development with the goal of achieving the community's desired balance of affordable market rate housing as well as the balance between jobs production and housing production. as a resolution, the board does not refer this sort of legislation to the commission. they only need to hold the ordinances for the 90 day wait. monday's hearing, the department's staff expressed support for insuring balanced development. staff also expressed concerns about a few of the ramifications of this resolution. specifically that the proposed metering may bond future commissions or board members and prevent them from using their discretion to approve potentially beneficial projects. the department explained that the meeting projects in an area this small is difficult and projects just outside the boundaries would not be counted towards the numbers but would have an impact in the area nonetheless. the boundaries of western soma

were not drawn to reflect a self-sustaining urban organism but are the result as a result of political negotiations, and a split through blocks and st. pierre lastly, due to the specific lot size needs of affordable housing got to come staff requested more time to study the issue to ensure there are not large parcels of rezoning to support the 70% affordable housing that the community is seeking. the community discussed continuing the item to allow our director to meet with stakeholders, but the legislative sponsor did not consent. the item was forwarded to the full board without recommendation. also before the committee was an ordinance for parking in soma and mission bay. planning commission considered the proposed ordinance on april 28. the legislation would revise land use, parking, and street- fighting controls to conform with our more contemporary policies. at the hearing, the commission

voted to recommend approval of modifications. they recommended a host of changes, largely to ensure the legislation originally sponsored by supervisor daly has taken into account the many ordinances that have amended the sections in such a short time. also agree with the intent to remove the mission bay from this potential ordinance. supervisor kim inc. all of your recommendations and made some minor adjustments this week. the item was continued for one week for what will likely be the final hearing at committee to hear it as it was amended. moving on to tuesday at the full board, they heard the north beach library appeal and associated approvals. the commission approved the library and associated approvals on april 21. i hope that is not the commission secretary's phone. >> i cannot find it. >> this week, which failed to

convince the board that it was an adequate or that the entitlements that the library and that recon park were seeking should not be granted. public testimony centered on the legality of using the so-called triable parcel has a site from the library rather than open space. appellants argued that eir wrongly characterizes the tribal parcel based on its current use, rather than open space, what they think should be the intended use. the board by unanimous vote of public planning commission unanimous certification and denied the appeal. the board went on to approve the street vacation, the zoning map amendment on first reading. the board could not approve one ordinance related to authorizing the site at the playground and library due to noticing issues, so they continued. treasure island, the appeal and associated approvals was also

heard this week. the project had the usual complications related to reusing a former military base, and it was a challenging location. further complicating matters in the process were uncertainties about the future of redevelopment agencies in general and a decision to switch the government and financing to not include redevelopment. the improvements included the sierra club, as well as others. there was considerable uncertainty as to whether the appellate arguments were gaining traction with the board members in the five--- and a five-hour hearing ensued. opponents raised concerns about hazardous materials, sea level rise, tsunami, residual effects, transportation, historic resources, and other issues, which we felt were thoroughly addressed in the eir. based on recent changes as to how the project would be implemented, which now gives greater oversight of the

planning department, the appellants argued that the product definition required recirculation of the eir. a contested the legitimacy of the hearings and essentially argued for starting the process over again. in the end, the eir was up held unanimously for treasure island. regarding the associated approval, supervisor mar introduced an amendment related to historic preservation. this one was passed 7-4, and like all the other actions, which were unanimous. the amendment was designed for development, and would require thattida -- that tida follow the interior secretary standards and consult with preservation experts at our department for any development involving historic resources. after the staff review, the department could bring the matter to the hpc is decided. chris lee, they have needed to consult with an expert but not necessarily within our

department, and there was previously no mention of the hpc. all the other minor amendments were approved unanimously, and this amendment was considered separately from the other items and received a split vote due to the explicit codification of the secretary frontier status. supervisor wiener expressed concern that this will be first city ordinance with the standards you with that, all items were passed unanimously on first reading. lastly but not least lee, park ridge said and all the ordinances related to it were passed -- parkmerced. there were a couple introductions i would like to share with you this week. supervisor farrell interest an ordinance that would establish a city center fine district. you will hear more about that in the coming months. supervisor cohen it is a request

