Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    January 4, 2015 1:00am-1:31am PST

1:00 am
very clear and precise for this type of an important project. >> thank you. commissioner antonini. >> thank you. i think the draft environmental impact report has a lot of things that are very well-done in my opinion. there was one place that i spotted. it's only a projection and it was probably done quite a while ago on page 4. 4-4 and it talks about the population of san francisco and it basically deals with census track 614 and it's not that critical to the report itself, but to project the population of san francisco on this for 2015 is 816,400. and as we'll see in our commerce and industry report, the projected population of san francisco in 2014 or 2013 is
1:01 am
already 636,000. so i mean, i know it doesn't mean we have to redo any of the report, but the projection for what it's worth is probably not accurate as far as reality is concerned right now. i can't comment on the accuracy of the census track in particular, just looking at the overall picture. the other thing that i think will need to be answered as comments and responses is there were a lot of comments about the density, which is very appropriate in my mind it's denser. but i think comparisons of the density in the areas surrounding the project area with the projected project density. so that we have an idea of the differences in density. it's not -- potrero hill does have a variety of density and many parts of it
1:02 am
already have much denser parts. so that would be good to answer. i think it's -- the report is good. i think we have to talk a little bit about the phasing of the plan. and a little bit more detail about how it's going to reach its goal as commissioner moore was talking about in the ten-year period of time. but i think from my understanding, the fact that it's been done together over a finite period of time makes it more efficient. because for this project to work, we need to have all of the parts of it. it's not going to work if there is just a part of it. you need to get the financing, and it's going to provide economic and physical integration in a neighborhood that was segregated from the very beginning from the rest of san francisco. and the articulation of that neighborhood into the san francisco grid, which will be a
1:03 am
big improvement. i did see one thing on view 5.3-13 and this is only an alternative. but it does show a very well articulated area, but then it shows an area that looks like it's almost the same height. i think this is probably -- this is a reduced development alternative. so i don't think that is representative of what the project would be looking like in the planned alternative. but i want to make sure that all the parts of the development are well-articulated and are not just the same height all along in any part of the development. so that was one area that i wasn't quite sure what it's going to look like in the preferred alternative.
1:04 am
of course, the inclusion of retail is very important, and the open space. those are a couple of other things. and finally, the transportation issue, which was raised by many speakers. i mean, i think some attention should be given to looking at trying to get some sort of extension from the 3rd street light rail that would service potrero hill would be a big benefit, and also improvement of the existing caltrain station; that would also cause an easy commute from there to downtown san francisco as far as other parts of the peninsula. so i think those are a couple of areas that might solve some of the problems that everyone has talked about, about buses coming in, limited numbers of streets. if we had a light rail extension from 3rd street that came on to the hill would probably solve a lot of problems and people could walk to that rather than have to wait for the bus to come to
1:05 am
them. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much. i also echo strong support for this project. public housing has always been a challenge in san francisco and the lack of federal funding has been there has been not enough funding for maintenance, let alone improvements. so this is a fan mofmove in the right direction. i just have a couple of questions. i echo some of the commissioner moore's comments about construction impacts and the length of time in which they are going to be considered. ten years is a wide enough berth that you have to think there might be impacts that are going to linger after that, even after the last unit is built. but my comments are about the population housing section and also transit/transportation and circulation. so on the population and housing section.
1:06 am
the eir has to consider changes to the population and housing, if the rebuild will require a provision of housing units in other parts of the city? so if you need to create other units somewhere else, you have to consider that a impact to the project for population. i question -- i question the determination that that is not the case for this project. unlike alice griffith, for this project, you need to bulldoze buildings in phases and people need to move either somewhere else in the site or probably somewhere else in the city, if there is not enough empty units in other buildings. i question that given all the efforts that are being made around the city to build new
1:07 am
units there is going to be room for the residents of complete sections of potrero hill and potrero annex and other parts of san francisco in the phases when their sections of the project are being demolished. so i would really like more description as to the relocation plan, and where those people are supposed to go? i know relocation plans are pretty complex and there is a lot of moving pieces to them, but we could at least talk about the projection of where these people are supposed to go? whether it's where in san francisco, or even potentially where outside of the city? so we can make sure that there is no physical impacts on in the population change. the other thing for transit and transportation, i thought that the -- this is more about the project and less about the analysis of the project. but if the project needs to change, the analysis will have to change as well.
