comment. the matter was continued to june 12 by a vote of 6-1. and it has been continued since to this date. and commissioner johnson, and richards, neither of you were seated on may first, 2014 in order for you to participate in this item today, or on this item today you need to acknowledge that you able to participate. >> i have. >> i am. >> thank you. >> the creative staff, and property ject for you, is the authorization and request and the authorizations for the proposed project, of 660, third street. and planning, and the proposed seeks of a change in use from the pdr to office use, 803-9 a,

and not otherwise permitted. >> and for example, in the soi, district, it is not permitted unless it is in the landmark. >> and the proposed from each of the sections and 663rd street and they are located on the outside of the office and the sso, and the zoning district and as proposed by the project sponsor, the project includes the change in use of 80,000 of the feed to office use, currently it is used for office use and as outlined. >> the project sponsor created, and the maintenance plan. >> and just identify the conversion to the office use and to further support the preservation, the hnp for the regular, and main nens and the

window and the roof inspection and the signage, and the interpretive exhibit, and several individuals expressed opposition to the project, they existent use, and for the department and just found out that the existing building has been used in the office since 2008 as of september, 11, 2014, the department has not received any written correspondence in support or opposition to the proposed project. since the publication of the support, on may first, 2014, the department has changed the initial recommendation of the proposed project, and recommends approval of up to 49,000, 999 square feet, and 663rd street. and the proval allows for the mix, and providing a mix of uses in the subjected building that is encouraged by the plan, and given the extent of the

office and the department is holding the departments until after the commission's deliberations on this issue, to balance the project with the existing plans, the department recommends altering the project so it will draw from the small allocation program that has ample square footage, the allowance of the square feet of office use will only represent, 4 percent of the available, 1.24 million square feet in the small cap program, as we understand the project may be subject to further compromise on the amount of allocated office use, after analyzing all aspects of the project, the staff recommends approval of 49,999 use on the upper floors and finds the project to be desire and necessary for the neighborhood and sfefkly the project will maintain the square footage for the existing pdr use and promote the office use and throughout the plan and the project is consisting with the landmark and the district

and provides for the building's future maintenance, and the project,al location, of four percent, and currently available for allocation, and finally, the authorization and office space will allow for the businesses in the area which will continue or will contribute to the economic activity. the sponsor is present and is available for questions and this concludes my presentation, thank you. >> thank you. >> so are we taking a presentation from the project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commissioners david silver man on behave of the raven family and we appeared before and we have submitted a lot of of, paper and i am not making a presentation, unless requested. >> okay, do we take the public comment on this item again? >> commissioners? as an agenda item we do open it

up for public comment, and as the chair you have the discretion of limiting the time and maybe reinforcing to the public that if they have made their point, they don't need to make it again. >> so seeing as we have heard this item before, we will open for public comment for two minutes per speaker. >> is there any public comment? >> apologize, there are two speaker cards. >> good afternoon, jim mi co from the south of market, it has become so routine with this department, that when 663 it was on the consent calendar and there after, showing it and that sent the staff back on their heals, kul that naturing in the push back that you

received over show place square. and the growing controversy over the flower mart. the conversation continues and here is where we feel the loss of the commissioner sugaya and borden, and sugaya took the considerable heat from the community because this has been framed as a preservation issue and a decision that the commission has begun to regret. and borden i am out of here in a few weeks and i might as well tell the truth moments asked the staff what is the point of a zoning process, if everyone changes all of the uses before the zoning is even done.

it has been sitting there for illegal for 15 years, to you commissioners i say this is far too important to jam through, the flower mart controversy is probably heading to the ballot and just as with eight washington, and the water front, heights, initiative, this commission should not find itself on the wrong side of history three times in a row. thank you. >> this building has been... i would take the staff seriously if they presented with this,

the history of the building process and, it changed the building, and every permit, and every space, and why did, and why was it signed off by the planning? so that we can do the soul searching for the future, and every building has come in with the illegal uses and you are illegal and watch it be legalized. well, where is the history? i do it sometimes, when i have my physical disabilities, but, the staff does not and, they have a lot more abilities than i do. they have access to the permit records and i am not willing to cut it back, and you should not either, you should say, come back, and how did it get to this state? why did we screw up?

