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 is pretty much known to the professions

i'll support. >> let me follow-up i stirred up a conversation this morning about that i understand now the difficulties and challenges with growth and how easy it is to go floor by floor and the structure of the building if you have the ability to enforce it you could go by percentage it would open up the use of the building some are cool you see airbnb not pdrs but they use the building vertically and stacked up in the building split i think there could be interesting and cool conversions if it were by conversions and not by floor. >> if i could speak it is for a manufacturing space we've reviewed and approved projects

with design and manufacturing so it is looking at how do you make those spaces function correctly this is going to pure office uses not as officers asia accessory to other manufacturing use so i'll say the historic tools are more effective. >> i understand something was pointed out how we may be the logical way it effects other decisions in the centralize corridor with other buildings maybe that are outside of this particular project in the area we act on now will set the course and maybe we're on the right course i don't know that's it. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. thank you you know one of my concerns i think that is well intend it has

a lot of benefits but i asked the gentleman for the maps and i still 0 am not entirely clear by where this is take place because you know 66 second is an island of still zoned pdr which is really been used for office years and years and everything around is is entertainment or office not much pdr in the area i want to make sure this is appropriate to areas we don't pit restrictions that preclude office uses where office is the only game in town or something like that sir. >> steve with the department staff the pdrs districts are the consensus as part of the eastern neighborhood plan the pdrs districts h are many in the

bayview are we're talking about the central waterfront and the show place square in selma the districts are not pdrs district their mixed use part of the rezoning in 1989 we're talking about that the central selma plan they'll not be affected the s l i district are not technically part of the pdr district. >> thank you i think so the distinction we're not dealing with one of the examples i give i think in place like show place square we have places to be protected probably an area where some office might be appropriate

it depends on where we are on this and that could be true in part of the mission for example, some of the things brought up to me and makes sense rodney the commissioner commissioner fong mentioned the square footage idea that's something to think about it's difficult to enforce the floors unless you're there there all the time but the other thing that is more appropriate there might be a situation where an owner might want to devote an entire building to pdrs and another to office you'll be allowed to have 2023 floors of pdr and two for office instead, you have one building with 4 floors of pdr and one building with 4 floors of office you mate

have to leave that possibility in place i heard i mentioned cruz come up that's fine if we had this before us with various changes of use and had those as combines you know the legislative that the supervisors proposing we could allow some of the other situations if we felt it was more beneficial to allow flexibility and for meetings the same thing here i think trying to be two rigid on the situation never having office on the first floor maybe two strike. >> sxhoifksz. >> this is a quick question what do you think that buildings eligible for landmark adhesive

dozens or thousands. >> so when this legislation was being formed supervisors office fortunately, we have a survey of the pdr district in place so the historic staff looked at based on their best judgment 14 or 15 buildings now landmark is extremely long and difficult process there are buildings that may not be landmarkable, etc., etc. the total square footage in those knows is about a maintain square feet. >> we're talking about a small percentage. >> i think of many of the district have small ones. >> cool. >> i think the enforcement is easy to administer and the staff

watching the building permits i encourage that with the recommendations is a winner especially given the pressures they're facing i definitely support that. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much how many buildings this applies to 14 or 15 not a huge percentage a couple of quick things and i definitely support this one is on the vertical control i think one thing that came up on the 63 it at the end up being the same percentage throughout the building or the floors i do think we can separate how we destine e dip what percentage use the use foreclosure the pdr how you physically define that or impoverish or enforce it so 25 percent of a 4 floor is one floor or throughout the building if we use percentage it makes our lives a little bit easier in

terms of seeing projects without changing the most part doing a vertical control and the last thing i don't see this year not guilty how much we want to get into the discussion but ask staff and possibly andrea as potential supervisor cohen's representative did you guys consider having some sort of pdr replacement clause in your legislation if the building itself could support the percentage of pdr or maybe does it work that way but another site will identify the pdr replacement would that be awe memorable or talking about people is it a policy you wanted to keep the pdr space in those specific buildings. >> so commissioner johnson the

policy for this particular legislation are the issues we're seeing in landmark buildings it's a specific set of buildings that require a higher rent to generate to adrenalin them that's a theme in the eastbound eastern neighborhoods we share and want to preserve people don't want office in the buildings which i think is counter to what we want to see on the pdr replacement obligation we've certainly heard the desires of different building eros overwhelms to constraint one percent and commentator one into office those buildings are zoned for pdr we're talking about a benefit to property owners and in exchange the benefit of the maintenance of the buildings so it is not also clear to shift that obligation we've had a long

