approximately 2,600 new office and retail jobs can be accommodated this is based on an average employee density, and it's just an estimate. the new p.d.r. space, on the other hand, can accommodate an estimated 130 jobs. now for the residential development trends. 2006 to 2010 were very good years for housingç production san francisco. an average of 2,500 units a year were built -- were added to the city's housing stock during this period. the eastern neighbor saw an decision of 2,100 units. as this slide shows where the units were built.

43% of the new units were built in east soma. as for affordable housing, just under a quarter of the units constructed in the eastern neighborhoods are affordable. this is about the same as the proportion citywide. about 60% of these units were affordable through public assistance. specifically this would be the rebuilding of thei] valencia gud skns new construction in the mission. the remainder are inclusionary units. this slide shows where the affordable units were built. you will see that the mission shows most of the affordable housing. this is again because of the 260 units in the valencia gardens, as well as the 151 units --

there are also 1 0 believe market rate units that were built as offsite compliance for infinity and they were built in the showplace square area and so you'll see the inclusionary units are far higher in the showplace square area. there are over 3,300 net new units in the pipeline for the eastern neighborhoods. however, this residential development pipeline for the bx>uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu the residential pipeline. uuuuu this is because the bulk of the housing pipeline are in three projects, which account for over 20,000 units. most of the new units will be in the show dppings place square ñzs

1,00 proposed on one turner, which is currently under planning review. east soma has about three proposed residential developments with over 150 units each. in the mission, the largest project is the 1 4 units -- 194 units that was proposed in formally p.d.r. space, and the picture you see in the background is the 196-unit development at third street in the dog patch neighborhood. this is almost complete and it was sold for 90 million. the monitoring reports also cover other changing to the housing stock, including housing stock preservation, specifically con do conversions and divisions

by type. most of them were divisions. about 60% of the eastern neighborhood's total. as far as evictions are concerned, some 1,260 evictions or 13% of the citywide total were in the eastern neighborhoods. almost 8% were for owner movement which was about the same rate citywide. another six% -- 6% wereç for ellis act withdrawal, lower than the citywide rate and the bulk of the evictions were for other reasons. i came acrossq i thinkxd theç commissioners w recognize the person that was evicked from his homeç nearly

four years before the reporting period. he had appeared before the commission several times so i thought it was a little interesting. public benefits. e.n.ç trips, the transportatio implementation plan for all the eastern neighborhoods. it has completed its existing andç future existing analysis understand current transportation opportunities and constraints in the eastern neighborhoods. findings and identified stragsx were presented at a community meeting held last year. street escapei] imprufmentse. the city adopt add better streets plan that provides guidelines forç the public including street escape requirements for new development. this ist( citywide. as for recreation and open space, the 14th and fasth some street parking lot has been

identified as suitable for a new park in the mission plan area. after a series of committee meeting in 2010, three design alternatives have been merged into oneñr design, and i believ the first draft has already been finalized. the city is also working witht( the universitied school district and on the i.m. school site and the port of san francisco on the development of theñr crane code park and for showplace square, the open space plan effort was conducted between april and december 2009. ultimately eight sites for an open space were identified in the show-place square-potrero him along withq each.

funds have yet to be identified. the planning park is also working to identify a site with east soma for a public park. the monitoring reports also include inventories of existing community facilities as well as neighborhood serving establishments as a way of setting the baseline for these categories, as referenced in futureç monitoring reports. programs requires that all commercial development projects would net an addition of 25,000 gross square footage or more or to contribute to the city's jobs housing linkage program. there were no fees collected for commercial development in the eastern neighborhoods but citywide about 88 million was collected, mostly in properties in the downtown c-3 area.ç implementation of proposed programming. the eastern neighborhoods

