protected and allowing for early input by the hpc [speaker not understood] we look forward to seeing stronger and more goal-oriented language update in the [speaker not understood]. thank you for your time. >> thank you. ms. wellpoint. good afternoon, i'm nancy werful. i ask you to strengthen the [speaker not understood] as open space and not relegated to being raw land that is for development with no structureseses. a city policy that purports itself to preserving existing open space must actually do that, bernanke, and by specifically preventing new buildings on the land that the city has said is open space. as the city grows more dense, so does the pressure to use our

open space as just conveniently available publicly owned vacant land for building dujure. to protect our parks as open space for future generations, the 2013 draft row should have unequivocal restrictions against new buildings. our city policy has assisted in restricting development so we actually have saved many areas as open space. the draft rows has now weakened the preservation mandate. i call upon this commission as the appropriate body to request changes to safeguard the existing open space and landscapes to be made in the draft rows. i urge you to include the following recommendations for three policies. first, i request the commission to propose to remove the current section 2 from policy 1.13 that [speaker not understood] on recreation and park land by providing criteria to allow these structures.

the standards include "providing a clear rationale" for the facility, as if that has ever been a deal breaker that stopped development of open space from this city. instead, please substitute the language from the 1986 rows in section 2 that stays when new facilities are needed in the city, the city shall allocate funds for [speaker not understood] as well as construction. san franciscans must not be put in the position of developing indoor facilities at the expense of outdoor open space and the amount of outdoor open space and parks and play grounds must not have to be reduced in order to avoid buying land for new and more [speaker not understood]. that was 1986 version. second, i request the commission add words to the policy 1.12 by adding [speaker not understood] the sentence into the sense teshtiontion the value of resources should be acknowledged and safeguarded while being celebrated as they

provide [speaker not understood], et cetera. i request the commission to add language to policy 1.13 about identifying, preserving historic landscapes by adding a new sentence. historic landscapes should be preserved, maintained and remain as open space without built features imposed upon them. i've written these things in. i'll be happy to submit them where i would recommend that you put them in the sought language. and i thank you for considering these comments. >> thank you, ms. werful. any other member of the public wish to speak on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment and bring it back to the commission. commissioner johnck. >> it seems we have two items before us, but only one staff recommendation on one of these items. one item we have before us is the existing rows and the comments made about the value of the 1986 and there were other thing that have been recommended that i thought were

very worthwhile that aren't before us that i can see. i can see where the staff has suggested new policy language that we advise rec and park and planning. but we don't have specific recommendation from staff on, what shall i say, the existing row. so, i guess, number one, that on the existing rows, i would say that i would like to have this commission endorse the public comment about the value of existing rows. now, there were a lot of different comment, so, how do we sort that out, i don't know. i think the second item we have before us is the staff recommendation on new policies. and what i think is missing, one point has already been made, is the need to recognize the secretary interior standards

, use some of the same terminology. some of the terms have already been suggested. but the other idea i have on these two policies, and that is to insert the word cultural landscapes. for instance, as a suggestion to you all. and policy 1.2 recognizing the value of historics. i'm suggesting and cultural landscapes. you may think that why add the word cultural a an oxymoron. the reason i think and i'm suggesting adding the word cultural, and i'm going to suggest adding it down here, too, this term is a category protection and currency in preservation planning for the last 25 years at least. cultural landscapes can be

added as eligible landmarks, so to speak, to the national register, and was -- the identification of the term cultural landscape, you have a very he broad opportunity to look at both the natural historic resources as well as physical. and i'm going to -- make the policy landscape back down to policy 1.13. the sentence that begins "prior to any proposed project that involves the alteration, replacement or other changes to any of these historic resources" -- and i want to clarify these are physical as well as natural -- "the city should evaluate whether a comprehensive survey is warranted." and i want to just pull out this word comprehensive survey because what i would think would be important, it's not

just the survey. that a cultural landscape analysis be considered to identify resources. and the reason i'm bringing up cultural landscape analysis, and that passes unanimously' a very broad, another term, very specific program of the national park service is the historic american landscape survey. but just using the word cultural landscape analysis [speaker not understood], survey of all resource he natural as well as physical, and involves a survey of archeological site and it's very broad and involves assessment of integrity of the resources. it involves treatment. there is the discussion of treatment, that a treatment plan be identified. so, i guess my point is as we look at some of the language here, it really needs to be strengthened to bring up more of the framework of our

secretary interior or national registry process. >> commissioner johnck, it would be great if we could hear from ms. exline about the use or reference to the 86 rows and later how you use that to get into this process. >> so, [speaker not understood]. it's a very complicated and very ongoing conversation. this policy 1.3 has probably been the sticking point throughout our 7 years of process. if i can summarize it in a couple sentences, i'll try to do that. there is -- i think they have quoted some really great language for the preservation of open space. i think it's a very long policy and i think other people look at that policy in different ways and it's not super clear. i think some other people it's queer. there is a lot that can be read into the policy. what we tried to do is say

