street, historically known as the dunham and carrygan building. since the last hering the attorney's office has issued a draft designating ordinance, which was included in your packet. the ordinance require that the owners adhere to programs at a future day-to-day. copies of the draft signed program available for your review. the department will forward the recommendation to the supervisors. this building is important for its association for events and architecture. the only remaining company the business that contributed directly through its products for the gold rush and re/skr*ubgs of the city.

the building was assigned by architect in 1915 in the early 0th century american commercial style and features /h*efly timber frame masonry construction. the department finds the landmark to be consistent with the general plans objective to policy four to preserve notable landmarks of historic architectural value and policy number 7 which states that lands mark and historic buildings be preserved. the department sign showplace square hill area plans object to eight policy two to pursue formal designation of the showplace square resources and objective 8.6 policy one, public awareness and /praoergs appreciation of those resources.

the property owners filed for an office /al /kwaeugs case for the property. the january 15 case report was updated to reflect this change. the office would be converted from its current zoning to an office use due to its landmark status. the applicant shall be. this concludes my presentation. the project sponsors are available if you have any questions. thank you. >> thank you. commissioners, any questions? i do for the sponsor. because we had comment last time on the concern of the design district, i know this is not -- i'd like the sponsor to comment because i found their solution interesting to keeping of cohesiveness of the design district, because it is important so if you could comment on that. >> president hasz, larry bad /tpher. we had prepared a very brief

presentation addressing that and some other items. we appreciate the opportunity to be here, we appreciate the work that director ran, coordinator fry and susan parks has done. i'm larry from badner planning and shawn murphy is here who will address most of those concerns. there were two basic issues that were raised, i think at the last hearing. one was what about pdr and what about the intent of the district here and the second was what about the existing signs that were done on the site and what are the perm /tphapbs for that, have you researched that, and we assured you at the time that in fact those permits were legal. we have a presentation and i think they were submitted by miss parks. before turning it over to shawn i'd like to talk a little bit

about pdr and what the idea of production distribution was design in this district, pdr 1d that's the showplace design district, that specifically recognizes that lands marks are allowed to convert to more broad uses than non landmark buildings, recognizing the importance of preservation in the city. this is not the only district that allows that. south of market allows that, the urban mix use district allows it and in fact they allow it for buildings that are not landmarks so this is the highest stan /tkartd standard that one has to go through if you're doing that. the proposal is to the office proposal, which while technically not before you i think it is important for you to understand the pdr issues. proposes to maintain the showroom uses on the ground floor and over time convert the 245,000 square feet remaining at the top /tphror so it's a

time based process and the ground floor will remain showplace so as one walks around the area it will look like showplace square. the project sponsor also controls 101, henry adams, the galleria, there's an opportunity to combine uses as this transitions, those move more to 101 henry adams. we've reached out to neighborhoods and our understanding is both groups are very supportive of this process, both the landmark in which they say is very important and as the transition to office use. i'd like to turn it over to shawn murphy. >> good afternoon, commissioners, shawn murphy, bay west development. we own the property in question 2 henry adams and 101 henry adams, which is the galleria.

i think it'd be helpful to give a little background about this design center community, not only in san francisco, but on a nationwide trend. there has been considerable traction across the board -- you can point to seattle, boston, los angeles, all of which are operating at 40 to 50 percent occupancy. that contraction is really a factor of two different conditions. it's the overall economy, but also the changing mind set of that user and their -- the internet and their immediacy for good has taken a massive role in this contraction of the design center so san francisco is not immune to that. the design center district as a whole -- there's about 100 to 75,000 square feet of available pdr in that area.

one of the benefits that we have is that we have two buildings and our plan is that we will crystallize the galleria, 101 henry adams and make that the showroom show piece to keep the integrity of the design center district really vital. we we've been in this neighborhood and don't plan on leave. we don't want to change the galleria. we want that purely as a showroom building. as harry was saying, that ground floor condition into henry adams will remain showroom. that connection, that pedestrian connection to that ground floor is really important and that window line of active showroom space is also very important to us. so invite any questions and

happy to answer. the last piece of it, i think is important to understand is that we have tenants in this building that are here through 2017, they're here through 2022. while there will be an office application which is in process, it'll be before the planning commission, this is not a project that will all the sudden turn into office. it will be a transition over time, complimentary users that can go exist together with the showroom tenants and at such time that we relocate and try to stabilize the galleria, any of those costs to relocate those tenants would be born by us, never born by the tenants. but our intent is to continue a really vibrant neighborhood for long term. >> thank you. commissioners, any questions or

