many conversations my mike is not working president chiu. you know, it's important to talk about the historic when we look at the eastern neighborhoods plan about how we look at pdr generally across the city. at that time and when we move forward there was a pretty strong discussion will where pdr was to be protected and not protected and encouraged even 7 years ago when this commission reviewed the plan we talked about the fact that central soma was not necessarily be an area we would fully protect pdr but encourage it that's part of the planning process. i think we'll we all agree on the goals of encouraging pdr and

encouraging the growth of that particular sector of the economy but we also have to be clear about the issue of where we have high capacity high transportation and where certain types of jobs are more appropriated to go that's the issue in central soma. i think there's no question the fundamental character of south of market includes pdr types of uses we agree that maintaining some of that character in that district is appropriate. but to fully protect the pdr in that neighborhood is a different question that's the issue at hand and whether we should change it to effectively pdr zoning that's the most protection for pdr like in the bayview or encourage it but allow some of it to it be

converted. i think it's important to discuss that head on because that's the issue that we are hearing about and that many of you have expressed concerns. duo to date at central soma it should have conversion conversion allow ability it's important we have an honest conversation about that >> thank you commissioner sugaya. >> go ahead i'm chewing on something (laughter). >> commissioner hillis. >> i think we talk about protecting the existing passenger door pdr it's important especially, if it's zoned for pdr. we're establishing values that are lower than someone that would get in office space so a

disincentive to try to convert so clearly we have to protect and enforce the pdr but on the other side too how do we build, you know, new pdr. that's a tougher nut to crack. there's no i don't know if there is any pdr being built and the ones we've talked about are cross subsidizing with offense particularly with the produce mart how was that done and built. is that a city subsidized project >> my understanding it's subsidized. >> so that maybe an interesting model to look at. i know they own the lands but they were able to finance that conventional financing and other ways. because we can fight over a kind

of smaller amount but how do we build a pdr space the city has to be part of the transactions >> i have to admit i don't have the details of the market transaction but while acknowledging it's hard we're committed and oewd to find a way to produce more pdr space where we can and i think some of the opportunities rest with the pier 70 project and other portland we have decisions to make there around the portland and the types of industrial uses around the port we may look at south of port that is an opportunity for the maritime but foreclosure other sorts of industrial we can put there. in addition when the city needs to acquire industrial space

which we remove our facilities we talked we've worked hard with our department of real estate so we haven't pulled one of i wanted you to know we're looking and it's hard but there's opportunity within the city owned land and private owned los angeles along the waterfront the former site that are large sites we could look at keeping some pdr uses on that property >> and even the non-cross subsidies like the back lands. >> exactly. >> church chunk of land we can build using the affordable housing not necessarily the inclusionary but, you know, dewill you explain the cities

land value. >> everyone from the mayor on down is interested in looking at the ways to produce pdr space other than the cross subsidy that's available we're looking at that the reason you're not seeing it is hard. >> commissioner antonini. >> the produce market i'm sure you're aware of is where the golden gateway is today in the 60s it moved to a site more appropriate lower land costs and it's been there ever sense a remnant of the produce market is a brick entry on sidney on front street if arthritis correct but it's remnant of the provide market marry mike, i think it is a good model that could be applicable in the future something like the flower mart

they moved south to another area that has good freeway access but kwos close to deal with the retail floral customers in san francisco. i agree with director ram i know it's important we've spent maybe a billion dollars on the central subway and we have that great infrastructure in place and we need to use this land to it couldn't be used for office and housing if there's pdr and can survive in the area that's business owner fine but try to protect every business or land in that area it's a big mistake, in fact, many cities would love the demanded we have in san francisco we have to balance that with our pdr and pdr is important we want to keep as much as we can but not having it

exactly in the same locations as right now there's a vacant building and it's been vacant for one hundred years it didn't makes sense to restrict it in zoning to pdr >> commissioner sugaya. >> well, i take the opposite view i guess. it's interesting in the heat map that the majority of jobs not the majority or close to the majority of the heat map is in western selma and south of market. this is like a displace of employment projecting program that's going to be taking effective in the central plan goes forward and upwards of tens of thousands of jobs moving because the plan won't protect pdr because of the things that was pointed out the disadvantages that pdr faces in terms of being able to be in the

city. so i don't know what can be done but by changing zoning is not going to help if you ask me. i had a thought all of a sudden we're talking about the port and the port gets to be the dumping ground for everything all of a sudden let's move all the pdr jobs to the port the port doesn't have my money or might be if i'm not mistaken let's shove all the jobs and murray's and pdr uses off on the port they can't afford to have them the port can't afford it i won't use the word it's a curse occurs word f u i don't have a solution i hope sf made doesn't roll under the carpet i hope you rich

