housing policy discussion that there are a few neighborhoods in san francisco that have area plans. and east slope of bernal heights is one of them. the reason that i am here is because for some time, decade, maybe two decade, there has been misapprehension about the boundaries of the area of the east slope that are first misapprehension and back offices and now it's institutionalized on your computer. if people look up properties, there is a couple of blocks that show no within the east slope and we have sort of mindless conversations with somebody who wants to build a house or remodel a house, that well, we're not really in the east slope. , et cetera, et cetera. so i have brought the resolution from 1986 and maybe you could

ask the director to see that it gets changed so the boundaries are actually the way that they were certified in 1986. thank you very much. >> thank you. further general public comment? seeing none -- -- . thank you commissioner my name is jackie chavez and i'm an excelsior native, and one of the issues that we have in the excelsior is three medical cannabis dispensary, three on mission street and know ocean avenue you have on your agenda opening

up a third one on ocean avenue a block away from one that already exists and i'm asking the commission. >> is this about the item that is on the calendar? >> yes. >> we'll take that public comment when we'll get to the item. >> great. thank you. >> any further general public comment? seeing none -- i'm sorry-- >> thank you. thank you, commissioners. i failed to be here on-time for last week's housing element issue. i would like to spend a minute reflecting on something that i should have said last week. the housing elements, as i said before, very good, accurate and indicates the needs that we have in the city. however, the implementation program of the housing element lacks a level -- it is not

realistic. the housing built, the units are all mainly market-rate. as you know, 85 plus high-end type of units, and the very low-end, for the most part perhaps 80% meet that standard. but in the middle, the workforce kind of housing that is needed for the average working san franciscan that are not in the high-tech or are not professionals or even if you are a professional, you might need two professional people to make a household financially able to meet all the expenses. so what i am saying is that the housing element, i hope that in the future is more realistic and really provides hard answers as to how we're going to solve this housing crisis.

mayor lee, i think, has taken a good step, but talk is cheap and we would like to see results. thank you. >> thank you. further general public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. peter cohen with the council housing commission and i believe next week on your agenda is the housing inventory. just yesterday there was an announcement from the mayor's office about a new housing meter. and just think it would be very helpful to have some more detailed information about that so-called housing meter as part of your conversation about the housing inventory. we know that you have the residential pipeline and quarterly summary, but the meter seems to be a much more aggregated number and it would be helpful to have that broken down by whoever staff is presenting on that item. thank you. >> thank you.

is there additional general public comment? seeing none, general public comment is closed. >> commissioners, that will place you under your regular calendar. and items 5a and b were pulled off of consent for case notches 2013-0627 an b and c at 663rd street for conditional use authorization shall be considered now. >> good afternoon, commissioners, rick sucre, department staff. before you is an conditional use authorization and office development authorization. pursuant to planning code, the proposed project seeks to change the use of the subject building from pdr to office use for approximately 80,000 square feet. planning code section 803.9a allows commercial uses not otherwise permited in a zoning district in designated landmarks. for example, there the s uny zoning district office use is not generally

performed until within a designated landmark or district. since 660 3rd street is located out of the secondary office district and include the change of use from pdr to office use and currently it's used for office use. as was outlined in planning code 803.9a the project sponsor create an historic plan to assist in the feasibility of justifying the convection to office use and historic building maintenance plan outlines maintenance and rehabilitation program for regular cyclical maintenance, window and roof inspection and repair and signage. the

department received one public correspondence and after analyzing the product, department staff recommends approval. the department finds the project to be desirable and necessary with the neighborhood, specifically the project maintains and [phro*-et/]s office use, which is encouraged throughout the neighborhood. the project is consistent with the surrounding district. the project represents allocation of approximately 4% of the large cap office space currently available for allocation and finally it will contribute to economic activity in the neighborhood. project sponsor is available for questions. this concludes my presentation. thank you. >> let's take public comment on the item. >> shall we hear from the project sponsor? >> does the project sponsor

have a presentation? >> good afternoon, commissioners, david silverman on behalf of the project sponsor. this item was originally placed on the consent calendar. i don't know what the objection was by the person who asked for it to be taken off. so i would like to hear from them. i really have nothing else to say other than what is in the submitted papers. >> thank you. public comment? i have three cards. [ reading speakers' names ] >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is sonya cough and i'm

here to speak about 660 3rd street and my concern is not necessarily with the office, but with the pdr use. i have lived in the south landmark district for over a decade and i have seen a lot of change and there are a lot of offices going up and office buildings are dead space during the weekends definitely. and we need to keep more pdr within the district and south of market. that is my comment. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. my name is alice lane and i'm director of community planning at todd cogroup in sylmar. we're proposed to the 660 per second street proposed conversion from pdr to office.

sylmar's identity and character is still defined by the pdr small businesses and commissioner gentrification has already pushed out many of these. pdr can't compete with the higher rents that office can get. pdr can survive, as well as prosper in sylma. we would like to see the following policy change for pdr change in sylma and required replacement of pdr space to equal.75 on any lot where the existing pdr use is demolished -- this is essentially the first floor and to see this even in historic buildings, so the office value of the rest of the building can certainly support that economically in this booming neighborhood. so

we respectfully request that the commission deny the conversion the 660 per 3rd street. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners and happy international workers day. it's very opportune this matter is coming before you on international workers day, really born of rights of organized labor. i am here to actually speak in opposition economic development agency and our goal to build asset development and wealth for low to moderate income

families in san francisco and this is one of the sectors that offers a living wage and allows access to jobs for people that don't necessarily have full number language proficiency or a college degree. so changing 80,000 square feet of manufacturing feet to commercial office space would be detrimental to the populations that need these jobs. san francisco has only 5.8 or 6.8% of its land dedicated for manufacturing and i have attended at least three hearings, some? in front of this commission where they have pleaded for additional space for manufacturing. so i would like to just please implore you to -- we need to have a policy of no net loss of

manufacturing and pdr space in san francisco. for this project to come forward, a larger plan to replace this space, but we're going keep having this problem if we keep allowing for potential conversion of the space for one building, for somewhere else and it's going to make it very, very hard for manufacturers to find space if the land use is converted. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is paul wormer. there is an interesting problem at work here, and this is the issue of value-creation. and who exactly is value being created for? conversion of this property to office use clearly creates value for the property owner.

it is totally unclear if that creates value for the community as a whole? i am finding that people that i did business with in the area have been forced to move, because the rents are very high and going up. and part of this is by your actions and converting and granting cus, you are creating an expectation on part of property owners that we can get more rent. it's really easy to have an unrentable pdr space by expecting office rents from the pdr industries. so your actions on each individual lot change the mindset, change the

thinking of the property owners and developer community in a way that simply raises the rents for everyone, who is trying to do pdr. it's removing space for manufacturing. it's making it harder for the existing businesses that have been