people couldn't just constantly throw in applications, we do have to schedule a hearing in front of the historic preservation commission. and we have to do it no more than 30 days after the date of submital to decide -- the h.p.c. has to decide whether to uphold the initiation of t essentially it's the the landmark site. essentially it's the h.p.c. will be giving a thumb's up or thumb's down to those nomination applications which trigger initiation for individual landmarks only. for historic districts, on the other hand, because they're a larger area the hoip h.p.c. wanted to confine the legal initiation process. so it's only the board of supervisors and only the historic preservation commission has the ability to formally initiate a historic district. so that is basically the initiation and nomination process as rewritten by the h.p.c. i should note to that, in the existing article 10, there is

no provision for the public to initiate or ask to initiate or nominate. it's only the owners, the h.p.c., the board of supervisors essentially. so i don't know if you want to stop at each topic to discuss or have public comment or if you would like -- it's up to you. president miguel: we'll continue. >> ok. the second component that i'd like to raise is moving on to administrative or certificates of appropriateness, which is the entitlement that the h.p.c. has to grant for any building that's in a historic district or an individual landmark for any work, demolition, anything. i'm going to jump to page 19 of the article 10. proposition j gives the h.p.c. complete authority to approve,

disapprove or modify it also allows the department unlike the current article 10, to delegate certain work to staff, to have an administrative, quicker process to occur. article 10 currently does not have that. it basically requires every exterior alteration to go in front of the historic preservation commission. be it one window, be it a nonvisible, rear window or stair, everything has to go in front of them. so the h.p.c. struggled and came up with a process that would allow for administrative certificates of appropriateness to department staff. essentially they outline the process in 19 to 20. what has occurred is that they will delegate certain work to staff. we will get an application in. we will determine if it meets the work that has been delegated to department staff if so, the department will issue a letter of an admin sert of appropriateness, and it will go out for a 15-day mailing to

the owners and any interested parties. at that point and during that 15 days, it's kind of a quasid.r. period. anyone can request that the h.p.c. take a review of that administrative c.f.a., and h.p.c. can still request that as well. so if they do request it, it gets scheduled under the regular hearing procedures. that is basically how it's been set up. so ideally, ordinary maintenance and repairs, u.m.b. work, those are actually specified in this section. and the third is the any other works so delegated. i should note that for article 11 h.p.c. has delegated minor alterations. so it would be something similar to that where they would delegate the department to ease the application process. so that is new. i just wanted to highlight that. the third issue i just want to bring up is related, also, to the hearings that are in front of the historic preservation commission. i am moving now to 21 and 22.

the existing article 10 has notification procedures. and mainly for buildings and historic districts it requires that if a hearing is in front of the h.p.c., that every single property owner in that district get notice of the hearings. that is a very onerous notice. so what the commission did is broke it down to landmark sites and historic districts. we worked with them to kind of streamline it with current department practices, so all the notices that were 10 days are now 20 days. it's going to be -- i mean 20-day mailing to the applicant. and the interested parties. for landmark, individual landmarks, all owners and occupants within 156 feet of the building. and in historic districts it's mailing to owners and occupants of everybody within 300 feet of the property. so just to reiterate for

individual landmarks it's 150 feet and for districts it's 300 feet, owners and occupants. there will be a posted notice on the site, which is not in the code. we eliminated the advertisement, which was currently in the code. and for those projects that have been issued an administrative certificate of appropriateness and there's been a request for the h.p.c. to review that decision, we have a more abbreviated notice because it's, in theory, the second time it's been noticed. it's a 10-day notice for 150 feet so that's the new notification process, two-tiered for admin as well as regular. so i just wanted to highlight that. that was a big difference in article 10 to what they had proposed. two more topics i'd like to bring up. the one is the appeals of a certificate of appropriateness. i'm on page 28 of article 10.

the existing article 10 allows -- excuse me. allows for the owner and basically only the owners to appeal. it kind of -- it somewhat mirrors the existing conditional use appeal process where as the existing code says it has to be subscribed by 20% of all the property owners. in this case instead of the affected, immediately surrounding it, it's 20% of all the owners in the district. prop j created to appeal bodies for the h.p.c. there is the board of appeals which will hear about 95% of the appeals. and anything else that requires either a mument appeal entitlement -- multiple entitlement is to the board of

supervisors so what the h.p.c. did is basically said they wanted to mirror over the current board of appeals processes which allows any interested party in a project to appeal something to the board of appeals, a variance, a d.r., a permit, what not. so within 30 days of their action, c of a can be appealed to the board of appeals or the booed of supervisors. and that's it. it's that simple. so that's all they changed it to. and then the last section i want to talk about is 1014. it's on page 33 to 34. and this is a section that directly relates back to the nomination and initiation process. this deals with what the city can and cannot do when a building is pending designation. when it has been initiated but not necessarily been formally designated by the board of supervisors. and it's also commonly known of as 180-day clock.

