as commissioner's wolfram, we don't know whether this is going to, this is the right appropriate balance and an allowing a loophole not to spin out of control. we are still going to landmark these buildings if the buildings should be landmarked. so whatever legislation or additional information we put into this legislation, i don't think that's going to change that process or that decision. i think we can come back in a week or two. >> commissioners john's? >> this gets back in a way whether it's proposed whether we would landmark a pristine building. i think the answer to that is if it qualified absolutely yes. in a way, the tail has been wagging the dog here for a while because we got into this because there were economic incentives built into making it in the eyes of some people less painful to have a landmark property. that at least has always been my evaluation of these incentives, but that's a very different question whether or not the property ought to be landmarked and qualifies and i would really like to focus more on that latter question on whether it qualifies and ought to be

. >> wolfram, hyland, johnck and john's all pearlman. >> this is general public comment. except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your time already afforded. in the meeting you have up to 3 minutes. i have no speaker cards. >> thank you, any member of the public wish to speak, come to the mic please. >> good afternoon commission and directors. i'm here with my next door neighbor and friend jackie nay lor. i would like to update you on our project. we are still in the building. we are very excited as you know, we were here last month with our architectural historian ed yarbrough. he is working on his report for you. as you know we together and goldberg's granddaughter participate for our report. i don't this it will be too much longer. so with that, we just want to take a few minutes during public comment and update you with some research that we have. ed is working hard on this report and the thing that i'm most excited about, are the publications. we are going to show you three small pieces of research that we thought you would be interested in. the page in the

be helpful here to this broader social goal appreciating what both richards, commissioner john and wolfram have said about paying attention to our role. i guess you are saying don't right a letter, i was thinking i would be happy to refer to staff to write a general letter about what we've discussed here today and highlighting some of the items and hour we -- how we are going to use them and decide on and definitely we need to continue this discussion in that. but i would be happy to keep the process rolling here and get some good feedback which i think would be helpful to the supervisors. that would be my recommendation to have them send a letter now

on that motion, commissioner hyland, commissioner jongs, johnck, john's, wolfram.commissioner karl hasz. that moves 5-0. commissioners item 13 will be taken out of order as it may affect item 12. we'll take item 13 preservation incentives in the planning code. >> and i want to recognize the vice chairman of the commission. >> good afternoon commissioners, rick sue krae department staff. i'm with scott sanchez the zoning administrator. with a follow up to july hearing, the department requested an authorization, and requirement of the review process to speaking controls for flexible use control for controlled resources. we prepared a short presentation on this and copies have been handed out to you since it looks like the laptops are not working. so just to give you an overview of what we'll discuss today. we will talk a little bit about the preservation incentives. we have divided the incentives into four categories. land use incentives, other requirements, financial incentives and miscellaneous. then we'll talk specifically about five of the code incentives that se

. >> commissioner wolfram? >> thank you for this report. i had a question about the the can an -- cultural heritage asset. i like the term. it wasn't clear to me on who would be taking a leadership role on that inventory process. are you thinking it's the various communities would be doing that? because sometimes there might be assets that the community is almost gone or lost and sort of orphaned a little bit and your thoughts about the leadership on the inventory because it seems it needs to be done as soon as we can. that's something that these assets are sort of fragile? >> well, we think that the process developed for japan town is the most successful and kind of defensible process and a process that involves the community in every step of the way. certainly our focus as i mentioned earlier is that the community must be the leader in identifying what is important to their neighborhood identity. but i think there is a role for the city in providing them with the tools and the guidance for how to do that, the social inventory resources fo

commissioner wolfram? >> about objective nine. i'm not sure this is the right area for this idea. a lot of the cities have ordinances that requires a periodic inspection of facade, san francisco doesn't have one but we probably will have one. it's kind of a related topic because if there is going to be an earthquake, if there are maintenance issues with major building faudz facades it's when it's going to be very parent. maybe enacting policies that ensure the building preservation that requires building inspection facade. i'm not sure if this is a right place but it is a related topic. >> commissioner hyland? >> two things. i know mr. bueller from heritage made several specific comments in epa each of the three presentations. i would request his comments be incorporated. i know they are under public comment. and objective 9, this is just a nuance, but in the last sentence of 9.1, it talks about important historic structures that will is survive future disasters. this is a delicate approach to restoring and seismically improving buildings so that they is survive, however, because

. >> commissioner wolfram? >> i greet with the commissioner's comments. on 7.6 i guess whether there or elsewhere we want to add something about the school system and the educational efforts of the school system could undertake to promote the same awareness, basically the same thing you are talking about the programs that would license -- happen in universities and libraries and we would want that as part of the school curriculum. >> it's not part of public institution. >> it is but i think it would be good to be more specific even in the text, it could be easily missed. i think a lot of people don't think of the schools as public -- >> i absolutely agree. call off the schools. good idea. commissioner matsuda? >> thank you. i would like to encourage as you stated shelley about the inclusion about the discussion we just had about cultural heritage assets into this element and to figure someway to mesh our previous presentation into a lot of these elements that we are discussing because i think if we can kickoff the subcommittee and we can start to really f

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

be helpful here to this broader social goal appreciating what both richards, commissioner john and wolfram have said about paying attention to our role. i guess you are saying don't right a letter, i was thinking i would be happy to refer to staff to write a general letter about what we've discussed here today and highlighting some of the items and hour we -- how we are going to use them and decide on and definitely we need to continue this discussion in that. but i would be happy to keep the process rolling here and get some good feedback which i think would be helpful to the supervisors. that would be my recommendation to have them send a letter now generally discussing. >> you mean this is going to be the end of this? >> no. >> no. we are going to consider it further. i'm not offering a motion to establish and ordinance or anything i mean to approve this language so far. i'm just saying, our feedback on this item could be a letter that we continue to discuss how we use it. >> commissioners, if you are willing i think it's beneficial to share your comments at this hearing with the planni