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 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 w