1:08 am
certain streets are going to be realigned with the grid and gride decrease their steepness, while they are rebuilding parts of this project. i think that will change the equation for the amount of bicycle facilities that are needed -- going to be needed and wanted by the population. and i thought that the plan for bicycle facilities was woefully inadequate and therefore, the analysis of where they are supposed to go and the impacts of cycling on the transit and central circulation is also inadequate, because the project doesn't acrotfor enough. so i think that needs to be added in someone's alternative and i know a lot of people talked about transit issues and buses getting up-and-down narrow streets. again, a lot of streets will be regrided and widened and there will be changes to the circulation patterns. so i think that is less of an issue. the only thing that i would say is that the transit impacts included the increase in
1:09 am
transit from the phase eir for bayview-hunters point shipyard and candlestick point and i think that is pretty much as far as you can go in terms of projecting the future. can you theoretically talk about pier 70, but really you don't know until you see the first phases of the project what is actually going to be there and what people are going to need? but i would say that i would like to see a little bit more direct information about how the express lines that are going to be running down 3rd street from hunters bay shipyard and candlestick? right now it only talks about the mini lines that go through the lines, potrero hills and potrero annex, but i think the
1:10 am
hunters point shipyard and alleviating some of the demand on lines -- i think the fillmore 11 and 10 townsend that will be renamed something. so even if -- even if that has already been considered, i would like to see that mentioned in the eir explicitly. because i think that is -- [ inaudible ] thank you. >> well-don. >> are you okay? >> i also wanted to depress support for this project and happy we're at this movement in it and there was some public comment asking to look at new bus lines. there is a lost analysis off and on existing and the tup, but i know there may be a process happening at the transportation authority and looking at transportation on potrero hill. but the more that any impacts can be looked at within this eir to make sure that we can get all of the improvements
1:11 am
and additional transit on board as soon as he can align it with this project, think that would be very helpful. again the department is taking comments until january 7th. >> if there is nothing further we can move on to item no. 10, the commerce and industry inventory 2013, this is an informational presentation >> good afternoon commissioners, my name is paul ikezoe with the department's
1:12 am
commerce and industrial department. i will give you brief highlights from the 2013 commerce and industry inventory and then i'm available for any questions or comments. a little background, this is a report that we produce annually. this is the 20th edition. it feel like a bit of a throwback to talk about 2013, but we gather data from a variety of sources. and so in order to have the complete year of 2013, we have to sort of wait for it to be released. so we have compiled information on employment trends, on office space, transportation. so the goals in the short-term to make this data available to the public, to the community members, to
1:13 am
businesses and then notice in the long-term, we're establishing a consistent time series, so we can go back and look at long-term trends. so sort of biggest punch line is that our 2013 was sort of a record year for jobs. so we count over 612,000 jobs in san francisco. this is an all-time high as far as we know, higher than 2000, which was sort of the previous peak from the first tech boom. the unemployment rate again this is 2013 is 5.7 [p*-rts/] in the city, that is down from almost 8% in 2012. and you can see that our unemployment rate is lower than the bay area's, lower than the
1:14 am
state and the nation as a whole. this year we did a zoom into the technology sector and so you can see as 2013 count 37.600 jobs and over 2012 that is a 15% growth. so the graph there, you can sort of see since 2009 jobs have -- tech jobs have grown pretty significantly. we estimate that the average tech job rage is $154,000. so if you compare that to sort of the average office job, which is about $19,000 $129 ,000 and average wage of $85,000.
