usage and most of it is uninproved and that might be the site where more fields could be put in and the city already owns it and it might be a benefit and make the park more welcoming. >> it is one of the major goals is to activate that space. >> thank you. >> and then, on the dogs issue, i know that we have spent a lot on creating these dog runs and unrelist tick to expect someone who goes to the park not to bring their dog with them and allow them to rom p around. but for parks, that are areas that are planted areas that are not recreational areas, it would be good to keep the dogs off of there for a possibility if that can be possible if it just makes the maintenance even harder, if there are no areas, where the people are allowed to go on them any way, it would be good that they don't let their dogs on there too. and finally, we have heard for years, that i forget these numbers and that we had 90

gardeners and now we have 35. and i am just throwing out the numbers and i am not sure how accurate those are. the point is that we have a lot fewer gardeners than we did at one time for the parks. >> and the question for outsourcing make sense to me because no one will be losing jobs and we don't have enough people to do the work as it is. and if you employ somebody on the outside, they can do it a lot less cost, if you don't have to pay the benefits and all of the other things and it is the possibility of the firm that brings in the help, and obviously, we would like to have the money to hire more gardeners back and there is a limit to that. and we were able to add, i believe that it was about 25 gardeners, through our budget last year and this year. >> that is good. >> we are working on increasing that number. >> commissioner borden? >> thank you, for this report. and again, it is great to know that you are working with the planning staff and i support many of the comments and my commissioners have made, could

you talk about your how early you are getting to the arts commission because i serve on the civic design review and i know that is a challenge because they have a three step process in which they do the reviews of projects which can delay the design process and i want to know how soon you are getting to them. and it depends on the project and so we interact with the two silos. and one is all of the projects have a art component. and the civic review. and speaking with tom about how to better integrate that and i think that some of what we put in place working with the planning department will benefit us in that. and what we have found and you are correct is that we go through the entire conversation and a trade off conversation about if you add and a tennis court what happens and those things you get to the specific design review and we have not fully engaged that group of

stake holders and they, you know, given a different, view of the world, suggest removing something that was a, heavily brokered community compromised and so we are working to include the arts commission staff much earlier in the process, and frankly include them in the community meetings so that they are aware of those trade off conversations as we move through it. >> and i know, i just remember the conversation around the 17th park and how frustrated the people and the team members of the supervisor got and just really want to encourage and get to them earlier and on my side we have been talking about how we can it is a three step process necessary. >> right. >> we are trying to do better integration and if you have feedback for us and we would love to incorporate it because it is a work in process. >> thank you. >> >> i think no more questions. >> yes, is there public comment on this item?

>> okay, public comment is closed. thank you, again. >> that updates you to item 12, the downtown plan annual monitoring report, 2012, informational presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners, president fong, director, and i have a couple of hand outs here. my name is scott and i work with the information and analysis group in the city wide division of the planning department. under (inaudible) and director ram, obviously. and recently published the annual update to the downtown plan monitoring report. and we can get the projecter up when we get a chance. >> and as you know it, it

identifies key land use economic fiscal transportation, housing, and topics, as specified in the administrative code chapter ten e. over all, the report indicates that we have a recovery economy a few lingering effects and in general, a resilient district and the report indicates that we have a rebounding development and declining vacantcy rates and increasing rents and stabilizing employment, and growing tax revenue and usage fee and stable mode share and we have a few lingering effects in terms of the slow down and development where we have not had any approved long term parking spaces or public art, in that redevelopment last year, the report that you have front of you has a summary page

that has detailed numbers around these summary parameters and i would like to take you through and highlight a couple of those right now. you know that downtown has 72 million of office space and that is 64 percent and it has 9.7 million and which is 16 percent of the retail and it has about 20,000 hotel rooms which is about 60 percent of the hotels city wide. and in terms of residential, there are about 16,000 units located in the c3 district and that is about 4 percent of the

city wide total. in terms of upcoming development in the pipeline, you can see that we have about three quauters of a million square feet of office space slated for downtown, and that is about 7 percent of the 9.9 million total in the pipeline. and we have got about a half million square feet of retail space and about 16 percent of the total and the hotel numbers are a little funny because we had some fairly big projects that are either demolitions or use, and so we have a net increase of 138,000 increase of hotel space, downtown and just a net of 6,000 city wide. in total, there is about 14.7 million square feet of commercial space in the pipeline and 18 percent is downtown, and i know that last year when i was here, you were kind of interested in the break downtown of that office space total number in terms of geography and so you can see

