that. i would be receptive to resisting that, if there is a need for any higher fees, but it sounds like there is really no change and we're just adding -- legalizing existing use and i don't think that it's already a million and a half -- i don't think it should be an exorbitant fee to some just continuing their usage as mvp as it is. i am support in of this and didn't make a lot of sense for manufacturing. there is really no loading space and no parking and lots of columns in the way. i mean it's a building if you want to keep it in its present form and the desire is to do that because of historic reasons, something like this that allows for these type of uses without having to completely retrofit the inside of the building sound goods to me. i am in favor of this and would move to approve. >> do i hear a second?

>> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, thank you. people that know me, i think, know that i have been involved in historic preservation for many, many years and actually since the mid-70s as a professional. so therefore, i would usually be on the side of allowing a conversion, because one of the ways that historic preservation has tried to preserve structures is to introduce incentives among which are liberalizing or added uses that an historic building may be put to beyond what the base zoning usually allows. i think that kind of approach exists in almost every major city in the country. and it's the kind of thing that historic preservation people look to, i think, to say that if there are

promises made, and documents signed, which have already taken place with respect to this building, in terms of a maintenance plan, et cetera; that they will follow the standards when they are doing renovations. those are the kind of safeguards that preservationists have instituted in order to keep building alive and in use. however, i think that there is an underlying conflict here with the city's desire to maintain pdr use, as much as possible. it's kind of hypocritical to say that and flis in the fey face of the

overall idea that we should be preserving light industry uses. if you look at the sli, this we adopted. there was discussion during the western soma plan. but it still remains and there was recognition, at least the way i remember it, there would be continued emphasis at least on trying to see whether or not that type of zoning, whether it's sli or pdr, can survive. but i think in this case, the balance, i think, swings to pdr uses and not to historic preservation in this particular case. i hate to say that. i think the historic preservation commission did the right thing. their handate mandate is to look at the historic preservation ordinance and look at incentives available to see that the safeguards are there.

so i think they took the right actions, but this is the planning commission and we have a slightly different mandate and slightly different point of view needs to be expressed. mr. sucre, i have a question. in answer to commissioner antonini's question can you characterize by percent what are the kinds of office uses versus pdr uses versus sort of in between type of uses that exist currently in the building? >> based on the site visit that i took of the property, it looks like the majority of the upper floors function as what we would classify as "office space [o*-eufplts/] the ." the ground look liked like quasi-both and that was just based on cursory review.

>> thank you. i am not blaming the property owner and thought that the kind of uses which may not be purely office or a combination of something like design offices or sometimes we have definite defining architects our design firms. i don't think i'm in a position despite my support of historic preservation and building itself to votetor this conditional use. >> commissioner moore. >> this particular conditional use makes me feel like i am ask to burn the candle on both ends. we just spend a significant amount of time a few weeks ago, be very thoughtful about the legislation brought forward by supervisor cohen and we added a couple of special conditions that were very well-expressed

by supervisor cohen. we're looking for net zero and creating that slippery slope by which we are not only undermining the maintaining and growth of pdr, but we are also ignoring the direct linkage to housing affordability and how we are basically employing people who are struggling with jobs and maintaining homes in the city. i feel it is beyond anything that i could participate in approving today, because i feel we are falling right in the middle, where this area is being examined for some form of reconsideration. but from my perspective, feel i would take the first step in initiating something, which i don't even fully understand. somebody captured that by using the word "commercial gentrification." it's a very,

very scary word and nice to think about higher and better use and that is what they teach you in planning school. the reality is there is say direct connection with in where we are and how to address it? i cannot do it today. i might consider it. the one thing that strikes me as an idea, but i think it would go beyond what this commission is able to approve today and that is doing a hybrid building approval of 40 /60/50/50 and i know it's sometimes difficult to determine how it all fits together. we had that discussion in the eastern neighborhoods and talking about the industrial building cha had it a serum set of circumstances where we had a

vague interpretation of what people were doing and some were architects and they were model building business and i remember with one of the lawyers who was representing that building, going to the side and explaining that really what the differences are. i cannot participate in approving this. we can either continue it or ask staff to give us some guidance on applying some of the thoughts on the cohen legislation as a guide to look at this building and that might not be today. >> i might ask for a continuance from the commission, so that question better explore some of the issues with the current tenants, as well as the history. >> one of the things that we have been talking about is the idea of maintaining a certain amount of pdr. >> could you speak into the microphone. i can't hear you. >> the question you raised the