1:15 am
as far as waged, taxable retail sales, city revenues are all up over last year. or over 2012, sorry. and then as far as our building activity in the city, we have -- we saw about 27,000 building permits come in, again, that is a high from 2012. that is an 11% increase. and construction spending is at $5.3 billion. so looking ahead to now, i guess, from the state we get unemployment numbers the latest figures are that unemployment is at 4.3% in the city and then some other data that we have is
1:16 am
the tidf revenues, which are sort of can be used to gage the amount of development activity in the city are up to $12.6 million, a three-fold increase from the previous fiscal year. so the report, as well as the data tables within are available on our website and with that, i am available for any questions or comments. thank you. >> thank you. we'll take public comment first. is there any public comment on this item? okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner richards. >> just a few questions, please. the taxable retail sales do they include online sales of city businesses that ship somewhere else? >> online sales for city businesses that ship somewhere
1:17 am
else? >> buy someone online from the company based in san francisco. physical sales at a physical location. >> i believe it's based on -- it's sales tax that is collected in san francisco. >> so it could be online sales too. >> i don't know if it's delivered to somewhere that is not within san francisco, i'm not sure, but i can get back to you. >> the reason i'm asking you is we have businesses that come before us. they are requesting conditional use authorizations if they are formula retail and we talk about the tipping points between food and beverage and retail. i think this is really really good starting point, but really trying to understand, the revenue is way up; right? but what i am hearing out in the neighborhoods are costs are way up too, and vacancy rates. it's hard to stay in business if you are doing retail. i take food and beverage out of retail, is that correct? >> that number includes food and beverage, but i think it's separated in the report. >> i think that is a really good point to make, because
1:18 am
we're seing more food and beverage than transactional traditional retail and i think the other things, how are rents behaving? rates for zoning district and what is going on with the other cost-benefits and wages? i'm hearing that it's hard to stay in the business in the city, and retail sales are up u and maybe that is good if i own a bar or restaurant, but not a retail store. thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you. for the report. interesting as always. one thing that was a bit confusing on page no. 10, you talk about the total office space for 2013 and you have 75.6 million. and then you go to page 106, and it shows for 2013 a total
1:19 am
of 73.9 million square feet. so it seems like you have got two different figures going on. in fact, looking at the table only 106, you actually had a decline in the amount of office space citywide from 2012-2013. so i'm not sure which of these figures is the correct figure. >> that may be a copy and paste error; i'm sorry to say. the reason for the decline, it is a little counterintuitive, is that we get this information from cushman and wakefield and they track leased space. so if a bunch of office spaces goes offline for renovations or whatever and it's not being actively leased, it doesn't get counted. so that is why it
1:20 am
went down. the 73,000 on page 106 is the correct figure that should be on. >> the 106 is correct. the 75.6 is -- >> was it was last year's. >> this is interesting, because as we look at the whole prop m issue it may be counterintuitivive, there is much office n construction that will come online and probably next year we'll see a big jump in the amount of office space that is actually in use. think we have to be aware. there has been a lot of conversions and a significant amount of office has been taken off within the last year or two reflective in your report. so it's a good thing to analyze as we go through discussion of prop m issues.
1:21 am
and then everything is very good and, in fact i was surprised that the average wage was as high as it was $85,600 and we realize it's an average and there are people below and people above, but it's probably petty good. i wonder how that compares with other cities of similar size of san francisco? because i think it would be better than probably most of them. thank you. it's a very interesting report. i haven't read it in total detail, but i have enjoyed what i have read so far and i will study it a little bit more. >> thank you >> thank you. i also want to thank you for the presentation. these reports are great and there is always a lot of information in them. i'm really looking forward to the discussion that we'd have with citywide, i believe it's in january, because i think
1:22 am
that helps us create a policy framework in which to talk about this. the numbers are really informative, but how can we talk about what the commission should be doing and what issues we should be looking at? thank you. >> thank you >> thank you. >> commissioners it will place you on item 11 for the public sites development framework. this also is an informational presentation.