basically, currently when a building is initiated by anybody, the city cannot issue any permits for 180 days. the h.p.c. wanted to amend this slightly. they kept the 180-day clock for landmark sites. they said upon initiation, then the 180-day clock starts. for historic zribblingts, due to the complicated nature -- districts, due to the complicated nature as well as creating the case report and getting it through the system, they realized that 180 days may not be sufficient. so they said for a year there will be a hold on permits. they put explicit provisions in here saying that any property owner can apply to the department and the h.p.c. for a certificate of appropriateness or permit for work while the initiation is pending.

so if a property owner does want to put an addition or deck or something on their building, they can request a permit as if therm a landmark. the intent was not to freeze work in this district. they are very cognizant of the impacts to that. so they did add that provision that they can apply to the h.p.c. for a c of a. so those are the essential five points i wanted to make. i also wanted to note that i have a revised motion for the planning commission. the city attorney informed us that you're not really -- if you so choose to amend or incorporate some of these changes or any of these changes, you are halfing a new resolution not amending the former one. you are asking the department and board of supervisors to incorporate any additional changes. i also want to know, the city attorney has let us know, and this is also for the h.p.c., that the article 10 that you

did finalize on october 6 has not been approved to form legally. so there may be some tweaks when the city attorney goes through it. and i will obviously be bringing those back to you. so i'll pass these out. and that concludes my presentation. and i'm here for questions. president miguel: very good, tara. thank you. i'd like to open it up for public comment at this point. is there any public comment? >> good morning, commissioners. it's nice to see you all up there together this morning. i'm with the san francisco planning and urban research association. i very much appreciate the opportunity to be here today to provide our comments on article

10 planning code. i understand that the h.p.c. is still in the process of reviewing article 11. i emailed to you last night our commenlts -- comments on both articles 10 and 11, but i will limit my comments here just to article 10. and also to say that i appreciate all of the hard work that h.p.c. has done to go through carefully both articles 10 and article 11, and to engage for a perspective. i just want to say thank you for that. there are a couple of things on article 10 that i want to draw some attention to because we ever a slight index -- slight index opinion than what has come out of the h.p.c. thus far. some of these tara has already spoken to. specifically i wanted to talk a little bit about section 1014, that has to do with what was previously the 180-day clock.

i just want to talk a little bit about historic districts in particular. i'm not going to talk about landmarks, though landmarks are really important. i'm going to focus my comments to districts. we feel that the 360 days is lengthy, particularly when there's option to extend for an additional 180 days. we would recommend going back to the original article 10, interim control, for the 180-day period with the potential extension by the h.p.c. for 90 days or an extension of an additional 180 days. but that that 180-day extension be approved by the board of supervisors. i also want to talk a little bit about section 1004.1 which is the designation of the historic district by the board of supervisors. this is a very important topic. think -- -- i think you'll be hearing some comment about

this. as you know, the designation of historic districts is a complex process. it's very important to this city. there are a lot of different values that need to be balanced in the designation of historic districts. so we're recommending taking a look at that a little bit further. under the h.p.c.'s version of article 10, the board can designate historic district by a majority vote of all of its members. we would recommend consideration or discussion at least of a potentially higher bar for the establishment of historic districts. specifically, taking a look at unless 66% of the property owners within the district consent to the designation, considering having a higher bar for the board of supervisors as opposed to the majority. [tone] of course, if 66% do agree, simple majority would be appropriate. thank you for your consideration. president miguel: thank you. additional public comments?

>> i had received some calls last night concerning your meeting here. i haven't seen the legislation. but because of the area that i live, bay view hunters point, most of the homes in that area was built before the 1930's. i know my house that i live in, that i own, was built in 1930. and my understanding from seeing you all on tv some time ago talking about the district, my feeling is that if this is going to be something that you're planning to do, i feel that you need to go and meet with the community in those districts because most of the people that are homeowners, they are working today. they don't even know what you're doing here. and i would also ask -- and i'm glad to know that you're not going to be making no decisions today. bunt i think that the commission should go out to the community, hold meetings so people will understand what you're doing here. because those of us -- like my

