Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioner raises concerns about PDR-to-office conversions and staff due diligence
Summary
Commissioner Perlman told the Historic Preservation Commission an article alleging project sponsors misrepresented building uses warrants stronger staff verification of PDR (production, distribution, repair) conversions; staff agreed to bring code language and to coordinate a Planning Commission briefing.
Commissioner Perlman told the San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission on June 4 that a recent article in 48 Hills Online suggested sponsors had misrepresented existing uses when seeking conversion of PDR (production, distribution, repair) space to office, and she urged stronger staff verification.
"It felt like we had been significantly lied to by the project sponsor," Perlman said, citing 660 Third Street and other recent conversions. She said at least three projects (665 Third Street, 660 Third Street and 2 Henry Adams) together transferred more than 500,000 square feet of PDR space to office use and that staff reports had not reflected longstanding office tenants. "If the rule requires that there's an economic analysis and there's 0 economic analysis, then we're not doing our due diligence," she said.
Tim Frey, department staff, told the commission he would bring the relevant code language before the commission for a second review and recommended a broader discussion of the commission's expectations when review of change-of-use applications arises. He also said Planning Department staffer Steve Wertheim was scheduled to present an overview of the state of PDR in the city to the Planning Commission on June 12 and that staff would check whether that presentation can be adapted for the preservation commission.
Commissioners asked whether the city attorney could advise on remedies if a prior determination was obtained through false statements; Deputy City Attorney Andrea Risisky said she would research the question and provide advice at a future date.
Perlman urged the commission to consider whether the economic proofs and other required analyses that can be conditions of conversion are being adequately verified before approvals are granted. Staff agreed to follow up with code language and to schedule additional briefings so the commission can determine whether changes in staff process are warranted.
The item concluded as staff agreed to coordinate materials and a future presentation to help the commission assess whether existing procedures adequately protect PDR uses and historic resources.
