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,

commission approved the approval for 333 harrison which is roughly 330 residential units on the southern portion of this parcelf identifies the parcel as potentially a park or a park and housing development. when the commission in march of 2009 approved 333 harrison, they also suggested that the project sponsor come back for an in-kind agreement of the development of the park on the other portion of the parcel. that is what we're doing. the other action i would like to refer about is in september of 2010 i was before you with the policy and the planning commission's in-kind policy directing staff, project sponsors and the public on what your expect expectations are for the in-kind improvements. and that is in packet five but i used that as the tool to think that this made sense for an in-kind proposal. with, that on the overhead is the picture of the proposed park and as you can see where the picture leaves off, this is part of the park here which has a children's area and then a community garden over here and this is some sort of informal cafe i think. this is the proposed design and the development would hap

there is the affordable housing parcel, which is gone to be sold to the redevelopment agency. 70 units of transition at age housing. i think it was a good synergy because of the location right next to city college for transition-age youth to be taking advantage of these educational opportunities, as well as the family housing, given the composition of the neighborhood and the dire need for affordable housing. the entrance to housing is right here. that opens to the open space plaza. we were recently successful in getting a transportation for livable community grant for that open space, to build it out as public open space. as mr. updike points out, it is the gateway to the new expanded city college campus. people that are getting off at the bus, be accessible stop on ocean, were able to walk into the campus. the current loop is going to be relocated around the fire station. mta will be working toward that once the sale goes through. the buses will be turning on ocean, stopping here. it is a liver station for the buses, pulling over to continue their way. we believe it is a great use of

parcels and up to 10 potential projects sites. nine of the 10 sites have received entitlements from the planning department. together, these are 2500 units of housing and 25 million square feet estimated. the estimated completion dates all of these projects at 2022. these are the actual parcels that are proposed. this is a parcel by parcel entity, this does not constitute a contiguous area. this is just the parcels that we believe will become development sites. this is focused on public infrastructure and these are projects that are called out for the plan which was adopted by the board of supervisors. we focused solely on the infrastructures and projects that or on the outcome of that project. specifically, those are three new parks. there is a living street redesign, better streets redesigned and -- this was approved by the planning department and reviewed for accuracy in terms of the budget. >> can you clarify the difference between -- >> i don't have technical proficiency in that area. i believe nosh misunderstanding here is that those streets have more park-like elements and greenery than the more traditional hearts cape alamance. a

use of flexibility into the number and size of the units well as expanded to apply for the community based processes. it would apply to individual parcels where before it would apply to community planned areas. interpreted taxed -- interpreted ive text of

use of flexibility into the number and size of the units well as expanded to apply for the community based processes. it would apply to individual parcels where before it would apply to community planned areas. interpreted taxed -- interpreted ive text of prevailing height and bulk limits should be maintained to protect neighborhood characters. and many areas and not currently build up to the prevailing height and bulk limite. policy 1.0 prevents a rich areas without defining them. and as identified on a map that is not provided in the 2009 housing element, but which is defined as something called the 24-hour rapid network which is a work in progress that has not undergone environmental review, has not been approved or funded. the third draft fails to identify the major bus lines along which the housing would be encouraged and sales clearly define the project under environmental review. at the conversation with the director, we learned for the first time that the 2009 would be proposed for approval. [chime] i am requesting a 90-day period for changes -- commissioner molague: thank you. the usual. leave it there. >> i associate myself wi

parcel of being in this country. you've got to make sure that your employees are legally residing in the united states. >> different than taxes, though, because -- having that verifiable i.d. is a challenge for smaller employers. >> yes. >> showing a social security card and showing a driver's license and it's fraudulent and they accept it on its face. >> well, and so -- a couple of things. first of all, e-verify itself is, the system is being improved to be less susceptible to identity theft. for example, if somebody's using a social security that's also appeared somewhere else, to be able to pick something like that up. secondly, i think, and in its early iterations there were some false entries into the system, or inaccurate entries. the accuracy of the system now is very, very high. we've also wanted to make it easy for, you know, small businesses to have and to appropriate, and i have seen it and used it myself. as people who work with me now, i'm not exactly the world's best computer person, and it's pretty easy to operate. so that's part of it. and then lastly, if and when, and we hope it's sooner rather than lat

