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 concrete maintenance repair into their

maintenance plan or in the case of 444 haro, the winds had all been changed to inappropriate windows and to help restore it pack to the original windows, we asked they be reinstalled properly. we kept it very much to what the historic character of the property and at the end of the day would it still be eligible as a historic resource. >> do we take a couple examples like that and take the cost they went through on the square foot that got converted. >> every building is different. >> but are we going to make some building owners pay more than otherwise? >> perhaps. if the mills act >> it should be a range. too mills act does the same. >> but if we get a historic report and there is 10 items on there, how are we going to say which items to

do? >> excuse me for interrupting, we use this body as sort of a deciding factor in that for a mills act contract, we will receive a contract for a building in great disrepair and one that has been completely renovated prior and they will have savings in them and they will have a tax savings because we hope they are going invest in the property. the ones that have been rehabilitated will have a smaller tax because some have already done the work. the claim anti-would bring you that mants maintenance plan and they can decide whether or not they are tackling the priority issues identified in the structures report or they have a viable plan.

because some of the structures say immediately you have to fix the roof, you have to seismically upgrade the building. those are priorities while on going maintenance of repairs can happen over the course of the life of the building. >> does that influence the amount of square footage at all? that seems unrelated to these controls? >> yeah. again, it's with the historic maintenance and building plans that are developed now that have been reviewed by this commission. they are pretty much a discussion between the property owners and the planning department on this commission of what's a reasonable amount of work that should occur to the priority in compliance with the code provision. >> i get it, but at the same time if you have a four 4 story building and you are allowed to do one floor, then, where is the incentive? right, why even fix up the

building. so, that's why, it's almost like that ada percentage calculation. i would love some relative range by if you are doing 10,000 square feet versus 80,000 square feet or 200,000 square feet. there has to be a range of what we are going to ask to be spent versus the amount of square footage you are converting? >> i agree with you and that makes sense from an implementation perspective. my only concern is depending object how the market and even next month that could require updating in the code. that's why i'm afraid of a hard number there. if there is a way we can build sock -- some flexibility into it. >> ddi does that with the 20 percent rule, they create a threshold that changes all the time. when they say when i first started

working it was $80,000 worth of work and now it's $136,000. there is a mechanism in the tdi's doed -- code to update that to keep that anybody escalating with the times. >> i just want to come out with something fair, right, across the board that we can point to. >> commissioner john's? >> not only that you should be fair, but if you are encouraging people to spend their money in order to fix the buildings, i think they should not only be fair but predictable. otherwise people cannot make plans that make any sense if we get a situation where there isn't predictability. so let's not lose sight of

reality. >> thank you. commissioner johnck? >> well, i guess the use of the term historic structure report, this is different than a half, is that right? and what i'm looking at first of all i think that supervisor cohen's ideas are good. i basically like it. i think we are looking at how to achieve a broader social goal here for the city. so i think they are good. i'm just looking at is this requirement of historic structure report really going to help that much versus i think the economic need, the economic analysis. maybe that will do some more good. but, because my understanding of when a building comes to landmarking too and i'm still just a year on the commission is that you do

elaborate job of analyzing structure in bringing to us a landmarking proposal already. and you did that with henry adams. so i'm not just vowing the idea of requiring what some better job or somewhere along the guidelines talking about. so this is just my general idea. >> that's a great point commissioner and if i can answer that question. the difference between the designation report and historical structure report is the designation report is done by a qualified historian, for the designation report we would require an engineering to give some seismic information and if the roof meets needs to be replaced. they are able in the historic structure report to

prioritize what should happen to the property to continue it's preservation. >> it would be slightly different. >> definitely, but the designation report that you are talking about informs that historic structure. we have to do one first and then the historic structure report second. >> commissioner pearlman? >> i just want to ask a technical question in the code, why is someone required a building to be a landmark and others require it to be a category 1234, article 11 building is there a reason? >> there is a higher code in the pdr because there is no residential permitted so we basically made a higher level this is an extreme policy decision and this is a protected area. the other area that you can do residential as a right. the bonus is mostly around an allowing it to be more office than

otherwise would be allowed butted you can do residential as a right but with a lower threshold and soma has a mixed area except maybe the law district, the other aspects which most of some of areas where there has been more of mixed uses over time. the pdr district, this is more protected area that we kaufrd out -- kafrd out of these more loose restrictions and the other criteria have been in place for 25 years. we haven't considered them at that time. some of the plans can consider those criteria and when they created the sally district they had no ability to do office in those buildings doesn't matter how historic they are. there is a number of thresholds in place. >> one other question, this

maybe a planning commission question rather than hpc question. was there any issue around replacement of pdr. i know this is part of the question is the loss of pdr because even with controls, there is a loss of pdr. that is probably a planning commission question. i don't know if steve or andrea if you talked about that relative to this legislation? >> there is two kinds of new projects, there is changes of use and there is new construction. the plan has in place when you do new construction you have to replace one for one and it's in the pdr district, you haven't seen much is that no one is building a lot of new construction in that district but there is that one for one replacement. and change of use is something you

can't do one for one replacement because this is the case we are trying to limit, this is the only building where there could behind the meter that change of use and we are trying to limit the removal of pdr uses but still maintain the incentive for preservation. so that's exactly what the case is here. the other way to do it to say there would be no office level whatsoever but that would not go support the goal of preservation. so this is meant to strike the balance. >> okay. thanks. >> thank you. and before we open public comment, i do want to say it's 444 haro and rich's decision to go with the windows was a good decision because it looks so much better. any member of the public wish to speak on this item, please come to the podium. >> thank you very much.

