>> regular hearing for may 9, 2013. i'd like to remind the members of the public the commission does not tolerate any outbursts or disruptions of any kind. if you have any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings, please silence them or turn them off. and when speaking before the commission please do state your name for the record. commissioners, we left off under your regular calendar item 12, plan bay area. >> commissioner, [speaker not understood] with the planning department. i'm here to brief you on plan

bay area which is the sustainable communities strategy for our region. this arose out of senate bill 375 which was a state bill that called for all of the bay area's region -- all of the california's regions to demonstrate how each region would achieve per capita reduction in greenhouse gas emissions through long-range planning. we've briefed you periodically on this the last pew years. the last time we were here was about nine months ago when the jobs housing connection which was the draft growth strategy and the draft transportation strategy were first formed and put out. since then, about a month ago, mtc, abag, metropolitan transportation commission and association of bay area governments, released the draft plan bay area, the draft sustainable clean air strategy that brings the growth strategy and transportation strategy together. they are out for a comment period which ends next week.

so, our hope today is to brief you on the content of the plan and e-i-r and staff will be working on letters to mtc and abag on the contents, so, we hope to hear your feedback to help us form those letters. i'm here with my colleagues liz bryson who will speak to the transportation strategy of the plan and victoria wise from our department who will brief you on the draft e-i-r. if i can get the presentation. so, just to talk a little bit about why the plan is happening in the first place, the entire plan bay area is based on population projections. growth and jobs, growth in housing, and the premise is to shift that growth towards urbanized areas and more directly shift the most intense growth to actual urban areas

like san francisco, san jose, and oakland. the reasons they're doing that are ones you are quite well aware of. greenhouse gases obviously are most affected by driving, less driving means lessee missions, more people can walk, bike, and take transit. they don't need to drive as much. water use is another great reason for directing people towards urban areas. an interesting fact, sierra club recently, i guess about three years ago did a per capita water analysis and found that san francisco is the lowest in the bay area by far in term of water use of 108 gallons per day versus almost 175 gallons per day in alameda county which is relatively urban, too, which makes a difference how people live and how we consume our resources. and then a thing that i think is less talked about but that is one of the things underpinning plan bay area as it's trying to reach beyond lubetionv and transportation towards social and economic activity, cities try to offered [speaker not understood] even

as afford ability is an issue in our more dense areas. they found social connectedness is a chi critical factor in upward mobility. lack of car alliance can fail to help people connect and move forward. it is a complicated web bus there is a factor in there shifting areas to help us move forward. and another factor underlying the population projections within plan bay area is how we will grow. the productions are just projections. no one is really sure ~ if we will grow and by how much and who those people would be, but plan bay area sees the same trends that we have been seeing in our city, like a growing senior population who often are trying to downsize and fit within urban areas. a growing asian and latino population, cultures that are much more familiar with multi-generational households and multi-family housing preferences often. a growing work force under 35, which is showing demands to be

single longer, more accepting of density and transit and often more desirable of multi-family housing as well. on the employment sector, they're seeing growth primarily in the professional and health sectors with things like industrial jobs staying stable, particular growth in the knowledge sector with the kind of jobs that we in san francisco have been seek a local boom in. they're seeing a demand for connected and accessible workplaces and along with those jobs a real mode shift, a desire for commute patterns that are connected to transit on bike lanes, that kind of thing. >> so, this just talks a little bit about what the region's saw their task as. as i mentioned, greenhouse gas emissions was the state directive, but within that, connecting land use and transportation planning, making sure that we have an ability to house the region's population at all its income levels and that is a really tricky thing

to do in a regional plan and i don't think -- i'm not sure it is a possible thing to do in a regional plan. it is not one that came out very successfully. and another key factor here was embodying local vision. so, as i'll talk about when i get into the growth strategy, it really was built on work with the different municipalities within the bay area to see what their visions are, where they could grow, and by how much. and that was the foundation of the plan. ~ land use another interesting fact about component of plan bay area is that it was built on performance targets. looking at how we can increase our economic vitality, not only how we can reduce greenhouse emissions, but how we can ensure all future development, future growth happens within the already urbanized footprints. looking at vmt, vehicle miles traveled and how we can reduce that, while increasing our nonauto mode share. looking at ways to improve health of our citizens, reducing

