updated every six months or quarterly, this may be a technical computer type -- if the information is being added to the data base can't this be made available online so it would always be up to date? >> part of it will be available online with our new permit tracking system. so we could check in with you and at least show the commission how to get access to the information at any time, but that's a great point. maybe we could do both, we could show you how you as commissioners can access it at any time with the public or we could do this on a quarterly basis. >> if you could, i think that would be a good idea. as for your request for things that can be perhaps put on the back burner or deleted, it seems that the time for 2 henry adams has come and gone. so that i would suggest should not be given much attention

until there are other developments. >> commissioner hyland. >> i'd like to congratulate you as well on the excellence of the report. it was very clear. >> interesting. >> hallelujah. >> mary francis did a great job. >> i did have a couple thoughts. one was on priorities, any community-initiated landmark designation should, in my opinion, go to the top because it can really leverage the resources of those volunteers who really think it's important and you want to capture their momentum while they have it. so the community ones that you've identified, the rube goldberg building. we did talk before about

resources and we have requested and additional full-time head count in the budget that was denied and i question for you, help me remember, we have one current full-time head count to be distributed amongst multiple staffs currently in the budget for this program? >> yes. that's sort of the short easy answer. the good news is because, again, we have a backlog that we're dealing with we are hiring another preservation planner by the end of this month and then the good news is if we are able -- when we're able to do that, jonathan (inaudible) who is now on the preservation team, is dividing his time between ceqa and preservation

work. he was working on a half time already but it will be solely for designation and survey. that said, we still have grant-related surveys that we're working on as well as other initiatives so it may not be solely designation work but it will, it does account for additional work hours that we can devote towards the work program. >> i wonder if adding another metric of how much time this full-time head count was actually utilized? because i know the department, your staff as a whole is understaffed and has many different priorities and distractions or important things that come up all the time and i'm coming up on two years now and there hasn't been that much progress on the commission-initiated landmarks. so i'd like to at least keep track of are we putting

the time in that we've had actually committed to it. so that's one metric. then as far as the 3 months, i would actually like to see it more often than 3 months. i know it requires you to prepare more for a hearing but if you are reporting back more often then it kind of keeps it in site. six months is way too long. three months to me up to now has been minimal, so i would actually consider maybe every 6 weeks or every third hearing or something just as an update. >> okay. >> commissioner pearlman. >> tim, i had a question about projects like 2 henry adams where that was community initiated, in big quotes, and now of course is sort of tabled. i assume that the owner is not interested

now in moving forward, which certainly reveals their intent of the whole process, but we have all this great information and it is a building that we all thought should be landmarked. so, i mean, does that forever live in limbo unless the owner wants to do something? i mean what do we do with that now? >> i mean, technically, supervisor cohen can revive the designation at the land use committee and move it forward to the full board if they decided -- there's nothing that requires consent of the property owner to designate a local property. if there was enough momentum they could still designate the property if they saw fit. that said, the designation report and the information and research that we've gathered is still, would be an active part of our data base. so i feel like we have enough information to respond to uets -- either current or

future changes to the property in a very knowledgeable way, knowing what's best for the building. if this commission would like to do something with that designation report, certainly look into options. i mean, one thing to consider is we are moving to a system with the new web site where we are going to post all of our designation reports online. there could be a separate section for reports that, you know, were pursued or completed but they weren't formally designated because at least we're disseminating that information to the public for their own use. that's one way of dealing with it. well, i'm wondering how the commission feels about this particular project. i mean, do we just say, oh, okay, it's done, it will just live forever in a data base? or do we feel like it's worth having this building that's already been research done and got all the way -- i mean, do we go

back to supervisor cohen and say, and maybe wait until the legislation passes, but we go back to supervisor cohen and say, look, we still think this is a very important and valid landmark building, could you now go ahead and nominate it? >> we're happy to initiate that conversation with the supervisor or along with the commission if one of you would like to attend, maybe president hasz or vice president wolfram, we're certainly happy to have that conversation because we agree with you. it's certainly a worthy candidate of our local program. >> commissioner hyland. >> i would support what you are suggesting, mr. pearlman. i think we should take an active role in putting forward, once the unintended consequences --. >> are played out. >> are played out, exactly, instead of letting it drop. the legislation clarifies how the pdr to office

