okay. let's open up for further public comment. tom radulavich and gabriel medina. good evening, commissioners. tom, [speaker not understood], executive director of livable city. i was part of the conversation of this many months ago and kind of got dropped from it, but a lot of this is great work and, you know, a lot of these definitions of industrial uses go back to 1960. they really don't reflect the way manufacturing works today. eastern neighborhoods there is a lot of guesswork. we're going to create these new types. do they work or not? now we have five years experience with eastern neighborhoods and a lot of data that's been provided by s.f. made and so on. and i think a lot of this makes a lot of sense. there are areas where it could have been further. the light industrial definition, for example, you should drop those horse power limits for equipment. this came up with your discussion that you probably recall that is of the trade shop use.

it's uninforcible and it's a real hamper to these light industrial business he. you should be zoning for thing like impact and noise vibration outside the space. so, could have gone even further in some of these areas in terms of rationalizing uses. my big concern is transportation. you know, we were involved in a will the of eastern neighborhoods planning. we never contemplated large scale office uses in these industrial districts. the e-i-r s. didn't address that. the train pour thaition planning didn't address that ~. so, the provision of this that i have a problem with is the provision that will allow these large new office buildings in industrial neighborhoods. it means one of two things. let me take a step back and talk about city policy. current city policy for the most part says large concentrations of office should be in areas that are well served by the regional transit system. i.e., downtown, other areas like downtown. we have very limited commuter parking. that's been our strategy to try and limit traffic. to try and limit the negative

impacts on the environment and on communities of this office. of course, located in placeses that make sense where people from all over the region can come to office buildingses on transit. we're talking about opening ~ large areas with very, very he poor transit service, too big office projects, maybe 2 million square feet of office in areas ill served by transit. now, somebody runs a transit agency, my other day job, i can tell you there's not a lot of money to expand transit service to new areas. the city has been very reticent to collect the area for transit. we're all just in -- struggling to sort of provide the services we're continuing to provide. the other concern, of course, would be parking requirements and those sorts of things locating away from transit with lots of parking allowed. i'm not even clear what kind of parking is allowed for industrial uses in pdr because they're nonconforming. you're going to create a lot of congestion in neighborhoods. we could potentially, you know, limit access to these office jobs for people on transit. it runs contrary to city policy.

it it runs contrary to good sense. so, that's provision which allows these large new office buildings is one that you need to look at from a transportation lens. we haven't done that. there's been no environmentval review to transportation planning around this and that needs to happen before that provision can go forward. thank you. >> thank you. thank you, commissioners, president wu. my name is gabriel medina and i'm with the [speaker not understood] agency, mela. i've been working 40 year [speaker not understood]. and i want to thank supervisor campos and supervisor cohen's office for bringing us into this discussion. i know this work has been going on for 18 months. we have just recently been getting involved in this in the last maybe less than two months. i guess we recognize that manufacturing is very important for -- a an alternative pathway for jobs to a lot of our low to

moderate income clients and i've seen example from s.f. made businesses from, from heath ceramics to timbuktu, anchor brewing, they do a good job of rook from the local community. some of the larger manufacturers and they definitely do offer the opportunity. ~ i think one of the our bigger concerns at this point is number one, all the pdr that creates jobs for those companies, two-thirds of it is being proposed to be used for office space. and, so, that means that other opportunities for -- for those employers to move in, we would lose that right away. you know, we're willing to look and explore this pilot project, you know, with s.f. made. however, the one proposal that does raise a few red flags is the sew. written into the planning, planning staff's proposal about this is primarily this one space active space. so, that's about three blocks from our office at 19th and mission. if you just go to the website you can see right off the bat out of the 43 tenants they have, only two are

manufacturing. and the rest are primarily office space. and we've seen a very high propensity of tech incubators and hubs move into the mission district, it significantly changed the population of our neighborhood. and we want to make sure that if there is any sew space built, that it has some protections that it's not 95% office space like this current site three blocks from our office is because there are tech companies specifically there. if you're a mac enthusiast, they have a good company there. there are some basically specifically tech office spaces that are using that space. so, that's -- we propose if you can do a 30% type of cap on the office space that's this that type of use, we would really appreciate that as far as making sure those opportunities are specifically reserved for manufacturing and really not just for office because we know there is a very, very tight mark market for commercial and residential space in the mission and we want to make sure that, you know, manufacturers like companies that came before you can have that same opportunity. you know, we really want to

make sure there is a policy of no net loss of pdr space throughout san francisco. that's very important and we want to encourage the business plans to not just talk about tax credits, but to actually work with local community based organizations for work force in those business plans to name about how we can facilitate working together for those jobs. that's it. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> sue hester. i want to build on what tom and meta said. those definitions of off space in the planning code, it was hard fought. there were wars around it in the early '80s. it permeates definition for the trigger for paying for housing, for paying for transit.