deaths from particle emissions, reducing injuries from collisions, increasing the amount of time people spend walking and biking every day. and lastly as an equitable measure looking at how we can decrease housing and transportation, the percent of cost that housing and transportation take up of a person's -- of a household's budget. we'll get into those growth and transportation strategies, but just on a meta level, the majority of those targets were met and i think the plan did pretty well. it is worth noting that we didn't decrease collisions. the plan didn't decrease collisions. and i think as the regional staff presents that, they did not phrase that target in a good way. it wasn't phrased as a reduction of -- in terms of percent based on population, but just net decrease in collisions. the fact is if we add as many people as the region says we're going to over 2 million people are going to have more accidents and more of those people crashing into each other. another unfortunate finding of

the plan was that while the percent of housing and transportation costs that represented a household income did go down in proportion to what would happen without the plan, they did not go down overall. they still raised. i think the increase was, without the plan, they thought those combined costs would increase by 10% of what they are today. with the plan they're still going to increase by 3%. so, it's still going to be a problem. so, i'll just get lightly into the growth strategy, which is the land use component of the plan. what we're looking at in term of growth over the region is 1.12 million jobs to 20 40, 66 0,000 new households. san francisco's share of that is significant. we're looking at 92,000

households and 190,000 jobs. we're taking a great share of the growth, as is oakland and san jose. i've spoken to you previously about these numbers. we think they're ambitious, but not out of -- completely out of whack with what we've seen in the past. whether we can sustain this level of growth over the next 25 years is the question, but these are the numbers we're looking at. the strategy for the region, as i mentioned, is based on local vision. so, what happens is all of the growth is directed towards locally designated priority development areas as a refresher, prior development areas have to be -- they are designated -- they are accepted by abag. localities designate them, but abag and mtc look at the qualities that those areas contain and decide whether they actually are truly a pda. they have to be within an existing community or infill development area. they have to be near existing or plan transit. they have to provide housing and/or jobs on a significant

amount of those, and they are supposed to provide a diversity of density in order to kind of connect with community identity. so, this plan contains over 170 pdas that were nominated by the various jurisdictions, and over 60 cities and counties. what that means is that the majority of the growth can happen in pdas 80% of the housing units that were projected to grow will fit in those pink areas you see in this map. 60% of the jobs. we've spoken a lot to you about the need to connect jobs to transit because that really is the end trip of the commute trip ~ and i think that is something we wish we could have been a little more ambitious toward, but it does still represent a significant shift for the region. and then locally in terms of where our growth is happening, i believe you're familiar with our priority development areas which are shown on this map. we can fit 85% of our projected

housing in pda's and 75% of our projected jobs in pda's. somewhat on parallel. little more aggressive than what the region is doing, but somewhat parallel. i think what is important no noel it does not necessarily mean the growth that doesn't fit in pda's is going to happen in unplanned ways which just means we haven't planned for it yet and we probably have some more work to do in the next 25 years. and then lastly, i just wanted to mention, because i think a very interesting thing about this plan, and i'm not sure how many of the other regions sustainable stratejai have this overlayer component, the plan does try to go beyond the projection of land use. the region the last several years has taken an interest in the kind of issues especially important to us. things like creating complete communities, ensuring housing affordability, looking at development without displacement, how do we preserve our existing communities while growing at the same time. and it does provide some

funding to do so. liz during her presentation will talk a little about the funding that is connected through the one bay area block grant framework, but just like our local plans try to address things like how we're providing affordable housing, how we're connecting residents to jobs, how we're providing job training or community education, the region is looking at how they can support our efforts to do so and that will be a new component that will be very welcome to us in the coming years. with that i'll turn it over to liz. ~ >> good afternoon, commissioners. liz bryson with the san francisco county transportation authority. and the authority has been very involved in sort of coordinating san francisco's input into the funding process. we've had a really great experience working with all of the relevant agencies, the planning department, the sfmta's mayor's office of housing, among others. there has been