introduction to the incentives and the code. i want to reiterate that the zoning administrator is here in case you have any questions about how certain determinations are made. at the july hearing, i know the commission specifically had a question about criteria and what are these thresholds that the department uses when evaluating these properties for use of these planning code incentives. if you like we can have a discussion about that, but again, i just wanted to reiterate. we are available for questions and i'm happy to have conversation about criteria if you so wish. >> commissioner john's? >> i think this is an extremely interesting and i think very well done item. is there someway in connection with our on going outreach efforts to demonstrate the real truth

about historic preservation that this could be made available either for use with the realityers -- realtors so it's convenient because this is too nice to not distribute. >> thank you commissioners, any other? >> i agree. >> are we taking public comment? >> if you don't want to comment at this time, yes. then i will take public comment. nothing else, we will open up public comment on this item. any member wish to comment? seeing none, we'll close public comment. >> commissioner? >> as you know i have been concerned about this topic and i have had conversations about the adams

project and what happened there. i do have a couple of questions. maybe this would be a place on this one planning code section 219 for office use and pdr space, i thought that was comparable with 803.9, but under letter a in the first provisions it says not more than 5,000 square feet can be converted in section 219. and you know, with the numbers that we've been hearing on 40,000 and 80,000 and in two 2-henry adams 300,000 square feet , i'm wondering about the the qualification. this says professional and business office. i was thinking for architects and english -- engineers.

>> the 5,000 applies to pdr's 1b and 2 in the zoning district. the office use provision applies to pdr and 1 g and d of the planning code. the landmark incentive that's offered for the 1 g and 1 d zoning district does not apply in pdr 1 and 2 in zoning districts. >> okay, so what i'm trying to understand is i thought 2 -henry adams is in the pdr 1d. so does this not apply to that? >> for example, in the case of 2 -henry adams, they are located in the pdr 1d so typically an office would not be permitted at all but in the case of a landmark, they are taking

advantage of this provision so they are allowed a use. currently it is permitted and in designated landmarks offices is allowed as a right. in supervisor cohen's provision she has introduced a change in the planning code to equal qualify for conditional use authorizations for the findings. >> are you saying this doesn't apply and 3.9 applies or that this actually applies. >> thank you. members of the commission, scott sanchez, zoning administrator. per section 219, it's different and very distinct from the process currently at 83.9. if you are in a pdr one district in 1st district in a landmark building it's permitted without any

further review or evaluation. that's one of the things that may have been confusing for people because in the eastern neighborhoods mixed use districts we have brought projects for your review and consideration to help advise me as zoning administrator to determine whether or not the change of use would address and as mr. sue krey in his memo a very thorough discussion for the 83.9 process. your advicing about the recommendation whether it would enhance the feasibility of the historic property. that threshold evaluation is not present at all in the pdr 1g district. it's as a right where there is no further review or violation of the task. >> it says no more than 5,000 feet. that's where i was getting confused that the projects coming before us like 2 -henry adams like

those were substantial amounts of square feet. so maybe i'm misinterpreting. >> no, under section 219 there are sections, 219 a which is up to 5,000 square feet and the provisions about it being permitted in a landmark building still applies. in section b you can have them larger than 5,000 square feet and the same process of being permitted and section c talks about other businesses and professional services and the same thing. it's basically all office uses regardless of size are principally permitted if they are in a landmark building. the landmark applies to section a but these apply to all sections of 219. there is no limit for square

footage for office building. >> why do we have this if we are going to any amount. >> this is within and maybe i will try to put it on the overhead if i may. the table that addresses a variety of different zoning districts. there really is no distinction in the cases of 1 p and g districts. it would just repeat the same thing throughout the table as you go down to different subsections. in other districts they make use of

that. it serves for a dozens zoning districts in one table and how to make that useful. that's the confusion. >> thank you. >> they need more tables. >> that's the plan. >> i think my comments relate to 3809. >> okay, seeing no other questions or comments at this time we'll move on and before we go to the next item, the meeting back to order. good afternoon and welcome back to the san francisco historic preservation wednesday hearing for september 17, 2014. commissioners you left item 12 for case 20141249 item12: 2014.1249t s. wertheim; 4155 558-66122 planning code amendments

related to office conversion controls in landmark buildings in pdr districts the historic preservation commission will consider a resolution to approve amendments to the planning code. the amendments are intended to limit the conversion of production, distribution, and repair pdrr space to office space in landmark buildings in pdr districts. the planning code is proposed to be amended by revising sections 219 and commissioners you left item 12 for case 20141249 sf 121234 >> good afternoon commissioners. department staff. i will turn this over to staff or supervisor cohen to explain this and i will come back for clarification. >> thanks steve, andrea brus, i work for supervisor cohen who is the author of this today. this you for hearing this item. this legislation was introduced largely in response to i think a number of concerns we've been hearing over the past couple of months as it relates to office conversion in historic buildings particularly in the pdr 1 b and 1 g and i know you have been struggling with both the incentives we want to provide the owners to rehabilitate them and for protecting and growing pdr space. so the supervisor certainly

