tv [untitled] August 14, 2014 1:00am-1:31am PDT
to approve it and when exactly it comes out that can vary and also office space specifically for the city and county of san francisco is not coming out of the cap and not requiring commission approval. it is also important to note that there have been plans adapt in the past by the planning commission that gives me certain areas like hunters point bay and treasure island. section 321 of the planning code lazy out the criteria that the planning commission must consider i'll run through those those quickly the first is the portion time to have a balance on the economic growth and the housing and transportation on the others.
the general plan consistency with all the projects the quality of design the suitability of the proposed office for the location and the impacts on the location. the anticipated eyes within the project and what kind of employment opportunities it will provide where the niece of the existing businesses in the area and the suitability of the uses. the extent to which the development will be owned and occupied by a single entity and finally, there's the use of pdr. so it's important to point out it can also state it payments to transit and housing fund other than that is required by the planning code or other ordinances can't be determined in the determination there's another bullet point as the planning commission has the
ability to adapt additional criteria as they see fit. it's important to note that especially for projects office projects large office projects we're focusing on projects larger than 55 thousand square feet they're subject to impact fees all of those projects are citywide to the linkage program that is up to $24 a square feet the transit development project over $13 a square foot and the childcare that is a little bit over a certain amount. and then on top of that depending on the neighborhood or planning area you may have additional impact fees like the infrastructure the downtown park the public art and transit center has its own special
bundle of impact fees those rates vary as well. so just to begin to look at the historical numbers this is a simple chart show you housing square feet have been looked since 86 after prop m in the early 80s and 90s there was not a lot of activity and the smaller cap 4 hundred and 75 thousand didn't bump up to 950 until the late 90s, the ramping up in the 90s for the.com area and you see it was earlier the most sequencing that had been allocated but the entire period 2002 this was significant allocation of office space. you can see in early 2000 and
after 2008 some revision period where it come down and the big recession comes in 2013 by far at 3 point 6 thousand square feet it was the biggest allocated in the city. just to give you an idea in 2000 the second highest year the 3 largest projects allocated were 8 hundred and 50 thousand square feet and two projects together 5 hundred thousand square feet and 235 second street. but by craft the largest projects were 101 on first street and 18 owens street and fremont street. so if you take the 3 largest
projects in 2013 they essentially are more than the entire previous peak year of 2000. a little foreshadowing compared to the.com before. so to move into the current numbers we're dealing with the small cap is not much of an issue there's a good amount of space there has to be a lot of projects coming up but we have $1.2 million square feet at one million plus pending and 61 preapplication phase and a total of pipeline availability if everything came out we still have over one million square feet so it will take many, many projects to drain that down. just to help define some of the
jargon there the preponderance of the evidence be preapplication projects equal our pipeline. those categories are the projects we're aware of due to an official application being filed with the city. something to keep in mind pending projects have an office allocation submitted and preapplication is any projects we're aware of because they have a application submitted where it's at environmental impact report or so on some do the application early and some late. it could be some time out and conversely some in preapplication to end the process to file their office application and can move forward quickly those are go applications are not coinciding
with the timing exactly. before we stipulate on to the large cap it is the issue. right now we have 291 million square feet available and slithering more pending at 2.156 then available and the preapplication over 9 million that means everything that was in the total pipeline that came out today based on the pipeline space we'll be 9 million square feet in the red. there are caveats when we talk about the pipeline it's historically large those represent the maximum for the purposes of environmental review additional a lot of projects due to the market or design review or some other factor organisms the office component slinks it's