conversion works that we then encourage the supervisors to --. >> because i also think that would reinforce our role, especially to someone like supervisor cohen, where we're not -- i think commissioner wolfram said it best. we should be doing what we do, let the planning commission do what they do and let the supervisor's office do what the supervisors do. so our role is really in the role of the landmarks program is very much first and foremost in the public's eye about what we do. we create landmarks. i mean that's what the department and the hpc, you know, is known for and we've often talked about how few landmarks are getting approved every year. well, here's one where the work is done. so i really feel like that would be a great way to at least put another one in the news and it will be in the news because everyone will know the building, of course, so it will really put the hpc in front of the process of

we're landmarking, we want this building to be a landmark for the city. >> commissioner johnck. >> well, it would come back to us under the new criteria. because i would agree that it should come back. why wouldn't it come back under the new criteria for doing an economic analysis? i think you are proposing that, sure, it could come back to us and the work's been done, but after the pdr legislation has been resolved, in which case there would be additional criteria for that building to --. >> they do a conversion. >> they on would keep it separates. >> it would only come back to us if they wanted to pursue the conversion. >> oh, all right, okay. >> commissioner hyland. >> that was kind of my realization in

the previous discussion was that if it's a land mark, it's a landmark. >> okay. >> we're not going to not landmark because there's some unintended consequences so now there's this gray area that they are going to clarify, the supervisors' legislation will be clarified. i do want to ask the other supervisors if we can give tim some direction on how often we should have a report back, if it's 6 weeks or 3 months. >> my first comment is every 6 weeks is every third meeting. to be very honest, that seems like a lot. >> yeah. >> even if it's only a few hours to get a report ready, i'd rather continue to sink that into the time on the projects. three months i think is our base standard if we want to try and get a little bit further down, but i think

every third meeting might be a little much. >> i was just thinking 3 months seems like we've forgotten about it before it comes back again. >> my only thing is what we've asked for from staff, and this current report shows it, is that accountability and timeline. we have 6 or 7 projects on a timeline right now. we have other ones that are on a graph idea of what's going to happen. i think it gives everybody, i think it's now, staff is asking us to prioritize so i think we need to next time come back with a good priority list and with their help in understanding who has the information, how close they are, et cetera. so to me --. >> do we want to wait 3 months to create that prioritization? >> we can talk about it today. >> to be honest with you, talk about

it at the next meeting, like continue this just simply to have that conversation because then i'd like to go back and kind of think about a couple of these projects. you know, a little bit. >> this is great -- i'm not criticizing staff or mary or jonathan's effort, they are both very dedicated and i'm sure put in a lot more time than even their normal work schedule. but i would like to see some momentum and it's been, for me, 3 months just hasn't been quite a clip. maybe once we do have it prioritized and we start seeing some progress then it might feel like 3 months is enough. >> commissioner wolfram. >> sorry, i was -- just to quickly interject. i'm prepared or we're prepared to talk about any of these properties today so if you do have a question about the status of the property in terms of research or owner

or whatever, we even have our own personal suggestions on which ones could probably get moved to the bottom of the list, but just to let you know we can talk about it today if you want or leave it to the next meeting if you want to mull it over. >> is the listing currently, is that the priority we have the way they're listed in the report. >> no. >> to be honest with you, i think it would be a little frustrating to look at the whole of these and start calling out numbers. what i'd rather see is a list of priority, to start with what does the staff recommend then we can process it better and come back so potentially we could continue this to the next meeting and in the interim get that list from staff and then i think we would have a more efficient conversation on this. in the meantime, commissioner wolfram. >> i guess i would say a couple things in response to commissioner

hyland, which is we shouldn't forget we did designate quite a few buildings last year, the marcus and the tavern so there was a big set of landmarks that went through, it's like you swallow a big meal and then you take off until it's digested again. i don't think we should forget, i think the staff has done a great job in pushing through a lot of designations. >> absolutely. no criticism intended. >> i agree with commissioner hasz that three months to me seems like an appropriate time. i think six weeks we'd spend all our time doing reports. about the prioritization next time, i would throw in a pitch for the modern designations. in the 4 years since this list was created we haven't designated any, in pacific heights, every time i go, oh, my god,

