clearly and strenuously -- we succeed best when we speak with one voice in the city family, but also when we coordinate with san jose and oakland to build a coalition of advocacy within the region that pushes back on the rest of the region, which has a lot more density -- not density, but a lot more population than san francisco. we want to grow the piper san francisco. there are opportunities to create more revenues in a thoughtful way, in coalition with other partners. commissioner borden: what is san mateo county doing? >> interesting. they are concerned about transportation operations, perhaps not as much as oakland and san jose.

we have been looking at that problem. we have a lot of debate over what to read with to solve that is. i think that is pointed to be worked out of the next few months. the all looking at it. people are looking at parcel taxes, sales taxes. the likelihood of either of these passing without looking at the main operator, and bundling that together in the package -- that is probably not the most viable way for san francisco residents. they are looking at putting an hov lane on 1012 santa clara. -- on one 01 t -- on 101 to santa clara. there could be a high occupancy

tolling. these are new ideas coming through to try to rationalize the funding sources, to grow the funding sources, to manage the corridor within which 101 and california trained to operate. we are looking at this in partnership with the other counties. commissioner borden: are the meeting yet? the conversation where we are -- is there anyone else at this point? is anybody else having a hearing talking about this right now? >> mta i think is taking a look at it. there are conversations on the policy level. commissioner borden: the issue around transit is ongoing. i mean, we have a plan around transit, but no plan to fund the

transit. it is counterintuitive as the thinking process. at the state level, there needs to be an effort to look at how we locate things we do not fund. it is an unfunded mandate. it is something i think we cannot not think about any more. new york and new jersey have a regional transit authority for their airport, for the transit system. the opera cost is not serving the bay area well, especially when you see empty buses in other corridors throughout the bay area. i think you could reduce some of the policy conditions.

"can look at how -- >> you can look at how to do trend to more effectively. some operator costs run quite high. when costs run higher than inflation, that is unsustainable. i think as san franciscans, we need to acknowledge we want good transit. but we need to figure out how we're going to pay for in a stable way, and not subject to economic cycles. commissioner borden: next time, it would be great to have mta here. whatever plan you guys put together has to work together. it does not make sense.

we are struggling to meet infrastructure needs for existing plants we have already improved -- already approved. the thought of adding more infrastructure needs that are going to go unrealized is a difficult thing to consider. it pains me to hear that a lot of this is displacing people, and not the kind of affordable housing we were hoping for. >> to commend the commission, the parkmerced coming forth -- those plans help address transit needs by attaching to every household requirement of pain for a transit pass. that is tightly linked to the ability to fund transit and provide service with the growth, unit by unit.

we need a transit pattern as we grow our city. commissioner borden: thanks. president olague: i want to thank choo-choo for being here. you are speaking to growth and equity. i want to thank them for bringing this issue to us on the assembly we are hearing the housing element. i think it is critical that we look at this bigger picture and bring some of this discussion into the housing element, because i think that are related. how can we talk about regional mandates and not bring some of these issues that have been raised during public comment to our details of the housing element. one of the things a would like -- i wish i could have a

conversation with people in the audience. i think the presentation was such that i still have some outstanding questions. i will keep it brief. i would want to talk to mr. young. i would like personally -- i do not know if other commissioners are interested in getting a copy of the work you have to communities of concern. i would like a little information in a couple of minutes, if you don't mind giving me some background on how that information was compiled and what your sources were. >> thank you. i will run over quickly. i do not want to go so far. the information was compiled from looking at the background photos -- background data, and

also data from mtc on what they predict as the housing target growth to meet the 50%. based on predictions, we would have to build about 50,000 units, with about 33,000 below market rate. i see below market rate and not affordable, because that captures moderate income units and a very affordable units for low income. the amount of units is tremendous. it equals roughly 60% of the housing growth will have to hit over the next 25 years or so. when you look at the production rate from 99 to 06, what stood up to us is that if you project that ford from 2010 to 2035, we

come out to about a 17,500 unit shortfall in party district areas. the thing that is problematic. i think somebody stated earlier. if this is based upon projections, and this was the time when we had the largest and fastest rate of growth in the city, in which you're able to capture a lot of value from market rate development -- but it really shows is that even if we tax market redevelopment, we are not going to hit affordable numbers. i think that is a scary thing for us. lastly, i want to quickly show the numbers. if you monetize that gap, what it comes out to on an annual basis is roughly $245 million in priority development areas, and about $300 million city-

wide. the numbers are roughly 7 billion, based on numbers i got from staff, in which they are projecting a kind of 350,000 per unit production cost for a portable units. i think mr. shoemaker, our director of the mayor's office of housing, would tell us that in san francisco the production numbers are more on the range of $535,000 per unit. i just want to conclude with this point. i think one of the conversations among the commissioners tonight is trying to really pay attention to the infrastructure gap with regard to transportation, and i think the same lens has to apply to affordable housing.

if we do not produce that housing over the next 25 years at the rates that are necessary based on the housing element requirement, we're going to be in a situation where san francisco is going to transform into a city of high income dollars. i think a lot of studies show that the people who tend to use transit are folks on the moderate to low income scale of things. we can have all the transit and the structure we want. even if we find a way to pay for it, if we transform our population like that, we're not good to have a population that is going to use transit. i think affordable housing is critical not just from the context of equities, but from the environmental goal we are trying to hit. if this becomes a playground for high and electric condo dwellers, that are not going to use transit. a lot of environmental goals we are going after is going to be

moot. president olague: if you can share that information with us by e-mail and the secretary can distribute it, i do not know if anyone else is interested in looking at that. that's what i was good to ask for. >> this whole backdrop about transit is happening in the context of these boats in sacramento right now about the dissolution of the redevelopment agencies. it is not that there are not reasonable critiques, but if you think about the fact a billion dollars a year, the funding for affordable housing in the state, comes out of redevelopment areas. whatever it is that malcolm -- that mr. malcolm young just showed, it is worse if the boats move forward in the way we're

talking about. the comments that mr. paul, fernandez, and peter made about the need for stabilizing neighborhoods -- this is one of our primary sources of funding. i think the problem is it is not easy to opt out of the system. it is a vision anding -- a visioning exercize. it is not like you can suddenly be out of the equity problems or the air pollution problems, or whatever it is. i think the feedback for folks is what mr. paul described. we pretend we are creating a solution to environmental problems.

that is a think one of the things we have been insisting back to the staff at the regional level, who in their defense are trying to ensure the model and help us understand it. if we do not provide the affordable housing, people will need transit. to get more of the regional pi, it is important to communicate back that if we want to get their, the pie has to get bigger. we are talking about shrinking the public's fear in every shape, way, and form. either we have to change the composition of fuels or how our cars work and things like that,

or we have to acknowledge that some of these things require additional funding to get there. we are facing this crazy contradiction between the quality district push, which i think is reasonable and run public health, and the goal to try to make sure we have more transit-oriented development. you try to solve that at the level of land use by trying to govern at your transit-oriented development, are making sure everybody has inoperable windows. the cost to the system is too profound to handle. we need to push the whole production upstream, so it does not have the air quality contradictions for us on major

arterial roads like mission street, the work we are doing on ocean avenue to work on the 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