advisory committee first convened in the autumn of 2009 andç has been meeting monthly sinceç then. y believe members of the c.a.c. may be present and may speak after this presentation. so far the planning department has collected a total of 750,00ç in impact fee revenues overñr t five years reported. the easternq benefit fee program was established to fundçó commun improvements throughout the four eastern neighborhoods. the fee can also beç used to fd housing needs. i believe that a detailedñr presentation on development impact feesq expended was heard by theç commissioners about three weeks ago. six major surveys have been completed and endorsed by the historic preservation commission

since the adoption of -- adoption ofç the eastern neighborhoods plans. this includes the dog patch historic district. a sixth streit lodging house. intermission north, intermission heavy timber and steel frame brick warehouse and factory -- historic district. unfortunately, the hiring program had no data available at this time so we are not able to include that in the report and that's it and i'll be available for -- to answer your questions. thank you. president miguel: thank you very much. there are a couple of speaker cards. dan murphy, tim colin. >> commissioners, i'm dan murphy.ç of the eastern neighborhood

c.e.c. and privateç developer both committees with a special focus on the east side. two weeks i was here and i raised the topic of implementation impediments and i promised to come back and given the lack of time i'm just going to focus on one and it relates directly to the plans -- if you recall, the plan is expected to produce about 10,000 housing units and depending on which document you look at up to approximately 13,000 new jobs over the life of the plan. i want to specifically talk about impediments related to job production. linda,ç can i have the overhea please? i thought it might be helpful to highlight a real life example. currently i control a 3.3 acre parcel on showplace square which

is surrounded by the california collegeç of arts and it's two blocks north of the daddaga triangle, which i worked with this commission on. in august of last year it was fully approved and we expect it will be under construction here in the next few months. the concept that i'm working to call it a model early version of the american can or the american building on the central water front. it's aç repurposed old canneryi believe it was. i would say it's aç beloved building in the city of san francisco. and i think the reason is it's a mettingw3 pot of business types. it's a diverse community of entrepreneur nurls. chocolate makers, people in digital technology, everything that you could imagine and it ink baits new businesses because

of the collaboration and whatnot that is collaborated within its shell. when i first started to work on this site of course iç pulled t the showplace square area plan to get guidance on landç use. and in it, just to refresh the commission's memory, there were four keyçó principles that the city embraced. the first one was affordable housing. number two was completeq neighborhoods, number three, preserve sufficient space for p.d.r. and number four was to take steps to provide new industries that bring innovation and flexibility to the city's economy. you might ask what's the problem? the problem is the planning code doesn't have aç tool that woul allow meç to implement this specific concept in this location. there are other tools -- i'm out

of time. president miguel: thank you. >> there are're tools but it will have to be another time. >> good afternoon,ç commissioners. i wanted to follow up on that theme. we've been having conversations among a lot of our members after the eastern neighborhood was passed and that great hubbub and let the dust settle, see how it went. but some of our members see impediments in the language to the eastern neighborhood plan to its achieving the goal that it set out. we put together a working group and some ideas came up and i'm just going to touch on them lightly. here are small improvements that couldç be made to the eastern neighborhood plan. iç understand there's an

insurance institutional reticence to open it up after five years and especially after the ghastly economic cycle we've been through. but still, these are seen as imped." . one might be the rigid restrictions on ground floor heights. if it werei] relacksd you could get good design. open space. instead of fixed amounts of open space per unit, make it on a percentage basis. three, dwelling unit exporsche. it's rigidly -- exposure. by the way.ç these three items came from architects, a couple of whom are well known to you. and it's the idea that we support the goals of what eastern neighborhoodxd wanted t do but there are still some roughç edges that could be smoothed out. my purpose in coming is asking would you agree to open thank

you conversation if we were toq propose changes? it could be to eastern neighborhoods that were from a design perspective. we took this to the eastern neighborhood c.a.c. to. eliminateç the c.e.u. for studç housing in eastern neighborhoods. they adopted it unanimously. and then finally, the conversation that never goes away is the question of p.d.r. and weç all agree that preservg jobs for less educated -- it has to be part of a civici] vision. but it doesn't seem quite to work in a city where now it's -- its chief objective is jobs, jobs, jobs, and in a city that chronically underproduces housing. we're not sure if the p.d.r. question isn't right for a fuller discussion at some point and we don't see a reason to waitç five years. could start now. thank you. president miguel: thank you.