why did no one catch this? the conversion is happening, and so, the same thing is going to happen no matter whether it is a 49,000, square foot or 60,000, office building and i am sorry i don't believe in the planning staff at that level. >> i know that you have heard about it and the importance of it in the south of market, and our proposal has been to you to institute, a use of some of the inclusionary pdr and in the buildings and south of market that come to you for the conversion, or in the demolition and the office space and for that reason, we really need, and we very much support the staff's recommendation,

that the use your prop m, allocation flexibility and authority to in this case, to approve the office, space, in 663rd for just half of the building, 50 percent. and we think that is and then, presumably the top two floors, i would suppose and then the lower two floors would be made pdr. for good. and i think that there will be insure that there will be pdr space for the future it is going to need the space and not the huge space in the past but the well located and the valuable, in the future. and so, we do support the staff recommendation, and it will, of course, be, much easier to enforce the condition if you just do it by floor. and the staff has told us often, that they can't, really enforce, part of a floor, and

doing one thing or another and that is very reasonable and understandable, and so, we support the 50 percent, remaining and 50 percent off of it, and so thank you. >> thank you. >> and there are additional public comment? >> sure. >> and dr.? >> and for the record the reason that the application, and originally made this application was to legalize the space because there were no permits issued for the conversion and they did not redo this unlike the comments we did not review it and the conversion was made a long time ago and without the benefit of the permit. that is why we are here to legalize it. staff's recommendation is to go below, the 50 though square feet to put it in the small cap and per, his recommendations, it would be two floors and he is correct tha, is easier for us to enforce, and it is based on a number of floors, as compared to a percentage of a

building and we will concur with that. >> thank you. >> and for me, i know that pdr is something that we have been grappling with for a while now. we will continue to graple with it as we move further, and the most that i will be willing to allow for the conversion is the two floors and assuming that is the top two floors and i do believe that the rest of the building is currently not, in are not legal, and that i would hope that very quickly, that the department, would take action on that. it is clear that we are looking at the housing and the jobs and that they are effecting the population from the start. and supervisors, cohen and campos and kim, in different ways had strongly, i think,

expressed concerns about the retention and protection of the pdr and we had other projects particularly which involved supervisors cohen and campos, and where the issue of pdr and protection of it and it was important, i had hoped and i am going to ask him to give us an update and that there were some interim, it was to bridge until we have the understanding of the central soma in the making and so we indeed are not just cherry pick one project there and here, and a broader understanding of how we do it. >> could you respond to my question on that? >> i will let the doctor speak. >> my understanding is that supervisor, kim is interested in proposing interim, legislation that would prevent the conversion of the new space until the central soma plan is

adopted and or for the period of 45 days or the plan is adopted. and we have also agreed, and i think that we have discussed here, that we would be looking in the context of this central soma plan and the replacement policy and a one for one replacement policy and we are doing that piece of work and we are happy, you know, as we perceive, and we will be happy to come back to you with the information about that. >> could i ask one additional question. this will fall in the area for which that legislation or draft legislation will be applied,; is that correct?? >> i believe that is correct. >> yes. >> thank you, i appreciate your explanation. >> commissioner antonini? >> this is one of those projects that are hard to explain to anyone from outside of san francisco. and how could you possibly not legalize the use that is existed since the 60s, and in an area, where there is not any pdr, and there is not really the ability for pdr because there is no loading dock and no

parking and it is just a fish out of water and we just approved the feed building just across the street which was a much bigger site, i think and it was the same kind of situation, and in fact, mjb coffee was probably industrial use, long after this one, had begun office use, and the real history here, is it was a warehouse, long, long again, and around the 60s much of it was you know, converted to office, at a time when you probably were permitting was even needed or someone paid any attention to it and they were happy to have a tenant and for a while butterfield was in there and an action house and they left in the 90s and that is when the rest of it became office. >> on the issue of the small cap and large cap, it is convenient, to use a small cap,

and this office is justified and only allowing it to be half of it to be office and make the rest of it to continue to be pdr and it is like taking away the owner's ability to rent the building because he is not going to find the pdr tenants for this building and so it does not make sense and also the entire area, and the central soma is proposed to be, allow the conversions to the officer and the offers are going to be favored in there and we did he want know for sure that that is going to happen but that seems to be what would be log ical things, when you spend a few billion dollars and the issues with the caps has to be resolved and it has to be interpreted in the right way and we have to have more amounts available and we can do that by a better interpretation of what is really available, taking into consideration, the demos and conversion of the buildings from existing, office and non-office use and, it should be added to the amount for prop

