an expectation we were an office principally permitted district and san francisco historic preservation commission has infected or the sponsor of the moratorium of the central plan area this project is no the in the central selma area the second zone highly produced area is no subject to pdr measures we've benefit lvns to the commission very careful and the developing censures skefrnz of the commission as a result we're maintaining a ground floor of pdr as part of the project that's 14 thousand 5 hundred square feet of pdr square space swore been working to identify the pdr tenants it is not easy but we did identify two, that

will occupy the balance of the space the first one is an electronic car charging company they work with retailers and malls and local governments to small electric cars stations for free getting paid by the advertising on the car and they'll be conducting those on site and have a schoerl showroom to represent tare products and the rest of the space will be right now, we're working with a wine wholesaler that will be connecting the wine industry and the commercial storage of wine for over flow and possible educational opportunity for folks in winemaking i also want to mention that keeping the ground floor on pdr this brings up it outside of the large allocation for prop m so

this project will not be taking office that's it space that's obviously visa expensive and as major projects come your way i do want to speak to the previous tenants in the building that's been brought up by folks the project sponsor is sensitive to their needs and generous all tenants received 8 months of the project sponsors intentions to renovate the building most were allowed to stay throughout the period of this notice period the project sponsor loud other tenants to leave their leases early without punishment or keeping on the hook for rent and also there's an a significant amount of unpaid back rent the

sponsors forgave and illustrating that you've got a in front of you sdais their concerns this is a legal change of use all impact fees are going to be paid n this includes all the eastern neighborhood fees over $800,000 will be paid no new contradiction the fees will apply and this brings the building in consistent with the planning code so one of the other things and that's been brought up the issue of permitting in this building so i wish mr. sanchez we are here this is stripping not that uncommon south of market and the eastern neighborhoods before the eastern neighborhoods plan was adapted

in 2009 much of that was m zion p that allowed everything so the old sty industrial district so what happened, you have a lot of old industrial buildings where back when there was innovate as much pressure it was not on the radar the tenants would move in if it says projecting office they allowed for the tenant improvements to take place this is a greater concern we're looking at the permits a legal change of use hadn't necessarily happened even if it is an office notice all over it i've gotten calls from people saying oh, it's an office building no, it's at complex analysis that the zoning administrator does to see

if there's an existing legal use this has to show proposed office use and it's designed by planning and most of the time has plans that show where the office space is in the building it's a technical analysis there are buildings owners that are not sophisticated or savvy to the process this is not the exception 24 is how it came up we're looking at the building others were looking at the building and they've looked you know they've talked to someone that's been there before and there are office permits so what we did was filled the environmental operation getting this in line with the code and maintaining the ground floor as pdr

i wanted to speak briefing to the continuance issue this project has now been subject to 3 notices over the 13 months which is quite a long time for a conversion preapplication meeting frmentd out to united states neighborhood and groups and now the planning commission notice went out to the group i'm not aware of the issues that have not been assessable or available to the public for several months we feel if there's not strong digestion for continuing this hearing today, we'll obviously defer to the planning commission we're looking at the upper 3 floors of the building it is say is being

maintained to the ground floor pdr they've identified two tenant floor the project sponsor has been sensitivity to previous tenant and we'll pay all the office fees with respect to that we ask you approve that. >> we have one speaker card (calling names). >> put on my glasses thank you, thank you commissioner president wu and commissioners i'm jim an architect and former tenants of 340 brilliant street when i opened my own practice in 991 i was fortunate to find a location i was the second longest it is

not necessary e tenant in the building having been there for 21 years i hope this contributes to the conversation i think the letter i've sent to the planning staff was referred to as a letter of support but first of all, i must clarify one point at the beginning of last year, i was briefing involved in an e-mail challenge i made the inaccurate characterization i've been evicted from my space only in the general sense of being required to leave not have my choose the truth is my leases and all the leases in the building as far as i know had been terminated at the end of 2012 we were all given more accurate notice i'll characterize this as fair

secondly, speaking as an architecture architect with a strong connection to the building i'm interested in that building i'm hopeful it preserves the natural qualities i was pleased to see for example, the steel small pain windows being ma kickly reglazed and the costs antiquated technology that defines the character of the building it shows generous rooms and the space previously divided into small cubicles i was pleased to see the roof terrace the roof which we substantiates were not allowed access to but saw the sites i'm optimistic the design