that table there identifies that the downtown has about 7 percent of the c3 has 7 percent of the office development in the pipeline and then if you add that to transbay, and kind of the wider downtown area, you end up with the concentration of the kluser of 45 percent and you can see how it is distributed otherwise. for downtown, 90 percent of the residential pipeline and you can see the geographic distribution of the pipeline off to the right of the table with the majority of it, 31 percent of it being in the rest of the city area which makes since off accounting for the big, long term projects that you have got downtown which has a substantial amount of new

housing slated for it. >> we have declining rates and for offices downtown and 6.0 percent for the retail downtown and we have got rising office rents that are going up substantially. and we understand that 50 dollars and more than 5 dollars for a square foot. and the hotel occupancy and about 81 percent and the charge is 175 dollars. >> in terms of employment we have a modest increase of 74 percent and it is 200,000 jobs and a good percent of them are

located downtown. and you can see from the chart there that you have got some funny little changes up and down going on in the different sectors but, principally the distribution follows the commercial square footage where you have 60 percent of the jobs downtown and 28 percent of the jobs downtown and 68 percent of the hotels jobs downtown. we. we have 81 downtown and 31

art installations downtown and in terms of transit, average weekday boardings are up, about 5 percent over last year to 680,000 and a full 42 percent of those occur during the two-hour pm peak area from 4:00 to 6:00 during the day. and one-third of those, or about 100,000 have downtown origin and destination and you can see that we have a pretty substantial increase in the transit development and in terms of that we have a stable mode split over, and the highlights 33 percent transit decreasing cost share and the 31 percent walk share and that data is for employed residents of super district one which are the people that live in super district one and commute to

that commute to the cities or beyond. >> and we have a long term decline and a occupancy rate of workers coming into the city with the change of 2000 to 2011 being a small drop from 1.8 persons per vehicle to 1.15 persons per vehicle. and then, in closing, i just like to mention that we have one more annual update that we will do next year. and the following year will be a 5-year update. and we are looking forward to seeing the transportation data coming out this fall first time in ten years as the journey to work data has been released and that will allow us to do a better job, seeing exactly what the mode split is for being the commuters to the san francisco jobs. and with that, i will close and i will be available for any questions or xhepts. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item?

>> the last person standing, that was involved in this report. i am the only one that is not on vacation and so i am speaking for five other people who would be here but their kids are school kids. first thing, we have found it impossible to track whether the housing being constructed is meeting the needs of the people that were identified in the downtown plan. partly because the planning department does not require that project sponsors report back to the department, when the first unit is sold, what is the price of the unit? that is an easy resolution and you have two buildings here today you should impose that requirement on them. we cannot figure out except by

reading the newspapers what is the price of the housing that you are so busy creating and approving, the reading of the sunday papers will show that there is a lot available to the workforce in these buildings. and which was the driving factor for the ohep. and the second thing that is missing from this, is any discussion or mention of the fact that housing and transit fees and other fees were not collected. because the fee that this commission and the board of supervisors passed it affected mightly the ohpp in second early, the case for muni, you should at least acknowledge your own role and not producing the housing and transit, but what were the assumptions of the downtown plan. plus, housing does not equal housing, if the housing unaffordable to the workers, the workers downtown and the workers in the city go out of

town, looking for jobs. second thing, i wanted to... emphasize. was that it is kind of glossed over, the downtown plan created all of these wonderful things, and this part in here on ohpp, where you take credit for, you don't understand. the downtown plan was bid at the board of supervisors, and the board of supervisors said they were not going to pay it, pass it. and plus, the law was changed to require housing. and it did not come as a great gift from the planning department. it was imposed on the planning department by the likes of this supervisors in the 80s. and just, and in the downtown plan, the largest concern, as i said, we are transit and

