already had an interview with the business times magazine on this very issue. also, another new method we are willing to pursue is to collaborate with local organizations and the mayor's office of economic and workforce development. this will help us reach out to businesses that need to apply for this program, because they were not aware of it. in summary, the commission recommends approval with modifications of the proposed ordinance. the recommended modifications would include increased opportunities lengthening the window for initial request an

increase structure for achieving legitimization by adding a timeline for submitting applications. a member from the supervisor's office would like to express her thoughts on this. >> thank you for hearing this item. planning staff has already articulate to the ordinance before you today, as proposed to be modified. it would be a six month extension to the eastern neighborhood legitimization neighborhood, and when the application materials need to be submitted to the department. this was an ordinance the supervisor introduced at the request of the eastern neighborhoods supervisory committee, who had expressed concerns in wanting to have a little more time. i know we share the desire to have a little more time to work with the department, the mayor's

office, the small business commission, and the eastern neighborhood citizens advisory commission to do additional outreach to not only property owners, but tenants of those businesses as well, who may not own the buildings that occupy. i think a couple years into the eastern neighborhoods plan, we have a better idea of where some of those businesses are located, and wanted to have an opportunity to spend a little more time with them, to understand why they had not yet sought legitimization. was there barrier? this time extension, i think, allows us to work with the department on that type of outrage.

-- out reach. president miguel: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? >> sue hester. other than developer's attorney, and probably the only one who reads these requests and tries to read the files. i applaud the deadline. i think the deadline for taking out a permit is needed and is really appreciated. here are my observations. the staff work on this is very uneven. there is a tendency to take as gospel that which is submitted by the developer. there is less of a tendency to actually pull all the permits. i have made repeated attempts

with ddi -- dbi to have an explanation of what the term "office" uses in a building permit. factories always tend to have an office, and the offices tend to be remodeled in to take out a permit. that is extraordinarily spotty checking of actual plans. the building permit office was a 200 square foot an entire floor. i am getting tired of being lead detective on all of this stuff. it is derek expensive for me to pull up records, because staff can pull them up for free, but the public cannot. i am disheartened. i have been dealing with conversions throughout the 90's, when we had the dotcoms in the

south of market and the north mission. we are extending this some more. at a certain point, i have to say any lip service given to the importance of pdr is just lip service. we do not have any view for the economy of the city other than office space. it is like putting your head against the wall to get a decent staff report on some of these cases. i do not think anyone has any idea what is going on. the summit administrator is the person who issues them. this is a foregone conclusion. i could give a little thought to a 90 day you have to take your permit out, but i keep hoping

that the staff work will be done. president miguel: is there additional public comment on this item? if not, public, it is closed. commissioner borden: i want to thank staff. last week, we had a hearing on the eastern neighborhoods progress. these issues to come up. staff, maybe you can talk a little bit about the process for legitimization, where people file an application, and the process the department takes to investigate, the claims at the head office and how that works. >> i will refer that to the person who does the permit review. >> cory teaghe, for staff. the legitimization process has a couple of steps. the first is to file the request

to the department, particularly these only administrator. that letter, for all intents and purposes, is like other issues. it then be appealed. there are specific eligibility requirements to be eligible for this program. the letter simply states whether or not we determine, based on the evidence, that this project is eligible. once that laughter is issued, it is up to project sponsor to file the appropriate applications to establish the office use, or would ever use that are legitimizing as the use on record. more than 25,000 square feet require an office allocation which has to come for your approval. we have had one of those already. beyond that, we have to file a

zoning permit to legally change the used to office space. it is a two or three step process. that is essentially the process. commissioner borden: can you address the evidence on file question? is it what we have in our own department records, based on building permits that were polled? i guess there has not been that many, so i guess we could do it. >> there has been enough. the key is that it is not necessarily based on what was permitted, but based on how the property was actually used. the concept of the program is the fact that they were using the property for a way they never got permits for. a specific time in the past, were you using this space as office space primarily, or whatever you are trying to legitimize?

