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: thank you very much. again, look into the plans and programs committee of the transportation authority. >> thank you. tilly cheng again. more about the accord needed thinking amongst staff, i want to thank the staff very much for

their hard work in the inclusive process. it is a giant effort, this inaugural effort, and we really do appreciate all of the thoughts on this and open this with which the process is being conducted. i would like to recognize the other agencies that we have been coordinating in the process. [reads names] within our own agency, staff has been very hard working and helpful on all of these issues. on the amount of growth in san francisco, the comment has always been made that the growth being targeted for san francisco is a stretch, 154,000 jobs. it is something the city is working on. we want to do more than our fair

share in the region and we can support these plans that projected levels. more than we have been receiving in the past. the dollars available our primary transportation dollars, so what we can do is a region to expand the budget and expand the funding estimates available to meet these goals would be all the better. we will be offering a few ideas in terms of how that can be done. these funds are needed to maintain san francisco's existing service, such as operations at the west portal and to provide the needed services so that people can even get on transit vehicles, but also to maintain the roads. also to increase capacity to meet projected growth trends, of

course. the funded principal advocacy discussion, thank you for raising the point of the suggestion that we begin these high levels suggestions -- discussions. so that jurisdictions around the region can understand what the policy direction guidance is linking deduction to growth. the distribution of housing in san francisco, we find, is a good start. the house and distribution places 70% of growth regionally. in san francisco, 100% of our gross pda's. that reflects our commitment to transit-oriented development. we do believe that we can improve on that, it varies within counties and cities. we feel there can be a strong recital -- stronger citing

around housing. areas that were not able to volunteer sent a signal that they could take more growth. we also want to highlight the need to distribute a for a housing and growth in areas for transit within complete communities. locations elsewhere in the bay area that have good schools, access to fresh groceries for a more equitable distribution of goods in the bay area. it would appear that growth is more well distributed than the 2007-2014 readout, although we do not have confirmation of that yet. we hope that this trend to get maintained in the parallel process of the housing needs allocation methodology process. the process by which the region

undergoes low-income housing over seven years on a women basis. in principle we would urge the region to strive for a more diverse income distribution amongst other place types in the region. i want to highlight that the federal reserve will be helping to conduct equity analysis, we understand, through the coordination of the mayor's office of housing and we look forward to that analysis. in terms of distribution of jobs, the region will get tighter around court transit services. looking at parking and shuttles, parking management, these are some of the new ideas that might work their way through. moving jobs closer to housing. this is a question of regional approach. you should be moving our jobs closer to housing, which may be should be in the suburbs --

which is in the suburbs, but our concern as this could spawn a leapfrog effect. jobs in the suburbs, people then take another 30 minutes to commute outside of that ring of jobs. we would not want to continue for repeat that process and pattern of small. we believe that any such process to move jobs to suburban housing would benefit from the caring but transportation pricing policies to avoid too much intra-regional commuting. people certainly change jobs more frequently than they change housing. the concern would be to avoid that intra-regional auto-based commute pattern. we would not -- we would want to make sure that there are not only jobs around housing -- sorry, drug -- jobs around

transit, but there are pricing policies to that effect. there was some additional transit assumed in san francisco in terms of travel time. we appreciated that reflected in " and we thought that the next generation of transit networks needed to be vetted by an open and inclusive process. the process that we will be bringing to you all for approval in submitting at the staff level in april will be considered in terms of our own party suggestions for the next generation of transit improvements and infrastructure. we would like to participate closely within the region for the transit sustainability project, apparently where some of the major ideas are going to be coming from. in terms of the funding policy principle, to give a heads up for house staff are thinking about this in proper, we believe

that a stronger nexus within the transit system demand for maintenance funding, san francisco received 9% of the maintenance money, 50% of discretionary funding in the 2009 rtp. our share of trip ends in 2010 was 61%. it is really quite stark and we are hoping that we can move more to the middle right direction for the systems that we are carrying out a daily basis. emphasized when you think about the transit bicycles on those streets and roads. we want to make sure that we move a bit in the right direction on that front. on the second point, not only san francisco, but cities around the region have been trying to step up and provide more

aggressive growth plans that are transit oriented and danced in environment with good, mixed use designs. we would like to see regional policy link " -- a linkage at a high level. this land use strategy pushed in terms of the quantity of growth, they are not all created equal. our footprint, 100% of our footprint is in our pda and the rest in non-pda's are in a lower density environments. we have a good share of the affordable housing because of the leadership of this board and the city family in general pushing for this more equitable pattern of development. not every committee has that. we would like to see recognition of compute -- community complete this so that those that are more

ready can be favored with more recognition and funding. as well as local contributions. in terms of other transportation funding being put toward the planned, as well as the substantial amount of private developer money going into the area plans, these are all indicators of the strength and quality of our pda's for example. the next system is not include the need to be there to prevent or mitigate this placement. trying to not only plan for, but showed the track record of what happened in the last round so that communities can be incentivized. performance refers to project a formants and ntc has continued

to perform well on the merits of transportation, mobility, accessibility measures. in terms of advocacy, this is an entirely new effort on a completely different scale to provide the opportunity to think about new ways of doing business. new funding sources to bring to the table. we are hoping that any new revenues that might emerge as a platform coming out of this could focus on the state of good repair issues for infrastructure and particularly for transit and transit operating. service breakdowns, resulted from not maintaining the infrastructure and in good repair. supporting self-help and other user efforts in congestion