staff response? commissioner pearlman? commissioner johnck. >> two things, you know, given the grand importance of what we're doing here, i was looking for some discussion of a public interpretation exhibit. i realize you're doing signage for tenant information and that kind of thing, but is there any plan for public interpretation plaque, exhibit or something. that's number one. and second thing, why you always say in the motion, number six, where as the historic preservation commission 2 henry adams /straoets appears to meet the eligible requirements? why not meets the eligibility requirements. it's my opinion they do, and i'm making the motion along

with you. >> we can change that. to my knowledge /thr-sz no intent to create an interprettive exhibit at this time. >> i'd love to see something. >> yeah. >> if other commissioners agree. >> i would endorse that we make sure that every building has some kind of identification as to why it's a land mark. mark. that'd be great as a condition. >> thank you. >> i thank you very much for the background and i have spoken with mr. badner in the past about this and i do have a question, and again, it's not in our purview because it's planning commission and issue about when you convert all this to office, i mean, isn't there a much higher intensity of parking use because showrooms, of course, are very lightly populated, you know, the amount of square footage because of

all the display and you only have customers once in a while so is there going to be some accommodation for that? >> that raises an interesting point, except for in the eastern neighborhood essentially what happened and what the city has been moving towards is rather than parking requirements, but parking maximums and in fact, there is no parking requirement in the eastern neighborhoods for this conversion. yes, there will be higher density employment, which is a good thing, but we will not be providing particularly any new parking. there's not a -- literal on the site without damaging the building. one of the things we're doing is there's a triangle that has some almost loading parking. we're converting that to open space and something a little bit more useful and mechanical for the building, but we're not adding any parking and that's not what the planning code

calls for or wants. we are working with the surrounding neighbors in terms of supporting muni and providing something in addition to muni if that's appropriate. you know, private shuttles and such like that. i'm not going to say anymore about private shuttles. [laughter] >> i think that the report that the commission and department have been working toward lowering parking on site for a lot of obvious reasons so we actually do encourage for project sponsors to look at alternatives. we also have substantially increased the bicycle parking requirements in the last few years. some of the recent projects have shown is that about 1/3 of workers are riding bicycles to work, which is a very high percentage so we are finding that limiting parking works in a number of ways, most of important is which is does not

increase traffic congestion. >> thank you. a: >> thank you. >> just a friendly reminder when making your motion, if there is an interest in amending the resolution to include an interprettive display, that we specify that should be publicly accessible. that's it. >> thank you. so right now we'll take public comment. any member of the public wish to comment on this agenda item? >> good afternoon. i own a business operating at the subject property, which among many other businesses, will unfortunately be forced out of san francisco. i oppose the landmark status and urge the commission to consider the implication of the decision in san francisco, the

residents and its businesses. the fact is that landmark requests by the exploits a loophole within the city planning /tkpwo*fpbing body. more specifically, the landlord, which is intends to circumvent the restrictions of pdr use and begins the initial phase of converting more than a quarter million of showroom space into office space. the desired outcome here is doubling the rent and maximizing the profits. to the /skwremen, you know, there is no transition that i know of. i've been given 30 day notices. what the benefit of the landlord is obvious, i think it's very difficult to see the value that the city may gain. the building has been a design center for the /kwaeus has not changed during the past 30

years . it will most likely remain in tact for another 30 and there is no evidence whatsoever to the contrary to its architectural appearance. i'm sure you're well aware the property is central to the thriving design center community and it is in fact, a destination for interior home if your furnishings throughout the state. we have national and international clients that come to the city for shopping. to exploit the loophole the designation i believe is among many other businesses is bad for california, worse for san francisco and certainly terrible for businesses. i think it sets a wrong precedent in the district with implications to the city. i urge the commission to disapprove the recommendation

and recommend an oversight committee to look into the overall impact in an effort a address the loophole. we need a bit of cooperation to make -- if the designation is a landmark it should only be approved under the conditions that it continues operating under pdr. for the public who has the right to adjudicate the matter is frankly, ebb entrusting you. >> can we ask the name of your business? >> my name is rafat last name shaheen. >> and what's your business? >> it's home furnishing

business and the company is j edge. >> okay, all right, sir. >> thank you. any other member of the public wish to speak on this item? please come up. >> the other mic please. >> i just dropped in. i'm just wondering how many have public access which is for the handy cap to this building. that's what i was just wondering, how many entrances, you know, was -- will accommodate the handicap and physically disabled. >> thank you. any other member of the public wish to speak on this item?