possibility of approving some of the allocation. our experience is that pdr space often doesn't -- and contemporary pdr uses don't go into upper floors anymore. they want to be on the main floor and one solution would be to allow a certain amount of spacious space -- so you would approve a portion of the 80,000, and that is basically picking up on your comment earlier. that is one you could consider today. >> i would like to have a little bit more time to have everybody participating rather than doing it make-it-or-break-it today. i would feel it would go a long way and it will also guide how you are taking the larger discussion in the area. >> i would agree with that sentiment. i think we want the project sponsor to have input into how a motion or decision is crafted.

for consideration to look back to the pdr legislation that we just passed and let's have consistent guidelines across the board. what is challenging in this case, the project sponsor did follow the guidelines as laid out and i think there is sometimes a fairness of this exception does exist many historic buildings and that is what they sought. i think what is going on in the city we want to find a way to preserve pdr jobs staff told me there there is some consideration of what date the pdr came into effect and so maybe there is some consideration of whether or not

fees were paid previously. i'm not sure that calculation is done by dbi and i wanted to ask the city attorney if there is is an ability to look at the nexus again? so try to understand what is really the net impact on conversion? >> deputy city attorney marla burn. nexus studies do take quite a bit of time. i haven't been involved in nexus studies on this fee, so i don't know what next studies are? >> i would ask staff at least first to understand the formula itself, dbi sets it. and how -- be very clear on how the calculations get made, just so the commission has the information to really get a sense of whether there is a sort of a fairness with respect to the net new impact. >> commissioner antonini. >> i would be supportive of a

continuance. i'm going to probably make a motion in just a second. i see we have another commissioners who want to speak. i went through ten years' of a discussion on eastern neighborhoods and we crafted agreements that basically saved a lot of pdr space through the eastern neighborhoods and maybe it the only use allowed or a use blended with other uses in certain places. generally it was felt that the sli, while it may not be completely finished yet, there are little pockets of sli among the zoning in this area, but the feeling is that it will probably be a broader zoning that allows many uses and on makes sense. i mean that whole [#2*-r7bd/] 2nd street corridor has been converted, king street, townsend, 88 townsend, stanford, all of those

different places we have approved housing, retail uses, some business uses. there have been a whole bunch of things that we have consistently done without batting an eyelash. many times on many of these that have come before us recently. so i think that the pdr preservation thing is a whole question of location. and i think when we talked about it a couple of weeks ago, we were talking about an area in dog. patch and cesar chavez which has plenty of vacancies. you have to have the appropriate uses in the appropriate places and this is not an appropriate use for core pdr and maybe for some blended pdr. so i will make a motion to continue. i don't know what kind of date staff feels would be appropriate to get through the

kind of things that we want to hear. because we want to get an idea of understanding the fees? and also whether or not we should maintain some pdr zoning for part of the building or not? so if i could get an idea of what kind of time it would take for staff to work out the questions that seem to have been raised today? >> might i present four weeks out, june 5th, maybe. >> that would be fine to me and so i move continuance to june 5th. >> second. >> commissioner hillis? >> i am supportive of a continuance, but i think what i would like to see, too, when it comes back, we seem to have made this leap from this is -- i think well first of all we're working with the current sli zoning. this is it zoned sli. but there is an exemption where you can have other uses when there is an historical building. but it seems to me that the

preservation commission and we're being asked to make that leap that you need to convert this all to 100% office without really a ton of analyses and why that is? so it would be great when we come back and hear this again to drill-down more on that and figure out why that is the case? because there is certainly isn't any information in the packet to that and it's assumed. and also a better understanding of what the current uses are? because if they are able to survive on a 50/50 basis or whatever, it would be good to know what is currently there. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes. i think that the continuance is going to pass. i'm going to vote against it. but any case, i think during the hiatus period, staff really needs to look at or discuss the pdr issue once again with sf

