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 are able to shape those projects as

they come i don't necessarily see a need for a totally new progress that is looking at other alternatives i don't see what major benefit from doing anything like that that's my suggestion in terms of how we move forward if i have changes in what we do going forward to provide a map like what we saw for the large project authorization open the residential side every time we see project like prop m let's see a map of what other projects in the kind like a half a mile in the plan area that will again help us what the context you don't have to change our context but look at projects as they come about i wanted to mention a couple of

things about the 3 legged school we've talked about in the previous hearings first is i think one commenter mentioned the density of space for office workers over time but the employment has to the doubled people are getting less space allocate but it is filled with more people like cafes and things the trend we're seeing so if we do look at how have the assumptions changed i think we need to look at that as well and the last thing talking about transit in particular you've called for it if parlor and like to call for it again semi joint meetings or information sharing like sfmta those projects are

not clustered in downtown zones we're seeing projects in mixed use zones and dog patch and mission bay and candle stick and there's beautiful plans and sfmta how they're to increase transit in those areas i'd a lot to have that context for us to inform our decisions either joint hearings or information sharing is innovate another adjustment to our process. >> commissioner richards. >> this is an interesting discussion i appreciate director ram to hold the project on what we want to do i guess it's about a sense of fairness when we have a 3 million square feet will built on projects didn't seem fair i might be the gas

astrology the gas light is going to come on we need to get information this is 2014 a couple of questions the recalculation of the square footage impact is interesting i currently work in an office in a 6 by 8 cube not 16th century by 15, however, a lot of amenity space not discount the break rooms and swimming pools provided to the employees if we hold that you projects my sense of faster than we go to the voters for prop m i wasn't around in 2006 but thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> i would agree with many of the comments particularly commissioner hillis and

commissioner fong i think having a cap on top of a cap prop m has served the city better than we've seen now while all other cities continue with early signs at the time that prop m was created and like to mention houston i practiced in the middle of prop m and saw to understanding the prop m was it meant and how i believe that adding to the list of values for basic principle to reflect on looking at the job housing link in the transit impact fees is an important thing to do because we can't really move forward without really understanding the indirect correlations of a dense city while driving the car will

not be the future of this city but more and more understanding efficient and contemporary transit that keeps with technology and innovation that's where the cutting-edge is prop m across the city when nobody had a list including our ability to use larger knows for reinterpretation when we were able to adapt housing it was impossible for obsolete buildings standing around creating office clufrtsdz but nothing else to get to them or shop or live or anything we had a city that was basketball and we can move p with reasonable managing of the square footage into the future one thing i'd like to ask mr. t

is whether or not we've ever looked at what strikeer rerevocation we decrease the numbers by which it can be held and see an additional curb on to recapture the square footage again, a hypothetical experience i'm not threatening anybody those are long entitlements that are not only take place from one downturn i'm not singling anyone out bow but to the counter to recognizing the healthy balancing. >> just to be clear right now we have an 18 most period your curious how we reduce that to 18 most.

>> and have entitlements that are reapproved but gotten more than 18 most but almost 18 years. >> i'd be happy to talk about the history for the office allocations prop m basically says that any project that is issued in allocation has to begin construction within 18 months and the previous allocation policy was adapted a policy that is terminated as a project must receive it's first building permit that's issued between 8 months even that for larger projects is incredibly challenged if you're being active and moving forward with your financing in going to the current policy adapted in 2009 basically says not to bring back the projects if they're past

their 8 most performance period so long as their active with the project and not otherwise for lack of a better word abandoning their project this agency directly recommended to the downturn and couldn't get the financing to move forward there is an option for the commission to you know pull back on this now that the economy is better in terms of being strike with the 18 performances period and also throw in that there's been discussion about the additional criteria how the criteria we use to adapt or approve those projects needs to be updated there's interest there the way the conceive pool policy is a

package you can handle the policy you can adapt a more stringent period without adapting a competitive pool approach policies that inform how you look at projects on a case by case basis that's another option for the planning commission to consider. >> if i can add corey is right the 18 most is to shrink that is not realistic it's to go from planning commission approval to a permit it's the financing and a half of the dbi process but think about changing our policy is to say after i don't know pick a number 3 or 2 and a half years come back with projects not started and here's the