housing, and everyone who was in the room, understood that there was assumptions being made that you could approve all of these office developments and their transit would improve, and then the rider ship would go down to the cars and that the people would no longer commute by car. and no having data on muni improvements is not acceptable if you have a real sense of downtown. thank you. >> is there any additional comment on this item? >> if not, the public comment is closed, commissioner antonini. >> thank you for a very good report, i have a couple of comments and questions. >> certainly. >> first of all, the fact that the c3 and i think that you are referring in the statistics is it the larger c3 or just the c3 in the red that you are basing your... >> the map is just at c3

district. >> okay, i think that the only 4 percent of the city's residential is a number that is too low and if you are downtown in the evenings after 8:00, you know, the activity on street is fairly sparse and it is busy this time of year because you have a lot of tourists because they are often out but i think that it is really important to build more in the c3 for housing and we are doing that as it appears that it is going up to 9 percent of the new construction by your report, and it appears that you include the mid market area in here which is seeing a lot of mid and upper market to seeing a lot of buildings of the present time. but i think that you know, this does bring in residents and they may be new residents to san francisco, but they spend money here and they help our economy and they provide a 24-hour presence and i think that the more of that we can have the better, on more the

subject hotels, we have a report from the san francisco travel last week. >> and we are emphasizing the fact that we lose the conventions because we don't have a big enough convention space and in keeping with the larger conventions even if we get them and the emphasis was having them walkable from mosconi which i would like to see the percentage of hotels in the c3 to increase and it seems to make sense because of our needs. and the figure that i question that you showed the rental last year, for the commercial space in the c3. like, at 52 dollars and 21 cents. and then we have a figure below it. and a presumably that is the rest of the city for the commercial space and it is $50.32, i find that hard to be believe. >> i am sorry, no, that figure

is actually it should be yeah, actually are are right that should be. >> but i can't believe that. okay. >> i mean i have an office building and you know, in the cal hallow area and i am familiar with the commercial rents and i just can't believe that this square footage city wide much less in the areas like ocean avenue or the outer sunset of richmond have anywhere near that square footage for the commercial rents i am not sure where that figure came from. >> yeah, i will track that down for you. >> and then the final comment that i had is that it is encouraging to see that our number of jobs has increased slightly in keeping what we have seen, and creating the

jobs in san francisco and and we have had a significant larger number of jobs in the range of 7 or 800,000 in the city. and a higher share. and that we can accommodate. and some great comments. >> yeah, in that great comments and using your average or median? >> it is an average. >> okay. >> and on that same page in the actual report, i was noticing the retail jobs under employment are at 28 percent verses the rest of the city whereas the rest of the city square footage and it is quite a bit of i don't know what the right number is, there are a lot more people working downtown in the rest of the city. the same is true for the hotel jobs and not quite as dramatic.

and 68 percent, verses 60. and if i may. and we get the retail data and it applies to the people who work in the offices for the companies that are offices. >> and that is a good question, and technically and always separated out and it was on the building and the retail and also downtown, you do have a higher insensety retail activity. and so the more employees per square foot makes the sense. >> and also under the fiscal revenue where you are getting the sales and property and taxes, and those are all showing the increased amount. and could we in a separate statistic show to show the difference between downtown and

city wide. >> a really interesting statistic on page six and on table seven which is employment and downtown and the c3 zone which shows that under production and repair and pdr. and in 2010, and we have a number of 17,320 which has grown, and 25,000 and 54. and which is an 8 percent growth, and it is interesting that the c3 district that we are using the downtown and not the super district. >> and there will be a district that we would think is a non-pdr area and then i think

that it sort of argues for retaining as much pdr oriented zoning as we can in the south of market and in the central corridor. and absolutely. and i think that this is always a interesting report. i would love it if you could pull out the way that you do around the other. and the residential and you pull out the other kind of taxes and if you could pull out the residential and i think that it would be interesting and i know that if would be easy to get the da aaround the housing, and the mraiss are and the average at least for year i think that it would be useful and i think that it would be useful, and we could actually get the numbers around in and out of of these buildings downtown and are those people living and working downtown. and i think that that would be, and i don't think that it is

