commissioners i'm john. and one of the several people involved in putting prom m together along with others. the presentation was informative i want this handout goes through the details it's true as co-sponsor writingy presented there's not going to be at about allocation congest if you precede on our first come, first serve basis there won't need to be one there listless the eir is speed up up as corey said but there definitely would be a big crunch two years from now, when the rezoning is done and the projects finish their irs there will definitely be a crunch there's a quality consist not a

beauty contest but the city takes the pipeline serial it's a wish list american people an office developers wish list they hope the economy stays strong and vacancies never rise but we all know living in a real world that's not how our economy works there are boom sessions and this is how it works and not going to change this boom will pass and there will be a period of 3, 4, 5 years when no office buildings will go under construction and the reality is the financing so don't get carried away with the $9 million number when the

department put it out there were 11 million square feet of office space and be aware of the communicates u consequence of the port projects seawall is phone number not on your list they add up there's a 5 year allocation for the two projects. the first question is that a good edited but the second point they did build out over years and premulch xhaur our traffic and mass transit and our housing market to how it was in 1986 we hope prop m will be in balance 22 but now they're all worse traffic is never been worse

>> you know the story on the housing market. increasing now would be insane >> is there any additional public comment. >> san francisco information clearing house i was the chair of the drafting committee in 1986 i want to reemphasis a couple of points the particular a balance that was attempted to be stwruk in the two m there was an m in 1983 that lost by 3 hundred and 60 votes for the feinstein administration to preempt one by establishing one in the permanent in 1986.

the politics of growth control and the policy of growth control are linked. it's important to in some cases dealing with the politics with the policy. i feel that itchy right now the politics are beginning to push the policy. the policy is simple and what john and sighing making made clear. the notion is to strike a balance between the capacity to grow and the capacity to increase dramatically there's a large workforce which is what a commercial office building does it brings a small specific part of the world it used to be 10 hours a day now 247 and now

convincing the density of the commercial office development in terms of the workforce is greater the capacity to meet specifically the affordable housing not housing the affordable housing need remember the jobs housing linkage value is not about building housing and assuming trickle down for affordability but about building affordable housing to mitigate the affordable housing impact of the workforce have we done that the answer a clear no we've not done that indeed the principle fidgeting metabolism that allows us to have a running start to building the lowest end the redevelopment agencies financial process has been taken away it's

gone and we've yet to define how it is we're going to play for affordable housing have we address the transit system and the transit needs especially, as the central office district moves south and east the answer is, of course not before we worry about the politics of the commercial office development let's look at the policies of increasing transit and affordable housing capacity thank you. is there any additional public comment >> okay seeing none, public comment is closed. i also want to thank mr. teeing for the presentation i thought it was very informative and look forward to the conversation today, i want to start off with a couple of thoughts i agree it shouldn't be a physical contest only a number of city policies about we have been trying to deal with the loss of pdr stays

space and trying to incentivize we're challenged by affordable housing at this time maybe there's a way to take into account as we develop the criteria and points to do we count the pipeline and make sure we have the numbers right so we're triggering whatever policy we may take up at the right time >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you. i think three years ago i remember the 60s and the 70s in the early 80s. and the whole plan behind back and forth and the growth in those days was focused on the business center of the bay area being san francisco, in fact, in those days a lot of businesses started outside of san francisco and relocated to san francisco when they got more established

and in fact, 101 california was built many people throughout it would be the in tell building and it wasn't. part of the reasons we have the suburbia parks not consistent with environmental concerns we believe in today part of the reason is because of the limit was placed on square footage in the mid 80s with prop m there's many good parts of prop m i'm not saying it's not realistic given the cyclical demands for office space that was high and los low at other times we're many a fortunate position to recapture our bay area by allowing this growth to occur it

has to be mitigated it is an amount to be properly mitigated in terms of transit and housing when they do mitigation for a project you have to mitigate the impacts of that project. the project had should not have to take care of the deals from the past if you have an office building and opposing workers you, you know, there's a certain amount of housing they'll need at a certain level that 80 should be mitigated that's being done in the 80s we were not doing anything now we're building a lot of housing particularly in transbay and middle market and many, many buildings are under construction as we know in transbay a high number of affordable units 5 percent so the conditions are

not out there as in the 80s there's more going forward now. a few thoughts tow how to make choices. my thought would be obviously are project that is close to existing mass transit will probably be one of the highest proprietors we've take the opportunity seen the people that are commuters within the city or from outside the city the key factor how far did he have to working class walk from the end of how commute to my business not how far from the home to the event the critical factor is the bart and mass transit didn't have interruptions that take forever on city streets or are the areas that are important. the other is the zoning for the