conversation about how difficult to construct new pdrs so the concept to build another pdrs is a champ and so i think in the context of the historic buildings in particular that replacement obligation is really differences and this policy around this issue we certainly have other issues with the pdrs as they exist in the planning code by our policy goal to control the uses that were happening in the landmark buildings and maintain as much of pdr space in the neighborhood we're talking about a design district a district their whole fabric has been founded on some of the uses to think they can be shift around easily is a challenge for replacement

obligation. >> thank you the only reason i ask the question i want to echo some something that the commissioner said about the central porter plan we've talked about the pdrs as a policies item to be added to the neighborhood plan i thought that was a way to get the conversation started obviously the landmark buildings is a different conversation in talking about a one-story building so. >> commissioner moore i appreciate the clarity it's wells throughout through and responsible and i believe we shouldn't open up the discussion of percentage by floors those buildings will need to follow all the rules of historic preservation and maintenance so it is not as much about creativity by adding creativity

but following new rules and adding design although i agree there's room for caveat creativity i move to preview with the modifications. >> commissioner richards one comment percentage of discrete floors what if the people say we want to make sure they sell a certain percentage the groceries and other things we're going to get when you look at the floor plan of pbs on the end of beauty products or admissible it's not clean and secret it's not one big assembly line a checkerboard effect that provides a nightmare it can be a big can of worms so

we don't go down the alley. >> commissioner antonini. >> i'll be supportive but want to make sure the office use is not restricted it didn't have to be accessory to what else in the building whatever office use that qualifies as office and time to make clear that is the specific area of historic buildings and you know the maintenance of those buildings in return for the grant of the office space is not to be applied to other pdr discussions in other directions overview districts and certainly hope that inspires listens to some of those and look at the flexibility if there's situations where there is two hectic buildings next door to each other they'll maybe be able to work out a deal i appreciate

the work that went into this. >> commissioners there's a we have a motion and a second to approve e.r. excuse me. to adapt a recommendation with modifications. >> commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner president wu. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero commissioners that places you on item 11 for case the riffling nexus study for the planning announcements and scheduling. >> good evening thanks for having a long day and listening to the nexus item i'm here to initiate the planning code things update the fshthd to the

impact fees for the nexus study you'll talk about quickly and the mosaic changes to reflect to bring them together and i'll walk through the key changes a nexus study is down to show the impact of new growth for demand for infrastructure we looked at open space and childcare fats and open space and childcare and or strapts and bike facilities there's another nexus study looking at transportation that will come to you in a few months and affordable housing is also considered separate the big changes the reason we're doing that we're required to update the nexus studies we does a

nexus study rather than maintaining several nexus studies brought them altogether this is some certifies in or management going forward and mosaic active changes we tried to make the programs the same so they have a expenditure program they come up with different categories working with the implementation committee to come up with the right language you'll see those are chiengz and the other change we've removed the branch library program they were getting 1 to 2 percent we've moved that into the streetscape improvements category and made language changes how it is monitored to

make them more consistent throughout the area wears looking for calendar for adaptation i'm here for questions. >> we'll open this up for public comment. >> sue hester you, you bunch all of those things on the same day i'm going to sister-in-law like a broken record the most important impact fees are transit muni funding and transit impact development via how's you need to have an explanation at the next hearing at least about what deadlines are in effective and how they're going to be

updated for transit and housing we are dealing with the peripheral stuff bike lanes and aerial plans i know for an absolute fact those fees are being cheated because people are not going through the approval process doing conversions and the planning department is not catching them i'll give the planning department later mr. sanchez has left a list of buildings i know about a entire buildings have been converted and they've not paid a penny of any of the peripheral fees or any of the basic fees that's transit and housing it also means there's no money flowing into area plans and no

money flowing into the planning department i'm embarrassed for the planning department how many read the papers i'm a compulsive reader of the business times it is to repent the pieces from the developers they brag about their changes and again, i get that from reading the business times the planning department can do the same thing that is light weight you're not putting on the tablgz all the fees and the dates there you go to be updated

