see it come down it smooths the line out and more allocation for future projects this is an update on the numbers and at this point, we're definitely looking at to the commission for the guidance on the next steps whether additional research or data or additional hearing the need for policy at this point or a later date other future hearings to that concludes my presentation. and i'm available for questions you may have. >> director ram. >> thank you. i want to thank corey and just to i think a couple of things might have changed worth mentioning one of the large projects came in with their applications several

hundred thousand square feet or less showing in the pipeline that's one of the reasons the number t is higher than last time about 4 hundred square feet less than we thought they were going to prosper that gives us a curb on and corey found projects for more process i want to give you an indication it puts up i us over 3 million square feet with the allocations. >> thank you well bring that up for public comment john and david jones. >> good evening john with the take could group

we support having allocation contest in each of the next two years one thing to note about the presentation the 8 million deficit fabulous that of noted includes the support and mission bay projects are not counted against the cap those are several years down the road so when our and we're asking you to look at the next two years for the decision making how to proceed those projects will not be counted in the timeframe in the next current years the memo will think 10 thousand plus square feet this number may go up some some adjustments to the medal doing we recommend you

split it 50/50 and allocate half one mill 5 hundred 75 thousand square feet we recommend you establish new proprietors for the allocation the last version adapted in 2000 are terrible they're just a list of things they offer no guidance a bunch of you know high language about the general objectives everybody agrees with its enforceable to rank things instead, you establish clear tiers of priority based on really important objectives the city wants to you achieve to the highest proprietor criteria for example, the funding for the transit center this is a desperate issue on the list that qualified we know that building

department is important the affordable housing sites including the presidio the high priority topics the project may or may not include the aspects the second tier if you look at the list a best practices our main issues of office building they're dead they don't build neighborhoods they don't if you look at the list of desired objectives their aspects of making an office building part of a community not just another downtown 5 day a week 9 to 5 otherwise dead limousine that's crucial for central selma and hope you'll follow through.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening i have something for the planning commissioner i i'm diving jones i was president in the 1980 with prop m was on the ballot and was one of the people in the group that advocating advocated the limit i wanted to remind people of the math behind the annual limit so you can take into account whole thing your thinking of criteria or a contest you see before you it's basically just an equation if you have 2 hundred and 76 per square feet for workers you end

up with 36 workers for housing and certain trips on housing reflected in the pdrs you're starting a dialog not only about the beauty contest you're thinking about larger implications of prop m to try to update some of the most basically assumptions the birth one is the 2 hundred and 76 square feet per office worker it turns out now you with not needing file cabinets and, etc. a lot of the working spaces are down to one hundred and 50 square feet when you use the number one hundred and 50 square feet in this chart rather than 2 hundred and 76 you get a number

84 percent higher it means you have a lot more workers who are looking for housing and transit so as part of the dialog you're going to have a better feel it's important but also that trend of going to one hundred and 50 square feet per worker is in the existing space i worked at the environmental agency for years if this happens you will have 36 thousand new workers at one quarter of san francisco existing space became more space 5 million secreting plus without building more office space so the new demands from the existing office space should be put into the mix when our thinking about the demands and

the beauty contest for prop m. >> any additional public comment? >> good evening, commissioners with rubin and rose i'm here on behalf of the collaboration between the urban green development and sf made uber is going to be the first inclusionary pdr project it helps to defray the costs of pdr space at least 1/3rd of the space and pdr about one one hundred and 50 square feet this is a the birthing pdr space

delivered by the private sector in 20 years the pdr legislation it was approved by the board of supervisors and this commission i'm here because we've hit a roadblock with the project that is the policy saying that the planning department will not calendar office projects for approval until there's a new policy i think that is it good to take a breather and evaluate new policies but the numbers in the past reports shows there's no shortage of office space until next year there is 3 million square feet for allocation and 7 thousand square feet of new projects asking for that by the end of this year pursue all of which so is there's no immediate need for square feet

they should be considered on a first come first basis basis and that is your currency policy i ask you to allow uber to move forward thank you. >> sue hester i was the attorney for san franciscans for free while david was the president of the board i'm talking about the need to develop housing has to follow the protection of how's for the workforce and of transit

