Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Office Capacity topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning Commission weighs Prop M office-cap options, favors moving ready projects forward while studying policy changes

San Francisco Planning Commission · October 2, 2014
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Planning Department staff briefed commissioners on the office development annual limit (Prop M) and large-cap pipeline; commissioners favored allowing projects ready to proceed on a first-come/first-served basis but asked staff to return with stricter performance/revocation analysis and potential allocation criteria in early 2015.

Planning Department staff presented updated accounting and projections for the Prop M office-annual-limit program, noting separate small- and large-cap pools and a projected large-cap decline in availability by 2016 if current pipeline events occur as forecast.

Corey Tee explained that, after adding the October allotment, the department's current tracking shows approximately 2.1 million square feet in the large cap and an estimated pipeline that could reduce available large-cap space substantially in 2016. Staff laid out three broad options for the commission: maintain the status quo (case-by-case on a first-come/first-served basis); adopt a competitive-pool policy (periodic rounds with specific additional criteria); or tighten performance-period enforcement and revocation rules to reclaim unused allocations.

Developers and project proponents in public comment urged caution about adopting a competitive-pool restriction now, saying the near-term supply (about 3 million square feet available through next allocation) should allow projects ready to proceed to be reviewed. Others recommended clarified priorities (transit-supportive projects, projects providing PDR or affordable housing elements), and stronger performance enforcement to prevent long-term hoarding of allocations.

Commissioners generally favored allowing projects already in the queue to proceed while asking staff for more analysis and the city attorney's opinions on recapturing allocations tied to conversions and prior changes of use. The commission asked staff to return in early 2015 (quarterly check-in) with options that may include a stricter performance period, criteria for any competitive pool, and a list of long-dormant allocations that might be candidates for revocation or review.