work with sf made that speaks for workers for the protection of space and transportation far workers etc. what had having some next stewardships we have legislation to protect the looked building this is for supervisor breed's office and right now the office uses are for looked building in pdrs districts we support those building without allowing the building to convert to office and we have legislation we've excused with supervisor cowen at her requests hopefully, we'll see something in the next few works we continue to support pdr with the pier 48 part of the

giants development and hunters point has it. support pdr in central selma we don't think that that's the place for industry to grow over the years this is not necessarily the right location given the lack of density of the jobs in pdr but it's important so we're looking to make sure that the industrial uses stay in the area maybe the pdr in existing building here's a shot of the flower mart so the flower mart stays there a contingent part we have legislation to protect pdr along main street it allows rail on 16 street and pdr we're working with supervisor campos office to protect.

we're looking at engagement enforcement it's a huge initial we're a complaint based city we don't receive complaints for displace of employment but hopefully, we'll engage people with the pdr that are suspect looking. and finally hopefully to work with the transportation commission to study pdr at recreational scale typically in san francisco we're 47 square miles and yet we're trying to solve every problem well housing is 0 recreational issue and jobs and environmental issue so where industrial lands and movement and good studies will be

important for understanding the context that our city sits in we're acting in a blind situations. that's it if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them. thank you. >> commissioner. any questions. it's up there showing >> commissioner pearlman. >> steve i'm wondering how much time you have you have to leave at 2:30 it's past that. i'm here >> thanks very much i appreciate our bringing this to us it's a hot topic if you've read our comments from our last meeting. i'm confused about the policy vs. what we are actually doing because there's so many places you talk about, you know,

protecting pdr space when i understand san francisco i think thas has at the lowest percentage of pdr use in the country so we're already way down the list >> i say we're the lowest percentage but we have a robust percentage of protecting pdr before the eastern neighborhood plan they allowed housing and office the areas were indict i didn't but it changed over time so we saw lots of courageous and if you think of chicago and new york is huge that's why i'm promoting a recreational city and county because new york city

has a larger bureaus. >> in the last three or four months because of a particular clause in the planning code to convert to zones that don't allow it there's a half million of square feet of pdr space that's been transformed into office space and, you know, number 6 of the master plan priorities is specifically to not allow displace of employment of pdr space and your telling us what that presentation the department is doing everything in their power to not allow that yet we're present with that dilemma, you know, this particular clause about the historic if it meets a certain criteria of historic quality then an owner can transform their building even though that's not allowed in the zoning

so i don't know what the answer is i think it's a big dilemma. >> if my might here. >> what i thought we were going to do on pdr and look at this i'd like to do this what some good hard numbers. we say a clause that allows landmark buildings to change how many potential square footage is that sitting out there i think we should look at a total number what's already been done as that number. i also was we need to look at the language we have a comment on economic impact. and i'd like to say to see the analysis because the plaintiff is not confinements

environmentalists but i want to see the language and if we need to add some kind of verbiage or criteria what would be a fair look at the economics of the building. because right now, we're kind of guessing and maybe we might - anyway, there's more to just what is happening i'm nervous to get into a dissuasion because there's a lot of information not here >> if that's the case how do we move the conversation to a deeper conversation. >> i think we need to look at it and analyze and comment on the existing codes that's written but what is the potential and also the deputy city attorney had a comment that was a companion only what was

brought up on potential fraudulent items we've approved i want her to speak on that. >> deputy city attorney maling burns i'm not totally clear on you, your question. >> if the information comes up that's contrary to the approval what was the recourse of h pc and then discussions it seems like it was already enforcement derived arenas to go for not to come back to h pc. >> this question might be on the scope of what is currently agenda did i see but i certainly don't want to speak to a

specific project but in terms of pdr use like any other use if h pc approves a project i apologize i'm not clear. >> the only reason i want i don't think it's appropriate to ask you to do this on the seat of your pants i want to have put on the agenda at some point the discussion of what recourse, if any, does the h pc approves a project based on information which later on turnout not to have been true. >> commissioners, i think it's fairy know you brought this up last time i can address it quickly. in those particular instances in