shares the perspective which i'm sure that many of you have that we want to incentivize owners to maintain and rehabilitate historic buildings especially in the p 1 and 1 b which are in the industrial design center history but we have struggled with the amount of space that these buildings are allowed under the code and that reread it's ugly head with the adams. it helps to have incentives for some of these buildings to allow higher generating office to fund property owners invest in these properties. the code provision written has a lot of unintended consequences whether displacing tdr's in a building or loss of thousands of square feet

of tdr with a number of buildings. the advocate for pdr so this legislation is sort of attempting to both recognize that we want to continue to provide an incentive for the historic rehabilitation and maintenance of these buildings, but also to limit the amount of office space that these buildings are allowed to get so that it is minimizing the potential loss of pdr spaces in our neighborhood. so that's sort of the result of what you have in the legislation before you which is applying the floor controls that we use in the urban mixed use district to landmark buildings in the pdr 1 g and 1b which would limit the space on the floors based on the number of floors in the building. we have been pulled on a lot of ends and have had a lot of conversations with stakeholders about this conversation and it certainly isn't in

final foreman. -- forms. a couple of the legislation and we would welcome your feedback and also feedback from the planning commission. is this issue of how do you require or request a demonstration of economic need for a building? so, we want to incentivize people to invest in their buildings but in the case of 2 -henry adams there was a significant amount of structural investment already made in that building and justification needing an entire office space for that revenue was a little bit different than if someone hadn't made that level of construction yet in the building. one thing we talked about with planning staff and would like your feedback on is we want to build in some form of requirement into this section to believe to require

a show of economic need and that maybe makes sense is to require an historic report to cost estimates for that level of construction which i know you found useful in the construction report useful in the past so we can see what the condition of the building is and what we think it would cost to rehabilitate them. in the interim zoning controls we put in place for the pdr 1 g and 1 b directs there are references for economic requirement and there is a little bit of concern about what exactly did -- does that mean and how are we going to receive information that is helpful specific to the building issues. a couple of other changes that we are looking to make to the legislation to marry what is at the interim control with the code section here which would include do -- to the extent that there are tennants in the building that

you are going to need to provide a pretty detailed plan to the decision makers about what it would look like to have office use in addition to the pdl tends in the building. are you relocating them, what does that mean, are you reconfigging what is happening so we as decision makers can see what the pdr tennants in the building. go throughout henry adams process the supervisor felt it was an important level of detail that we didn't get until a certain point in the pros and -- process and would like to get the broader application of this code section. those are just a couple of the changes we are considering making and probably we'll also discuss at the planning commission but we'll certainly welcome your feedback with where we are relative to these two ideas

of adding the economic service requirement and the helpful needs that are existent in the zoning control. >> thanks. steve sanchez, department staff. i want to express the magnitude of this potential issue so you understand what the scope is. right now there are zero landmarks in the pg 1 st district and we have done a is survey of all areas and what buildings do we think would rise from this, very preliminary and what building would be landmarkable. we found 14 buildings about a million square feet contained in the building. right now that would be potential with the code right now potential removal of removal of pdr for office uses if these buildings came through

and they got their office allocation. that would be the result. if this legislation went into place, then the pdr displacement would go from a million square feet to 330,000 square feet so that would be a humongous two-thirds of the pdr would stay in this place for legislation and would help pay for upkeep and maintenance of the building. that is the scope of the legislation. there is nothing pending in front of us right now for this consideration but this is a message for all future considering changes of options so they can get a full on office but a mix in office and tdr. >> what is the timing of this. was there any pressure on this? >> it doesn't seem like it's

moving forward quickly. and that would require an office allocation. so they are not a landmark building yet. >> if i might ask, when do you plan on bringing this before the planning commission or the board of supervisors? this is october 2nd for the planning commission. we wanted to bring to you guys first, integrate your feedback on the well being of the building so we have enough time to integrate it and present the case on october second 2nd and the normal process about a month or two before the planning commission hears the case lieu through all the legal proceeding. that's when it can go to the full board in november or december. >> thank you, mr. frye. >> tim frye, department staff, just to clarify our understanding the pending landmark legislation for henry adams has been tabled and it

doesn't look like it's being forwarded anytime soon. it would be the call of supervisor cohen whether or not that should be heard at the full board to be moved forward. >> commissioner pearlman in >> i had a question about, in determining you have pdr space and some integration with office. is there any discussion about compatibility what kind of office and what kind of pdr or is it anything that falls in that designation. there could be a lot of conflict with dust and smells and noise and fire code issues that might be relevant to the building code. >> that's certainly part of the consideration. if she wants to run the policy behind this. there is pdr's and office space. until the pdr districts came into place in 2008, this is m

zoning and it was extremely office buildings and the buildings have been a historical mix and the industrial example of real pristine building that has tech companies and people making granola and all kinds of things going object in -- on in the building at the same time. they are extremely compatible with office uses. it will be up to the landlord to make the right move with the tenancy of it. there is enough space for tdr tends if there is not a building that is okay with it, we have others. >> i worked with a baker in that particular building. his smells of course are quite pleasant, but i can imagine an auto repair or something that has

glues or things like that. >> the code has nuisance controls and often about going up to property usually to proner -- property owners to mitigate. >> machine -- mr. john's? >> these comments are not just directed to other commissioners but myself. this commission should be exclusively focused on preservation and primarily preservation of buildings. and we really should be careful of becoming zoning administrators for the planning commission or getting off into other areas which although they socially speaking are very very important, really are not within the purview of this commission

even though we now are starting to concern ourselves with cultural assets , not just buildings. so i would like to see this commission really keep ourselves focused on preserving those things that we are supposed to preserve. now, as far as the legislation and where we might want to go with that, i would think that if we are considering a building for landmark status or changes in a building that is the type that we are discussing. one of the things i would like to know is deciding the economics know what are the present conditions of this building?