this is been a loss in the shades i don't know anyone in the planning department really understands that prop m doesn't come out of the blue after 9 years of hard work at the planning commission testifying that used to have non-gray are hair about the need to develop transit and housing and nexus studies were done and fees put in place and the discount i dissent plan was hijacked until the planning department agreed that office development had to pay for housing so we were very effective in getting in place the transit impact development fee and the jobs housing and linkage fee after that we took it to the ballot and after the

eir had already been done and the planning department said this is the amount of space we said you can have that amount of space you can't have more because we can't build a housing as fast as needed and the whole assumption in the downtown plan was that the use of - the primary office use is concentrated in the discount u discounted area not south of market in the mission and dog patch and mission bay because the entire transit system that's been built up by billions of investment from the city was concentrated and funneled to people in the downtown what we think of as downtown the financial district so the appropriate thing to do now to look first at how transit is

applied to all the new neighborhoods you have designated and allowed for office space how much housing is built and it has to be not $2 million condos but the housing that can be afforded by the workforce in general in san francisco we've not had a history of supplying housing for people that k3450u7bd from san jose and the peninsula that needs to be put that the calculation as well, i'm asking you to look carefully at the additional hearings before you make any additional hearings thank you. >> good evening commissioners i'm jim with running bin and

recognition i'm here we go specifically for the t m g project it's in the same position at uber is in that's fully readies to go we've done all the work and at a roadblock frankly, if we didn't have the roadblock we'd have the meeting before the allocation i'm going to speak generally, i'm not in love in love with prop m it's the law we deal with it we have 3 million square feet of space available we don't have a prop m problem howe right now we know one might be coming but no prop m problem now, throughout that my career of having those office space approval there's no panic

you heard the project changed by 3 hundred or 4 hundred feats downwards the cycles are steep and we're going to have one at some point whether other large projects come up peterson if prop m had in my opinion doesn't have it's a different city than 1985 we'll have to address the prop m issue some point i suspect but noted in the next year i think the projects while the demand is here we have tenants president those buildings to be built they'll take them now and sign leases ahead of time we need to get through the ithere any addi

public comment okay seeing none, public comment is closed commissioner antonini well, thank you interesting topic and critical topic i agree what the gentleman said cycles come and go we're at the top of the cycle but it didn't mean it's going to go on and judging from the past if you push a lot of office space out into the future if didn't makes sense so there are some people who feel that prop m was one of the reasons we drove a lot of business you out of san francisco into suburbia office parks that had to do with the in the 80s we've spent several hundreds of dollars providing a bart system that brought people amazing in the 80s things went south and east if didn't help it

is what we have have to deal with the important thing moving forward the city attorney is looking at a couple of critical issues most of you have know we've got space convert from business to other uses thofrm it makes sense in my mind those should be added back they're no longer business spaces and no longer have the same impact that the business space has on transit and most notablely the triple a building is a big one, the hotel on omni hotel s are large and the demo policy a policy where if you're building a demolishing a 200 though square feet housing and building

on the same site a 4 hundred thousand you have to take 4 hundred thousand out it makes no sense you're taking two out and 4 in so we've not gotten an opinion and not for awhile from the city attorney we should table any decisions on any ramping down of the allowed space until sometime next year in april or may because presuming low maybe 2 million additional square feet of office space add back the numbers that were taken away from office by converting or converted space on another subject we have there's positive things everybody's talking about the

impact on transit and housing everybody is often complaining bmw google buses and techies living here and working in the another section most office space presumably the buildings particle linked in and others are going to be occupying buildings in construction they're to have workers and many of the workers will be living in san francisco and rather than on buses walking to their jobs or taking local transit instead of you know being a burden on the regional transportation and addressing to pollution that's a good thing i'm reading a book called supreme city it's about manhattan in the 20s it was around grand central terminal

