new pdr space. so, i think this is a smartth modest proposal to try to do that. i just want to thank s.f. made, too, for kind of putting more of a face and data on the pdr industry and allowing us to kind of get more data on accessing it. the small enterprise work space, is that the same thing? since active space, we haven't seen any new sew and that wasn't done under the existing -- it was done under the prior legislation. and is it the same issue, people are coming to us. are we talking to people who build active space and why they're not building additional space? do we know? is it just a matter of -- >> [speaker not understood]. [laughter] >> he didn't return the phone call. we did engage active space. we talked with a gentleman who dealt with building this kind of space. we'd like to see it done. [multiple voices] >> this would do it? i mean, is this kind of the issue? >> if it gets built, let's work it great for pdr business. 1500 is the sweet spot for pdr businesses, 5 25 aren't. if it happen

because of our code the showrooms are considered pdr uses. it's a different type of use than a manufacturing use. if it is a pdr used by our definition, but there's a fairly low job density because of the number of the showroom spaces primarily occupied by furniture and design objects. so we're looking at that issue. we're also looking at increasing the potential for pdr space in other parts of the city that seem to be more attractive to makers and small manufacturers that seem to be growing to a certain extent. i guess the point is that we're starting to see a shift in where the pdr users want to be and that's one of the things we're looking at when we look at this larger pdr question in the city right now. >> commissioner pearlman. >> i appreciate that, but this is called showplace square. you know, it's not that you could be down in dog patch and have mr. dixon's business because then he's completely disconnected from 50 or 60 or 70 other businesses that might be at a smaller scale. so, you know, i'm just worried about losing that. and i t

legislation and moving pdr forward. thank you. >> thank you. if you begin speaking, sfgov will put it on. >> i have worked fortive buck toutoungi year. i am currently the factory manager. you can see the picture in the factory in most of the timbuktu team. just to expand a little bit on what tony said, ~ i think manufacturing in s.f. is supremely important to our brand. it's something i'm really proud of. i work with 20 of the most hard working people i have ever met. they come in every day to support their families. we're able to provide them with good jobs, benefits, something to, like i said, support their family with. and people ask me all the time, timbuktu is such a cool brand. you make so many cool products, all these thing. and i think the thing i'm most proud of is being able to say, we have been in san francisco since '89, 4 of '89. that is like amazing. we are able to provide good jobs and i would like to be able to continue to do that. i would like to be able to continue to be here and we cannot do that with

the planning code allows for landmark codes to convert from pdr zoning to office as of right. the concerns again were not over the landmark designation but the potential changed of use. the prove or disprove has applied to convert the property to office use awhile that conversion is as of right because of the size of the property this commission will hear the office allocation and those items will likely be raised before you at that time, that concludes my presentation if you have any questions, i'll answer them >> thank you. >> commissioners moving 80 on to general to general public comment members of the public may address the commission on matters that are within the commission's jurisdiction and are not on today's agenda each member of the public may address the commission up to 3 minutes there are no speaker cards. >> any general public comment seeing none, public comment is closed. >> your regular calendar commissions the task force recommendations this is an informational presentation. >> good morning kate with the planning commission staff. in april 2013 we had a task

zones i want to address the issue of zoning but the pdrs in the city is strong and let look at other opportunity. the second floor sister-in-law a great idea approve or disapprove i think to address clustering the way is happens is when mc ds get cited in the telegraph hill or panicking heights it's the up error from the community to really get they're on the ground and do our research earlier because this is the barrier to getting or one of the barriers to getting mc ded sort of cross the city. i think this should go to the health commission. i want to ask staff >> there are not the directive from the myths code was for the commission to send a report to the board of directors. i'm happy to do that if the commission times me, too >> it seems like a good idea. >> okay. that's the comments from me. >> expanding the green zone i believe the ports properties are shown here we need to bring port planning and in the different parts of waterfront into the discussion there are certain areas see in the waterfront that are highly unlikely the communication and dialog with them as well but gen

one of the reasons i'm not a fan is eliminates the pdr zoning that was admitted under several planning efforts and to use that kind of language applies and we've seen developers coming into the area and buying up properties in the pdr zone and expecting it to be rezoned. this in the face of hearings that we've had which we're being told there's an increasing amount of pdr type outdoors being requested in the city and as a matter of fact, it ends up being a shortage of actual shortages like merchandising sf made kind of things can took place. at the same time, we're eliminating those areas in this area the eco district is saying that it will establish a locally based program for middle wage earners and low income workers to support the serviced. if that's the intent you have to challenge the underlying plan. thank you >> thank you commissioner moore. >> i have another question. lecture i think the gentleman representing taco brought to our attention and that's the expansion of moscone he was concerned about the impacts that particular building will have it on the general disposition are

that and member provided strong support and welcomes the additional residents at ground floor retail pdr, space into the neighborhood. to the outreach with the involvement with the community their commendable and particularly has a dedication to franklin square and a strong commitment to the community we look forward to working with them. thank you >> thank you. >> (calling names). >> hi, i'm aaron i live in the 3 hundred block of utah street i'm in the park every morning as early as 6:00 a.m. no one can dispute new mark has been great. i'm personally in favor of the development at that location, however, the sunshine ordinance passed by the voters is supposed to dictate how high a building can be and effects the park you're considering something that voters said not 80 have happen in the space. as san francisco is experiencing this development you're going to need more and more of a sense of peace in the city to not feel looir like your 90 in urban choose. having a shadow and wanting to have have a peace of stroll is a violation of my rights. i think you should strongly consider what yo

the planning code allows for landmark codes to convert from pdr zoning to office as of right. the concerns again were not over the landmark designation but the potential changed of use. the prove or disprove has applied to convert the

the zoning of the pdr d, if that's the current zoning, if some of these makers could use that kind of space, if they met the definition of the zoning as a way to fill up other space that isn't full right now. an encouragement from the department to look at the periphery of showcase square relative to these new uses you're talking about. >> i would -- to counter what commissioner pearlman said, i'd say we start regulating or we don't do any of it, but once it's written in a code i think it's unfair for us to -- somebody who goes through all the steps, the code says if it's a landmark you can have these uses and they go through all these steps and then turn around well, we don't think your building counts, then we should have explicitly excluded it. otherwise it's very confusing. i think it's very unfair to owners to /sutd suddenly go through these steps and find because there's a desire to keep the showplace intact that we would turn their building down. that's my comment. >> thank you. commissioner johnck. i appreciate the discussion on the issues here, but i do believe it meets the r