let's make it abundantly clear what has to happen. the criteria, we used basically -- 86 rows, we made that same criteria here. we spell it out and make it clear. our goal was there was a lot of ambiguity, there were a lot of people who -- thing were happening in different ways because of the language. people read it in all the different ways they wanted to. i think they picked out one part of it. so, we just try to lay it out very clearly. there is no net loss of open space. >> no net loss? >> yes, that's the policy proposal which says charcoal was -- instead of saying what some people read as no building, it says when it happens, because it has happened, buildings have happened, expansion has happened, all these things have happened. so, instead of just saying no, we said, all right, what happens, how do you get to that, how do you make that decision?

some people could read into the language in different ways and it was [speaker not understood]. try and clarify it and lay it out. >> thank you. >> director ram. >> just to reinforce that, the previous language, if you read it very strictly, rec/park couldn't add 5 feet to a maintenance building. so, that really became a challenge. now, obviously there were times when it didn't need to be read that strictly. but the fact is that's why we've changed it to the notion of no net loss open space. buildings change. buildings have to move, have to expand, contract, whatever. and it gives some flexibility. but i think the clear fib at the point is that we not lose any parking lot as a whole. ~ intent >> thank you. commissioner pearlman. >> thank you. this is i'm sure a very big challenge. obviously every word is load. i did want to comment on what

ms. werful said. i get the sense there's no new anything. since 1986 the ace grove ha been added to golden gate park. i would hate there is a new years when the 86 rose was being prepared being written. i would hate to think there isn't a way -- again, it has to do with the language, but a way there's a brand-new use we wouldn't have known about and there's many that we don't know about now for things that happen 20, 30 years from now, that we aren't so severe bah our restriction. there's no net loss of open space, an appropriate one. ~ to blanketly say no new anything, it just feels very limited and not what a general plan policy should be endorsing. thank you. >> i agree.

kind of what we tried to do. >> mr. frye. >> commissioners, to consider in formulating your comments for the letter -- excuse me -- in response to commissioner johnck's comments, i think she's brought up some very good points and i would recommend if we do include, refer you to the cultural landscape and physical and natural resources and the policy that may be in that narrative explanation below the policy is where we had some of the more detailed information just to keep those policies concise. just another suggestion, johnck mentioned policy sites. so you might want to consider adding policy site to 1.13. >> thank you. commissioner hyland. >> i think in general we're moving in the right direction. i would like to see some of the

language be much stronger. and it may be because we haven't lived with this long enough. this is all-new language and as we live with it a little bit longer, we'll be able to make sure what we need it to say, it will say. but in the other policies they're just much more direct and straight to the point so in the community he will me [speaker not understood]. please make sure resource he are protected. please don't say that yet. in the commerce industry element, policy 6.8, it says preserve historically and/or architecturally important buildings or groups of buildings in the neighborhood district. it's a proactive, specific strong language. so, what i would propose under policy 1.12, initially i said preserve and strikeout recognize the value. but i think this is a more general acknowledgment.

so, i'm okay with recognize the value of, but i wanted to reshuffle these. i would say recognize the value of historic and culturally significant sites, landscapes and building. placing buildings last since this is about the rowses. and then on to the paragraph below that -- thank you, commissioner wolfram for catching that typo. but i would propose adding in the second sentence, the value of these resources should be preserved and celebrated because they provide an important link. so. i think it was a good suggestion to add a sentence adding existing buildings whether that's here or another one, that's fine.

policy 1.13, 1.1 3, i have some concerns and some questions -- well, p questions, proposals. i would suggest it be rewritten to identify and preserve, landscapes, building structures and objects within the city park full stop, period. i think that's a [speaker not understood] statement. if this next sentence needs to be included, maybe it's down below in the paragraph below. and i would suggest it say while and [speaker not understood] acknowledging that, but while there may be a necessity to alter, strike replace, while there may be necessity to alter make changes, strike changes, to these features over time to accommodate new needs or uses, ensure these historic resources are protected.

so, something more very and to the point. whether that's all in the same policy statement down below, you can decide, tim. and in the paragraphs, my wordsmithing here is the city should identify, evaluate, and preserve historic resources in city parks. prior to any proposed project that involves alteration replacement or other changes to any of these resources, the city should conduct and analyze -- i'm sorry, conduct a comprehensive survey and analysis if we [speaker not understood] that's fine. but the intent to define associated character features in the vicinity of the proposed project, period.