>> my name is david dixon and i have a showroom on the second floor, approximately 22,000 square feet and we have been in this location for almost 30 years and are quite concerned about the possibilities of relocating to the galleria. at this juncture, the galleria's about 95 percent rented, as far as i'm aware. the ability to move my facility there is non existent at this point. the other options are minuscule. it took us decades. we were one of the first tenants in the showplace building and it took decades to get our business established and to get designers willing and able to walk across the street from the gal leria to shop and we've created a $10 million a year business and now

it's in jeopardy and i'm very concerned about that and what our options are at this point. >> thank you. any other member of the public wish to speak? please come up. >> hello, my name is jennifer davidson, i reside in the city. i'm a recently graduated interior designer and i also wanted to speak on the topic of the conversion to the office use because i have just gun to start my career in the design industry and i see this as an incredibly valuable resource for current and future designers and i feel that it would be damaging to remove that accessibility for incoming designers to learn more about their craft and to have contact with business people such as these in that space, which is currently very nice and is a

historic spot, but the current business is important and future business as well. so i oppose the office allocation portion of this. >> thank you. any other member of the public wish /o speak. seeing none, we'll close public comment and bring back to commission. commissioner pearlman. >> thanks very much everybody for your presentation. i was the one who brought up the whole issue about losing the design showroom space and i didn't know mr. dixon, thank you for the information, if that's true about the 101 henry adams being 90 or 95 percent occupied, it leaves -- you know, this is my concern is that these businesses will no longer be able to operate in san francisco because i imagine getting 22,000 square feet, you know, that's somewhere related to the design industry is

probably not possible in this neighborhood. so -- and then mr. shaheen also, i'm wondering about the /phrarpb plan that was put forward. what you said was you're going to get a 30 day notice to leave and that doesn't sound much like a transition plan at all. you know, while i understand the parking issues, 250,000 square feet of office space is going to generate a lot of people and that's a whole planning code issue that we have nothing to do with, but i understand the loophole in the code because we have the opportunity but at the same time it is a historic resource already, and any changes to that building would have to go through the /skaout any of our whole code and review process so, you know, i'm just really torn about this because i

really see that -- you know, and i understand that, you know, starting ten years ago i had an interior design partner and in 2001, 2002, 2003 , the internet had a huge impact on our business and ability and need for focused design center space and that was, you know, ten years ago, the /#12* years ago, but clearly if one building is 95 percent full, i don't know how full the 2 henry adams building is. in a way it'd be nice to do the reverse where all the design goes into the henry adams building because that's such a nice building and the 101 henry adams is the one that might turn over, even though i suspect that is historic as well. obviously it's the show piece of showplace square is 2 henry adams because of its location and its prominence in design so

i am very torn about this. it doesn't seem clear to me that exploiting this particular loophole is really gaining anything. it feels like we're actually losing something if we're losing these businesses when the building would be maintained and taken care of anyway because you have a 30 year owner who says they're going to stay in this neighborhood and not let their building deteriorate so i'm not sure what we gain by landmarking this if it's already at historic resource that has the protections of our process. that's my take. thank you. >> mr. fry. >> commissioners, tim fry, department staff, just to clarify a couple points. the provision to convert the building to offices is a very specific incentive that was created as part of the eastern

neighborhood's rezoning to give flexibility to historic buildings that generally have a hard time to reuse in a sensitive manner. to clarify that is not currently provided to this building. as a historic resource it's identified in a survey so any changes to the building, including signage, would be reviewed by preservation staff, but that does not preclude any alterations to be proposed in the future. maybe not under this current owner, but maybe 30 years from now that could be detrimental or if seqa were to review and /e collude the review of

historic resources. >> not likely. >> just to clarify, article ten has a very separate sort of meaning than just a historic resource for the purposes of seqa. >> thank you. my comment -- i spent a little time in the area because of the concern of are we going to keep the design center area as a center or are we breaking it up. i believe the sponsor spoke to this, but there's 150,000 square feet would be my rough estimate of open space in that area. i know when the page family bought 200 kansas street i walked it with the family, but that was half full, half not. it is a tough situation here because you have a building that's been identified as a cornerstone of the design center, however the rest of the design center is also pdr.

how do we help those landlords fill those spaces? from people in in building partially? yeah. i'd say we're at the height of design business right now. it doesn't seem that it would expand too much more. we're booming here locally so i think it's a overall pdr question as well. you know, is there enough pdr to fill all these spaces or not so director ram. >> yeah, we're still looking. i mean, obviously you're looking at whether this building is eligible to be a landmark. some of the things we're looking at is the pdr uses citywide. some parts of the city it's growing and some parts of the

city there's a lessening demand for pdr. 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 think i said at the other hearing, we're going to have the change the name of showplace square if all these businesses move out into a different area or disappear entirely we're not showplacing. relating to what president hasz said about the other 150,000 square foot of other space, and mr. dixon, i don't know if that's useful to you, if there are spaces that meet that scale of your business, but, you know, i think it is part of the larger question of if you're

two blocks away from 2 henry adams that won't be particularly useful. /kwrorpbgs you know, if they could meet 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 requirements for landmark status in a very big way and i support the staff recommendation to designate the landmark and i will make two