is appropriate to the building and neighborhood i'll urge you to approve the project. >> additional public comment. >> a photo on these sue hester i have a shirt on from one of the evict tests i'm asking for this to the continued i don't think there ever was a preapplication meeting it's not in the files i've gone through all the files and talked to the attendance right across the

street is a whole lot of residents back in second street those are h o v lanes to get onto the bridge down on main street up to second street how do you walk up to this building it is literally surround by freeway i have to walk across the freeway they're to having have people riding bicycles how is there not two week report that enables the public to submit the documents in a timely manner all the notes come out over christmas and new year's break they were mailed on the 17th pardon me on that building

you can't get to swms a newspaper notice the mailing was the following minimum wage week it came to me on december 27th and the environmental issue was on the 23rd of december this screams christmas break it's innovate a break the document for your consideration was issued on the 31st of december we have and then eastern neighborhood it didn't have a process for community meeting e meeting if there was no one that was effected knew about 2 i meet with the residents i've been dealing with the proposal for the last couple of years those

people were involved in it i met about what is happening in their neighborhood i may be about 3 months ago they've been trying to meet with the owner were not getting phone calls returned those people would have been there at the meeting believe me they were frustrated the tenant that were evicted that t-shirt company used to be at this location and sold t-shirts on columbus i'm asking you to do know and continue this case two weeks and let people submit documents and due say you, cheat. >> thank you sue your time is up. >> thank you for your courtesy and is there any additional public comment. >> good afternoon john taco

group we certainly support the staff recommendation and the commission willingness to use attire ability to limit the prop m allocation to chief a policy goal in this case to preserve pdr south of market i know that the central selma plan is more addressing the issues but this tool is what we feed to use now i'm grateful to see the commission really do that i'm going to turn it over to our general proposal is in south of market the service sally district should be one hundred percent replacement of any pdr converted or not no conversion at you will and what remains of the s l r i like 63 reading to maintain 60 percent but not only

east selma and the district to otherwise maintain 25 percent of a converted building as pdr i know over the long term and for assembly approach the flower mart will maintain one half p a million square feet that's an outstanding accomplishment for the long-term now there are some issues to figure out in the central selma plan the relocation xofts for the businesses that can't return needs to be addressed i know that staff is aware of that and especially the loss of space for arts organizations is a critical problem that the south of market arts community is being decimated the people can't

afford the mandating for pdr we need to clearly fourth a system of direct or indirect subsidize of art spaces in the context of the pdr preservation in selma this is a good step there's a long way to go from here but this is a good step thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm alice rogers i'm here as a member of the south beach mission bay retail task force we talked to you a couple of weeks ago i'm basically here to commend the change in office use to pdr on the bottom of this project i royals it's outside of the selma plausibleness but an important john said first step to recognize we can't can't have

mono0 culture in the central selma area there's too much diversity and we that need to preserve that on the ground floor the second floor and up that's fine but the mous zoning does nothing to incentive intents the utility of the ground floor and especially the offices are adapting the customs of o pack walls and turning their backs on the sidewalk in their not good additions to the community so i think this is a really great first step that we're having a developer willfully change a ground floor to a more active use and being here over the next many, many months to work with you to improve the ground floor throughout the

selma plan thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners and happy new year jim from south of market i was never visited to my preopening meeting neither my south park neighborhoods here's an interesting timely in the heaters commission april 4th, 2013 it reads i'm responding on behalf of tom he's the culture affairs director i building the studio in question is 340 bryant street which was a large are industrial building that provides studio space for over one hundred and 50 artists many for over 20 years a developer made an offer on the space after

inviting the studios in 2012 and evicted everyone from the, as of january 1st, 2013, to turn it into market rate tech offices please let us know if you have any further questio it's from kate patterson for the san francisco arts commission so speaking of collaborating with other parts the city family somehow that didn't make it into the staff report one hundred and 50 artists were evicted toe create more is a space for high tech offices and they're not mentioned this is all perfectly he legal but is it right your preceding over the heart and soul of the city thanks. >> is there any additional

public comment okay seeing none public comment is closed opening to you supervisors commissioner antonini. >> i don't see any need for a continuance this is a simple issue and been spoken of if i could ask staff a question there was some talk about the so-called evicts is, in fact, with our research the leases did expire and the tenants were informed with adequate amounts of time they'll not been able to be tenant there and perhaps john can speak but my understanding they were given notice something in the project sponsor in our packet. >> that's what it looked like to me. >> i don't have any copies of the leases so in terms of what