for transit and housing i'm kind of embassy have to deal with the planning department that has a lot more information than i do any more public comment seeing none, public comment is closed commissioner richards. >> it's interesting we've been here 8 hours and one of the common themes enforcement enforcement enforcement how do we do it are we alexander more to the mix i guess the question would there be an lawns i locks up in my of the fee structures to allocate for enforcement? >> commissioner we can allocate we can use fee money not impact money but. >> it is clear absolutely not true we're not collecting any

fees i don't know where ms. hester gets that. >> so anything driving those fees and jefferson generally to offset the costs for infrastructure we have a tiny amount that goes to the program one of the things we've done is enter the fee amount to the beginning inspector knows what is due we use some of the program administration money but not the same kind of thinking. >> to be clear impact fee money has to be used for infrastructure money. >> ms. hesters view of reading the best estimate i only know what i see it's interesting the

discussion per sue. >> commissioner antonini. >> i move to initiate i thought that was what we were supposed to do. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you executive so i second that and then just a quick questions questions about the nexus study can we wait between now and the hearing to ask staff and questions at the hearing. >> sure whatever works for you i'm available for you or address them at the next hearing. >> i'll bring up my questions because this is a long night. >> commissioner moore commissioner johnson that is interesting you're saying that i'm sitting here i'm so tired i can barelyly focus on the discussion i want to give you the benefit of our observation

i'm almost unable to understand i'm to have a foul before we initiate a working session a round table we're not allowed to do that but director give us some help this is not the right day to hear know and talking about it we've been slaving since noon and this requires one hundred and 50 percent of our attendance i'm going to be honest about it. >> trying to figure out a good suggestion here. >> well, i think we have a calendar date collected for this. >> well, part of the motion needs to continue to scheduling the hearing date at the it's november 13th. >> so it will be possible to do the briefing in between that if you want to initiate now we can

workout now. >> that is good including some reflection of what was said in public comment. >> we can entertain someone e something on november 6th well, maybe not. >> whatever we agree to. >> so everybody sort it out between now and the next hearing smaller groups of 3. >> either that or a public hearing. >> yeah. we can do it sometime in october. >> on our regular calendar. >> so if he initiate day have the informational in between that. >> if it's split into two meetings one maybe in november the last hearing in october is not a meeting anyway so basically 3 meetings next week

and two to follow give us help in early november. >> we'll certainly put it in early nova and push out the adaptation harley's. >> would we have to do that this is for november 6th is there a problem with november 18th or whatever. >> we'll keep that on schedule and at the november 6th hearing if increase amendments you wish to include you'll continue the november 13th date out further. >> i'll be okay pushing it out it's only an informational hearing we only have two meetings in december. >> the 13. >> the 13 is available yes. >> that's the date we're proposing to have the hearing. >> the adaptation hearing so we

won possibility to it on the 30th. >> i'll be in town. >> are you are here on the 30th. >> okay. very good commissioners commissioner antonini can you include the date of november 30th as part of your motion. >> it includes the hearing date of november 30th with the informational hearing on november 6th. >> fantastic and the secondary amendment thank you. >> commissioner richards. >> a quick thought to expand on what commissioner moore said can we have a components of that informational round component of the fees. >> the fees should, coming in. >> i can give you a report i can go around collecting fees.

>> great. >> commissioners, we have a motion and a second to initiate this planning code amendment and schedule a future hearing for in front of twolg p commissioner antonini. >> commissioner johnck commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards and commissioner president wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and places you on your discretionary review calendar portions of the yawned item 13 for 2014 at 1286 delores street request for discretionary review this is an abbreviated discretionary review. >> good evening commissioners

subject property is on delores in the mission alley neighborhood for a partial vertical addition with new front and rare roof-decks on a basement corner building to expand the top unit by 5 hundred and 45 square feet and set back to minimize the delores and adhere to the rear yard requirements it runs along the properties interior line shared with 1295 delores street and sent the proposed vertical addition provides a matching light well 3 feet deep and 3 times the length elizabeth of the building the plans presented

to the planning commission inaccurately portray the subject light wheels and the design team says this is sufficient for the light and air of the property and the project sponsor has conceded to the private glass on the north wall of the vertical edition that has the close adjacent to say neighborhood light well windows the design team is concerned there's no extraordinarily circumstances and not to take discretionary review. >> dr requester