project in conformity with the existing zoning as mentioned in corey's report there are zoning that needs to be changed their beneficial programs if we're looking at to moving projects forward we should move forward xooesh we went through eastern neighborhoods for transbay and market octavia and all the plans if those projects conform to what is allowed in terms of density and not square footage necessarily but then those are the ones that should move forward as quickly as possible and not be held up as we consider a contest as one speaker said may not come up or may come up in a few years but ultimately this may have to go

back to the voters i would say as the gentleman pointed out it's a lot more if we double the amount for the focus year october to october rather than having you know the lower amount even though it jumped forward it's better to have it leveled out. a couple of others things that should be done. i think when buildings are taken out of use from commercial and changed to hotel or residential as in this case, the omni hotel and the insurance building triple a building it being finished now those numbers should be adams back into the annual limit i've asked the city attorney about this only the buildings that are approved after prop m and decided to

chance to residential are taken off there are it makes sense you looking at the awe stiff effect of the infrastructure and others infrastructure transit and those other things if you diminish it by 5 hundred thousand square feet that demand is diminished by that amount it makes sense that amount should be added back in i'm not sure if if so an interpretive thing it could be done by the planning commission board of supervisors without having to go back to the voters as probably the case for an increase. a few other thoughts on this. i think there are a number of very beneficial projects that wish very close to coming before us they should be allowed to

come forward one in particular one coming up on grand street i think we have already approved and compel in conformity. there's another one i think on the hooper street that has pdr this is innovating footing another factor if we have to include housing as part of pdr if they have other benefits in addition to just being commercial space then they would probably in my mind get a leg up. and that finally we have all those others actions that were not in place in the 80s it was pointed out by the job linkage 24 and per square feet and the eastern neighborhood fees that applies to and the transit fee

and so we're mite and certainly as if it were up to the voters to increase the limit then certainly at the same time it would not be inappropriate to increase the mitigations to go along with this increased limit it's the wisdom of the votes and answer those who feel we're innovate adequately emitting office space but we lost a lot if we are not allowed to take advantage of businesses that want to relocation in san francisco we have a process that takes a long time and it's an expensive progress we should move forward with the projects that are agree with the zoning that's present and after that begin to start to consider how we might choose in the long term

look to a solutions that's more beneficial to deal with the shormz in the current year >> thank you. commissioner fong >> thank you. well, to some degree i agree with commissioner antonini about the city viewing into the next phase of san francisco. but i want to thank corey for presenting a complicated item and also want to thank in particular, the 3 members of the public that spoke and help authorized prom m you explained that history in the intent of what the original participation was for i clearly understand it was the intent to have a 3 legged stool that controls office and transit i agree i'm not sure we've reached especially on the transit level we're packing them in here but

bart is the sighing same it was 20 years ago and at bay bridge has no more capacity than 20 years ago the ferry system is the same as 20 years ago. i agree you want to be careful self-we pack them in here we have, sleep and shelter them and get them around i'm interested in keeping the flow and the economy floepg but giving careful consideration to the 3 legged stool. i realize we're not talking about the details we're only getting background but i want to point out i think it's important that part of that criteria to realize the commitments to really not turn our heads to

what we've decided several years ago to stay committed it's important i have one question why isn't the transmitted center listed as a center of priority >> the original the first phase the first building it caught the arrangement of the agreement in the plan is simply going to be treated bye like every other office building in the city. >> a clarifying corey mission bay and other areas doesn't mean they automatically get a priority it optional in terms of not all of the space has been allocated. >> it is rather john is correct mission bay the planning commission cannot disprove a

mission bay they're only doing a planning review. >> it's protected. >> yes. >> it's almost entirely allocated. >> yes. mission bay to be allocated. >> okay. i think i understand my point is not trying to turn our heads about what we're already committed to >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much. definitely i agree with a lot of the points out that the fellow commissioners said i'll try not to repeat i'll make a couple of good neighbor policy things and maybe a question so i guess i'll start with my question. i understand when we have priority areas they are priority in the sense they're a cap available and those projects come first, however, mission bay

is pretty much all allocated may be one or two buildings left depending on what the plan for the warriors arena there's an office space associated with that but, you know, hunters point and candle stick that's a lot of space if i look at their project plan it's supposed to be happening before 20045 they're already you unup against the cap even though we've not seen the first office space from the planning commission i'll start with my question and move on to what i think we should do for policy considerations. have we - what is the status how is our issues with cap allocation going to impact not only hunters point and candle stick but the selma plan what is going to happen there?