projects out there what do you think there's very few projects now not many left any new projects that's entitled is moving forward there are fairly recent approvals in mission bay theirs moving forward i can't think of one large office building not moving forward you've approved with that said, that it sounds like the commission there's strong consensus we should not change policy yet buses checks ♪ the first quarter of next year to see where we are and bring the projects otherwise in the pipeline naturally and during that timeframe first quarter bring the promotions sitting out

there more than 3 years since you've approved them >> i it sounds like a good idea many of the projects might not be around because some of them are older than 15 years not to mention addresses. >> the only one that was hang out there was bush street it's moving forward there's pine and the up lot and bush street. >> those are the same projects. >> those have been around a long time and i inspect anothers in the woodwork others i want to ask you director ram the issue of the pdrs project particularly the hooper street project which mr. rubbing benefit i think mentioned

like so long as we don't have a clear policy we're in the mid of pdr from one to one to split the pdr and office i would love to have that decision prior to at least the policy discussion prior to the project coming forward i'm not quite sure is there a reason you're holding back for fairness. >> that project help me with the numbers 3 hundred square feet of office and 3 thousand square feet of pdrs it's the first project to come through the legislation you've recommended approval it's 1/3rd office and 1/3rd pdr so the office can subsidies more pdr space primarily in the mission

it is the first to come forward the pdr space is at a premium we've are heard other presentations about the pdrs space in demand it's almost impossible economically to build new pdr spaces the numbers are not there. >> together with the unsolved issue of disparking garage pdr and looking for one to one displacement that's a dissuasion it's a vacant site not involving days placement but pdr. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. 3 things i think when we do calendar our next hearing i'm fine with it being in march of 2015 one of the items to

tomato take up we are talking criteria in sort of the theoretical type what we'll favor if we did have to get to the point of making a choice that's a good subject for that and the other thing i'd like to see a list of projects i was thinking thirty months was a reasonable that's 2 and a half years over 2 and a half years from their approval that have not move forward we didn't have to do anything but know what their and what the status and the prospective of moving forward why anything some be revoked but that would be i think it a good pretty by that time have capture of additional cap space he might come from

conversions. >> commissioner hillis. >> it sound like we're in agreement i want to add even though moss move those projects forwarding we can be more you know strike about how we look at those projects to our point a 660 third, that could be used for pdr i think converting it into office we know we're close to the cap we've got projects down the road we can be more selective even with those projects coming before us over the next quarter prop m has not effected our thinking in the allocation but be more diligent knowing we have projects will that will fill the gap in the future. >> sxhoifksz if we don't set

criteria i think don't go to sooner or later makes sense i wasn't aware when a project came to make changes around until the gentleman said i'm still new at this 6 months is too late maybe january. >> sorry. >> it sounds like early after the first of the year january or february. >> check back in. >> okay. >> okay anything else okay. thank you commissioners that will place you on item 10 for case 2014 office conversion controls and landmark buildings to the planning code amendment.

>> good evening, commissioners steve with the department staff conversation around pdr has it relates to landmark buildings in the g districts this is a legislation promoted by supervisor cohen's office i'm going to turn it over to andrea if a supervisor cohen's office to pertain the details of the legislation and foul with relevant details that are important and be here to answer questions. >> that's correct steve from supervisor cohen's office i know you've had a long day i'll be brief as this item allows the supervisor introduced this as a number of concerns bilateral in pdr buildings one d and g in the northeast mission areas that are at risk of being dispracticed for office elephants if the

building a landmark i'm sure you remember the conversation you share the prospective we want to continue to preserve the historic knows but given the current planning code allows the buildings to be exerted into one hundred percent office says that a real tension between president to preserve pdr space and provided the maintenance and erect of historic structures a building like 2 henry adams the consequences of the conversion of the building was the displacement of 77 businesses and unclear if they have adequate replacement space at the same time, we looked at other landmark in the p one and

g they've identified one thousand of them assuming they converted into office space we're looking at a loss of one million square feet of pdr we've talked about the legislation i passed a couple of months ago we were trying to develop ideas how to descend vices pdr it was counterintuitive active to have at the same time, a policy that leads to the reduction of space we've worked with the planning staff to come up with the pdr one d and g specifically f this is what this legislation allows depending on the size of our building a proportion of the building for allowable office space sent a fair amount of time with the preservation historic and they're meeting voted to