lease agreements are very helpful. we also have marketing information, telephone information, business licenses, assessors' data. we don't discriminate. whatever information we can get from the sponsor or that we have within our records as well that can help indicate that that property was being used. but if -- we can check with various permit holders, and many are disappointed it is for the manager's office and not the entire factory. >> are there five or 10 items to check -- commissioner borden: are there five or 10 items to

check, and if you took three boxes, that are eligible? >> there is nothing in the code, and there is no specific checklist that you must have this exact piece of documentation. it is weighed on a case by case basis, and every case is of little different. sometimes, we have clearly is an inflammation that shows how it was being used. sometimes, we have to piece together multiple pieces of evidence. the man and be a smoking gun, but together, the paint the picture. ultimately, the zone and administrator has to make that call. -- the zoning administrator has to make the call. commissioner borden: i don't know whether there should be a checklist of the top 10 -- the marketing materials, lease agreements, electrical bills,

and things like that? there would be a checklist. maybe if that checklist were made available -- it also says in the legislation we have and the article in the new york times, there was confusion with property owners about the process and whether the property would be eligible. creating a list of criteria -- i am not saying what it would be -- and then releasing that to the public, that would give transparency not only to the general public, but allow property owners to determine whether there was evidence the property fell into this category. >> it is a combination of a typical evidence that is used. every case is a little different.

these letters, opposed to a regular letter of determination, it is we do a 30 day notice. even though it is not required in the code, we send a copy of the draft letter so that people can see what we are basing a decision on. so the letters themselves to actually list what had been provided, to document how they meet eligibility requirements. i think it would be reasonable to prepare a checklist of common documents that are used to determine eligibility. commissioner borden: i do grant making as part of my jobs. we have a list -- it your address does not list -- does not match your 501c3 designation, and so on. it is helpful to have that. maybe they would know they have a space that would qualify, or

the general public would understand how we are making decisions and it would diminish the appearance of subjectivity, which always is out there. i support the legislation. there is always a chicken and egg thing whenever there is a deadline. there is a florida of activity around the deadline because a lot of people are pressed and letters. it is never one to be enough time and a lot of people will apply at the last minute. to the extent that it was a few years ago since the letters went out, and we have recent activity, extended its six months, looking at whether it makes sense to do that further -- maybe if we add this checklist, it would be great to see what happens, the consequence of such a checklist, if it increases the number of applicants, or whatever. those are my thoughts. commissioner antonini: what you

are up there -- sorry. i think we are dealing with is uses prior to eastern neighborhoods. they could have office. there was not a lot of restrictions. these are nonconforming in regards to the eastern neighborhoods said in which as been passed. >> correct. specifically, that are situations with m1 and m2 zoning. the were requirements to establish office space, including impact fees and other things that would be triggered through the permitting process that these projects did not go through and pay. the u.s. would have been permitted. that is the concept of the amnesty program. you would have been permitted, but now you have been rezoned. if you do not have this outlet, bad deals with this issue.

commissioner antonini: i was part of the eastern neighbor of discussion. many of us felt the demand was not as great as was allowed in the eastern neighborhoods. i think that has proved to be true. we are been more than accommodated in the area set aside for pdr, especially in neighborhoods to the south that are almost entirely industrial. we have to have the ability to address the changing needs of businesses to come into san francisco. whether they fit into the available space -- they may be knowledge-based or tech or some other things. we have to look at this carefully. in regards to this particular

issue, i think the longer time is certainly warranted. up to perhaps a year, which would make it january 1, 2013. i think we have to look at the fees and see if these fees are realistic on the legalization. on doing some calculations, i think we are looking at $10 to $12.56 per square foot to legalize. that was set at 2006, the top of the market. if you run the numbers on that, for 50,000 square feet, you would pay $625,000. i am not sure if that is realistic or not. certainly, that is something that should be looked at. at least maybe the conformity could be phased over a longer time. certainly, we need to make them

pay. if there is office space, if there is a requirement, and they find that usage, that has to be done. but is this the right number? how quickly does it have to be paid? these are important things to look at. i would certainly favor at least a six month time, and even a year, to be able to resolve that. this is important to make sure things are properly zoned, even though we are not going to resign eastern neighborhoods. we need to make sure interpretations are correct as to what we are calling office space, what conforms and does not conform to previous uses. those are my general comments. commissioner borden: i would approve with modifications by staff.

>> that motion passes unanimously. now believe we can move on to the regular calendar this is an ordinance introduced by a supervisor -- by a supervisor -- by supervisor elsbernd and certain automobiles hills and rental and -- in nc-s dis tricts. >> that stands for a neighborhood shopping center districts.

there are 28 properties zoned nc-s, spread evenly through the city. given the layout, which usually includes large servers parking lots, and that this was intended for car-oriented shoppers, allowing car sales could be compatible. however, not every district is suitable for automobile sales and rental, which is why requiring conditional use authorization is essential in ensuring that each proposal is consistent with the zoning, and considered on a case by case basis. department recommends approval of the proposed ordinance. that concludes my presentation. president miguel: thank you. is there any public comment on this item?