made and the other people that are involved on the pdr side to get their viewpoint on the workability of such a thing. because my own personal belief is once you start lefting letting office into an area, pdr can't compete and not saying it will happen on this building, but hypothetically we approve a project 50/50, 60/40, whatever it is, a couple of years down the line, they are going to come back and say there is no pdr uses that will come in here and the office has driven the price up so high, that pdr can't afederated afford to do if anyway. once you have the foot in the door, it's all over. any kind of mixed-use zoning that we thought was going to work isn't going to work,

because the other mixed-use other than office and housing just can't compete. so we might as well eliminate all the mixed-use zonic district and get down to what we used to say was industrial and it was industrial and housing and it's residential and it's commercial and it's commercial. and maybe that is the direction that the city ought to go in. >> commissioner borden. >> i guess i'm a little more optimistic. i think the change of the way manufacturing happens today, so much of it happens via design through computer and the like. so there can be a mix and i think it's incumbent upon us to figure out that mix and looking at the cohen-campos legislation that created the mix for pdr is something that we should use as a guide and i think that staff should look at in this period, while we're waiting to consider the central corridor plans, my understanding this is actually in the corridor area. if we actually can -- maybe we come up with a policy or do

something, because i think it is sort of like what is the point of a zoning process if everybody changes zoning before you finish that process? so maybe we should think about some sort of policy regarding especially the sli or the areas of the district that are much more uncertain in terms of zoning? and what is that policy? maybe it's something that the commission agrees as a policy that we want to adopt. maybe we want to do always hybrid. you know, pdr/office or maybe we don't want to do anything, but i think we should be thinking about. having zoning obsolete after it happened because of decisions that we have made previously seems not to be the best way to do things. >> commissioner fong. >> thank you. i am supportive of the continuance. and i want to thank mr. avon for being patient here and i'm glad to hear that you are 100% leased up and takes up a little bit of urgency on your part, as well as the commission's part. i will also say that i think

we're creating an interesting hybrid product here. i do like the idea that this is a san francisco-owned building. it if given an opportunity to keep it a san francisco-own building and for those concerned about gentrification and globalization, some other may come along if you are not able to adapt to this building and usage. the idea of a hybrid, i think is good. i think we're maybe creating something a little bit different and new and ask staff to give heavy consideration to how we approach this? as we don't enter a slippery slope. i would like to make a suggestion it's not necessarily, by percentage, if it's not floor by floor, but by square footage of the building in the situation that maybe pdr wants to take the ground floor and the second floor. things could move vertically as opposed to horizontally and could give latitude to this building and other builds in the future to create

interesting space, combining office space with pdr use. so again, i am supportive of a continuance. >> commissioner moore. >> i am interested to see it continued for exactly that length by which policy discussions that commissioner borden just mentioned can also be addressed. this is not just pushing it out because we don't know what to do, but i hope that you all can sit together and encouraged to come up with substantive answers. if that means extending it even a little bit longer, i would be comfortable with that. i would look towards the director to tell us in terms of timing how it gets into a policy discussion as well? because i do like that idea. >> commissioner sugaya. >> i think we're all kidding ourselves. the door is already shut on pdr in this area. i mean when we had the discussion at one of the

earlier earlier missions, who was here tishman speer? there are already developers out there and may have already purchased some of the stuff. so to be sitting around saying oh, well, you know, maybe we can do this and/or maybe there is a compromise here or there? i am telling you, it's gone. either deny it or approve it and let's get on with it. >> commissioners there is a motion and second on the floor to continue the matter to june 5th. can you certainly continue beyond that, but i would just only mention that on the 5th you currently have the moscone expansion project and embarcadero and visitacion valley. it's a full schedule already. so is that okay to the maker of

the motion? june 12th and seconder? >> yes. >> very good on the motion to continue the matter to june 12th. (roll call) so moved commissioners that motion passes 6-1 with commissioner sugaya voting against. commissioners that place you what was regularly scheduled your first item under regular cardinal, items 9 and 10 sf plaza program informational presentation. case 2014-0180t amend totses to the planning code for public use zoning district and amendments amending the planning code. >> thank you for calling both of these items together. commissioners. we have the office of economic