what happened to that one? there is so much change in that neighborhood and i think it would send a good message these are important resources in there and a lot of people buy houses and they are modern houses and they think, oh, well, i can turn this down. >> those are two particular -- one of the most important in california and mendelsohn one of the great architects in the world so we have two options there. i see the cowell house is coming forward too. that's a great one. >> why don't we open this up for public comment at this time. any member of the public wish to comment at this time? >> yes. >> name is boris yedler and i'm representing potrero district which has the university mount ladies home. about 3 months ago i filed a

petition with 222 signature with regard that building should be designated as a historic landmark. evidently you people told us that you're going to do survey on it and come up with all the qualification for that purpose. then today i have the survey in my hand, it says based on initial review of historic photographs that i presented with the petition and previous survey efforts, the building may qualify for local designation. as it appears i hope this -- do you have this one in your possession? >> i believe we did. >> okay, if you do, then i don't have to go through the whole thing. but according to my thinking, any

building that has significant architectural features and also historic features, which this building has, according to the architect who was les martin, he was very famous architect and he designed that building 1932 and they built it and also historical, which is like passed away and this man was important person and historical background of him was he dedicated a lot of fortune, really, helped the schools and helped some other things, he spent more than $1 million. also he supported this building for many years and it's been a landmark,

really, according to our people in that residence and i've been there for 45 years. and every one of them thinks this building should be designated as a historic building, a landmark, based on architectural and historical fact and improving itself also, it has beautiful features. this building is built up on hard ground, 1989 we had an earthquake, six point something, nothing happened to that building. even it's a brick building and it doesn't have reinforcement foundation, but that doesn't mean it cannot be qualified for that, they can underpin that and put anchor bolting and it's going to be as good as any any other building. i hope you tell me when you are going to approve it. >> thank you very much. any

other member of the public wish to speak? >> hello, commissioners, good afternoon, i am (inaudible) with san francisco heritage. i just wanted to bring your attention to one of the potential landmarks that's on the designation work program which is ingleside perez resbyterian. earlier heritage petitioned to take on that designation and we have recently begun research on the site and will be preparing a landmark nomination for the site. we have an intern with us from us history department and we also have erica schulz who is a senior historical person from (inaudible) met with the

reverend roland gordon from the church and also the artist of the interior collages, painted some murals that are on the entry of the church as well so we'll be looking at that, at the whole interior. we met also with members of the congregation a couple weeks ago and have a list of oral history interviewees that we will be conducting later this week. we just wanted to provide this and hoping this process works out nicely in the future and heritage can help tackle some of the landmarks on the work program. >> a quick question about that one. is that the old el ray building? >> no, different neighborhood. >> seeing there is no more public, we will close public comments, bring it

back to commission. >> can i ask a question through mr. fry about the ladies home? it's not listed because we haven't added it to the list? >> correct, at the hearing in august the only direction staff heard was to begin working on the goldberg designation. they were also the ones that had hired a consultant, they were ready to go, which is i think part of the reason why we received that direction. but we, i didn't hear, at least, any indication to begin working on the ladies home or the lang house. >> i remember specifically saying we didn't think the lang house was of highly critical time frame, given --. >> maybe we can add it to the list and put them in the priority and

then every three months we can reshuffle the priority based on new information. >> to commissioner hyland's comment before, if you want us to prioritize the community initiated designations we can certainly add it to the list. we have had some correspondence with the public about the proposed designation but we certainly could ramp things up. i mean our main focus has been the goldberg building right now. >> i think the ladies home is interesting. a, it's in an area of the city that doesn't have any landmarks, b, the social history of it seems to be highly interesting and potentially significant so i would support adding it to the list. >> and it has 225 people on a survey. >> probably even more than any other landmark designation. >> we also do have a letter of support from supervisor campos already.