and the mayor's office will look at that and not be long step totally with the planning department plan i'm not in favor of it in the direction it's going and given this map i'm going to keep that before it seems like there's is going to be a lot of jobs lost if moved out of the area. the other interesting thing in protected districts the 33 percent that's 20 thousand jobs the ones in the residential district their individual people or small establishments that happen to be they wouldn't be establishments because in residential areas they may not be loud are we counting cleaners so those would survive but the

ones i'm worried about are in the unprotected districts that's seems like the areas where a lot of the existing jobs are located. >> to the question of central selma i think the idea that was put forward the one-on-one replacement and how it can be done. now making the awe analogy anyone else pdr is much more expensive how much construction costs so preserving existing pdr but maybe allowing some flexibility through one for one replacement within a planning zone or neighborhood there maybe something to enclosure. commissioner moore >> i think it is very hard to believe that the port will be the recipient of the pdr and

willfully participating because the support is looking for rehabional historic buildings this a great candidate to help finance the historic preservation of the building that was automatically for the numbers require there's a higher and better paying use to accommodate those buildings. their might be perhaps in the city - did you want to comment - >> i sat on the ports design review they're clearly saying they need those buildings to help finance a large investment on infrastructure, etc. so i don't think extra cash to invite pdr to be there a that's not to say in the 4 city projects there's not sacrifice for the

innovative parts of sf made but to a hardcore whatever they do you won't be finding them there. >> i just want to be clear i'm not proposing to moving our pdr jobs to the port. commissioner hillis asked about opportunities to, you know, add a little bit of pdr space and capacities around town there are tints on the port those are just as skarltd and limited as everything else the director of the port would have my ted head if we thought the pdr was going to move to the port >> there's definitely a feeling of the spirit of replacement we can see by the likelihood is not there as we're moving into the discussion of a central corridor

the policy of zero net loss and one-on-one replacement has to drive what we do and not plan that out in 15 years we'll have it replaced but in the moment as one gets taken down the space has to be online otherwise we'relogies the seekers of the economic and social infrastructure it's a pdr for all the things we need from having the scissors sharpened i don't want to drive to south san francisco to get my sewing machine i don't have one but to get it repaired we should be cognizant of what zero loss means that's in the moment one-on-one replacement.

>> yeah. if you don't mind me having a discussion i think we should explore what that looks like i want to be clear the department feels strongly about maintaining a strong pdr base in the city. i think there is definitely there is definitely needs to be strong protections where that makes sense. we should explore the one-on-one replacement so we have an answer whether it works and whether we can reasonably explain that and be placed in other parts of the city. our goal is to make sure we create incentives similar to todd could has recommended so we keep some of it through an incentive basis cementing south of market we'll xhimentd commit

to explore that in that market >> thank you commissioner hillis. >> i wanted to add to the port the argument the port makes is the same arguments that the property owners make. we, you know, in that the city owned land the port has the ability to act more than just like a market rate developer and saying our buildings are delipidated yeah, the city may have to step in or issue bonds but it's land the city owns that tends to be in an industrial area pier the back lands it's adjacent to industrial areas we shouldn't back off and say the port needs to you know the port needs revenue to maintain their buildings but that could be used for pdr noted necessarily be replaced but add to the pot.

the back lands sat there for years and years that was an old railroad switching yard we've obviously used bayshore. and commissioners commissioners, if there's nothing further we can move into general public comment there are no speaker cards >> is there any general public comment. >> sue hester i'm requesting that the commission ask for a hearing. this hearing today is been a good example of why environmental review and long term planning belong at the same hearing take the opportunity what you are doing when you adapt on area plan you cut out a

whole lot of environmental review and the things that are lucrative under the area plan basically don't get the full environmental review anymore what's the ban wagon for the eastern neighborhoods is the upper he said condos so all the goodies that come out of the area plan don't go through full environmental review anymore but if the area plan is at the same time being rethought, i.e., regutted the assumptions that you are making in the adaptation of this area plan eir are in question. i think sarah jones needs to be here at the same time whoever is the head of the planning in the planning department and have an

honest discussion about is the eastern neighborhoods plan if adapted many years ago and the downtown plan that was adapted many years ago and the eastern neighborhoods is the most recent of them and recon hill are they being called into action because if their chaos in a sate of unsettlement there's a real question about whether the eir in the eastern neighborhoods is still valid i'm current not in a place to threaten you with litigation but i have a history of it. i have done that. i have been in all the hearings on the downtown plan i litigated did you downtown plan and litigated the amount of attention the planning department needs to pay to what

is being developed in the city. and see having been through the eastern neighborhoods and the tradeoffs and you've given a lot of incentives for upper end housing it's all wallinging through and if urge going to gut other parts the neighborhoods i question whether the eastern eir is being today and i have to talk about this with the planning. if we adapt plans they maybe nothing it's not a real plan. thank you >> thank you. is there any additional public comment seeing none, public comment is closed. meeting adjourned