and workforce development and i will give a presentation for your consideration today. >> good afternoon commissioners, office of economic and workforce development. >> thank you for the opportunity to address you about the amendments to section 234 of the planning code that could support the more broad plaza program. as well as the benefits. as a minder we made a presentation on the proposed plaza program march 13th and heard your input and feedback from public comment and based on the information by oewd we would like to present the additional amendments listed in your packet today. in addition, i would like to recognize city staff from several departments present that have been participating in this effort including pavement of parks, mta and dpw, et

cetera. as you know citis across the country have been adopting new approaches to enhancing the public realm. san francisco could and should be a leader in these sorts of positive activities. thank you. but currently the city does not have a system for doing that. we're trying to fix that. so that san francisco can continue as a national leader in innovative public realm approaches. the mission of the program is to improve the city's ability to support san francisco's vibrant communities by lowering barriers to creating and successfully managing san francisco's open spaces. the program aims to support local, long-term stewardship and activation, create a citywide management approach and create more open spaces than are currently possible under existing resources.

in addition to the outreach described in our march 13th memo to the commission, oewd conducted additional outreach over the last seven weeks and able to bring various stakeholders tot process many of who came public comment at our march 13th presentation. we conducted meetings and made presentations to 17 additional stakeholder groups since march 13th and have three more scheduled for a total of 20. you have in your hands a one-page list of outreach meets. it's a separate one-page in green. many hours' of discussions with the various groups helped us craft the changes to the legislation that i will describe in a moment. we believe that these many mode moedfications to the legislation will address the vary inputs and would like to take a moment to thank all of those who took time to meet with us during the last seven weeks for their time and

effort. so oewd as you can see on the slide presented to the small business commission, which approved the program unanimously. oewd also conducted an informational op house, which was noticed to the planning department's noticing list. oewd also [kpao-eultd/] a list of 114 questions and clarifications and a summarized list in is in your packet. we posted those answers to the website. based on this additional feedback we made additional changes to three of the four amendments that would establish the program. so the first one, the administrative code will be revised in the land use and economic development committee. amend there had. we submitted substitute legislation to the planning, building and code and public works code on april 22nd and there were no revisions made to the police code.

as can you see from your packets and at you're requests we included these as legislative elements that are outside of the planning code for your reference. based on the input from additional meetings and list of questions, we made many additional changes to the legislation. you have in your packetment 3-page detailed table of these changes that is also posted on the website. we would like to work you through a summary and please note anne marie will have additional information after me about the planning, building and code amendments. on the first, we removed the use of the word "insulary." and clarified that city plasas as defined in the proposed sense of the administrative code would be principally permitted when found to be in confirmity

with the general plan. we heard several concerns about the potential negative impacts of formula retail in plaza, so we amended the legislation to require conditional use authorization for accessory use defined as formula retail in any approved plazas. the question rose how will you le sure plazas do not contain inappropriate structures? we have addressed this concern by making amendments to both the administrative code and planning code. in the administrative code we added an open space height and bulk designation requirement, whichly detail in a moment. there the planning code, we added additionly language to clarify that any structures could only occupy limited space if any and will have several new layers to address that intent. to be clear, this is a reduction down from the current zoning levels, which lacks any specific limits. as you heard in the last

hearing, there was confusion if this program includes property under the jurisdiction of the recreation and parks department. we have amended the legislation to state more clearly that no plaza identified in this program shall be on the property under the jurisdiction of the rec and park department. we also amended the legislation to include additional noticing including 300' mailer to owners and residents. we had previously not been clear on the legislate that the intent was for any private events that might be approved bit board of supervisors to last no more than one day. so we have r we have clarified the event legislation and any approved events be spread throughout the calendar year. in addition, tot to the

changes that i just described, further assignment and clarification, i will explain now. to make sure that a plaza could only be excluded from the requirement to be zoned p, and open space height and bulk designation, if the board of supervisors makes specific findings an osheight and bulk designation is not viewable for a particular city plaza. we clarified the time limits for any approved private events to include setup and break down time and we added an additional neighborhood groups to the new noticing requirements. that is the 300' mailer. and added requirement that the agreement between both city street and plaza shall describe the maintenance responsibilities. in the march 13th hearing we also heard the commission's request for more context in terms of what types of plazas could be eligible for