important to know that the projects in the pipeline technically couldn't you been approved today they still need a rezoning in center selma and pier 70 and others. all that combines together to the next point the majority of pipeline is going to take years to shore. there are definitely promotions that will be ready soon and projects ready in the next year but a significant chunk that plays anti over a significant amount of years. one of the difficult aspects of the pipeline which it didn't include is projects we don't know brown about yet considering the pace of the applications it's likely had 4 months from now the pipeline is going to grow how much we don't know. the government projects are not required to go through us you
are they come out it's difficult to project for those issues in terms of how much spaces we're going to have in the future but we're going to try to do that anyway. those are using general absorptions and it didn't reading on the screen unfortunately but each column represents the entire pipeline that year a red and pink portion at the top didn't show up on the top unfortunately and the red portion is how many secret that are represented we call mature that year be ready to come for the planning commission and in 2014 we have some projects that are ready to come down by the end of this year by the blue line donates the cat space we'll have in the year 2018 so this
chart is projecting if we kept doing things the way we are doing it now if it's a project we have enough space to allocate everything this year and everything that will mature there and by 2016 we are essentially dealing with the annual limit 6 hundred and 75 square feet hoping to get your allotment and every year past that. one thing that's important to note in terms of the year every year represents an allocation so from october to october and so on the majority of allocation falls in that year. another way to look at the project is the capital planning
the long term view how much we have and how much pipeline we're going to have and taking the long term view of the issue. this pipeline is historic and it's in size so it's interesting to take the long review so for example, if you adapted a policy and created a new artifical cap that said in my given allocation year we're not going to allocate anywhere than 2 hundred thousand plus that smooths out the allocations for several years by 2016 we are dealing with what we get at 8 hundred and 75 thousand square feet even this type of concept it smooths it out we're able to allocate the square
footage. so those numbers are interesting they're not new. we've been seeing this increase for sometime again, the public and press have been seeing it there's been articles we've been receiving a lot of questions, you know, the market is already feeling the pressure of not having enough office space with the rents increasing and the construction is preleased so there's a lot of concern some of the questions we're hearing in the department how long is this cycle going to last this is an issue when the upper trends are going on darndz or leveling off. you know, will this bottle next
increase office space in the city we're seeing the office space regardless of cap probably raising prices in the city if we have a bottles next will it start with the illegal offers conversion and similarly if we have this bottle next will the demands for 0 class a have an effect on b and c so those are many of the questions we're receiving. so we talked about this foreshadowing earlier but we feel like the issues we're facing in the pipeline now is incredibly different than what was faced before in the late 90s and 2000 and 80s for a variety of reasons. one is geography and 85 to 2002
this is everything up to through the.com boom and most of that was downtown. since that time we seen much more disperception from downtown such selma and the mission bay and the pipeline is only be continuing that trend. another thing that's an important difference is the size of the projects in the pipeline we've talked about this comparing the 2000 and 2013 years. so far to date we've allocated 5 projects and in the pipeline we have 9 and if you pump that up to one million square feet historically we've only got up to 4 is didn't take a lot of projects to eat up space in the cap.
and just to look at the geography and on this screen it doesn't show up that well but most people recognizes the bay those yell dots are projects that are approved and some shattering setting in selma and in the mission and mission bay but primarily downtown. if you look at 2013 up to now the small cluster downtown but many more projects in selma and northeast mission and mission bay especially mission bay. if you look at the pipeline it's continuing that freehand you have projects by downtown but having you have a a lot of projects along the street corridors and kind of scattered out if you look at them all together you will see the
pattern the north even if market trend was definitely the trend of '85 to 20024 not necessarily the trend of today so the geography of what we're dealing with in terms of the projects we're dealing with now is different from the projects in the past >> the other volume the last time the planning commission adapted a policy were there was a congest was in 2000 and there were 9 projects if the pipeline now there is 23 so the combines of the issues is the pipeline is historically large. we've seen since 2003 the institutional uses whether it's the federal or regional government or ucsf or others. which is something that wasn't taking much out of the cap in the 80s and 90s.