i would strike that last sentence entirely -- in its entirety. strike the city should determine the appropriate treatment for the effective resources based on the nature of the resource he and public benefits provided by the proposed project. i think that should be stricken. and that should be part of the analysis. and then i was going to suggest, and i didn't quite have a strong statement, but i think what you had said earlier, tim, about -- yeah, that was it. maybe that needs to be [speaker not understood]. but what i was going to suggest was historic resources should be preserved and only as a last resort removed or replaced. i mean, really, that's very weak. >> that's part of the analysis, too, removed or replaced. >> the last comment i have is on the no net loss of open

space. i don't want to get too nitpicky, but that concerns me because if we want to build a new building and they're only having no new net loss, what existing square footage is going to be removed? >> the idea is it would require a new space i think is the intent. >> question, acquire, or tear down another building. >> i didn't have any proposal on that's correct but that was just kind of sitting there. piqued my interest. >> thank you. >> any other comments? >> that was a good recap. >> okay. >> so, do we -- there is a lot coming here. [multiple voices] >> i don't know if we can do it right now. so, i'm just wondering if i guess, i don't know, two options, we can take it back and i can draft it and provide it for you. i've got to look at the timing. >> commissioners, president hasz has to sign the letter before it's forwarded.

if you're comfortable with us working with it, president hasz, we can finalize the letter based on your comments. >> i was going to suggest maybe we could have a draft prepared for you for the next officers meeting and commissioner wolfram and president hasz -- >> is that meeting next week? >> two week. >> it will be another two weeks. we just had it last week. >> i mean the scheduled meeting would be in march. so, your schedule needs this by what date? >> march 6th we're producing the document. >> so, maybe we could distribute it to you before that and get your comments on that >> that would make a good timeline. >> thank you very much. >> work with commissioner hyland. >> i'll make sure we'll touch base with everybody. >> theoretically [speaker not understood]. >> commissioner matsuda? >> just make sure at tomorrow's planning commission, whenever they are going to hear this, that we make sure that they have our concerns known. >> yes, this will come actually

back to the planning commission march 27 [speaker not understood]. >> commissioner johnck. >> along those lines, what about the planning commission tomorrow? there is also friday, too, isn't there something on friday? i mean, what we said, i'd like to have communicated to the planning commission tomorrow. how do we do that? >> rec and park. >> yes, rec and park commission, we'll be going back to the planning commission on march 27. >> so, how about rec and park, how about -- what we said today, how does it get there? >> so, we'll get all the -- we can provide all the comments and responses and this can be one of the comments we can provide that to the rec and park commission tomorrow. >> tomorrow. >> i don't know if it's going to be written by tomorrow. >> it doesn't have to be written. i don't know. >> can we convey the comments during our presentation? >> yeah, we can convey that [speaker not understood] -- [multiple voices] >> just to be clear, the planning commission, because this is an element of the general plan, it's the planning

commission that has to approve it. >> that's right. >> rec/park weighs in like you do, but technically it's the planning commission's jurisdiction. that's why that's the last hearing. >> i understand. >> commissioner hyland. >> i just had a question on the comments. the comments and the responses to those comments, those are going to come back to the hpc or be published? >> we'll distribute a copy to you just as well distribute the final rows version which will have this. so, the previous version didn't have any of these policies in it. the last version of the rows will have these policies and as well as the response -- all the comments and responses to comments. >> we will not as a body have an opportunity to respond or comment on the comments and responses, though. >> yes. >> is that okay? >> yeah, we'll wrap it up in the letter, yeah. commissioners, anything else before we move on?

thank you very much. >> thank you very much. thanks for working with us on this. >> thank you. folks, want to just get right to it? we have one more item, let's do it. >> commissioners, moving on, we are on your final item under your regular calendar, item 9, case no. 2013.0627bc for 660 3rd street, request for review and comment. ~ at >> good afternoon, commissioner, [speaker not understood]. he review and comment at the proposed project at 66 0 third street. pursuant to [speaker not understood], the project seeks to change the use of up to 80,000 square feet from pdr to office use. [speaker not understood] section 83.90 a allows for certain uses otherwise not permitted within a zoning district to be allowed if it is determined that they would enhance that feasibility of preserving the historic building. 66 0 third street is a contributing resource to the south end landmark district.

under the aforementioned [speaker not understood], to inform the planning commission in their determination of the project's ability to enhance the feasibility of preserving the historic building. as part of the proposed project, the project sponsor estimated a historic building maintenance plan. the major components of this plan would include roof, window and brick inspection and repair, a sign program and interpretive display. staff has received no public comment on the proposed project. the proposed project qualifies for use of planning code section 80 3.9a which is the subject building at 66 0 third street is a contributing building to a designated historic district which proposes conversion to office use in excess of 25,000 gross square feet and is located outside the service/secondary office zoning district. the department finds the proposed project to be in compliance with the secretary of interior standards [speaker not understood] for reef hactionv thaition. further, the department finds the proposed project would

enhance the feasibility of preserving the building by ensuring a program for regular maintenance and repair. the project sponsor has demonstrated through their hpmp their commitment to preserving and restoring the subject property by providing cyclical maintenance program and interpreting [speaker not understood]. the project sponsor is present for any questions or comments. i'm available for any questions and this concludes my presentation. thank you. >> thank you. commissioners, do we have any questions or comments? i do on one item. well, look at the front of the building on the third street facade. the first floor, the smaller light panes that are down on the first floor, is that metal or wood? >> it was part of the store fronts, correct? >> yes. >> i think they are boarded right now. >> i want to make clear for the language in the maintenance those [speaker not understood]. i think we're good.