the planning department is the greatest nonenforcer of the law, of office space that i have ever seen. i track, to my ability, a lot of changes that are happening and i'm finding out that planning department staff is authorizing thing as tenant improvements right and left. tenant improvement in an area, in a building that is all putting factory -- being changed into a .com -- sorry, i have .com in my head. that is how we lose a neighborhoodvthv. every time we use this change that is more than 300 square feet, they're required to pay ~ pidf. how many tidfs, transit impact development fee, ~ have been paid for projects or planning

department process? minuscule. how many of them have paid housing fees? nonexistent. we have -- are losing pdf that is legitimately pdf. i'll give you one, 16th and alabama, northeast corner. done as a nonoffice, done as a tenant improvement. we do not have a cynic in the building -- in the planning department. people should not be approving pro forma tenant improvement permits. why am i the only one who can catch them and you staff 120 people? i'm one person. they're several persons. and i have to catchall of these things and complain about them. ~ when you have a staff of so, what tom is right, what meta said is right.

we did not build a transit system. we do not build a housing system for these buildings. and you are putting demands at 16th and harrison and at ninth and harrison, all the places south of market. the city has not built the housing for, that the city has not built transit for ~. there is, pardon me, a pocity of transit lines serving the traditional industrial areas and yet you're pouring people in because planning keeps approving thing. and i would just give you one thing -- oh, -- >> sue, unfortunately your time is up. >> thank you. is there any further public comment? okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >> i think this is a great idea. and to speak a little bit to

concerns that were raised, i'm reading into here, and correct me if i'm wrong, the business use are restricted. and i believe that 33% of this gross square footage has to be for pdr uses. ~ uses and, so, this is going to make it possible for the pdr use to go in there because even under our definitions from eastern neighborhoods, the cost of trying to rent some of these spaces is going to be astronomical. but if it's combined with the business use, then it makes it more affordable, particularly if their uses are generally a couple of thousand square feet or in that need and it allows -- and these are vacant spaces, too. it has to be a vacant space or near vacant and it has to be 20,000 square feet. so, you know, it allows us from morphing into something that would not allow pdr requiring pdr. so, i think it's a very wise use.

i think there is transportation to most of these areas, public transportation and also in terms of parking, even the workers in the pdr part of the firm might be driving in. you can't say they're all going to be taking public transportation. some parking will have to be provided. but it's not only the office that's going to involve people driving some cars. on the positive side, i think this is a terrific thing. i was very impressed by the testimony from the different owners of these three companies. and there is -- we have a lot going for us and there is a certain cache connected with something that's made in san francisco. and the san francisco brand has a lot going for it. and i think we should be very proactive about working with pdr companies that are having trouble finding space to expand in san francisco, that are threatening to move, and to be

proactive, see what we can work out with them. the same way we do with other business he, and try to keep them in san francisco. s.f. made can help us with this, but also the mayor's office and everyone else. you know, we can probably find a space or find a deal that would work with them and probably some incentive might not be a bad idea down the road to work in for them in terms of some of the things that are done for businesses. and by the same token, we should be actively pursuing companies that are outside of san francisco that do manufacturing that might be willing to move into san francisco. for example, i think i mentioned this the last time, columbus salami proudly puts made in san francisco, not just turkey and cheese and all the products they make. and now they're in south san francisco. nobody who started in south san francisco and moved to san francisco would put founded in south san francisco. there is a reason they put "founded in san francisco"

because it has importance and helps them to sell their product. so, i think we could work with companies that are out there that would rather actually be in san francisco and they could truthfully say that they are located in san francisco. so, it's a lot of possibilities. and for larger companies -- and i know he this is being done -- this is just for the areas that are above 20th street, i believe, in terms of the hybrid business model. but for firms that need more space, then, you know, we probably can find locations in the bayview and other areas where their core pdr areas which would have lower rents and have higher vacancy rates and would be a way to keep them in space, possibly support may have some spots that would work for them. so, i think there are lots of possibilities. >> thank you. commissioner borden. >> thanks. i want to thank the supervisors office for working with

additional community stakeholders to kind of get to a better place on this. i just want to make sure. so, the portion of the building that would be office, would pidf apply here? >> absolutely and all the other [speaker not understood]. obviously this is not dealing with some of the issues that have been raised around tenant improvements, turning to other things that maybe staff can look into that ~. obviously we've just determined the need, i love the idea of, you know, a pilot program so we can see where it goes. it sounds like there's only 7 to 8 sites. within a two-year period i don't know that we would see all of those come to fruition. i think with those limitations, this could be hopefully a great generator of pdr space. we anticipate that on the up front, whether it be s.f. made working on just thinking about in terms of us working with