what needs could be done to the building in order to preserve it or to fix it up. and what would it cost to do those things that are necessary to previous the buildings. and how are these cost going to be paid for. the latter questions would call for some analysis of what money can be generated for present use and what money is generated if you tinker ws with the use and trying to find some balance and what can be done by formula is date of -- done because every formula is different. a mix desirable use for tennants is different and sometimes

unless you get just the right mix of tennants which can changeover time, you can't generate the money that is necessary to do the things that you have decided must be done to this particular building in order to preserve it. so that's how i would tend to address those issues. and as far as, you know, what the impacts would be, i would start out with one of those thing, well, this is the way the building is now. and this is addressed to the tennants and the people. this is the way it is now. this would be telling the city and this is the way we think it will be when we do whatever it is we are planning on doing or would like to do to this building. and then people can compare the present with the projected future and that would be of course have

to be coordinated with the kind of is survey or analysis that i just mentioned and eventually they would come together and we would know what changes are going to be made, how it's going to be paid for and what is going to be done. those are my suggestions for what i think is a pretty well thought out direction which the supervisor -- >> mr. frye? >> commissioners, for the benefit of the public and for a matter of clarification, to piggy back on what commissioner john's stated we are hoping that the historic structure report would do exactly what commissioner john has mentioned. every building is different, every building should be evaluated on a case by case bases with at least the historic structure report. you would have the information, the decision makers would have the information to decide whether

or not that change of use is a worthy proposal for that property. that said, i think it would be helpful for all of us to receive some clarification from this body as we don't want to create a situation where we are actually encouraging the disin investment in properties to utilize this incentive. we don't want people to actually avoid maintaining their building because they think, in two years 2 years i will be able to provide the structure and in a few years the building will fall down and i would be a more likely contender and until the building not in use. until commissioner john's said what would be more helpful to hear from you all, that is a reduction in

incentive. we have many incentives in the code, but hearing from you what you think about the reduction of incentive i think will be useful for us, not only for staff, but the planning commission and the board of supervisors. >> so when i think about the economic impact and maintaining the building, it reminds me of what we have under if you are working on an existing let's say retail space and you are spending $100,000 and you are going to trigger improvement for ada access. it almost seems like this should be an economic factor where it's a per square foot or how do you want to say, per square foot number and that triggers a $10 per square foot has to go towards improvements of the building. it would seem like we have

something pretty set so it's not arbitrator. it would seem that can we say a calculation is made per square foot gets more in rent and therefore 15 percent or 25 percent of that goes towards maintaining the building. i would like to see something very concrete like that. >> in response to that, adding percentages like that to the code we find tricky because they require updating on a regular basis and we know our code continues to grow rather than get up dated. as commissioner john said every case is unique. if there is a way to allow the decision makers to allow what the appropriate investment is and that would provide the flexibility that we need to implement that. the zoning administrator is here and he can present some advice to

you on how that code can be utilized. >> even that example, we are bringing back a visual aspects versus a structural aspects in that case. if the zoning administrator wants to speak, no, you are good? okay. >> i think we are doing a lot of social engineering here. it's like prop g asking people to give up their profits on their sale or a social good. i think you were doing having very similar here starting to say this has a value that to us so therefore you are going to pay for it. mr. frye talks about a reduction of an incentive which it is a reduction of an incentive except for the fact that how do we know that if we don't know any numbers. all of the -- i totally agree with what mr. brosdz said and i

appreciate john's comments that we should stick to the historic issues here. it seems to me that in the code we as the hpc are required to provide a recommendation on whether the proposed use would enhance the feasibility of preserving the historic property and yet how would we know that in anyway even though the staff says it's so or there is some economic of presentation of materials that will allow us to understand that. i'm wondering in the structure report is there anything about numbers? >> tim frye department staff. at this time no, i think what we would do is similar to what commissioner john's mentioned is two components that come together to provide a full picture. we can certainly ask for economic data to support the proposal. it would be similar, i would estimate

it would be similar to how the mills act is run because we ask for not only a preservation and maintenance plan but we also ask for quotes for how expensive would it be to do that work. we can do something very similar in this case. >> can i ask this. mr. skree is here and he worked on haro and that would point to something with the may -- may masonry. >> it would depend on the proposal and how it would enhance or inappropriate corrections that would that happened in the past. like at haro if we knew the concrete was falling heavily we would have asked the sponsors to include