to study the status of california's high-speed rail initiative. that includes the lengthy report this week. commissioner olague: thank you. there is a question. commissioner antonini: thank you. i just wanted to ask for some additional information regarding this western soma that you mentioned. as you know, this was separated out from eastern neighborhoods and was not involved in the planning process as we normally know it, but rather was through the community planning process. i am concerned about this situation of meter and the amount of housing you have relative to affordable than market rate seems to basically sort of take away our ability, as someone pointed out in your comments, too, you know, individually make judgments on benefits of projects and also

kind of goes against our city- wide inclusion their policy, which we cannot balk at, so anyway, i have concerns about that. i would like to hear more. commissioner olague: thank you. >> the board of appeals did meet last night. they had a full calendar. there were three items i think the commission might be interested in. we first mentioned this to you a few months back. there have been appeal on building permits for the chase bank. at the previous hearing, which identified that there was an atm located on an exterior wall that needed section 312 notice or alternatively, they could move it inside. at the previous hearing, the board could not reach a resolution on amending the plan to accommodate that. revise plans were submitted the following day. that was appealed to the board of appeals heard last night. many of the same issues regarding formula retail were raised. i did do a site visit with the senior building inspector. we measured the site, and it

does comply with the size requirements. it is less than 4000 sweet and does not require a conditional use authorization. it was still disputed by the appellant, the claim that a corridor/storage area that is not in use by chase bank, that is not least by chase bank should count toward their use size, which we disagree. the board sided with the department and of how the decision. the building permit was issued. we would like to highlight the last time we had discussed this issue about financial-services, noting that financial services are not covered under formula retail uses, and the commission had requested a hearing on formula retail overall to see how the program is going, and i think we're going to try to bring that to you in the middle of july in association with legislation by supervisor mar that would deal with pet food stores and the fast food special use district. the second item was 203, 207,

and to 15 los palmos. this was a new construction project on subdivided lots, and the planning commission heard the project about a year ago now. the building permit was originally submitted three years ago. the neighborhood notification went out two years ago. there was a dr file then heard by the commission last year. the commission unanimously upheld the project, finding that was contexture with the district. very modest three single-family dwellings. no variances were required for any of the work propose. after the commission approved it, we approved the subdivision. the subdivision was appealed to the board of supervisors. the board of supervisors unanimously upheld the subdivision. building permit was subsequently issued an appeal to the board of appeals. it was scheduled at the beginning of january. a few days prior to the appeal, the ceqa appeal was filed and heard by the board of

supervisors in march. that was unanimously upheld by the board of supervisors. so we went to the hearing last night at the board of appeals, and they unanimously upheld the commission's decision, said that is where we are with that project. i think most of the appeal options are exhausted at this point, although they can request a re-hearing within five days. the final item is a very it's decision that i heard earlier this year. it was a lot line adjustment, not a subdivision. it is a unique situation where we had two single-family dwellings, and two small lots, and they actually straddle the property line. so what this project did was to make it such that each of the single family dwellings would be on their own separate properties. we felt that the fact that the buildings troubled property lines was a hardship and justifiable and require a very it's because one of the loss was slightly shrunken by this.

at the hearing, we heard testimony from a concerned neighbor about the project. they were worried about future developments on the lot. there was no development proposed here. possibly the line adjustment. so we put a condition of their that future development would require a variance, and this is a pretty exceptional condition. we do not typically placed back the strict. it was appealed by a different neighbor who wanted the condition changed to new construction at all. the board heard this matter last night and unanimously of health the variance with the existing condition. commissioner borden: can you explain -- i'm talking about the los palmos case now. whether the time limits for the different pills. it seems like this project has had many bites at the apple and the appellate process. sounds like they went to the board on something else -- can

you explain that? >> the building permit was first filed and heard here. there was associated subdivisions. subdivisions are appealable to the board of supervisors. i believe they have 30 days. so they went on the subdivision, and then the building permit was issued. i believe it has been practice of the city attorney to allow ceqa appeals to be filed up until the final administrative action of the city, which is usually the board of appeals hearing. so they waited until the very last minute. they actually filed the appeal right before the board of appeals hearing was going to be held in january. commissioner borden: so there is no time limit generally? >> to clarify, the time limit is on negdex.

