inner loop. perfectly reasonable public health concerns that are going to raise the cost of the project, because we are not solving the problem at the point where pollution and air contaminants are occurring. it is very hard to beat in san francisco on land use, but on this type of thing where we can do the analysis earlier and better, we may be able to put the conversation a step higher. president olague: thank you for that. for me, a lot of what is lacking is the deep analysis as it relates to some of the alleged goals of transit oriented development, as it relates to the reports we sometimes get in the work that we see presented to us. frequently, we see folks come before us and the only criteria that seems to be in place as it relates to transit oriented

development is dense high-rise housing, and there is nothing else really outside of that. they come before us with multimillion-dollar condominium units, one-to-one parking. they can give away all of the transit passes that they want, but i don't really see how that really moves us towards reducing the carbon footprint if we are still demanding high-rise mentalities with one-to-one parking. at some point, we need to have a serious conversation with members of the public and interested parties about the minor criteria that we're looking at. just the criteria that we looked at as relates to transit oriented development, so we don't have to continue to sit here and have people insist on a

certain type of project that really is not addressing the mandates the state has as relates to anything. if people want to just come, let's be honest, is this really transit oriented development? who is this serving? at some point we have to look at the equity issue in the job nexus' issue. iwe have the eight priority principles, one of them about maintaining economic diversity and affordable housing. we see the staff reports. we see, well, you know, it is on to contribute to the industry, and therefore we -- we are meeting that prop m policy,

suggesting, or whatever, principal. i think we need to be more thoughtful and analytical as it relates to the type of analysis we are being provided with when it comes to projects that come before us under the guise of transit oriented development, and it has to be and just about additional site. we have to relate that to some of the overall equity goals that are mandated by abag and everybody else, and it is not just enough to say, well, we're getting 50% below market rate, 85% is multimillion-dollar condominiums, and one-to-one parking, but you have to purchase a transit pass.

that is a joke to me, and that is an insult my intelligence on so many levels. that is not your fault. maybe we should just are doing that. at the end of the day, we ought to just toss that card out. i don't know, it is just really frustrating for us, for me, to have to continue to shake my head and say, yes, transit oriented development because it is a high-rise next to a bart station, but it does not reach any of our goals as relates to equity and we did not have any analysis of how it ultimately attacks the committee's concerns and real workers who live in the city. for me, i will start asking more questions as they relate to equity and the impact of market. development. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i think mr. shoemaker brought up a good point, which was basically, show

me the money. if it redevelopment go south, somebody has to pay for all of the things that everybody is talking about and is hiring. if we don't have public funding, and chances are there will be varied little in the next 10 years, what you have to do if your going to build anything in meet the goals of sb-375 is to harness the forces out there. there's a lot of information and social networking and that sort of thing, and i think what i understand sb-375, very simple, you want to locate jobs, housing, and transit together, where people can get to their jobs easily. that is a good concept. it is about 100 years overdue, but we're finally getting close to it. what i think we need to do in san francisco is attract and retain the jobs which fit into

the existing built form. if we spent billions of dollars to create a downtown area with a built form and transit system for business, basically that most support the business and professional, retail to some degree, cultural and institutional. those other kinds of people who work in those jobs, can live here, can virtually often walk to their jobs from where they live. and if they are not driving, they have a car, but it's it's all week and a half to walk or take short transit trips to their job. one thing is tech jobs, pursuing tech jobs and get them into san francisco, because most of their employees live here anyway and a lot of them are commuting down the peninsula. it might be smart for those businesses to locate many of their jobs here where their

employees are. i think that is part of smart growth. it does not mean that is an exclusive thing. you need all kinds of people, all kinds of jobs to make a city work. you have to marry all of the jobs and housing, look at what we can support. we will not support a lot of new industrial growth in san francisco. we don't have the land for that to begin with. i don't think agricultural is going to happen, other than a few garden farms, but what we have, what makes sense, and what have we already built? that is what we have to build housing to meet and put jobs that are and built form. that is the lesson to be learned from 375. >> thank you, just a couple of comments. i find this conversation gratifying to be talking about real policy rather than roof decks at this hour.

