motion and a second if the maker of the motion is amenable and to the second thank you. >> commissioners on that motion or excuse me. there's a motion to approve this project with conditions as amended to include at project sponsor to work with the staff and on that motion. >> commissioner antonini commissioner johnck commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards is commissioner fong and commissioner president wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero. >> yeah, the commission will

you'll remember the program is pilot into the small cap between 25 and 50 thousand square feet and there with he have available for the square feet we'll take everything out the the pipeline we still have over one mill square feet no longer than 50 thousand square feet gunning

again as you can see we have 2 hundred 1 million square feet in the cap today, if i took out the preponderance of the evidence projects and essentially all the project with form application we're going looking at the a deficit of 7.9 million square feet before we go into the promotions one caveat those are bans the information we have today and the universal truth about the development in san francisco is that they're all subject to change over time and so want to make that clear that is bans our information today also the project are listed by quarter not necessarily in exact order of approval we can't know which projects are going to be in exact order but we do think

sliding into the annual quarter it make sense this is confusing unfortunately the 8 hundred and plus square feet happens on october 17th not on january 1st or sexual first which is easy to explain so an allocation year is the fourth quarter of the previous year for example, and unfortunately, that slide a not projecting currently in terms of format but the 2015 is the fourth quarter of calendar 2014 just to be wear of the numbers that's a little bit confusing this is a copy of the table provided in the memo to the planning commission and it

listed the specific projects and other events that impact the large cap during the 2015 allocation year as you can see we have 2 point one million and a an annual allocate this month and have several prenlz ready to go or nearly ready and in front of the which the commission and we have two projects that go in second quarter as well as some revocation that will bring a little bit more square footage into the last year cap cue 3 two large promotions and cue four one large project tech that puts us below the zero so the timing it has to happen after the

october 2015, 8 hundred and 75 square feet allocate if this happens say after the allotment we'll be left with 4 hundred and 50 thousand square footage for the 2015 allocation year this graft is essentially the same table but in chart form every event is hone in the graft starting in october the allocation year you go up because we get our 8 hundred thousand secret into october of next year. >> you can imagine when promotions are beyond 2015 they're close but we know what projects are on file that are

somewhat promgd in the year this is a project in 2016 for the selma plan and we have 3 hundred 4 million square feet in the project in central selma another projects will will file in the near future in transbay he know that the f will be up to 7 thousand square feet and begin the process at the end of the ri8 and the sales force property in 2016 or maybe a little bit later they can have up to 3 thousand square feet in says and candle stick is 2016 or later we aware of some large projects

pier 70 the seawall lot 34 u 32 south of the ball park is large significant projects in 2016 or later so again, our last presentation we didn't get into the details of whether or not a new policy is definitely need or not we've spent time going over the project how the numbers work last time we're here to talk about the needs or lack of a 92 need for a new policy you have a few options option one to continue the status quo allowing the projects to duo come before the planning commission and for the planning commission review but the other option to choose

the same type of policy that's been done in the past a competitive pool policy a specific period of time where specific projects are refused at the same time under the different career with certain projects that are approved if you're going to adapt such a policy more considerations that about create the fraction one is important the effective date i'm sure you're aware of right now the director has a policy that no large office projects can be calendar if the planning commission until it's been addressed by the planning commission and the effective date of such a policy that impacts the policies that are able to move forward with that policy and after the length of the policy is important one every 6 months or one per year

but regardless it's an port definition to be made and the issue of allocation limits if you have a competitive pool there's a question has to whether or not you want to allocate everything you have in one allocation period for a significant amount for a allowance of other projects in the pipeline to competitive compete for the space and we have a policy a little bit lax if the performance period but because of the poor economy from 2008 and 9 and 51st cut off the address review criteria will be looked in section 31 the review

criteria but in the past the other commission policies adopted additional criteria to look at the projects many of the potential criteria review is the the proximity of rail impact pdr uses and the creation of new pdr and the green building designs or other measures as you see fit there is a third option we touched on that a little bit with the performance period the current policy with the planning commission and this department was adapted in 2009 during a down economy where there was a number of office projects approved in prior years were not able to move forward because of the finance issues the planning commission has rescued the staff

not to bring those projects back if past the 18 most so long as they were active you may want to adapt a policy with no competitive pool it's a case per project but a stricter criteria where after the 18 months it's brought back for and a a hearing about the active state thought to make sure the spaces are, in fact, being used so those grafts are updates of the graft with current numbers as you can see basically we're not going to allocation anywhere within two weeks but if using

the projects in 2015 and 2016 we'll allocate basically a little bit more than 3 thousand square feet that deposits us down in 2016 to less than - each have the only 35 thousand square feet this is an example if you were to adapt a competitive pool policy and adapted an artifical limit on any one period again to hold space for future projects the imply lines is smoothed out to allow other projects to compete for the space green again, this is the comparison between 2015 and 2016 if we do just one at that time, as we

they come forward we're going to 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 discretionary are part to deliver anything of interest to the marketplace so i'm asking you and suggesting to you based on history now is not the time to impose an artifical rule or allocation of the large profits to projects that are ready to go i also notice i thank john for this both of our projects the one hundred uber and the black man brian then project made it going into the priority list thank you john. >> is there any additional 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 a