the eir has a time limit. >> i do not understand why a sequel appeal -- a ceqa appeal would not have a time limit. commissioner olague: thank you, commissioners. we can now move on to your general public, a category that has a time limit of 50 minutes. members -- >> thank you, commissioners. we can now move on to your general public comment category that has a time limit of 15 minutes. for this category, each member of the public may i address you for up to three minutes, keeping in mind that the entire category has a 15-minute time limit. i have no speaker cries. commissioner olague: is there any general public comment? seeing none, general public comment is closed. >> thank you. commissioners, we can now start your regular calendar with items

six, business and informational presentation on the annual limit program. >> commissioners, good afternoon. planning departments that. we are here this afternoon to give you a brief update on your annual limit program, bring you up to speed with where the program is today. in response to your questions, the item is informational only. no action is required of you today. madam secretary, when you have a moment, the overhead would be fantastic. in terms of the -- thank you -- in terms of how we would like to structure the next 10 minutes or so, we're going to give you a bit of background, talk about the process and a few notable projects and will want to the sponsors of two particular projects.

we first need to answer the question of what is the annual program. this is something that does live in the planning code and is that -- designed to meter of office development to help smooth out the typical real-estate cycles and avoid overproduction of office space and associated possible impact. it does apply throughout the city. this is not limited to just the downtown area, and it does apply to projects of more than 25,000 gross square feet of office space. the annual limit works by maintaining a pool of office space that the commission can then draw from to make allocations to particular project. each year on october 17, that pool is replenished. we're just shy of 1 million square feet of additional space. 75,000 square feet of that are set aside for use in small

office projects. we call this a small cap, kamen -- and it can be used for small projects between 25,000 or 50,000 square feet of space. the remainder of the annual replenishment goes into the large cap, which is projects with more than 50,000 square feet of office space. one thing of particular note here is that the unused square footage in both the small and large caps -- this carries over from year to year. so in bad economic times, there can be a substantial accumulation of unallocated office space. quick word about how we got here, the history of the annual limit, the program did come to be as a result of the department's 1985 downtown plan. at the time, it did apply only to projects with more than 50,000 square feet. it also had a specific expiration date just a couple of years after it came into effect.

prop m, which can about the following year and passed with 51% of the vote, lowered the floor to its current 25,000 square feet, and it also very importantly did away with the sunset provision. also of particular note here, like anything enacted by the voters, it cannot be changed except by a new vote of the people. this slide was a fun one for me to put together. i'm not even sure it is legible, but what this is is a series of arguments that appeared in the 1986 voter pamphlet, arguments in favor of proposition m. this is sort of -- well, these may be familiar to you. these arguments speak to closing loopholes and limiting the potential for abuse, addressing overcrowding and impact to transit, lack of parking, high rent, stopping the loss of

affordable housing, supporting small businesses and neighborhoods, dealing with evictions and displacement, and lastly, preventing the threat of manhattanization. let's move on to the next trunk of the presentation. the actual process involved in an office allocation. commissioners, right now, office allocations are made on a first- come, first-served basis. you come into the apartment and file your application. we review it, and it comes before you for your approval, should you choose to make that. in years where demand outstrips supply -- and of course, we have not had many of these of late, the commission holds a hearing, what we call a beauty contest, in which the limits where footage in the cap is focused on the large cap, is allocated only to the very best product. you see almost every allocation, commissions, and the annual

limit. they appear on your agenda, and the only exceptions you can see on slide right now deal with state and federal office buildings, redevelopment project area buildings, port jurisdiction buildings, and also city office buildings. these are projects where we do not hold a hearing, but with the exception of city office buildings, where we do deduct the square footage out of the cap. once a project receives an allocation, there is an 18-month timeline, during which construction must commence. in each of the recent recessions, the commission has articulated policies on this time line. in 2002, you recognized the bad economy and instructed us to monitor but not revoke active projects. again in 2009, you recognized the horrific economy, and while you reaffirmed the earlier 2002 policy, you did also state that

projects which were not active should in fact be revoked. the next slide is our last on the process out of the house. here is where the annual limit program stands today. we have about 1.2 million square feet available in the small cap. in the review pipeline, the small private department, we know about 250,000 square feet that will be seeking allocations. this includes both projects that have already filed for an allocation and those that have yet to file. on the lower half of your screen, the large cap, we have 2.9 million square feet of office space available for allocation. the only application we have on file to use any of that space is for a 260,000 square foot office building for cpmc's proposed van ness avenue campus. we are aware of an additional