with all do respect, mr. frye, words matter. i went back in the case of henry adams and rewatched the tape and the item was not tabled. it was continued to the call of the chair. tabled could imply that it's never going to come back again. continued to the call of the chair maybe as soon as the election results have been certified. afternoon commissioners, my name is jim nicko chair of the process and i'm also a pdr guy. the preservation that serviced light industrial job is not reserved for any one supervisorial district. it is about preservation of the working class of this city. sometimes it's not necessary to

landmark a building in order to preserve it. the planning code gives you an option to convert significant buildings from light industrial to the more profitable uses such as office. here is the key point, if it's necessary to preserve the viability of the building, it didn't seem to be the case with the design center and economically successful building with a 90 percent occupancy rate of pure pdr businesses. it's not a matter of whether the conversion to office would be convenient or desirable nor is it a question of real estate values or profitability. the question is whether this legislation is necessary to preserve the viability of all of these buildings. in the glaring omission of this legislation is any requirement for financial data to demonstrate

the need for landmarking at all. thank you. >> any other member of the public, please come up. >> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is decemberary -- desiree smith on behalf of san francisco heritage. we are here to request the proposed designation for designated landmark office use in pdr districts. we feel these amendments strike a balance for the need for preservation incentives and as well as the need to support the intention of important pdr uses in our city. of course while this commission maintains dhoorjs look in the interest of historic preservation we feel that as members of the preservation community it's our responsibility to ensure that we conduct our preservation activities in socially economically responsible ways. so we are very encouraged

with that. the commission is having such a robust conversation about these issues. we also would support the ideas to add a requirement for an hsr or economic analysis or quotes to help inform the decision. thank you. >> any other member of the public wish to speak? seeing none, we'll close public comment and bring it back to commission. commissioner john's? >> well, so at this point i'm a little at sea as to what we are supposed to do because we do have a draft ordinance, but we've also been informed that the draft ordinance is most probably going to be changed. so, that leaves me in an extremely awkward position of perhaps being called upon to vote yes or no

on an ordinance that i have a high level of confidence isn't going to be what we'll get before the board of supervisors. >> if we might, from ms. ross? >> yeah, i'm happy to present a couple options. one option to present approval with suggested modifications. what we get from the planning commission and deal with as amendments at the land use committee. one of the reasons why i talked a little bit about what we were thinking of adding is to get your feedback and one of the options available to you would be to recommend to the planning commission or the board approval with modifications that include a requirement that we add a historic structure report that include cost estimate and economic analysis as well as some of the things that we are going to add in the interim of

controls related to tenant relocation. frequently we get recommendations and we work with department staff with the motion that you send forward to the board of supervisors. that's one option available to you. if it's the commission's desire, in addition to that, when we get to the planning commission process we are happy to send you with where we end up with specific languages when we come back and have a conversation with you about it at that point. i do think approval with modifications is probably one of the best more efficient options open to the commission. we certainly is through as an on going dialogue. we have a lot of conversations with a lot of stakeholders.

>> i see that with approval with modification. >> is that what it means that we get approval with modifications. >> i don't think it's the desire, but if it's the desire for us to come back where we are with the planning commission hearing, i would be happy to do that. >> this is specifically related to the hpc. if the whole purpose of this code session is about the fees ability of maintaining historic structures, seems to me that we should see the modified and be able to vote on that as opposed to just be an aware of it. i would not vote to approve with modifications unless there

was some provision in the motion that we had some input on a further -- >> i think we have no issue with that. i think with what we would like to do is get through planning commission hearing to get to issues where they have been and how they have been transmitted and bring something that incorporated. i know they are not issues but to segregate all the feedback and have a more holistic discussion. if you want to request that we come back to you with a more final version update with how it's implemented, we are happy to do that. >> this is from our previous discussions on other projects, the economic thing really is a big factor here. i think that is why we do want to see this again. >> what i'm hearing from the commission in terms of what

we are going to ask the city attorney and work with planning is the development is the requirement for historic structures report that also includes cost estimates that are specific to the items in the historic structures report and then some economic analysis associated with the items that are described in the historic structures report. so it's like historic structures report plus. so we can work with planning staff and the city attorney on what exactly that language is and it will be reflected in your commission motion for modifications and we can bring back what is the final proposed language to be included. i can make it up, but the city attorneys don't let me sometimes. >> well, let me ask you this: i think you have a pretty good sense of the things that are concerning historic preservation commission. there will be a transcript,