what i find, really, i am optimistic because the vast majority of us in this room agree. to me, that is very gratifying. i'd like to offer that we have the discussion that president olague mentions. it is hard to have a dialogue in this room the same as if we were around a table, and i would be happy to host some of those over the coming months. i think it is important that we do that. the challenges we are faced with by the region and the state is they have made assumptions that the growth is going to happen. whether those numbers are right or not, i don't know. but the assumption it they are making and predicting is that growth is going to happen. the challenge for us as a region

is the thing people choose to live in regions rather than cities and figure out how that growth could be accomplished. whether the growth should happen in the city or san jose or any number of other places, it is the question that we have to grapple with, but the assumption that is being made that we're being challenged with is this growth will happen whether we plan for it or not. it may be that we end up saying that san francisco should not accept this much growth, and that is a very important point to be made, but the fact is somewhere in this region, a certain amount of growth will happen over this time frame and we have a huge challenge to figure out how to do this. president olague: we will take you up on that. commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: just one last comment, attacking at the source. one of the issues for me is as

technology and as the source of commissions, namely automobiles in this case, to speaking about that, as we move towards heyer resin, electric, whatever happened to fuel cells, i don't know, but we could resolve some what the air pollution issues. but that flies in the face of transit oriented development. suez we're trying to resolve the issues around pollution -- so as we are trying to resolve the issues around pollution, we're still going to have cars. i think it is sort of working at cross purposes, and a way perry -- in a way. we have to be careful and concentrate on land use issues, as commissioner moore was

talking about. commissioner moore: i like to reflect on the issue of growth. if there is need for additional housing, i would like that. it are we totally accounting for the large amount of the units dispossessed by banks in terms of people financial have to leave homes? i read a national statistic that 40% of all repossessed homes are actually vacant and standing unoccupied. in san francisco, we do not have any mechanism at this time as to really account for how many units have we bill to and how to predict how many units have we built and how many are occupied. i have said that a number of times in the last year, the last few months. i look around, there is a large

number of vacant homes out which are artificially being held off the market. we have a large amount of vacancy, and if there is growth, there will be a point where these units have to be rendered and reoccupied. are we creating a city for growth that is only 80% occupied? do we have 20% vacancy built-in? is that an economically viable model for how we provide city services, looking at funding, it said rep? are we pushing vacancy ahead of this instead of looking for more growth when it is not necessary? the second or third question that goes in there, do we have a clear understanding about the life cycle of our housing stock, owner occupied, or rental, i don't care, in terms of how long the house and we have will be viable to be

maintained before it needs to be replaced or updated? but then there is the possibility for increased density. i see some communities, they're starting to make changes to their ordinances for second dwelling units to occur on larger lots, where a subtle, more gradual gentrification is a career, but spread over a city like san francisco could potentially create an artificial housing stock partially conceived on smaller units, but a strategy that is equally important than just growth. i am raising these questions because of a like to get a more clear understanding about the residual resources of owner occupied units and how we project growth and how we meet the criteria for growth. >> i apologize, commissioner, i

don't have up-to-the-minute data. i know that in general, and this may be too obvious, we get that experience anything like the level of vacancy that you see in the far east bay and san joaquin valley. the 40% numbers baby about nationally are nothing like what we have experienced here. as relates to vacancy, it is hard to get a real number. euros experience is a guide. we're seeing the highest level of foreclosures in the southeast. the bank on the properties, i see somewhat contradictory data about how many banks owned properties there are. i can get back to you on that. anecdotally, i don't think it is anything like 20%, but on a regional level this is a bigger question, to what extent when we did this planning did we think about all of that vacancy?

the problem is an enormous amount of vacancy. it gets to what brad paul talked about. yes, there is a lot of vacancies in antioch, tracy, and stockton, but it comes at a significant cost. the question is whether it is really available for households looking to live in it. i will try to get you better information, but the best i could do on short notice. commissioner moore: i appreciate that, that should factor how we look at the region. we cannot leave that unanswered or unaccounted for, because at some point if we have national migration, people coming to california, that is a huge amount of housing that we need to fill. president olague: commissioner miguel? vice president miguel: just as

an example of some of the thinking, i have a daughter who is living in santa rosa, just moved back into the city last year, but for 15, 20 years, santa rosa, sonoma county in general experienced tremendous growth in that time. every time we go up that way, there was a new housing development. either starter, finished, halfway through, it is continuing. and it actually continued up to two years ago. not a single one of them, if you live there, could go to the grocery store, get your kids to school, could you do anything about what, and some of them had sidewalks. it might have been easy to walk down.

there was no local transit. what was their solution? they took federal money, state money, local county money and the four-lane highway became six lanes. that was their solution to transit. and that is still there thinking. president olague: i think to the extent the city kid look at keeping whenever manufacturing jobs are here here, i think that would be great. also, we have had a great deal of the hotel's service industry and the tourism industry who might be lower wage workers. i wonder sometimes where they reside. if it is not in the city, where did they commute, how they can meet. i think there are other things to look at as far as jobs and housing and transportation that

is outside of just the tech jobs that seemed to be getting a lot of the focus right now. anyway, thank you everyone for the discussion. secretary avery: thank you. commissioners, we are going to move on on the calendar. president olague: we will g through market octavia and then it take a break after that. secretary avery: thank you. item 12 is market and octavia plan monitoring report, informational presentation by staff. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am the senior planner with the planning section. i am here to eat% to use it the 2005-2009 market and octavia plan monitoring report. this is an informational presentation only.