m and, there is a possible suggestions about and more when it is occupied, rather than when they are arrived and those are issues for another day. but i think, that it does not make any sense, to not approve this or to approve it at a smaller amount, because you put the project sponsor in a situation, he is kind of stuck with the building as he was in the 90s after well, actually since the days of the warehouse, there was no pdr use if anybody wanted in there and it was kind of a ghost area after the port stopped being very active in the 50 and early 60s and the other thing that we are getting is a million, and 1.5 million in fees, that the city will get by this legalization. and that is not the case and it should have been happening sooner and on the issue of the morton um by kim, it is not there and it is not with us yet.

and i think that we should, and this building, tries to be approved, and i think that if comes after that, and we will deal with that situation and i know that there is a question about using the historic maintenance to be able to convert to office. and but, i think that this building is office already. and it is office in every way and it should be office and so, you really don't even need to utilize that legislation although that was what was proposed by the project sponsor, but just a conversion of the building because it was within the area, that is, you know, going to allow the office and probably does have a lot of office there already. and as was the case with the mjb building and i don't remember that being used or the historic piece and maybe it did.

so i am in favor in the way that it was proposed. >> thank you very much. >> and i would like to echo, at least one thing that the commissioner antonini said that this building as zoned as pdr is sort of, an island in the sea of change. and i am not sure, that i agree that pdr's faith works at this site any more and maybe it did historically but if you look at you know, loading with it on the rich street and who, the actual tenants might be and i am not sure that i am seeing it, but, that is just sort of a personal commentary and i would be supportive of a continuance for a couple of reasons. and the first one is that, you know, i hopefully i am going to start a trend of how i sort of look at these things and i really don't like it when what we are approving, is not in front of us. and we are sort of talking

about it and changing it on the fly. and that really bothers me and the motion that we are looking at in our packet and actually suggests that only 30,000 square feet of the building be retained and the remainder be and have a conditional use authorization to change into office, office space, and then, i heard some public commentary and also some comments, before the meeting where it was half and half and maybe a few floors, and so to me, that is those are three completely different things and i would want to at least have the certainty if we are going to approve the things and what it is that we are approving and right now i have none and for that reason, i might be supportive of a continuance just to get the certainty on what it is that we are approving. >> the second thing is, and i do agree with the thinks things

that are out there and letting 663rd street be included in the rest of our planning process, and you know the central soma plan is going to be an over all philosophy on where, do the different uses belong in the neighborhood than it has been in the past and i think that we will end up probably coming to the same conclusion that this particular building, and at this point in time, might be better as office space, but it might also be the case that we might benefit from from the pdr replacement and what is included in the plan that will allow us to replace the space in the other areas that we would not have the ability to do by just approving the authorization for this particular project and for those two reasons, sort of inconsistency and what it is that we are approving and the second being that we might get the greater benefit from including this building as part of the general planning process, and i would be

supportive of a continuance, >> commissioner hillis. >> this is an interesting case and in the zone thing and enforce the pdr, i mean if we offer the option, and the office and the housing, and the people obviously have a lean toward the more economical uses or the more, you know, the better revenue, uses. and such as office areas and that is why we are seeing the legal conversion and that is not how much that we kind of stick to the rules and enforce what is out there and it is interesting and we have heard from sf made and others, that there isn't enough pdr that the people are looking for the space and i some what disagree that this building can't be in the pdr because i think that the pdr of today is going to be different than the heavy and industrial uses that we have seen. in the past. >> so, you know, and

complicating this and this is coming in a time where there is the legislation being proposed and hopefully it will kind of clean this up, in the direction and which i, and i applaud, supervisor kim for doing, because i think it is hard to justify, kind of the historical reason for being able to convert this space, to office use, and then i think that is kind of a, pretty large, you know there is not analysis necessarily on how much it will cost to rehab these buildings, and in keeping them, and the pdr, and you know i like, what the staff is and what the staff is recommending and which i think is pretty in the feet and i would go further and kind of echo what he says indirect and trying to make that, and manageable and keep it to a, you know, it is probably analogus to what we saw before, where we were trying to encourage people to build in the space by such, of the