2.8 million square feet projects associated with the transbay development that have not formally requested a location yet but are in the pipeline. to sum this up, as of today, 4.1 million gross square feet total in both the small and large cap awaiting allocation. looking forward, looking ahead, even if all the projects in both the small and large caps that are currently on file were to magically be approved today, there would still be a huge amount of available square footage remaining. more than 1 million square feet for the small-cap and about 2.6 million for the large cap. looking even further down the road, and assuming all of the pre-application cases are approved, and this probably will not happen until at the very earliest, the next allocation cycle, we do still see notable excess capacity. over 1 million square feet would remain in the small cap, and

700,000 square feet in a large. let's move now to the last part of your update today, particular projects of note. i will zoom through these with as much speed as possible, so if you are curious and would like more information, please just say so. despite the current situation with the economy, commissioners, in the past year-and-a-half or so, the city has approved more than 2 million square feet of office space. as you can see, this project are really scattered throughout the northeast part of the city, frankly, and beyond. treasure island, mission bay, south of market, the downtown core. in your most recent resolution relating to the annual limit, you asked that we as a staff follow-up on a handful of specific projects that appeared to be enacted, and look at those

with an eye towards holding. here are two of them. market street would have constructed a new office space at fort st. behind the old navy. this project had an 18-month time when that concluded in 2002. we reached out to the project sponsor who confirmed that the project is no longer active, and as such, the project has been relinquished. 120 howard street, which is the vertical addition to an office building on spear, is now actually under construction. so that is now off of your revocation radar. here are another two projects of particular note, both in the transbay area, both very old allocations, and both which you will hear about. both were called out in 2009 as being an active, and as far as we can tell, 48, and 525 howard

continue to remain inactive. putting aside the projects we have just mentioned, these projects are the only office allocations that are in excess of their 18-month timeline. for the most part, they are not substantially over that limit, but unless they are questioning with respect to their conditions of approval in the planning could. the department has received updates from some project sponsors, indicating that despite being slowed by the current state of the economy, both projects are in fact moving forward. barry last slide here -- 350 bush, 500 kind -- these are two connected project located between montgomery and current street. together, they account for about 400,000 gross square feet of office space. as requested in the commission's

most recent policy statement, we will hear an informational update from the project sponsor as part of this item in just a minute. so, commissioners, that is where your annual limit program stands. thank you for allowing me to take up so much of your time. of course, happy to answer some of your questions now, or if you would rather, we could wait to hear from the project's sponsors first. commissioner olague: i think we can hear from the project at this time. i cannot see any names of at the moment. does it have to be called? i think we will hear from the project sponsors at this time. >> good afternoon. we represent lincoln properties, who since september 2007, is the owner of an untitled site. they go together.

fairly complicated situation. for our purposes, i think it is important to note that the activity that has occurred, which is, i think, what you are interested in -- commissioner olague: was called into the record? >> [inaudible] >> as i understand it, this particular item as part of your informational presentation. separate line items. commissioner olague: yes, that is fine. >> as i mentioned, the property was acquired as an untitled side by lincoln properties and its partner in september 2007. lincoln is a developer. builds buildings. they bought and tired site.

the market, as you recall, was roaring around pretty well at the end of 2007. immediately after that, my firm was brought on. we paid the affordable housing fees of $5,153,000 in change and paid the affordable housing fees on pine street, paid back in september right after buying the properties with the intent to get going and build those properties out. we acquired all of the remaining tbr that needed to be required -- acquired, and importantly, from my point of view, although the entitlements were complete, the deal with the recreation and park commission to allow for the expansion of what is st. mary's park, which is part of the complicated way in which these two projects were related, have not been completed and turned out to be an extraordinary effort, but we undertook to engage with rec and park and the

board of supervisors that we got a deal done to expand st. mary's park at 500 pine street, all with the idea that soon after that, we would be able to proceed to build those projects. site permits were submitted, and they have been submitted or submitted after we acquired, but not cold, and heller was engaged to complete the construction drawings. then the market tanked, for lack of a better term. nobody was building anything. by 2008, the middle of 2008, it was obvious that we were not going to be able to proceed to build the building at the time, even if we had wanted to. there was no financing available, and attendance, and no reason to proceed. nevertheless, since that date, we pursued actively and seriously the gsa