is there additional public comment on this? if not, public comment and closed. commissioner commissioner antonini:?ç commissioner antonini: thank you. i really appreciate thexd repor it's veryç enlightening. just a few comments on what was in there. i think inç regards to the dege of commercial that weç see, i thinkç tft fairly smallç givee vast amount of land that is included inçç these eastern neighborhoods and even with what we are seeing, for example, the facility at 650 townsend. i guess it could be considered to be new commercial but it's sort ofi] more of a conversion d of course, general hospital is more of a public facility. i'm not saying these aren't very good things btd in perspective

we probably need to see more commercial. p.d.r. grorktse retail, or office fwrothe in the eastern neighborhoods. a few things we might be ableçç do to appropriate those are to go back and look at some of the prescriptions that we have in regards to preserving p.d.r. there was a situation where we went 1/3 p.d.r. to allow 2/3 office retail in the innovative p.d.r. that we passed. i think that maybe by interpreting that more flexibly and while reaching the same goal but notw3 make every project ha a third p.d.r. within it, that might be something to think about. also, i think there areç a coue of other things that have been pointed out to me. and i read these, not necessarily in this report but in general the small enterprise workplace.

i think there's a requirement that 50% of thoseç have toç b0 square feet or less which is probably a little bit loww3 and maybe a little bit unrealistic. i think what would really be helpful is if we were able to enlist s.f. maid, which has been quite successful in bringing back p.d.r. uses in san francisco or preserving them or growingi] them. this is exactly the kind of incubators we want to try to woman come up with a plan to -- try to come up withok a plan th is consistent with easternçó neighborhoods. or at least interpret them in a wayt( that we end up with consistency with the eastern neighborhoods plans but also interpreting them more flexibly to allow situations where it might make it economically more feasible if someone could come in and be able to distribute their office, for example, for

flexibly. i think that might tend to make it for possible for more things to be developed, still keeping the 1/3 p.d.r., which is a good requirement. so i think those are a few things that i noticed in talking to other people and reading over this report and i really thank you for the report. it's very instructive. and finally, i think we all agree on theç end of year repo about the need for the parks which, we're working on, and for transportation, which, in a previously industrial area, obviously did not have those features included. so as we move forward, we have to continue to provide funding for those, hopefully through the growth of some new projectsç tt are allowable but looking at some of these rules and see fg there's some flexibility to allow them toç move forward.ç president miguel: commissioner

sugaya? commissioner sugaya: yes, maybe staff couldñ $elp me understand this. on page 3 of the memo, under evictions it says about 1% are 95 units of citywide owner movins were in the eastern neighborhoods and says another 80 units in tau!eastern neighborhoods were also subject to the alice act, which is about 10% of the city total. so if i make some calculations, in the city that were subject to owner move-in and to ellis act over a five-yearç period. is that right? or approximately 200 a year? >> i don't have the numbers here, but it was based on theç five-year reporting period. >> commissioner sugaya: ok.

that seems a little alarming to me. i don't know. 200 a year -- more than that. anyway, 2,000 over five years seems like a lot ofi] housing loss. and i don't know if this statistic is -- you know, if%q we'd been made aware of this previously or not. it seems like a lot of units being lost to this kind of activity. the other thing is in all the reports there is a table of unitst( lost in san francisco between 2006 and 2010 and 129 units over that period were attributed to unit mergers.ç having been on the commission during that time, i don't remember that we've approved 129 merged units, except that maybe there are mergings that aren't subject to commission approval. >> that's true.