building and building the new office space and i guess that my concern is if we passed it and we thought that allows the two and requires two pdr floors of office, currently this building is all office and anything that is considered pdr? >> and these are not, and these are not, these are not legal non-conforming use and they are not really, and >> and the only method for us to be permitted if it is within a landmark building and it receives the conditional use from the commission. >> the fact that it was in back, and you know, years ago, and when that might have been allowed? and i mean that there is not,... >> and well, the slr and we know that there was a auction house that was previously there and it was a pdr. >> the zoning here prior to the pdr. >> well... >> the sli has been around

since the 90s. >> okay. >> and i will refer to jilian on this. >> okay. >> sli zoning when is sits on the south of market controls and in 1985 approximately. >> right. >> and in then, and then what happens so, you know, i am concerned, and if we go half and half there is no, you know, they will just the path is legal and the half that will continue to operate illegally, and what happens to that, and what do we do about that other. >> we will be working with the project sponsor to kind of rectify the issue. we will go through the normal proceedings to basically correct the illegal portions of the building. >> if i may clarify that the staff recommendation was for 499, and what has come before you, is the idea of doing it and what is coming down to

40,000 square feet. and so it would be a slight reduction from the staff recommendation and that 40,000, and so the idea would be simply to reduce it by making it two nrars and i commented on that because it is easier to do it by floors and the recommendation and the written report is 499. and the commission to chose to reduce that number or to increase it per your reference. >> and just, to add to that, the direct motion does have findings for addressing the mixed building and so regardless of what the number is, it address is, a mix between the pdr as well as office space. within the project. >> commissioner richards? >> i echo commissioner moore's comments about meeting the diverse economy and having the different kinds of job bases because if we put our eggs in one basket and we have some type of a down turn like any of the streets like when new york has the stock and melt down, and it is not good for us, and just in fact this week, san francisco business times, from the front page article was pdr

space is at such a premium the people are leaving the city and we can't use those first two floors, for the pdr and in fact i did, i did something that myself and i did it and i did some other things and the pdr, and not the pdr of yesterday and i agree with commissioner hillis. and one thing that i am worried about and i can echo the commissioner johnson's thoughts is if we go ahead and approve the conversion and the central plan gets adopted what are the things that could have benefited pdr that we are giving up today for doing it, or give it up tomorrow for doing it today? >> does anybody have an idea? and can you help me out? >> it is proposed in the central soma plan and something that will augment if we give up the space that it could be created somewhere else and i am not familiar with it. >> it is not established yet, that is a policy that work on, and off sight, do you replace it off site?

and we looking at all of that. >> okay, great. >> it will continue to operate. >> we will proceed with the enforcement action and typically when we do the enforcement case, the goal is to bring the building into compliance, and having the commission approved, the full 80,000 square feet would have brought them into compliance, and that is on the avenue and right. and so baring that, we will then proceed with the enforcement on however much space cannot be converted. >> i get a sense from the other commissioners not ruling for this is a drastic move. and if you cut it in half, it is the best of the wester. >> so i support president wu's. >> and commissioner antonini? >> you know, i think that there is a need to maintain the pdr and there is a shortage of space, but, we have outlined

some and of course we have all of the core pdr areas that are out there, and caesar chavez and that area of the city that have plenty of space out there to put more pdr in, and so i ink that you have to have to have areas that are similar, for example if you go to denver, the lodo area is all warehouses and similar to what we have in the..., say, and i don't think that any of them, they have all been converted to office and entertainment and housing, and a lot of other things, and this is what is going to be happening with this area for a good reason and i mean that there might be a possibility though. that you could find, some pdr uses, and fit into this building. >> i don't know i think that

they will have enough of the operation that will be considered pdr to be considered pdr. >> and i am not saying this they would come, but i could see some of these numbers, that might have put their operational, or office part of your component in their conjunction with setting up their production back in san francisco, again, and mr. silver man, could i ask you a question? >> so, in terms of the subject, sponsor, you know, what? what would be the preference? and some of the past where you legalize part of this or would you rather have a continuance or would you like to see what happens down the road and i know that the answer is, convert it all to the office, but it does not seem like it is going to happen. >> my sense is their moving on the direction of the