another important change is the change in the area around downtown. there is a lot more housing in downtown and adjacent to downtown where the hill or mid-market a lot has changed and obviously a lot on the way of projects under construction. and to that end there's different differences in transportation people walking to work we're looking for higher rates in the future and something significant right now in areas where office space is most demanded we either have adapted or are working on long term plans it's not necessarily the same case as in the prior years in the 80s and 90s, the plans were very well thought-out
and inputs from the plans that didn't necessarily have the impacts. so again referencing what other police stations have done whether the bottle next originally in the late these it in the program it was kind of set up it was a competitive pool system kind of an annual thing and it also used the criteria that are called out in section 321 but focused heavy on three of those general plan consistent design and architecture merit where they have a panel that provided recommendations to the planning commission and he then the suitability of location. on all of issues every project was scored. and it was scored using a system of poor, fair, good or excellent and if any project was approved
it this had to score good on those 3 areas. one thing that's interesting other than waiting for a good score this policy and the next one we'll talk about none of those policies had number based scoring systems. and nor did they very specific weights assigned to the criteria. if you look at the 2000 and 2001 policy this was right before you know the year that at 9/11 and a recession after that and the bottle next this year they did the same thing they used the criteria they stayed within the additional criteria they focused within the criteria and the public views and shadow and housing displacement and small
business displacement and loss of historic systems and the pedestrian movements and impediments to the design. the sign the building and the small business and the art have that highlighted in red especially at that time that was what the process was known for a kind of blue ribbon advisors panel that came in and looked at it the design even though there are many things to assess the transit and the small business the design review was the element that stick with people how those projects got approved this was 2000 and 2001 immediately after we went into
subjective criteria and how to weight or rank each factors like good and fair and excellent model do we keep that model or create a new model from there. so again, this is an overview of the program and how it works generally obviously in the future we'll be getting into more detail but at this point we want to open the dialog and talk about the next steps we want feedback and guidance some of the future steps could be public outreach for data request from the commission and public. drafts specifically drafting policy proposals and future hearings on the policy proposals those are the kinds of things we're moving forward and that concludes my presentation. but i think director ram times
to speak >> i realize the program is unique as i think we've said before san francisco is the only city that has the program and the only one similar was portland so we're there are 0 not a lot of examples to look forward i want to call the commissioner attendance the second to the last slide on the new policy consideration we need a discussion open should we change the method and when should we change it today, you've been looking at the projects on a first come, first serve that's our policy and the question at what point in time so you change it and what the consideration for looking at the
policy president chiu you may have seen this coverage that i was not happy about the district of columbia terms that's been floated around in the past nephews a term created in the 80s i believe. but in terms from the earth design it shouldn't be the prime consideration. and i also want to let you know the issue of certain projects otherwise obey mature and going forward anyway we've asked and we have held all projects in the last couple of most in order to look at this issue collectively and there are buildings that would have come to you probably in september or october timeframes we've asked it hold off to look at the projects collectively knowing that the space you loot
let's open this up for public comment >> the hard work was oriented to how the city can accommodate downtown growth at the same time we build housing and transit and have a real understanding of what it takes to add new jobs. because new jobs mean workers and they get through they're working place on the muni or bart. and so prop m was the last step in the picture. was adapted after approximately 10 years of the planning for the downtown plan and more importantly the first step of the downtown plans was really calculating the workforce. there was assumptions made in the square footage of an office building and it was translated
into workers. that translation was used in the housing fee and the office allocation that calculation has gone out of the window. i used to look at a building and so is oh, one hundred thousand square feet and it tralthd into a number of workers bans at some point over 2 hundred and 50 square feet it came down to two hundred and 50 square feet it's gone through the roof partly because people choice to work and we haven't adjusted our housing fees or transit fees in all that time. so it's a different load put on the city for per million square feet of offices in terms of
housing and transit. the first fee imposed because we had a planning commissioner the second one was a blackmailing of the planning department by the board of supervisors they were not going to pass a downtown plan until you passed a housing fee and the third step was dianne feinstein and you need to indoctrinate to the original assumptions on how much housing is needed. and transit thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm john. and one of the several people involved in putting prom m together along with others.
the presentation was informative i want this handout goes through the details it's true as co-sponsor writingy presented there's not going to be at about allocation congest if you precede on our first come, first serve basis there won't need to be one there listless the eir is speed up up as corey said but there definitely would be a big crunch two years from now, when the rezoning is done and the projects finish their irs there will definitely be a crunch there's a quality consist not a beauty contest but the city takes