as you already know, the market octavia plan was adopted by the planning commission in july, 2007, and approved by the board of supervisors and made effective may 30, 2008. saxon 341.3 helps measure the effectiveness of the plan. section 34 1.3 covers the time series and the first five-year report by july, 2008. given the plan was made effective only a few weeks earlier, no further report was made. nevertheless, once the department garnered sufficient

staff resources and information, efforts were made to comply with the mandate. this report will be the first in the time series and it covers 2005-2009. we have a couple of years before the plan was adopted after the plan was adopted and will serve as a baseline for future reports. an annual report will be submitted to the commissioners every july, and the five-year report will come out every year ending in 0 and 5. the data includes the housing inventory, the industry, the pipeline report. the mandate was written such that market octavia would take advantage of the data that has already been published. additional sources included

department of building inspection, the transportation authority, mta, and the mayor's office. categories of information, as required by section 34 1.3 include commercial space and employment, housing production trends, transportation, and parking, implementation programs including historic preservation service. -- historic preservation surveys. nonresidential development in the five years was almost 215,000 square feet in the planning area. much of that came in the form of cultural, educational, and institutional space, mainly because of the rehab and

conversion of the levi strauss building, and the rehab which was the conservatory of music. there is also new retail spaces at 77 van ness. these new developments constitute almost a 3% increase and commercial space area, which more or less reflexed city-wide increase in commercial space. the pipeline. the commercial space pipeline and market octavia showed a slight uptick in space, constituting a small portion,

about 1%, of the commercial development pipeline city-wide. retail space will make up over half of the new commercial space in market octavia, followed by office space. it is part of a new residential care facility also. one-third of the pipeline is under construction or has received funding and should be completed in the next two, three years, and the remaining two- thirds are still under review. the monitoring mandate also requires an accounting of employment in the market octavia area plan. as of the second quarter of 2009, there were about 16,500 jobs in the area, representing about 3% citywide employment. of these jobs, over half were in

office, another was and retail. based on the commercial development pipeline, we estimate there will be about 128 new office and 380 new retail jobs there will be made available, just based on estimating the space and having an average employment density. the residential development trends. the five years, covering 2005- 2009, could very well have been the best years in terms of recent housing production in san francisco. an average of2600 units were built per year. and the market octavia, they sought an edition of 584 units,

roughly 5% increase in the area housing stock. the residential development pipeline and octavia could potentially boost the area's housing by 18%. this is a big increase. almost one in five of the new units is expected to be completed in the next three years. these products are now under construction or have received building permit approval and/or issuance. about half have been titled and could see completion in five years. it just over a third are under review and completion, if they are built, could happen between five years and seven years.

the mandate also required accounting of affordable housing development. one-quarter of the units constructed in market octavia were affordable. most of the units that were built, most of the affordable units built were made available through public assistance. in one project, a senior housing project in what was once partially a center, the remainder are inclusionary units and all were built on site. a section in the monitoring report was also a devoted to the development, and is basically shows the five years that the

report covers. 165 units were built or under construction. it another 392 units have been entitled or are under review. about 60% of these units will be affordable. as for the remaining 11 parcels, the estimated about 535 units could be built based on existing zoning. the monitoring report also covers other changes to the housing stock, including housing stock preservation by type. a total of six units were lost in the five years covered by the report, but actually, of the four units lost to demolition,

there will be a net increase of five units because the projects posted a total of nine units. conversion of rental stock in market and octavia represents about 7% of the citywide total. in absolute numbers, there were 227 units converted into condos. as far as evictions are concerned, about 70 were for withdrawal, which tends to be a precursor to a condo conversion, 23 were for owner move then, but the ball or for other reasons. -- but the bulk were for other reasons. the report also covers matters related to transportation and

parking. 42% of the residence in market octavia use public transit to get to work. this compares very well city- wide. another 12% of the market and octavia plan residents walk to work, and almost 5% bike to work. citywide, the numbers are 9% and 2% respectively. the market octavia plan also limits the market curb cuts in the area on specific street frontage is. a limited survey was done by staff, locating existing curb cuts. future curb cuts are prohibited. a parking space inventory was conducted by mta, and this was snapped. about