support this with a number of the recommendations also contained in our packet as suggested conversations and with other key shoulders are stakeholder which is one to make all the office buildings conditional use authorization larger because we wanted the two commissioners to consider specifically at the historic preempt they desired a analysis report they would be able to look at the level of erect and the intervention in the particular building and make recommendations to the planning commission and in addition, we wanted to the planning commission to take a look at the issues we felt were important the economic need for the building and the pace of 2 henry adams we had a building that

went through seismic upgrades so the funding was minimal than another vacant building might be some of the other criteria included in the legislation are an evaluation of any relocation strategies for existing pdr tenants in the building and the impact of any promoted changes on the surrounding neighborhoods we think we've arrived at what we 0 hope is a decent balance to subdivide itself maintenance as well as preserve the pdrs space in the neighborhoods so i'm here to answer questions if you have something more specific i'm going to turn it over to steve. >> i believe she hit on all the

topics 0 in the interest of time i won't add anything but happy to answer questions. >> opening it up for public comment one card. >> good evening irene i'm here on behalf of may west of the buildings impacted i want to starting with the idea our guys support the goals this legislation is trying to chief i'm here to suggest there's other metrics to consider again, we understand the city is going through a change and balancing out equally policy objectives is sometimes difficult and maybe the vertical control will approach was adapted in the districts may not be the only way to, it's one of the suggestions my clients recommended and have discussions

before they make a final decision to use a secret percentage to that and perhaps see the metrics so to get to the goal i'm not here to have a means of doing that again to my knowledge but to again gives users e yourselves times that before the interim controls there's no time pressure needed to be adapted soon again, i want to throw that out it's a time out approach but looking at alternatives i'm throwing that out for suggestions and hoping you'll consider that alleged public comment? >> sue hester obligate back to

what i talked about on the joint hearing everything is means nothing unless every single permit for the industrial buildings in the areas the eastern neighborhoods areas south of basically is reviewed by planning staff right now you've reviewed none of them people can come into into the building inspection and say oh, we're doing a tenant approval so any solution every permit on those buildings gets reviewed by the planning staff and that the permit history come up for that building not only hey, i have same thing but here's the

history for the building your devult yourselves by thinking if floor number 3 never comes to the planning department and people have a financial incentive to put that in there so is the solution is immediate not 5 most from now or 2 years from now put everything through planning for industrial areas you had a big mess and have a bitten mess on 63 the whole buildings was converted and you know it 350 bryant street the same so the solution is permitting talking to the building inspection and saying the

building inspection didn't have that power for those buildings without someone from planning looking at it thank you. >> is there any additional public comment. >> okay. commissioner moore. >> i would agree with the last comment being made i assume we'll have to ask the zoning administrator administratively if that's possible. >> so it would be difficult to have ever building application routed we do review the permits actually today, i mentioned the fact that my colleague was at the desk and going through the permit history back glossothe 90s and 80s this is a permit they've alleged they have legal office space and we reviewed

those are permits it can be challenging to go back into the history i think what happens it is true that people come in for permits that may say tenant improvement maybe or new also and the department of building inspection may route that for our review but having i have to have a permit from the industrial use to the office use if you don't have one the permits that's not a legal conversion so this is where the conversion issues come in weeping we'll discuss with the department of building inspection and this issue was decided earlier a certain value on the permit to get routed to us i don't know if that's the answer but we'll discuss that further with department of building inspection and make sure we have the staff to review

the initial predicaments when, in fact, they're may not be a fact to come to us we'll look another it further. >> i'd be interested flashlight of the stayed admission there is pressure on providing maintaining and protecting pdrs it would be in everybody's interest to take a more to finally look at the details particularly certain buildings are more observes than on the i'd like to comment i offer heard you and i was talking to a number of architects mr. fowler who graded the hybrid pdr office space the vertical control pouch is really the only way of how it

can be done to separate out conflict of uses and codes conflict, etc. eco you briefly go summarize. >> it was look at about the feasible planning code requirement that insures only a certain amount of building was converted and the historic controls were the most enforceable it is already in the planning code and i'll discourage the planning commission from having it difficult in the planning code it can be an effective tool i ask you to stick with the controls rather than another way to measure space. >> it has a number of different interpretations that are hard to know when you're an architect i'll strongly support our push and not even spend additional time because this tool