the leases actually ended. >> okay. thank you i mean this is mou means memorandum of understanding it means mixed use office in the eastern slam was approved it is in eastern selma i know there's discussions about the discussions of central selma and the pdr use this is in a district where office is principally permitted and encouraged if we're you know not approving that we're going against what we said we spent years on eastern neighborhoods trying to set rules and finally after many years we passed the rules and that conforms with the rules exactly, in fact, it actually gives some help to pdr by having a first floor or pdrs that

doesn't currently have and will have in the future and it brings it below the cap of the large office space which helps the whole situation with prop m allocations it does a lot of good things their finding pdr tenant for that lower space bring in $1.5 million in development fees f this is a good project i mean, i think that even though we got the paperwork on the 31st of december it didn't making take too long to figure out what's going on here and it so you would it is a good project i'm very much in favor of that and hope we can get it done. >> commissioner hillis a question for staff could this be converted could

the ground floor could the project sponsor come back and convert the ground floor to office space or request that conversion. >> they'll have to go through another application. >> we couldn't approve that. >> i was looking through the conditions of approval i mean, i appreciate the ground floor being kept as pdr i think that's important but i like to make that part of the condition i don't see it in the conditions in granting the top two floors e.r. the conversion that we're part of the recognizing of the conversion the recontamination of the pdr as a use. >> is that a motion. >> i want to see if that's possible. >> may i have you can put the condition it's similar to the case before you it will not

necessarily for preventing someone from coming back in the future. >> we want to recognize what the project sponsor is saying and the staff is saying that's an important you know it's important precedent as we look forward to other conversions or the central selma plan this is part of the - it was important to us in granting the conversion of the ground floor kept as pdr so i don't know if you made a motion we'll see what the other folks talk about i'll make a motion to approve the project one way or the other without a condition of recognizing the first floor as pdr. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much some of - commissioner hillis that was what i was going to say the second thing this is my main issue with the project the issue with the straight improvements i

live in that area i ride up second street and 340 bryant was probably a fantastic section before the i 80 entrance maybe the project sponsor or staff could come up and talk about whether or not there's plan improvements to the straight in area or other traffic measures or otherwise - >> one thing that's unique about the site the property line is right around the building i don't know if there's a place to do the improvement but it will have to be approved by the director ample it was not

hopefully, i was hopefully hoping this it seems like there's needs to be additional changes in addition to the internal tenant improvements to the this making it useful for office. >> the timing of the t m a we'll look at. >> that plan the transportation management plan has to include the pedestrian improvements around the building that presumably includes the sidewalks typically they're not public property but right-of-way we can work on that that dpw in the transportation plan phase. >> i'd like to add that as a finding as well and the reason i mean because it probably won't come back to us i said we've spoken that the sidewalk are

part of the public realm and the property line is around the building 24 is a special circumstance we've having had many, many projects where the design is part of the conditions of approval in some ways i know this is space particularly needs this this conversion of office space changes the type of people that are coming in and out of that 0 place i have friends that work in the area or work at the building across the street i want to see that. >> is that amenable to the maker of the motion. >> commissioner richards. >> just a couple of things, sir a question for you how do the 25 percent number come about as you support versus 50 or the 50 in the l r i and we in our community planning process we

took a good look at the existing buildings that had pdr and few if any are above 4 stories and so it was simply, you know there were a good number of 4 stories with pdr content anticipate it is to simplify the genius to find the department staff told us it was so marred or hard to monitor they need to deal with whole floors frankly the 50 percent system works well with the four story buildings and those are practical. >> another thing as i read the san francisco chronicle the space the craft breweries and the chocolate makers are leaving the city do you think that one

half a million says that a good. >> it will, of course still existing today it is very substantial amount our data should have the number it is half million. >> we have that. >> there are still some that remain wisp talking to the staff there's further nicole's techniques to insensitive vices this it is not this approach alone. >> i guess one last point commissioner moore and i went to take into account it and it is the most unusually located building in the world and commissioner richards point something has to be done about pedestrians we nearly got flattened crossing the street.

>> the benefit of the planning code that requires straight improvements it's written broadly and done so on a case by case basis we've work with the staff the project sponsor is obviously in favor of making 24 building safe for its tenants i think we understand that and we're supportive of that. >> it's included in the motion as a finding thank you commissioner moore. >> there's always an upside and down side the strong concern of the diminishing pdr of all costs is of great concern some say contradictory and it is quite objective with you go on the web it can happen to anybody someone can buy a