we based this on the -- not on åat was approved here but actually from the department of building inspection records, which shows when units are merged when they either remove a wall or remove a kitchen and it's stateed that it'sñr mergin commissioner sugaya: i have to look at the exact language and i think it's section 317 but i think it depends on the zoning district. i think we can get back to you on that. >> maybe we can have a staff memo on that. suing commissioner sugaya: sure. >> also, when we come out with a report sometime in april we will have that information. commissioner sugaya: ok, we can wait until then, i think. but if we could have some

evaluation of the kind of thing that the director just mentioned, where there is commission jurisdiction and where there is --ç >> ok. commissioner sugaya: ok.i] president miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: this is a lot of reallyv: good work. unfortunately the time the too short so -- to really appreciate it. we could have a workshop in which to ask pointed questions of everything. there is one item that concerns me and that is that the housing jobs linkage program since 2007 has not produced any revenue and that is alarming, particularly turned mandate thatxdok we're supposed to densify thet( city d we're going in the opposite direction. densifying without providing the necessary balance with jobs doesn't really get us anywhere, because we're becoming evenq

of a bedroom community than we potentiallyç already are. i'm interested to see changes and i'd like to see a very concerted effort to start capturing revenue again, xly if we are having main use changes where previously p.d.r. and other use is being adapted. 25,000 square feetç would automatically trigger that. butç just creating a land use change without it coming folly in -- formally in front of this commission, those types of revenues may not be recorded or required because there is no trigger which flags that there are additional moneys to be paid for the jobs housing linkage fund. there was one comment mr. murphy made regarding the larger project sites in the former

p.d.r. area, and that is something which i wasç already concerned abk doing the eastern neighborhood plan. one issue is land use and rezoning and land use reassignment are one thing, but also finding sites on parcel sizes which fit the newly designated uses is quite different.ç not all parcel cuts really adapt to the zoning uses. the act of development in pursuit of new uses in the eastern neighborhood. may we take a close look at what is being proposed.ç how does a code respond to what's being propo#e3 does a code fail to address aç what could be? i think none of the things which are happening, particularly in innovation space and new job creation can't happen unless we

understand the physical implicationsç of what these spaces need. and i thinksthat san francisco, because it's an compensational urban environment has almost more possibility to capture new points of employment because it makes it possible to create and provide space forç those activities to occur. we are a relativelyç small cit in comparison to new york orç some of the larger metropolitan centers across the country, however, we are a -- we have a large, large share of the percentage of innovation here and i think we need to prepare and be ahead of the game in our physical ability to make those things happen. i talk about fashion and we're not really the noted fashion capital of the combruents. i think that's in new york somewhere or los angeles. but we have a lot of young designers doing work here. that same thing holds for

technology and innovation. i could go on and on and on, not to talk about the chocolate. but i really would like us to be poised to capture that really with allçç of its might becaun its basic d.n.a. san francisco for me is the entrepreneurial city andç i think for us to be able to accommodate that, that is where our future will be. president miguel: commissioner? >> commissioner wu: thank you again. i'm trying to understand what all the goals were and to understand what we're getting from the goals. the eastç soma goals include attracting jobs for local residents, encouraging a mix of income, increasing affordable housing. i just want to flag a couple of

things that raise questions for me. around the jobs. loss of p.d.r.ç is something tç raises questions. around the mix of housing or mix of income in the affordable housing that valencia gardens was the bulk of what the affordable housing increase was or the numbers were and thatq%y not really be new housing or new affordable housing opportunities and then commissioner sugaya raced the issue of ellis act. there were 80 of those and 760 new affordable housing units. actually, the 80 is 10% of that and represents quite a lot in affordableç housing. i just wanted to flag those issues. ommission hearing so we'll continue to be part of this conversation. finally, i wanted to commend the department on the work at the

park at 17 and folsom. i've been hearing a lot of really great work. president miguel: my remarks prepare echo a lot of what commissioner antonini and commissioner moore, as well as those of dan murphy. i'm not satisfyed that we're doing sufficient to increase jobs in the eastern neighborhoods. i think maybe some of the interpretations, if notç the actually code,ç needs to be tweaked to some extent. i think we have to rethink and the example of american can is probably a very good example of how things can workt(. that concept goes right along with made in san francisco and many of those entrepreneurs.