1:23 am
>> good afternoon, commissioners. claudia flores department staff. i'm here joined by mike martin from the office of economic and workforce development to give you an update on the public sites initiative that we presented back in january. as you might recall this is an interagency effort and joined by kate from the mayor's office of housing and jason and others to answer any questions that you might have for them. this is an overview of the presentation. first i will give some context on the programs a reminder and for the benefit of the public and then i will give you the highlights of what we heard at two community meetings that we held in october, as well as from individual stakeholder meetings. then mike martin will talk about how we have refined the program based on community meetings, as well as other discussions and then we'll talk about some next steps. this is a reminder of what the components are. first we have a set of guiding principles that will guide the
1:24 am
development of each of these sites that go through this process. we want to have a comprehensive menu of potential public benefit has it all of these sites can provide collectively and the two meetings in october gave us an initial sense of the public benefits this are a high-priority for the public. we also want to have a set of tools and innovative strategies to achieve the greatest level of benefits that could be demonstrated to the private sector and a review of underutilized sites to establish a portfolio, as this is not intended to be a kind of one-time effort. these are the draft principles that we presented to you in january. and we got generally positive feedback from them at the workshops. these are some of the benefits of having an coordinate approach rather than look at each site in isolation, so we can ultimately different more public benefits and more effectively as a city family. at the last commission hearing,
1:25 am
you asked us to have a little bit more information about the surplus property ordinance. and so under the ordinance, it's property which is deemed that is not needed to fulfill city agencies' missions and functions. under the city charter, there are certain departments and commissions that are exemption from the surplus property ordinances that include enterprise departments those who do not receive general fund, the airport, the portion the puc and matt and school district property as with as something that i forget to put putt on the slide -- rec and park. there are currently 30 sites on the surplus property report that have not been transferred to any other agency. however, on this lyric almost half of those are unused street portions and some of those -- some of the other sites that are not street portions are small. so a lot or most of these sites are actually not good for development.
1:26 am
of the 15 sites that were transferred to the mayor's office of housing in 2004 two have been developed into affordable housing. one is reserved as a community garden and five are not developable, but if sold could provide funding for affordable housing. there are seven of those sites that are in infeasible for sale or development because the propertis were transferred too quickly to the mayor's office on housing. so under this initiative, we're starting with properties that are owned by enterprise departments particularly the puc and mta. and the reason for this, they have significant land holdings and as i mentioned they are not subject to the surplus city property ordinance. so there isn't any restriction around using these properties for one-use only. you however- >> hold on one second, if you could take your conversation outside, thank you. >> thank you. however, since these are public resource these
1:27 am
public assets are also intended to benefit the public. it's important to note there is a fair market value constraint, but there is also -- this also provides an opportunity to demonstrate strategies that apply affordability while also benefiting the landowner to meet that fair market constraint. lastly, just in terms of how it relates to the surplus property ordinance, this effort is not intended to replace the super plus property ordinance. we're starting with enterprise departments, other departments could come through the process, subject to the rules and regulations that govern their properties. as far as what we heard from the public and other stakeholders, at the public meetings we highlighted three key areas that would define what goes into the portfolio. we stated we would prioritize sites that no. 1 would advance housing affordability by finding sites that are good confidents for 100% traditional affordable housing, that is
1:28 am
housing at or below 80% of area median income. those sites that wouldn't be appropriate or wouldn't be what we would consider good sites for mayor's office on housing because maybe they are too large or too small, that we could then look at them and as mixed use housing. and near transit and walkable and bikeable sidewalks, et cetera. and thirdly, that would advance neighborhood sustainability and resiliency through modeling green infrastructure and sustainability strategis through the development. in general we heard support for all of these priorities, but parts of feedback that we received from these criteria was that the program was a little bit confusinging to the public, for example, green infrastructure and tdm can be seen more as an add-on to a development suchs a housing development and not as a use
1:29 am
itself tonight for the side. so we heard that they wanted more clarity on the program and stated if housing is the prime use to make it very clear and to be transparent and inform the public at every step of the process. there should be meaningful engagement to uphold existing priorities established under community planning processes, but it should be augmented with continuing community processes as shows that sites develop. other key priorities that we heard in addition to housing, transportation and green infrastructure was open spacious particularly in really dense areas of the city. as well as affordable space for community uses non-profits and businesses, which as you know are also struggling with finding affordable space. and also we heard that any projects should just exhibit really good sign and be consistent with neighborhood character. now i'm going to turn it over
1:30 am
to mike martin, who is going to talk about the program refinements and implementation. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners mike martzinger office of economic and worse force development. i guessly move directly into sort of what we have incorporated from that community engagement that was just described by miss flores. so i think to address the transparency point, what we would like to see the new program title so i public land or housing."ly refine that statement so people understand it's not just housing, but we wanted to be clear that was really the primarily focus after getting the feedback from the community and other stakeholders. i think the table that we put at the bottom of slide sort of highlights the two ways that focus plays out on how we're approaching the program. as you can see, i think you have seen these statistics many times. low-income and moderate-income housing has fallen well short of production targets under abag over the last


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on