pricing, local jurisdictions are stepping up, not waiting for the federal government or the state budget. these are all challenging times, and we have been stepping forward with our own ideas and proposals, we hope it will be recognized by the region as well. the non-transportation sources for funding, certainly something that is not within my personal expertise, but we have benefited from discussions with partner agencies. we think that they could bring in policies around this work, including public policy and health for communities. in terms of legislation, we have been tapping efforts that could bring more funding and to

develop and whole communities around transit nodes, preserving redevelopment, the region needs to look at how important this redevelopment tool is in beating actual development plans. here in san francisco and urban areas around the state, it is important to recognize how we can meet our own vision and goals. finally, the support for public and private partnerships is the kind of tool that can bring private investment, risk taking, and expertise into the process, marrying it with the public side. we hope that it will be brainstormed in advance to mirror goals. finally, everyone is hopeful that regulation will be streamlined. some of the recent developments are well on some of the latest emission standards are worrisome because even our best

are sometimes not making the grade according to the new regulations. that this sort of a preview. we thank you for your guidance and look forward to any more guidance you might wish to provide. the plan is to participate in a values workshop. we encourage members to come to the conference center from 5:30 until 8:30 to give more direct input to regional agencies. the leadership roundtable refers to meetings of staff by and regional agencies, as well as the san francisco department heads. we will be noticing that. we also expect to provide a letter that formalizes these pieces of input in the middle of

may in time for their use in the detailed scenarios. thank you so much. supervisor campos: a quick question. in terms of process, when might be the next time that we could hear back on this item? >> we can come back to you monthly and we will be back again next month with a project that we will be submitting to the rtc. >> in terms of communications, how often is that happening? >> we have been attending several of the monthly meetings. we can certainly invite them back. supervisor campos: great. why not -- thank you very much, thank you all. thank you to abag for being here. is there any member of the

public that would like to speak on this item? if so, please come forward. seeing no one, public comment is closed. next item? >> item number 7. update on regional transportation plan/sustainable communities strategy and san francisco transportation plan call for projects. >> if i may, we have an action item still on the agenda. looking at the clock -- supervisor campos: let's move on to item no. 8. >> item #8. recommend commitment of up to $150 million in additional state regional improvement program

funds, with conditions, to the central subway project to provide supplemental assurances to the federal transit administration in support of the san francisco municipal transportation agency's plan to cover potential cost overruns beyond the $1.578 billion baseline project cost. >> i have brief, verbal presentation, that ithe centralm manager to give a on this topic. what we have for you is close the gap. it did involve some complicated reprogramming, but they would be unable to shift funds and we

he second part of the bd confirms our financial of the bd commitment to the project. you can see the plans on one of pr wase, up of l+ link electronics, inc. model number: pdr-885 software version: 2.0a for full approval. as you can see, this is a really big deal. 60% of the funds will be used in

commitment to the project. the project cannot proceed through the construction phase without it. when you mention the fall spending item in february, we were working on an expensive list of what needed to be submitted for the full funding agreement. a subset -- subset is dealing with other risks. we are looking at other ways to deal with risks. careful management of the project and competitive bidding environment. some fund sources my pc -- available sooner than others. the review can turn it --

contained the continuation of the full funding plan and a financial capacity assessment that has to do with the risk. including an evaluation to be sure that the project. i had a plan in place in case there was a 10% cost increase in the budget. i am almost done with my introduction on this. on the issue of cost overruns, it is important to remind folks about this project. there was a four day series of sessions between the parks team and authority, resulting in different rift in the project. that is what got us to the

current 1.5 $7 million in the budget. at the same time, we very much understand the climate in washington, d.c., and the need for the fda to be substantially concerned over project deliverance. so, there is the cost overrun issue. talking about the availability of funds. $437 million in i have not been able to program it yet because of the state budget situation. these programs will meet project means, but the other kind upon

the point is that the actual level federal funds cannot be financed to keep the process moving. after working closely with the mta and the other maid and funded -- hunting partners and a potential, of the best at rigid position to address cost overruns is this committee here of $150 million in funds for the project, commission on two big things. the first is that collective funding partners can address all three issues raised by the fda. and that mta agreed to some conditions, as included in your packet, page 186.

including that the san francisco mta board will adopt ground rules for financial management. the board has an action today and a meeting this afternoon. between the conditions here and a copy of the ground rules for financial management, and includes making sure that the authority signed off on team controls with proper procedures in place. we feel there is little risk to the authority in making these additional commitments. at the same time, it is important to understanding the trade-offs. right now we have about $159 million committed to the central boyle's subway project. if we have that commitment, the worst-case scenario is regional program funds.

if you have any other questions, please give us a call. supervisor campos: is the mta and ta on the same page in terms of these conditions? >> thank you very much. fta has agreed to the conditions and the board is on the baseline budget for this afternoon. [unintelligible] supervisor campos: the actions being taken today, this includes your of line? >> good question. no, it includes financial ground rules but not for testament management. supervisor campos: why not hear from the mta?