pdr or other uses before you you can clearly direct staff to look at the nature of the mississippi information was and if staff reports back to you that there might have been a reason for a rehearing you can certainly ask a schedule and it's within your per view if there's wrong information to amend our previous fogs motions or resend it >> i just think that, you know, this is a real important thing and if we could have the enough time for the city attorney to look at this and just make sure that we're all on the same package i would feel more comfortable i know the public that occasionally listens to those things has confidence they

shouldn't fool around that. >> i think we should follow the advise of the city attorney to get into a confidence that's off topic. >> okay i'd like to know how to follow throw in a deeper conversation and the codes that relate to the historic preservation. >> mr. fry. >> tim frye department staff in terms of the conversation how to move forward has was mentioned we've been working with with supervisor cowen's office with amendments to maintain the balance of the preservation use especially to mitigate some of the loss we're seeing because frankly i don't think anybody anticipated the incentive to be used this widely as currently proposed. i think what will happen is when

that alleviation is introduced it has to come before this body and another commission we will have a robust discussion what we want to see for the preservation for looked uses. and currently we'll think out of the box for specific pdr incentives in the historic property >> that's an economic question. >> is this active legislation. >> were working with supervisor cowen's office actively right now and knee me anticipate something happening now. >> we do by i don't want to speak on behalf of the supervisors. >> commissioner hyde you

mentioned about pulling some numbers we'll do that and report back to you at the future building. >> and agenda did i see what the language is currently. >> okay. thank you. commissioner wolfram >> i have a question about what when the city is rezoning i assume that's within an area of pdr this is looking at it from a flip side of the jobs from an owners prospective from entities there's an scheming esteem value how do the planning department make decisions on where pdr protected areas are when i look

at the map it looks so fine-grained oh, this building is in a valley district but the one next door isn't. >> this is one of the harder progresses this is where we need industrial uses so that's why the process take 10 years whether or not it protects pdr at all there's an article accusing us for gold path and now industrial spaces and seeing the companies so we try. where it goes often where it is used today, the reason the northeast area has a checked area it was because of the

existing housing the housing went through a housing zoning and the industrial to a industrial zoning and blocks and blocks the bay area is interesting to rezone and the neighborhoods are more difficult to rezone. it's still a challenge we don't have that many industrial uses south of market and we have underutilized areas for jobs we've zoned for one hundred thousand jobs through our area plans in the last 10 to 15 years and what the registration will be we've zoned for one hundred and 50 thousand jobs so using the last maybe available place for jobs if we had high density

of jobs and preserve the character of the neighborhood that's cool it's not meant to be a conversation with the central zoning meeting in a month (laughter) those months are a half year off it's not even in form but that's a basics concept behind it >> commissioner johns. >> i'm thinking our next agenda item is what wheelchair talking about that the preservation element of the plan. to missouri me this is a plan discussion to say something about this issue and it's relationship we're talking about the character of san francisco and this is a piece of it. as it relates to our charge over historic buildings and cultural

landscapes i recommend it in the context that be brought into the lemon. thank you, steve >> commissioner pearlman. >> just a quick question pier 70 isn't that under the court and how does the planning commission try to maintain a pdr. >> those are proposals for the port themselves. at some point we're sister agencies we coordinate with them and not have jurisdictions for sure the zoning is more liberal but maybe we'll talk next steps bus it's not ours it's the city we work closely with the worrisome the director came up

for the protector of the city and knows what to look for the industrial it's a specific job there's coordination between the agencies >> okay. thank you and i'll take public comment any public comment on that item? seeing none, public comment is closed. bring it back to commission. informational we'll end this item and take a break here for 5 minutes >> >> welcome to the san francisco historic preservation commission regular meeting for wednesday, june 18, 2014. i'd like to remind members of the public . and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. . commissioners we left off under our regular calendar for item 8 the draft preservation elements

objectives one through 3 request for review and comment >> rally i'm shelly i am presenting the objectives 1 through 3 as you requested we're bringing the first 3 objectives and the next 6 schedule in july and august the focus on today is the high-level documents it's intended to give staff a general direction for the elements we'll be coming with more changes. i have a power point presentation if you can get the slides up. >> yeah. >> so for the benefit of the public i wanted to explain the