although, and your people are here. why don't you just take what we've said and the concerns we've expressed and take those back to what supervisor cohen and let her make the best use that she can of those concerns and then when once there is a final or more final or almost final or an ultimate final ordinance, let us take a look at it. >> sure. i think we are more than happy to do it. it's never final just because there is 11 members on the board who sometimes decide to change things later on, but i would, i think one of the reasons why we came to the hpc was to share with the planning commission your thoughts on this issue because i think they are going to want to understand what some of your perspectives are on this

particular issue. because we have that agenda item scheduled before them, what i would like to do is have your concerns memorialized in some form whether it's a motion where here are the changes we would like and want to see this before it goes on to approval for consideration before the board of supervisors that way we can share it with the planning commission and we are more than happy if you put a requirement for us to come back and seek your final approval of a more final draft of the legislation iechlt just they we want to keep moving through the process with subsequent decision makers. >> would it be sufficient for your needs if the commission sends a letter that expresses our concerns rather than attempting to struggle through and approval with all the modifications at this meeting? >> sure. i would defer to planning staff on how

they want to codify items. >> commissioners, i think we are all on the same page and understand what you are looking for. we would be happy in drafting a letter and share with president hausz and share with you and you can continue with a hearing but in the meantime we'll give the letter to supervisor cohen's office and everyone can start to work on your recommendation. >> what's the timeline? >> i was just going to suggest that. this letter would need to be written fairly quickly before the planning commission so they can consider it. it's on the advanced calendar for october 2nd. you will be meeting october first.1st. >> i think we can include in the case report the planning staff, i'm looking at steve, it's for october 2nd a reference for the discussion

that we have here and reference for the letter that is forthcoming and we can summarize what the concerns are and that way we have -- >> i think it would be a preliminary. they are not going to hear at all until the second. oor >> they are going to hear it like you and any advance of recommendation is appreciated so they can digest that as they are reading the report. if you adopt it on the first, they are not going to get it until the second. >> i have a couple commissioners to chime in here. commissioner wolfram. >> i had some questions for mr. sanchez. i'm curious, when was this original loophole as we might call it, this incentive, when was it originally adopted? >> it was known under a different name but that was adopted with the south of market mixed use district in

the 1990s and had limited applicability and expanded to other eastern neighborhood zoning districts and i believe that for the gr districts was added at that time as well. those pdr districts didn't exist prior to 2008. >> this has never been used, is that a correct statement? the ones related to 1 p and 1 g. >> it sounds correct because at the current time there is no landmark uses. >> commissioners, there is other parts of 803.9 that have been used like 660 third street. >> they are not being affected by this change, right? >> no because the planning

commission just approved 660 third street at last week's hearing. >> i'm going back with the beginning where we are the historic preservation commission and not the zoning commission or zoning administrators and we have to be very careful weighting into the issue of zoning and it's hard to say if this has been successful or not. on one take would say this legislation to exist now is not necessary because nobody has used it. so maybe, it's hard to say whether it's a necessary incentive or not. nobody has used it and seems that it's almost not necessary and we can say yes, it's fine to change it and modify it in a way. it's sort of arbitratorary. >> commissioners to provide a little bit of background we do receive called

on a -- calls on a regular basis to this section. henry adams is the property that qualifies for local landmark status and wants to use it. it's a very runt routine question that we hear. while people are in inquiring about it, my thinking is pretty desirable from a developer point of view. 2 -henry adams is qualified to use it as the code stands right now. >> i guess saying arbitrary is the number of controls, how can we say what is the right numbers of controls and what do we know about pdr use and the zoning issues, that's kind of my point. >> these are existential questions that i don't have answers to. [ laughter ]

>> commissioners i'm sorry, i was going to reiterate that those expertise realize what the criteria should be and what we'll need to evaluate if the code amendment goes through. we want to make sure we are providing you with what we can really respond to, but two, that you can use. if you don't this economic data is useful for you but useful for the planning commission maybe we need to make that distinction. maybe you are more interested in the historic structures report rather than the other pieces. but hearing from you on how you think you would evaluate these properties if they were to come north -- forward in the future would be helpful for us. >> what i would like to do because we are not in a burning timeline, we have a moratorium and we have nothing else in front of us, i would prefer it come

up with some answers to this economic first and come back to us on the first and then we generate a letter. i know that doesn't jive with your october 2nd planning commission meeting. i'm happy to forward comments, we have concerns of these items but i think that would be a better process to include all of this in a more robust discussion of solutions. >> just a point of clarification, the controls right now is not a moratorium that requires a conditional use as opposed to right. there could be some confusion because supervisors kim is considering a moratorium in the south of market. just trying to get the clarity correct. one thing that would be really important for us is not just what we want to see come forward, but how would you use that because right now we are proposing a situation. the proposal on the table is

it doesn't matter what the economic circumstances are as you meet these conditions to move forward. would you like to be in a position to annihilate a landmark and there is no structural need or economic need. we need to know, not just what you want to see, but the deliberation is important, what decision making pivot would be because the other notion if a building is in bad shape you get more. that's the kind of decision, are you going to change the decision based on the condition of the building. and you will be the landmarking or not in terms of the office allocation will go to the planning commission. >> commissioner johnck? >> i'm sensitive to supervisors cohen here and i'm in favor of us trying to be helpful here to this broader social