commission -- >> i have one question. it seemed -- this particular zoning code is the most convoluted strange way i've ever seen to allow something to happen that probably, you know, wasn't allowed in the past. but it seems like there's a contradiction. so, it says that this building is -- if it's a contributory building, number one, such use does not exceed an aggregate square footage of 25,000 per building. and then it says it meets the requirement because it possesses an aggregate gross square footage in excess of 25,000. but in the first sentence it says it does not exceed, the secondv one says it does. >> it's two paths of travel for buildings below 25,000 square feet and above 25,000 square feet. so, in this instance, because it is more -- the total aggregate of what they're looking for is more than 25,000, that's what triggers the conditional use requirement to basically allow for the office use within this zoning

district which normally would not permit office use. >> right. >> so -- if it was under 25,000, a lot of the process would not be required. >> commissioners, just to clarify further, under 25,000 can be approved by the zoning administrator. over 25,000 has to be approved by the planning commission. >> okay. but the zoning code was written so that it happens to be in a nearby district that happens to not allow this and if it's near an sfo district but this is an sli district -- i just find this extremely confusing. i mean, i get it that it's a good thing -- [speaker not understood], it doesn't make a lot of sense as to how the process is working. >> in essence, the code section was used pretty commonly in the late '90s, early 2000s when a lot of the warehouse buildings in the south end were getting converted into office use. >> right.

>> and because sli served as light industrial doesn't permit office use, it was basically a way, a path to allow them to have office use within those buildings. >> change the zoning to allow it rather than -- anyway -- >> i do have a question, though. this won't affect anything on this building because we saw the design center [speaker not understood] as well. so, is there a square footage allowed in this type of situation per year? [multiple voices] >> office allocation as a whole, right? >> if i could, there's a maximum 950,000 square feet that goes into the prop m office allocation every year. 875 of that is what's called the large cap authorization which is building more than 50,000 square feet. 75 goes into the small cap, which is buildings below 50, and buildings below 25 don't even need an authorization. because they're so small. ~ but if i could on the other

aspect of this, i mean, this particular provision that would allow -- allows a landmark building to be used for a use otherwise not permitted, i would argue it's pretty creative provision of the planning code because it basically is an incentive to maintain historic properties that otherwise can't be used. we wouldn't want to blanket -- the idea of changing the zoning is it's a challenging one because there was a lot of fighting in the eastern neighborhoods, for example, allowing uses in pdr zones and there was a pretty strong decision made not to do that. this is the one exception it's a landmark building that could be used for something. so, it is -- that's kind of why i wouldn't want to change the zoning in a blanket way. we want to make sure it is an only for specific types of uses and landmark buildings. >> i think over the last, since last summer because we looked at 665 third street right across the interest from this one to henry adams and now this, we're looking at on the order of almost 350,000 square

feet that have been converted from office use to pdr. to me, again, this is a planning commission issue. why are we questioning that all this pdr is now disappearing from the ranks? and i get it, it's great because in the process, you know, we're helping to preserve the historic buildings but from a city-wide point of view we've now lost 350,000 square feet of pdr space which in the eastern neighborhoods was so desperate -- [multiple voices] >> it's a very challenging policy question. >> which we're not going to resolve here today. >> commissioners, we're looking into the overall impact of this code amendment and, so, by the time to henry adams is back in front of you, we'll have more answers about how much pdr cumulatively has been impacted by this code section. >> in general, some of this also comes from the eastern neighborhoods legitimazation process. we kind of hit the tail end of that and basically for projects that couldn't be legitimatized

and if there was a path through the code, this is how a lot of these projects have basically had a path in the existing planning code to get their office legalized in certain cases. so -- >> it does seem like big chunks of square footage like this. how are you ever going to fill pdr [speaker not understood]? so, it's almost like the 25,000 square foot anyways would be pdrs more vital on smaller buildings on a smaller scale. so, the building across the street is bigger, this one is bigger. it would be really tough to fill this pdr. >> it's particularly tough to fill it on the upper floor. those are one of the distinctions we're looking atful >> we can debate this because i live in dog batch where it's all pdr, ~ you can't build anything else and, you know, again, these are city policy things that took years to determine. so thanks. >> commissioner wolfram? >> [speaker not understood]. >> anything else? w