developers to identify up front the pdr space before they build it, just because i would like in some ways that the pdr space is driving the development as opposed to the other way around. >> not legally, we can't require that to happen. we would like that to happen, but it can't be in the legislation. >> great. just out of curiosity, are you aware of interest in potential [speaker not understood] slots -- >> we have interest from one on 7th street right now. >> okay, great. so, thanks. i understand the concerns if we were doing this for a longer than a two-year window. i like the fact we're going to be looking at having -- looking at the effect of this have i think it makes a lot of sense, so, i am supportive. >> thank you. commissioner moore. >> i am in strong support of the legislation with a particular emphasis on the fact that as people are reconsidering that made in china is not the only option to

buy, [speaker not understood] any kind of political point, i want to say there are more and more people who consciously look at quality and where things are made. that is not because they reject the one, but they realizing actively participating in your local community means also to buy and shop locally. that is the reason for my saying that as [speaker not understood] as i do. it is for that reason i think the emergence of creative industry which really resembleses more what [speaker not understood] quite remarkable and very beautiful. and one of my reading from the supervisor, they talked about [speaker not understood] again. we are really starting to grow things which have never been done anywhere else and doing them so faithfully they maintain theyxv selves not only in the local economy, but they have a national, almost international followership and i'm very proud of that ~. and this is a tool to really have an advertise the real estate market in all areas of

real estate to help the provision of pdr space. this is one way of doing it. if that means modifications to the ordinance as they are also strongly worked out with particular stakeholder and other community organizations, it is very important to me. and i am interested in seeing this as a pilot with an expiration or reexamination after three years. i think the elimination of the ipdr category at this particular juncture is very important. i am very concerned in particular because mr. rich is sitting in the room. when we were all mulling over what is correct for the eastern neighborhoods, some of this was not considered. so, i'm very interested in having [speaker not understood] represent the fact that the active space which we were also interested in a prototype at that time, it was almost five

years ago, isn't quite working as successfully for what we intended it to be created. so, i'm kind of interested in, one, reinterpretation how that space is used, closer monitoring and encouragement that manufacturing, prototype manufacturing is being moved to those spaces. we have the infrastructure in place to do so. however, if the special requirements, which none of us really know because we are not manufacturing, they are too small in 500. if they're too large at 200, i would suggest we look at more flexible rather than codified interpretations of what is needed. it is really an emerging small manufacturing sector where we need to create reasonable flexibility for thing to happen. one of the things i have been concerned about when i said that in my last comments here are the real prototypes for

this office and pdr combination. and i actually had a meeting with [speaker not understood] at s.f. build and architect peter fell who actually has volunteered to track prototypes which address some of the questions we all have. what is the appropriate layering, what type of building structure for building safety, pedestrians, delivery, et cetera, requirements did you it have. if you feel comfortable with that particular issue has been fairly vetted, it was one of my stumblings at the time when we last talked to really support this program. is there something else -- neither peter cohen nor fernando mart who were sitting here originally when they contacted me had nothing else and i kind of want to echo what they are saying what they believe that limiting the

amount of total office allowed in the sew might be 50%. i tend to agree with that. i am also very concerned and i'm not sure how we can put this forward if this move towards the board of supervisors to also speak to the no net loss of pdr as we would be looking at a plan in the central corridor, which has been renamed to something elsewhere we will actually have an indicated net loss of pdr jobs in the range of 1800. that's a number which i heard. i think it would be tragic while we're doing one thing, we're losing something else because that is basically the net zero gain of anything. so, i would hope that we would pay very close attention to the net zero loss of pdr employment

in that upcoming move. i'm supportive of it and move to approve. with those conditions. >> second. >> commissioner hillis. >> yes, i was also going to move to approve. obviously we're good when we want to be a preserving pdr space through zoning but not necessarily creating new pdr space. so, i think this is a smartth modest proposal to try to do that. i just want to thank s.f. made, too, for kind of putting more of a face and data on the pdr industry and allowing us to kind of get more data on accessing it. the small enterprise work space, is that the same thing? since active space, we haven't seen any new sew and that wasn't done under the existing -- it was done under the prior legislation. and is it the same issue, people are coming to us. are we talking to people who build active space and why they're not building additional space? do we know?