presently element what it is and why we're reviewing it today, the document is an element of the city's green e general plan that establishes the protection for goals and objectives to accomplish that objective the counter draft was if 2007 and we've recently got the document for the environmental review. so a lot of things have happened since the drafting was looked at including the legislation and policies so there's updating that obviously needs to be done we we're going to ask it it be updated in phases and the

updates will look at the structure so we can improve the feasibility and review the policies and kind of any that require classification and identify any missing things not in the draft within those we get that we will have a public outreach and move into the environmental review stage and slubl drink it forward for the adaptation by the board of supervisors >> as a department we have several things for the suggests for the update first and foremost is to create a suitcase sing excelsior and effective documents that maybe utilized by the city's agencies and

preservation advocates and the general public, and, secondly, like i said, we want to update the element to reflect our xhauchlts and the best practices and more specifically we would like to clearly delineate between the objective policies and implementation measures on that note, i'm going to quicken describe and define the 3 elements of component. first, we start off with objectives it sets the future goal or end more important an expression of community value. because of that this may be abstract in naturally nature and objectives are an end that will be achieved. a policy is a specific statement that guides decision making it

helps to implement the general plan for a policy to be useful it maybe clear and be implemented especially, when it comes to determining lauld decisions are consistent with the general plan and last the implementation measures those are an action and program or to your case that carries out the general plan policy and each policy must have one corresponding measure one thing we're reviewing the elements to make sure to try to craft policies that will have more than one implementation measure otherwise this policy might too narrow. so with those goals and dolphins i'd like to make my first suggestion to the commission

which is to break up the rest of the presentation to allow for discussion avenue each objective the material is fairly dense you might fall asleep during the presentation but if we want to break it up for more dialog we'll have to stop now and take public comment it's up to you >> so you'll be breaking up objective 1, 2, 3. >> sound like okay. >> first off commissioners any comment. >> any public comment on that item? seeing none, none. >> ms. smith you want to speak now or on the objectives.

>> so we'll close. >> okay. and before i jump into the next slide i wanted to undermine the fact those are suthsdz rather than recommendations we were very much in the exploratory phrase if 2, 3, 4 our analysis we are trying to think of changes we're not set in stone we're here to stark a dialog and get direction how to shape the element. so you can see the first objectives deal primarily are identifying and protecting historic resources. so objective one reads maintain an inventory of historic resources straightforward. the current statement reads like an implementation measure than an objective in our opinion it

sets future goals but didn't express a clear value the staff wants to reidentify those elements of table and intangible items that are important to convey our history and kult cultural a more broader how often be objective this should be having elements that are defined as historic documents a clear definition of what are historic resources and what kinds of elements can be considered. specifically objective one is on archaeology resources we have an objective that the dedicated to archaeology resources but they're considered historic resources and therefore objective one and two we need

clarification we need our help. likewise we'll ask it the heritage resources that we've discussion and also tangible resources should be support by implementation measures that call for the creation of local historic right away elevation criteria something not in the elements we think there should be a way to talk about that. i'll talk about the policies that support those objectives and have a discussion >> so policies one and two the first, the citywide objectives and accident second a citywide survey. those two statements are acts and therefore we shall simply

suggesting an implementation measures rather than the policy section to adapt it. policy 1.3 diesels specifically with the elevation of districts. to staff this seems like to be redundant which is asking for a survey of historic districts we understand the historic districts to be an historic resource and don't see a need for a survey wounds u outside of the policy. so we're going suggesting that either the policy is deleted or modified to be more specific about the types of resources that are recognized by the city and parallel the language in 1.6 and 7 we'll get to. policy 1.4 encourages property

owners and developers to be pro-active in slaetd their property and next to the elevation of the historic owned resources pursue staff felt by specifically addressing those issues this may have an elevation of the city we're seeking clarification from the city where whether those should be prioritized. policies 1.6 addresses the recognition of a type of resources that is generally underrepresented. as does policy 1.7 the first dealing with reconstruction and properties with diverse population the resource types it

could be a list of resources that recognize types is appropriate but f we feel it should be expanded to include social heritage and tangible resources and public interiors or cultural landscapes and stellar to policy 1.5 policy 1.7 explicitly addresses the need to recognize diverse or underrepresented resources. we feel there maybe an implementation that we should feel the need to did he prior itself so we need clarification open the prioritization is the consent. and the last policy under objective one talks about maintaining ait