sure so to hunters point first, i building the entire plan has several million office square feet in it image on the first 8 hundred thousand is prioritized it's having to do with the timing it kind of is allowed to jump ahead in the line of the private market projects but if there's no cap project space available then it will have to wit you're correct that's part of the difficulty in promg in a year or so it's difficult to project how projects that are already in the pipeline how quickly a they're to mature and difficult to say the projects in hunters point or treasure island when are tell me going to come on line and difficult to predict the projects if we come back

with detailed information looking at the specific policy options we'll do our best to get you that information in terms of the projections >> can i get a quick follow-up. corey on that what you presented and answer to others commissioner so for example, at hunters point or candle stick or treasure island even though their priorities the developer has to come forward with an actual office allocation; is that correct >> correct and so 5 or 10 years down the line so none of the million square feet for example, out there has received any kind of priority not priority but approvals. >> allocations yeah. >> if i may on those promotions

in particular that is hunters point and candle stick and treasure island there are phasing requirements by which office buildings don't come on line but occur in combination of other things we wanted to avoid that we have one single land use determined what those huge projects look like when their implemented there are specific requirements to how the projects are being royals this is a different discussion then look at the approval of the office buildings and caps to that. >> hold on so i wanted to thank you for answering the question i was going at that follow-up with when commissioner moore said getting to the 3 legged stool approach the intent of prop m. i was going to make a point if we

talk about especially treasure island we'll see where that goes and hunters point and candle stick in terms of their office space and their phasing is going to look at it those projects are carefully planned to manage the office construction as you get the transit improvements and housing and small business and you'll have that. i think when we look at does sort of prop m throttling down those i want to ask what work has been done to see how the cap impacts the southeast sector and generally, the central selma and other project areas. i do want to get to really quick a few ideas in terms of policy priorities one is again back to the 3 legged stool idea i think there might be some opportunity for albeit more coordination

with mta and bart and looking at what are the transit plans and the freezing and what is the true condition at being able to improve our transit system and small business and provision of affordable housing as we are looking at office space allocation i feel how things work we only know how transit will be improved based on the universe reading the news and asking questions i feel like that should be a much more considered part of looking at office space allocation to make sure that transit and housing is built up alongside commercial space so look at that. and then final points right now i do think i looked at the policy considerations that were in place in 2002 pretty

extensive list and one thing that we should consider is looking at where are reproviding space for, you know, nonprofit and social service agencies the ones that do some of the work for us. that's not the entire obvious of nonprofit but that's certainly a use inform look at the provision of space when we look at what is office space going to consider in the same ways what small businesses will be displaced where we have providing space for those vitality services >> commissioner hillis. >> so corey thank you for the presentation a couple of questions i guarantee don't know if you've seen john's memo but the square footage is obviously getting the numbers so they're

perfect and this is a good step. but how much allocation hadn't been built. and of that how much is revokable but how much beyond the timeline can be revoked >> don't have those numbers but the alexandra district t is not built 1.1 million that is housed with the warriors site and the site to the north of that is a project on owens that received an allocation earlier this year or last year i don't believe they've been on construction but moving forward in the permitting process. and then what was the next part of that? >> i guess how many are there other projects beyond mission

bay having been built the old, you know, it didn't appear they can be revoked. >> to the best of my knowledge every project that on the list they've been actively engaged in the permits to construct and build reviewed to make sure their issued. the policy in 2009 the planning commission said the projects were staying active and moving towards construction we'll not actively revoke them but projects that are lacking we should look at those >> we've over the years brought several cases to you for revocation because in 2009 the commission requested a information on certain projects to insure there's not a lot of outstanding caps. >> so the big item is the sales force site that could add a lot

to the allocation have we asked them there's talk about adding to the warriors and the sales force controlled was allocated so you'll not have to reallocate those. so it's not clear at this point how much space the warriors radio going to build but probably less than what was less than allocated >> that could give you more square footage. >> right a couple of hundred square feet down the road. >> and then because it seems like like we're not ready to halt the projects and get into a contest we don't know where the economy may go we may be stepping into that if there's a couple hundred square feet

bogging because of the sales tax site this is probable over the next couple of years it will be interesting to see what projects are in that two years. >> sure. >> i don't particularly like the idea of setting them another cap below the cap by year i think it's built cyclely people are not building they're not building office space we see years where there is nothing built so having the allocation in those years didn't seem like that's the right way to go. we'll be artificially allocating in boom years and allowing the allocation and not allowing the years where people are not building but the question