability of san francisco to leverage relationships with the commissioners from the other two large cities -- supervisor wiener: i agree with you. >> but increasing the board and technically everyone else's vote is deluded, and there are certain -- i think that action does reflect overall an interest in increasing the role of the cities -- specifically the three large cities which account for 35% of the region -- do play in this question. i think there are transit services in other cities that will have a potential increase. clearly san francisco's infrastructure does not compare to anyone else in the region. there are few systems that are as robust and as close as capacity. one of the challenges, honestly, asset has is how to convey that and have that interaction -- san francisco has is how to convey that in have that interaction. that being said, i think your presence and the city's engagement has proved very helpful. i think there are discussions staff is having about developing new ways for a new service, park metro service, for example. to reflect a discussion and potentially a re-prioritization of services for established neighborhoods, as well as neighborhoods that stand to grow, looking out beyond the end of the line. you will find there are plenty of opportunities for that. supervisor campos: we do look forward to that dialogue. one thing i would say for the record -- it is not just of fact that the commission with that change in the make up, which definitely diminishes s.f.'s power -- san francisco's power, but i think it was the way that matter was lobbied by the people representing been mtc. i think that left a lot to be desired. i do not think it is a good thing. so, i am hoping it is something the mtc will reconsider in terms of its representation in sacramento and how is decisions are presented. i do not think that is acceptable. what about the funding issue? what is the timing of the issue of funding? when are you looking at that? i know we are talking about funding being a critical component of this. is this something happening on parallel tracks? maybe you can talk about that relative to this presentation? >> i can skip ahead a couple of slides and get to a couple of upcoming meetings we have. obviously, we of a public workshop coming up on april 25 here in san francisco. obviously, in your staff has been very well involved to date in the process. i do not expect that to change with regard to staff from planning and mta, and in particular providing substantial input. in terms of the next steps, you can see how we will be stepping up the next round of more constrained scenarios going forward. we will be having that discussion around investment strategies as we tier off with those new scenarios in the fall. supervisor campos: why is that? to me, it seems that the fall is too late. why is that discussion not taking place now on parallel tracks? nothing can be accomplished unless we actually have the resources to make it happen. i do not understand the reasoning for waiting until -- i guess october on this slide? why wait until october? >> we need substantial time to process your feedback and the feedback of the jurisdictions on this issue. we are looking to move from of vision to a more detailed and constrained set of scenarios over the course of the summer, at which point picking and looking at transportation investments that would more closely tie with a detailed look at land use and transportation estimates, we think that would be the right time to make those decisions. right now, i think the provision is the -- the vision is the first go. it is the first try. it is clearly on the visionary side in need of resources. and we understand that. but we thought it was important to the region to look at the big picture before we started to narrow down and look at what the scenarios are and what the transportation investments are you would have to pick to ultimately support the detailed scenarios going forward. supervisor campos: i understand, but ultimately i think that is a mistake. i hope it would be reconsidered. >> fair enough. if you have additional feedback -- either today or clearly by the week of may 16 -- for staff to respond. just to give us feedback on the initial vision. there is a questionnaire that deal specifically with the issue of resources and transportation investments more broadly. supervisor campos: i do have one -- >> i am actually done with the presentation. supervisor campos: i do have one more question. what about the question of displacement? we feel this in s.f. whenever there is an issue of potential development. how does that work with this plan? >> in a number of ways. supervisor campos: speak into the microphone, plays. >> there is a subcommittee that has been formed. it involves a number of equity groups and so forth. it is really looking at equity and displacement from a number of respects. one is a significant percentage of households are called for in the initial vision scenario that would ultimately be called for in the subsidy. the regional issue. housing in delegation goes across all income sectors. how it gets funded and where it gets located is a key issue. displacement is a key concern. we have done some work related to mapping locations that are very vulnerable in terms of displacement. there have also been efforts in the bay area pod fund, which has been started. it uses transportation dollars for affordable housing. i do not think that we have it all figured out by any means, but it is definitely an issue that is on the table. honestly, across the region, in terms of different jurisdictions, equity plays out different ways. in the city of oakland, there are ways in which residents are reportedly interested in market rate housing where there has been no market rate development for decades. in other parts of that city, displacement is a real concern and i think we are making a concerted effort to make sure it is on the table. supervisor campos: what is the portable housing distribution in the ids? >> in the initial scenario, the afford housing situation has not been addressed. we are looking at overall total housing needs. as the scenario gets developed, it will lead to be addressed in terms of category. this is really a starting point. the alternative scenarios are going to move forward through the rest of the year. concepts and ideas are going to go to the joint committee in june and up 44 -- further discussion in july. staff will be working on those and bringing back results in the fall for preferred scenario -- scenarios. related to the dedication that we will be going for in the months ahead. supervisor campos: commissioner winner? >> in terms of portability, in terms of portability one of the things that we see in san francisco is that we have a pretty poor track record in terms of producing middle-income or tract housing, whenever you want to call it. i think we are at something like 0% on middle income. i do not know how that compares to other parts of the region, but i am curious to know what the distribution is or should be. a huge issue for the bay area in general. looking back, we do a housing report every year. the pattern that you described basically played out in the bay area in general, where lots of market rate housing was permitted, significant subsidies, arguably not enough low-income housing was permitted. but almost nothing in terms of moderate income or workforce housing. if you look at the growth of the curb in the outer parts of the region, those are the folks who drove until they qualified for the markets. the market provides moderate income housing. that is right at the crux of what this law is about. the requirement that each region provide for its housing need within the regional boundaries. it is like a laser in the bay area. we are really the big region that has not been doing that. it is a big issue. we are working with affordable housing providers and equity groups on that issue. it is something that is being considered in relation to the income category component of the regional housing needs of 40 allocation. we need to develop a methodology in that region. not something that the jurisdictions love, but it is state law. from a funding perspective and from a distribution perspective it is something they are trying to figure out that we have not completely figured out yet. supervisor campos