Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the PDR Office Conversion Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic Preservation Commission asks for economic analysis before endorsing limits on office conversions in PDR landmarks
Summary
The commission continued action on a proposed ordinance from Supervisor Cohen that would limit office allocations in landmark buildings within PDR districts and asked staff to require Historic Structures Reports and economic data before the Planning Commission hearing. The matter was continued to Oct. 1.
San Francisco — The Historic Preservation Commission on Sept. 17 declined to endorse a draft ordinance that would limit new office allocations in landmarked buildings located in Park/Design/Research (PDR) districts and instead asked staff to return with clearer economic analysis and a Historic Structures Report requirement.
Andrea Bruss, staff for Supervisor Jane Cohen, said the draft ordinance aims to preserve PDR space while keeping incentives that help owners maintain historic buildings. "We want to incentivize people to invest in their buildings," Bruss said, describing amendments that would apply floor controls used in urban mixed‑use districts to landmarked buildings in PDR1D and PDR1G and that could require showing "economic need" for larger office allocations.
The commission homed in on what evidence decision‑makers should require. Several commissioners, including Commissioner Johns, asked for a Historic Structures Report (HSR) that would prioritize structural and preservation needs and for cost estimates tied to those prioritized items. Tim Frey, planning department staff, said a HSR would supply the technical baseline decision‑makers need.
Planning staff also presented estimates of the ordinance’s scope. "We found 14 buildings, about a million square feet contained in those buildings," said Steve Wertheim, noting that, as written previously, the code could allow substantial conversions of PDR space. Wertheim said the proposed changes would reduce potential PDR displacement to roughly 330,000 square feet while still permitting office uses intended to help fund preservation.
Public commenters urged stronger financial documentation. Jim Meeko, a former Western SoMa committee chair and PDR advocate, told commissioners, "The glaring omission in this legislation, of course, is any requirement for financial data to demonstrate the need for landmarking at all." Desiree Smith of San Francisco Heritage said her organization supports a requirement for an HSR plus economic analysis.
Commissioners debated practical implementation: whether to set a fixed percentage, require per‑square‑foot investment thresholds, or allow case‑by‑case discretion. Planning staff warned that hard numerical thresholds can become quickly outdated and suggested building flexibility into decision criteria similar to the Mills Act process.
Rather than vote on a recommendation, the commission unanimously voted to continue the item to Oct. 1 and asked planning staff and the city attorney to draft language that would require a Historic Structures Report with cost estimates and an economic analysis (or equivalent documentation) to inform both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Staff will also prepare a letter that summarizes the commission’s initial concerns and proposed modifications for the Planning Commission’s Oct. 2 docket.
Next steps: the commission will revisit the ordinance on Oct. 1; planning staff intends to present the revised language to the Planning Commission on Oct. 2 and, following that review, to the Board of Supervisors.
