City officials detail workforce, housing and community benefits for Candlestick Point–Hunters Point plan

San Francisco planning and redevelopment staff returned to the Planning Commission for an informational presentation on the Candlestick Point–Hunters Point Shipyard Phase 2 project, laying out workforce commitments, the housing plan — including 1-for-1 replacement of Alice Griffith public housing — and a range of community benefits.

Matt Snyder, the planning liaison, said the commission had asked for more detail about community benefits and workforce programs. Tiffany Bohe of the Office of Economic and Workforce Development described the city’s approach: the project is structured as a public‑private partnership captured in a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) that the redevelopment agency will use to bind developer obligations. Bohe said the project includes extensive open space, infrastructure and programmatic investments and that final entitlements would be requested at a later hearing.

Rhonda Simmons, director of workforce development, reviewed the city’s First Source/local‑hire program and the plan’s employment pipeline. Simmons said First Source thresholds trigger program administration for projects above specified dollar amounts — currently $350,000 for construction and $50,000 for non‑construction — and noted the program has historically focused on entry‑level placements. “First Source is a good‑faith program today,” Simmons said, adding the city is working with the Board of Supervisors, unions and community groups on language that could make portions mandatory within months.

Guillermo Rodriguez (CityBuild) summarized placements and compliance tools, including certified‑payroll tracking software and job referral systems that prioritize Bayview/Hunters Point residents. CityBuild data show substantial placements from District 10 during Phase 1, Rodriguez said, and he described pre‑apprenticeship and training classes aimed at increasing resident readiness for trades work. Union representatives present described mandatory pre‑apprenticeship safety training and a rule that classes must include at least 20% women in new cohorts.

Olson Lee of the Redevelopment Agency walked the commission through the housing program. Lee said the plan would produce roughly 10,500 total units across the combined sites, of which more than 3,300 would be in the primary plan area and roughly 31.86% of units targeted as below‑market‑rate under the project’s commitments. He emphasized the Alice Griffith rebuild would follow HOPE SF principles: “We provide one‑for‑one replacement and phased demolition with new replacement housing built on or adjacent to the Alice Griffith site,” Lee said, and he added the master developer agreed to provide direct subsidies and infrastructure support. Lee cited developer contributions of roughly $23 million toward Alice Griffith replacement and another $23 million in infrastructure subsidies and said the agency would allocate more than $220 million in tax‑increment funds to the project if it proceeds.

Bohe described a $83 million community benefits package that includes a $28 million community first housing fund, an $8.9 million workforce development fund (with city matches and program dollars), technical assistance for small contractors and a legacy fund seeded at 0.5% of initial market‑rate home sales to be allocated by a community stewarding body. Several community programs were presented as iterative products of years of public meetings and CAC/PAC discussions.

Public speakers — dozens of Bayview residents, tenants and community leaders — overwhelmingly expressed support for the project’s jobs and housing commitments, but many pressed for stronger enforcement of local‑hire goals and clearer penalties if contractors or the developer fail to deliver. Alice Griffith residents and advocates urged guarantees that replacement housing be completed early in the phasing and sought clearer education efforts so residents understand HUD/HOPE SF requirements and stay in good standing during redevelopment. Others asked for stronger apprenticeship slots and binding project labor agreement (PLA) terms rather than good‑faith language.

City staff said many program details are being finalized and that plan language in the DDA and related contracts will specify enforcement, monitoring and reporting. The Planning Commission did not act on entitlements at this informational hearing; staff said they would return with required approvals and the DDA at a later meeting.