is it just a matter of -- >> [speaker not understood]. [laughter] >> he didn't return the phone call. we did engage active space. we talked with a gentleman who dealt with building this kind of space. we'd like to see it done. [multiple voices] >> this would do it? i mean, is this kind of the issue? >> if it gets built, let's work it great for pdr business. 1500 is the sweet spot for pdr businesses, 5 25 aren't. if it happens let's make it work well. that was the concept. >> thank you. >> i want to add a couple thoughts. i also want to thank s.f. made for putting a face to the companies, you know. we often try to breakdown what is pdr, are working class people really getting jobs. i think it's helpful to see what is realistic in this type of space. i'm also supportive -- i hear the concerns about transportation, but i think it's the 22 line does go there. it's not ideal, it doesn't come very often, but at least the bus does go down into the pilot

project area. on the question of sew, i'd also urge the supervisors to look at some sort of cap. i know that it's clearly not being built, but just to explore how we can ensure that it moves toward pdr space and not office space. commissioner antonini. >> yeah, i'm very much in favor of this, and i think that, you know, it's very hard to try to put caps or try to, you know, do some sort of thing that would result in no loss. the whole object of this is to keep and allow pdr jobs to be kept in san francisco or to be brought to san francisco. so, you know, there should be a net gain. i mean, it's pretty hard to track the overall thing unless you have a specific area. and i think we have limited to a certain number of parcels, but i think generating businesses, be they office or pdr, is good for the city and i think the two together is a good suggestion. i'm happy with the way it's

been formulated by the various supervisors' offices and the mayor's office [speaker not understood], and we do have a pilot which allows a look back for people to take a look after a couple years on how this is working. so, i think it's fine the way it is. >> commissioner sugaya. >> thanks. i'm no urban economist and i'm not an expert on the development of pdr businesses and in the finances and looking around for real estate. but i do think that there are myriads of pdr-type businesses that obviously need different kinds of spaces, are looking for different sizes of spaces, whether it's 1500 as a sweet spot. but it must be a lot of them that are still starting out as two people efforts that are looking for 500 square feet or something like that. and i do not know the economics at the moment or in the past,

particularly in the south of market area and the central corridor which the plan has basically written off as pdr areas. and that's a concern to me because if the mayor is really looking for pdr to remain and the statement that we need more space for pdr is true and if we're really looking for no net loss, then i think that there has to be some reconsideration. and i would urge supervisors cohen and campos to talk to supervisor kim immediately about this issue because i think the plan is moving very fast -- well, as fast a it can. i believe there is an eir being prepared for it. so, if we want to really tackle this issue in a broader sense, then i think we need to take a

look at that very quickly. i'm quite in support of the legislation. i understand it's a separate issue at this point, but in terms of its overall goal of increasing the potential for pdr, i think it is directly related to the other planning effort. >> commissioner moore. >> i wanted to acknowledge the recommendation for adding a paragraph in section 21 19 regarding the project sponsor shall consider utilizing local labor, state and federally accepted hiring programs including but not limited to [speaker not understood] tax credit, et cetera. i think it's a very important issue of the legislation. not mentioning it and seeing it in the record, i don't want it omit having it, acknowledge this is in here. the other thing i would like mr. radulavich, mr. rich, mr. wertheim, et cetera, including

ms. hester to continue conversations on and see transit impact development fees for office because if we're building new office or adapting other uses to office, wouldn't it be correct for all of us to find other revenue sources he? because these missing transit lines don't automatically disappear nor would there be additional land for having new parking service lots as we are not providing transit. i just want to take it that far, but i suggest that we take that ever caring advice and remind we need to take that further. >> commissioners, there is a motion and a second on the floor to adopt a recommendation for approval with staff modifications. on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> aye.

>> and commission president wu? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously. 7 to 0 and places you on items 11 a and about for case no. 2013.1177c and v for 2601 van ness avenue, request for conditional use authorization and the acting zone administrator will consider the request for variances. >> good evening, president wu and planning commissioners, glenn cabreros department staff. the project before you located at 2601 van ness avenue within the rc4 district and 65-a height and bulk district district. the project proposes construction of a new 27 unit sick story mixed use building with four commercial spaces and three -- 43 bike parking spaces at the ground floor, [speaker

not understood] and two basement levels [speaker not understood]. the project propose a mix of two and three bedroom dwelling units. conditional use authorization is requested to he allow a business professional service use, office use at the second floor ~. exemptstions from the a both district and to allow construction of a building greater than 50% in height in the rc district. a residential commercial district. regarding the variances required for the project, variances are requested for the rear yard depth, the dwelling unit exposure, and also permitted obstructionses from the planning code. briefly on the variances, the rear yard variance is being requested to allow for the l-shaped configuration of the building. sick dwelling units at the rear of the unit since they will not be facing reyard [speaker not understood] and with regard permitted obstructions specifically being requested for variances to the bay

windows that face onto filbert street as they overhang the filbert street property line ~ six. since publication of the staff report for this hearing, the department has received one letter in support for the project from the san francisco bay area association of renters and four e-mails including one letter from aquatic park neighbors expressing concerns due to the large size of the project and the need for the variances. one of the concerns was a compliance of the amount of penthouses proposed above the height limit. i'd like to briefly speak to that with a graphic. this was recently provided by the project article type 2, the concerns with regard to the [speaker not understood] homes. the penthouses showed are in light blue and they are showing that 14% of the roof areases occupied by the structure that are allowed above the height limit above the 65 height