>> commissioner johns. >> i move that we continue this to some date in december that we get the priority list, suggested priority list, from the department and that then we take this up. >> might we be able to do it in november? >> november would be fine if they can do it by that time. >> in terms of the priority list. >> continue this item to then so we can get the priority list. november 5th may be tough. we could schedule it for the november 19th hearing if that works for you. >> november 19 would be fine. >> do i have a second? >> second. >> thank you. prrp. >> thank you very much. >> commissioners, then on that motion to continue this matter for further consideration and prioritization to november 19th, commissioner hyland, yes. commissioner johnck, yes.

commissioner johns, yes. commissioner matsuda, yes. commissioner matsuda, yes. commissioner commissioner hasz, yes. >> with that it passes 7-0. >> and with that we will adjourn this meeting. (meeting adjourned). >> a way of life in san francisco. when the next major quake hits, the city hopes a new law requiring seismic upgrades to five story buildings will help keep more residents safe and sound. tell me a little about the soft story program.

what is it? >> it's a program the mayor signed into law about a year and a half ago and the whole idea behind it was to help homeowners strengthen buildings so that they would not coapse. >> did you the soft story program apply to all buildings or building that were built in a certain time frame? >> it only applies to buildings built in the time frame of 1978 and earlier. it's aimed at wood framed buildings that are three or more stories and five or more units. but the openings at the garage level and the street level aren't supported in many buildings. and without the support during a major earthquake, they are expected to pancake and flatten ~. many of the buildings in this program are under rent control so it's to everybody's advantage to do the work and

make sure they protect their investment and their tenant. >> notices have gone out to more than 6,000 owners of potentially at-risk properties but fewer than one-third have responded and thousands might miss an important deadline in september to tell the city what they plan to do. let's talk worst case scenario. what happens in a collapse? >> buildings have the tendency of rolling over. the first soft story walls lean over and the building collapse. in an earthquake the building is a total loss. >> can you describe what kind of strengthening is involved in the retrofit? >> one of the basic concepts, you want to think of this building kind of like rubber band and the upper three floor are very rigid box and the garage is a very flexible element. in an earthquake the garage will have a tendency to rollover. you have to rubber band analogy that the first floor is a very tough but flexible rubber band such that you never drive force he to the upper floors.

where all your damage goes into controlled element like plywood or steel frame. >> so, here we are actually inside of a soft story building. can we talk a little about what kinds of repairs property owners might expect? >> it's a very simple process. we deliberately tried to keep it that way. so, what's involved is plywood, which when you install it and make a wall as we have done here already, then you cover it with this gypsum material. this adds some flexibility so that during the earthquake you'll get movement but not collapse. and that gets strengthened even more when we go over to the steel frame to support the upper floor. >> so, potentially the wood and the steel -- it sounds like a

fairly straightforward process takes your odds of collapse from one in 4 to one in 30? >> that's exactly right. that's why we're hoping that people will move quickly and make this happen. >> great. let's take a look. so, let's talk steel frames. tell me what we have going on here. >> well, we have a steel frame here. there are two of these and they go up to the lower floor and there is a beam that go across, basically a box that is much stiffer and stronger. ~ goes so that during the earthquake the upper floor will not collapse down on this story. it can be done in about two weeks' time. voila, you're done. easy. >> for more information on how to get your building earthquake read week. >> ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ the san francisco. the reporter: has many

opportunities to get out and placing play a 4 thousand acres of play rec and park has a place win the high sincerely the place to remove user from the upper life and transform into one of mother nachdz place go into the rec and park camp mather located one hundred and 80 square miles from the bay bridge past the oakland bridge and on and on camp mather the city owned sierra nevada camping facility is outings outside the gate of yosemite park it dates back before the area became is a

popular vacation it i sites it was home to indians who made the camp where the coral now stands up and artifacts are found sometimes arrest this was the tree that the native people calm for the ac accordions that had a high food value the acorns were fatally off the trees in september but they would come up prosecute the foothills and were recipe the same as the people that came to camp camp is celebrating it's 90th year and the indians were up here for 4 thousand we see every day of them in the grinding rocks around the camp we have about 15 grinding sites in came so it was a m