going to require that some other place. and i am not sure, but it would be uteful to know that we don't see the numbers do and we don't know what that means and it would tell us a bit about the people who are living downtown if we are kind of meeting the jobs and how they need. and i think that that would be useful in that regard. and is it data going to be accessible and open that someone could take this and overlay it with the commerce and the industry report that we did and some of the tourism stuff that we did that they could ma naip late the data? >> it is a little tricky to make it part of that and obviously this report is available, and >> it is only a pdf form and it would be hard to capture that data. >> right. >> and we, yeah, this, yeah that is an interesting question and one of the things that we look at is how to which parts of our data we can actually make and put on those cities open data and the site and

which doents after that. and the data in this downtown report, comes from a lot of places and we don't keep it in one long time series and so it takes the back work to put it altogether. >> just put in the stuff in an excell spread sheet it would be in a format that someone could use the data. >> just something to think about because what other people are collecting we could probably capture more information from this report than we could now and i think that it is interesting and i think that she has a point when we go back to the job linkage and we look at the impact fees and i don't know what the percentage that we collected that were deferred that were expected to come on line in 2014, and maybe you can tell me that, do you happen to know? >> i don't know. >> and we had that separate for it that we have done on the, and if you recall, a few months ago, you looked at the possibility of reviewing the fee. >> right. >> and so we have that

information from that analysis. and we can get it. >> and i think that it is useful to know about that related to the degree. >> sure, yeah. >> thanks. >> commissioner wu? >> thanks. >> i want to pick up on that, idea of collecting either rental data, i think that it would be great to get the recommendations from the department on what is feasible and what we can do not just for the downtown, you know seeing all of the new units come up on market and seeing them advertised at $600,000 and $700,000 for a one bedroom seems high for me but maybe that is what the market is right now. i am interested in seeing, you know, at the end of it what are the units selling for and also if there is any way to understand how that does or does not impact existing housing, you know if there is all of these claims that if we increase the supply and the existing housing will not be targeted for the new people in the city and will not be so expensive and it would be great to get the sense that if there is methodology that we could

use, and i don't think that is a quick study, but just to understand, if we can either, validate or refute these claims. >> commissioner moore? >> thank you for the report and i think that it is informative and timely for me, and it is actually the business card would show that san francisco structure as it currently exists is quite successful and i would appreciate commissioner sugaya and borden's comments regarding the housing language and the comment of commissioner sugaya raised about pdr and its proximity to downtown where the services are needed. many people and corporate entities relocate because of that fact and we are well advised at what look at what works and not tinker or change it. i think that we need to ex-expand because there are a few cities that can retrofit along with the principals and i think that since we moved ourself, are proving ourselves coming out of a constrained

economy, i think that we should even pay more attention to that very fact. and director william and to you, i would appreciate if this particular report has the one that we mentioned in the past week would also on the library accessible to the people including ourselves if we needed it because not all of us can keep these things in our homes any more. >> thank you. >> commissioner antonini? >> just a follow up on that pdr, and it would be interesting to see what was defined because sometimes there is a kind of a gray zone between tech jobs and pdr jobs and some of the jobs that are, you know, are interpreted as that but it would be kind of good to see what it is that has caused that rather drastic increase and i know that this is part of what you do each year but as the new people come to san francisco, as they buy new residences or rent new residences at higher prices the

matrix changes because the income level then city wide is becoming incrementally higher. and so you know, we have to always look at this not based on what the past was but what the present is, and make sure that our statistics are up to date. and thanks. >> okay. >> okay. >> thank you. >> it appears that we can move on to item 13, a and b, for 2011.040 eand x, for 480 potrero avenue and please note that on july 18th after closing public comment in a motion to up hold the negative declaration, continued to a vote of 5-0, the commissioner fong and hillis were both ab accident. and i hope that you receive my direction with the think to the video that if you want to participate in today's hearing

and vote, you need to acknowledge that you have actually viewed that video. and i want to disclose it and i had the opportunity to review, on the video through the sfgov tv and prepare to take action today. >> and i did the same. >> thank you, commissioners. >> and although i called the items up together and even though you had a hearing, and closed public comment because they appear on your calendar today. that does appear that the members of the public to speak to the item and i would encourage the members of the public to speak to the item only for new information and even though i called them up together i recommend that we take action separately. >> okay. >> good afternoon, president fong and commissioners planning department staff is joining me is joy, senior planner. and before you is an appeal of a preliminary negative declaration for the project that includes the 6th