terrorism, be it coming from abroad or now being homegrown, is part and parcel of the security picture that we now have to deal with in the united states. >> we, i'd appreciate tt written response. i went through a security tsa not along ago, and i went through it, there was a guy who followed me, very obviously was of arabian or middle eastern decent. both of us were not patted down, there was a grandma that followed me, there was a small child with her and they were patted down. i have yet to see a grandma try to bomb any u.s. facility with chemicals in her bloomers. so i think we need to focus on those that want to do us harm. >> represtative, if i might respond to that because that is a common complaint -- >> i saw it myself. >> i know. and let me just suggest, first of all, that when we add random screening to whatever we are doing, it has to be truly random. otherwise you use tlose the val unpredictable. and separately, i wouldove to have you briefed in a classified setting that when we set firm rules about we won't set this kind of person or that kind of person, that our adversaries, they know those rules and they attempt

terrorism, be it coming from abroad or now being homegrown, is part and parcel of the security picture that we now have to deal with in the united states. >> well, i'd appreciate that written response. i went through a security tsa not along ago, and i went through it, there was a guy who followed me, very obviously was of arabian or middle eastern decent. both of us were not patted down, there was a grandma that followed me, there was a small child with her and they were patted down. i have yet to see a grandma try to bomb any u.s. facility with chemicals in her bloomers. so i think we need to focus on those that want to do us harm. >> representative, if i might respond to that, because that is a common complaint -- >> i saw it myself. >> i know. and let me just suggest, first of all, that when we add random screening to whatever we are doing, it has to be truly random. otherwise you use tlose the val unpredictable. and separately, i would love to have you briefed in a classified setting that when we set firm rules about we won't set this kind of person or that kind of person, that our adversaries, they know those rules and the

terrorism, be it coming from abroad or now being homegrown, is part and parcel of the security picture that we now have to deal with in the united states. >> well, i'd appreciate that written response. i went through a security tsa not along ago, and i went through it, there was a guy who followed me, very obviously was of arabian or middle eastern decent. both of us were not patted down, there was a grandma that followed me, there was a small child with her and they were patted down. i have yet to see a grandma try to bomb any u.s. facility with chemicals in her bloomers. so i think we need to focus on those that want to do us harm. >> representative, if i might respond to that, because that is a common complaint -- >> i saw it myself. >> i know. and let me just suggest, first of all, that when we add random screening to whatever we are doing, it has to be truly random. otherwise you use tlose the val unpredictable. and separately, i would love to have you briefed in a classified setting that when we set firm rules about we won't set this kind of person or that kind of person, that our adversaries, they know those rules and the

parcel of being in this country. you have to make sure that your employees are legally inside the united states.st: the secretary captured perfectly. we are signing up at a rapid clip. if you take a look at the success of the program and its popularity, it is free to employers. in 2007 we had about 24,000 employers utilizing e-verify 2.5 years later, when you're at 250,000. host: calls coming in for alejandro mayorkas first let's go to davis, california, a republican. caller: my question is for him. i have a reverence for both of you. i am a young students. first of all, i was wondering what the process in which you screen companies to use your e- verify process? i definitely see its value in what you do. i just want to know how you do that? host: the screening process. guest: we validate the legitimacy of the employer is utilizing e-verify through a number of means. we use the available information through various services to ensure that the employer seeking to utilize e- verify is in fact legitimate employer. host: are there certain types of companies most often involved right now? guest: we h

because obviously one of the biggest competitors of fedex is united parcel service. united parcel service allows their -- they're under the national labor relations act. not every single one of their employees is unionized, but they're allowed to organize and bargain collectively. in certain states that are covered by union shop, then they would all be covered in a state like iowa, which is a right-to-work state, some of the employees of united parcel service would be members of a union. some wouldn't. but they would all be covered by a collective bargaining agreement. so united parcel service, their workers doing the same exact job aciphex workers -- as fedex workers, in organizing and bargaining collectively, fedex workers can't because they are under the railway labor act. that was a rider to this bill in 1996 to favor one company. again, identical jobs for fedex, another company, different rights under the law. that's unfair. congress should ensure that companies compete on a level playing field. we shouldn't be picking favorites. we shouldn't be picking favorite