shaking so pronounced that you are not going to be able to get up and go anywhere. you are pretty much staying where you are when that earthquake hits. you are not going to be able to stand up and run with gravity. >> you want to get under the door frame but you are not moving to great distances. >> where can i buy a richter scale? >> mr. richter is selling it. we are going to put a plug in for cold hardware. they are not available. it's a rather complex. >> in fact we don't even use the richter scale anymore. we use a moment magnitude. the richter scale was early technology. >> probably a myth that i hear most often is my building is just fine in the loma prieta

earthquake so everything is fine. is that true ? >> loma prieta was different. the ground acceleration here was quite moderate and the duration was moderate. so anyone that believes they survived a big earthquake and their building has been tested is sadly mistaken. >> we are planning for the bigger earthquake closer to san francisco and a fault totally independent. >> much stronger than the loma prieta earthquake. >> so people who were here in '89 they should say 3 times as strong and twice as long and that will give them more of an occasion of the earthquake we

would have. 10 percent isn't really the threshold of damage. when you triple it you cross that line. it's much more damage in earthquake. >> i want to thank you, harvey, thanks pat for @p.

>> good afternoon, we'll call this meeting ftd historic preservation commission to order. >> welcome to the san francisco historic preservation commission regular meeting for october 15, 2014. i would like to remind the audience the

commission does not tolerate outbursts of any kind. please silence any mobile dwietions and before speaking to the commission if you'd care to please state your name for the record. i'd like to take roll. commission hasz. here. commissioner johns, here. and commissioner matsuda. we do expect commissioner wolfram. commissioners, first on your agenda is general public comment. at this time members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. each member of the public may address the commission for up to 3 minutes. i have no speaker cards. >> thank you, any member of the public wish to speak on an item not on the agenda? seeing none we will close public comment. >> which places us on

department matters. item 1, director report. >> tim fry, department star. the director's report was included in your packets. happy to answer any questions if you have any at this time. >> i see no questions. we'll move on. commissioners, that will place you on item 2, planning commission staff report and announcements. >> tim fry again, department staff. just a couple items to share with you. since your last hearing two items at the planning commission, on october 2nd. first is the commission received this commission's letter suggesting the retention of the facade on the historic property as part of the proposal for 1545 pine street. at the october 2nd hearing the planning commission unanimously certificated the eir and approved the project as proposed without retaining that facade.

part of the reasoning there was many commissioners or a couple commissioners remarked that they felt that the proposed design was successful and referenced the massing of the historic property from a contextual perspective and therefore they did not -- while they were appreciative of the letter they did not see retention of the facade as being an improvement to the overall design of the proposal. at the same hearing the commission also reviewed the office conversion legislation reviewed by this commission for the benefit of the public, this is a piece of legislation proposed by supervisor cohen in regards to allowing for office conversion from pdr uses in landmark buildings. the commission had many similar comments to the hpc and unanimously recommended approval of the proposed legislation with the modifications that

we discussed here. there was some public comment suggesting that there may be other methods for limiting the office conversion but the commission remarked that they felt that the vertical controls that are outlined in the proposed legislation was the most effective tool for enforcing the requirement rather than a percentage of the floor or another method of calculation. so that will be the proposed leg will be forwarded to the board of supervisors and we will keep you updated on its progress. that concludes my remarks unless you have any questions about the planning commission. thank you. >> thank you. seeing no comments, move on. >> commissioners, that will place you under commission matters item 3, president's report announcements. >> no report. >> item 4, draft minutes for october 1st, 2014. >> commissioner pearlman.

>> i just have a question. while i very much appreciate mr. fry's comments and everybody's comments, i'm wondering why we don't have all the text of the comments about the projects whereas, like i said, i really appreciate your comments, mr. fry, which are detailed quite specifically, but then we get to something like the civic center inventory and other things and all it says is so and so spoke and this is what the commission decided. so i'm wondering -- because i would think that's where we would want to pick up a lot of the issues that we've discussed to make sure they are portrayed accurately. i don't know if there's a reason that that's not done. maybe you can --. >> just always been the practice. the minutes, requirement for the minutes is to indicate who spoke, whether or not they were in favor or in opposition or neutral to the project. we indicate those with minus signs and the plus signs, and then we very briefly

paraphrase what the person said. without actually transcribing verbatim what a person says i worry that we may not provide what the person said or the intent of the person, what the person said accurately and, to be quite honest, it would be a tremendous amount of work to transcribe what every commissioner says for every one and the final action is what matters. >> it is memorialized. >> on tape. >> it is recorded. the audio is recorded and sfgovtv does report our proceedings now. >> commissioner johnck. >> maybe suggest an idea about this because over many, many years i have done many, many minutes and they are, depending on the topic, very challenging to try to summarize, particularly the type of suggestion that we had. so i can

appreciate staff's issue in response to this. but i was thinking if we feel strongly about, you know, what we said that we could submit something, right, submit something to the record that could appear in the minutes. i'm just suggesting that -- if our comments, in other words, if we thought this was really important that we should maybe --. >> i think we could if they were prepared in advance and your comments that you provided at the hearing, you read off of those bullet points and we could include those. i would only caution providing written comments after the fact to be included in the minutes you could add things that weren't necessarily provided at the hearing. it just gets a little sketchy. >> i agree. something immediate. if we write down bullet points or something, that would be my solution. >> i certainly understand that most of

the things that we're, you know, that we're talking about are fairly straightforward. there just have been a number of issues, you know, the pdr office conversion and some of these bigger things like the civic center, inventory, things like that, it garners a lot of conversation and we don't even get, we don't even have a bullet point about, you know, what the conversation was about. so, you know, and then with mr. fry and the director there's, it's pretty much verbatim what they said and that seems less important. the report seems less important than the discussion of salient, you know, salient projects or something. so that's where i came down. but i appreciate very much the challenge it would be. >> commissioner wolfram. >> actually i just had a question about, when did we start doing this verbatim description in the beginning is pretty new, right? what did we do before? >> it is relatively new,

commissioner wolfram. i appreciate you noticing that. you may recall that i was fortunate enough to hire an assistant and a manager of the commission affairs and christine lamiranda has been striving to make our minutes from the office consistent and so it's something we provide the planning commission and we decided to provide it to you as well. it prevents us from having to second-guess what you were trying to say and just put down exactly what you said. >> and any corrections at this time? seeing none we will open up for public comment. any member of the public wish to comment on the draft meeting minutes? seeing none we will close public comment. >> and move to approve. >> second. >> thank you. >> on that motion to adopt the draft minutes for october 1st, 2014.

(roll call). >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7-0. and places you on item 5, comments and questions. >> i have none so we'll close commission comments. >> very good. in that case, commissioners, it will place you on item 6, cultural heritage asset subcommittee. >> commissioner matsuda, you want to -- or commissioner hyland, the first one. >> this is a quick introduction, commissioners, about a month ago president hasz appointed a couple members of this commission to a subcommittee which met earlier this afternoon and are here to give