>> good afternoon. i am deedee workman. we have been working for almost a year with supervisor elsbernd and his staff. which support this amendment and urge you about it. there are relatively few shopping centers in san francisco with a large parking lot that accommodates more than enough cars. there is ample space for a business like you call -- like u-haul. there is none nearby, so residents have to drive to pacifica to rent u-hauls. allow an auto rentals and sales of conditional use is good economic policy for the city. we will establish neighborhoods serving small businesses and

employ business to the neighborhoods. this is a win for our neighborhood shopping centers, job seekers, and san francisco. not all conditional neighborhood commercial shopping districts are suitable for auto sales and rentals, but some are. we urge you to recommend adoption of this code amendment to the board of supervisors land use committee. president miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment? if not, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini: i think this is an excellent idea. i know the particular location, and there is more than enough space. it might help businesses bring activity, because it is pretty hidden and people do not know it is there. we lose business in san francisco by not having some of

these uses. i moved to approve. -- move to approve. commissioner wu: i have a staff question. i see the example of the nee for a car rental, but with the inclusion of automobile sales? >> is one used in the code -- it is one use in the code. commissioner wu: thank you. commissioner antonini: commissioners, i have a motion. commissioner borden: i will second. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner wu: aye. president miguel: aye. >> that motion passes unanimously. that pleases you on item 15. there was a request from supervisor campos to continue

this item. i have received word that the project sponsor has agreed to such a continuance. >> larry bad dinner -- baddiner. we will agree to a continuance. we ask that it be held march 15. i was just having a discussion with oscar grande. we were close to reaching that agreement. he is out there, and i would like pull him in and let him know what is happening. >> the 15th is technically not closed. you could continue to that date, efficient use. -- if you so choose.

>> good afternoon. my name is oscar grande. i am an organizer for economic rights. there are five leaders concerned about the project. about a continuing state -- we are ready to roll right now. we have been doing a lot of outreach in the community. we are ready to tell you our concerns and how we can make this a much better project. but if commissioners are not ready or staff is not ready, we can move it toward the 15th. i think for a few of us it might be a complication, with child care and work and all that, but we would be comfortable with it. talk to my people. president miguel: thank you. commissioner antonini: that

being said, i think in a letter from commissioner campos -- supervisor. i am sorry. supervisor campos. in his district, the project lies. we always prioritize the requests of supervisors. i would move to continue to march 15. >> before we take that motion, could you take public comment on the continuance? president miguel: is there additional public comment on continuing the item bespeaks if not, public comment is closed. we have a motion. commissioner borden: second. >> on the motion to continue to march 15 -- commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioenr moore: aye. commissioner fong: aye. president miguel: ayewelcome ba.

i like to remind everyone to turn off any mobile devices that make sound off during the proceedings. when speaking to that commission spector the into the microphone. we will continue with the regular calendar. item 16, case 2011. request for a conditional use authorization. kraska afternoon. a trout -- part of before you is a request for the proposed project at 14 01 howard st.. pursuant to planning code, the proposed project 62 change the use of the building to office resale -- retail. 1401 howard street is landmark number one 20 is located outside of the designated historic district and outside the service of his sister. that building is vacant.

the project would result in 18,002 marder 60 square feet of office space, 1300 square feet of retail and 2500 square feet of assembly space. key components include the repair and repetition of the exterior, strengthening of the of church and construction of an interior freestanding mezzanine. the historic preservation commission reviewed the proposed projects and granted a certificate of appropriateness for exterior work is provided a determination of the ability to enhance the feasibility of preserving the building. they review proposed a -- i found the part of to be compliant with secretary of interior standards and noted their strong support for the efforts of this prius. as noted in the staff report of the department has received several phone calls on the project in one letter of support

which has been included in your packet. , focused on the request for additional information and clarification of the assembly use. after analyzing all the aspects of the project, this department finds the project to be desirable and necessary. the project would rehabilitate a city landmark and would maintain the property's historic character and address the deteriorated state of the building if been. including the existing windows and architectural elements. it would maintain the economic base and promote use throughout the south of market neighborhood as noted. this concludes my presentation. thank you. >> brajah sponsor. -- project sponsor.

>> ia m the -- i am the project sponsor along with brian spears. the project started as a residential project but what we realized after working with staff and is maintaining the grandeur is an important element. we created a new design which is in front of you. that is to take a building completed in 1913 in need of a seismic upgrade and make it a 22,000 square foot office building with all the associated uses. in working with planning staff and trouble we have come up with a solution for this building that is unique and will take care of the blighted corner. this property has been blighted for 25 years. it has been vacant for 25 years. what we have