they underground trains and electrical if i had them they also ended up building many hundreds of thousands of square footage of office space huge buildings like the crystal building and lincoln and empire in the mid manhattan area all little business was on wall street they built a lot of high-end stuff on the recapped land on park avenue for weighing people high income people they built a lot of middle-income housing in tutor housing where fred he built 45 housing at one development this was done

privately it was define privately part of the reason we got so much housing the city of negotiation in 1921 infected an exemption for takes on new residential housing we're not going to be doing it today it ruled in love housing we have to look at the long view and constraint business and housing and in easily walkable areas in transbay and doing it dog patch is a little bit future away and mission bay that's fairly close together there i soft like some of the suggestions i'm not saying putting restrictions or favor one project over another but i like the idea of prioritizing melrose for the transit district we need this to

get money to this is a good one and certainly building housing nearby your project be that market rate all categories of people a lot of middle-income people that needs something more affordable we're doing this on transbay the quicker we get those built the better off we have i have a question for staff at the end of my comments you've mentioned that couple of projects here a couple of blocks on the transbay let's see there was block f and the other one i forget the two on the list their apparently office projects i'm

not sure which ones those are. >> the transbay block 5 is actually that one is the one we do have paperwork on they don't have an application in but going through their public process in terms of the rfp with the negotiations and parcel f is not in the process so not go accounted for in the tracking spreadsheet but knowing it's coming. >> is that the residential i believe the gene gang project. >> it's office but a perfect match you're getting a couple of big office building with very large residential so it's a good mix okay. thank you those are my initial comments. >> commissioner hillis. >> just a question onless

upcoming projects we heard from two projects they're ready to go are all 4 of those being delayed. >> those two are ready to go one of the 4 is a project not coming before you the empty seat voting is coming out of the cap when it's issued and the other on harrison street that one is not ready to go they're working through a couple of issues but it will be ready to go by the end of this calendar year. >> i commented on one of the speaker referred to blockage that's me i minded the commission it have an opportunity to decide that or

delay that conversation and allow this project to go forward. >> and then the 2016 projects the central selma ones they're all relying on the central selma plan to be adapted so their it's predicted on the selma being adapted so it's speculative we've got planning and code changes to be made and things like that candle stick again somewhat i don't know how are they talking to us actively about projects in candle stick. >> i won't up u put that up there there's a if i projects we've listed that are not on you know we don't have the paperwork on it formerly but we know it's

their intention to move forward next year obviously that could change like it's all subject to change there maybe other promotions that maybe filed in the next two. >> my sense is you know prop m is not on artifical cap but a cap i don't think we're quite at the point we need to kind of layer on another cap of our own i think the 4 projects in quarter one should be allowed to moved on their merits and timing they're not all great projects there are things about harrison from the change of use and pdr and office but it seems like i mean, i'm not contestant let's

moved on the projects that are in the cue and wanting to come to commission i'd suggest quite a few e kind of revisiting this in quarter as the picture gets clear and it maybe next quarter things start to move up and we're at the point to shut them down and come up with criteria i don't feel we're there yet and i won't obviously there's demand for new office space but not put an artifical cap on it and allow those projects to go forward i like some of what the gentleman presented because i agree that criteria are everything good lead and design by transit any project i know it's difficult to

come up with specific criteria it maybe you know we come up with things we obviously don't want displacement and demolition of big buildings it's a good and bad list of things to see i'd like to see those projects come before us on their merits as we develop the criteria and revisit it and get a clear picture of where things are are and pdr and maybe office come back into the next transition from office to housing and get more clarity. >> i'm feeling somewhat the same way we're kind of on a quarter tank or a empty tank of gas the light is not on yet but approaching but we certainly

look for a gas station pretty soon commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much i have a document here on san jose on a new - (laughter). >> i thought you ride your bike. >> okay. so a cough things keeping with the first come, first serve versions of how we're going looking at projects the commission has shown itself in the past watched a lot of hamburgers and been around has been very attentive to some of the projects projects as they come i feel i don't necessarily see what way better changes we can get by some other progress in the near future across the commissioners

there's definitely viewpoints being a view building preserving the historic resources and preventing displacement and the voices on the commission we