house was burnt, as you all know, a couple of years ago. and if i had to come before a committee, they might tell me what i have to do, tell me what type of paint i might want to put on my house instead of the way i want it to look. so i think there's a lot of concerns that people will have on how they want their homes to look. and they don't feel that you should be the one making that decision for them. i hope that you all do take in consideration. because you used to come to the community and meet and have some of the things that people might have concerns about. and i think this one is very, very much needed. to go into the community. you have 11 districts, and you can hold meetings and let people know what -- the fact that they can't opt out. like i got a chain linked fence going on my side. maybe you'll decide that, no, we don't want you to have a chain linked fence, everybody has to have a wooden fence. i don't want you making decisions on how i have to live. i'm 77 years old. when i bought my house in 1968,

i didn't know that people was going to be planning on how my area was going to be. thank you very much. >> my name is george williams. i'd like to highlight two items in a letter. one relates to section 1006.3, regarding notice of certification of appropriateness hearings in historic districts. notices require -- was recommended to be required for all owners and occupants within 300 feet. and that's even for a non-contributory building so if you're in an historic district, you're not a contributory building. you want to do something to your front porch, you've got to spend the thousands of dollars to go out and and do a physical

survey of properties within 300 feet in order to develop a list of occupants because that's the only source of obtaining those signatures. the second item is section 1006.7. the standards for certificate of appropriateness. the h.p.c. recommended that all certificates of appropriateness shall comply with the secretary of interior standards. we think that's really tying the hands of the landmark commission. there was a property recently on townsend street that allowed a four-story addition at the extreme rear of that property. that probably would not have met the standards. we think that you ought to leave some room there for local interpretation rather than say shall con ply with the secretary of intear -- comply

with the secretary of interior standards. say h.p.c. shall consider the standards or comply to the standards except as modified by some policy determination or provide some wiggle room so you don't tie your hands, so you have to comply with the secretary of interior standards. because they were not essentially designed for a city such as san francisco. thank you. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is josh. i'm an executive director here in san francisco. worked on policy advocacy to protect and empower vulnerable communities particularly in the green sector. i've got some serious, grave concerns about what looks to be a failure to adequately safeguard the interests of disadvantaged communities, communities with concentration of low, moderate income homeowners, fixed income

homeowners that pro live rate in our city's southeast sector, in our city's southeast sector, mission district, and in the sunset. the reason i say the safeguard is because, let's be honest, living in the historic district is a burden. it drives people out. we see this in other cities. it is not for everyone. and so we don't see any type of process in the proposed article 10 to address those concerns and those needs of those homeowners. in fact, i don't think they're even aware that this discussion is going on here at city hall. if you don't have any safeguards, what you invite is the sheer force that drive folks out of communities, plus you invite blockbusting, a very insidious form -- [inaudible] that i've seen and have personally zelt with in the city of pasadena. ms. jackson indicated that one concept that other cities have turned to is an opt out type of provision. if you don't want to live in one of these districts, despite the best intentions of the

commission, of the board, or the initiating force, you don't have to. the city of houston, texas, right now, they just passed their own article 10. and i think in 11, their equivalent, in houston. the debate there was to make sure you're not demolishing historic resources. but they have a provision that possibly will result in rolling back some of their historic districts. they're going to have to revalidate all of their existing historic districts. and no new historic districts unless you have 2/3 of all the homeowners and property owners saying we want to live under these rules. they also had to address issues around paint, making sure people aren't saying they're paint is not historic or as ms. jackson said that chain linked fence not historic. i've seen instances where people get liens on their homes and get their neighbors calling trying to drive them out of the community because they're not living under the rules of the new historic districts. the lenses by which the historic creation are being viewed through, don't have a

lot of equity consideration in terms of community. what is the community historic nature of a district? that would need to be worked with. i think we're really, honestly, far away from something that works to deal with this. we've got an informational packet about the houston instance that folks -- i've got enough for everybody. i don't believe it. and also, welcome at the city of chico, california. if you're going to do this, this is bad. if you freeze work -- it may not be the intention but at a time where we need to be working, there's a good project, there's out of work working people. get more residents to work. that's only works when we got more work for everyone. we've got to be reasonable about this. thanks. >> commissioners, michael teriot. i have considerable experience tpwhoth historic preservation, the actual work involved, and

in new construction. and our members are interested in the course of this legislation. on both counts. i want to thank you, actually, for the good work you've done on this legislation. i think it is a far better document than the one that had us hit the streets early last year. it's a comfort to be able to come in here and talk about specific details on a rational basis rather than be out screaming on a sidewalk someplace. i have been sitting in on the meeting that the city's coalition has been holding on this. and i'm aware of their recommendations and have been in the court with them. obviously -- i understand the impetus behind the one-year period for a historic district. but i think if do you accommodate that with 180-day period plus the possible

extension that you've given yourselves so that a year is not necessary. the matter of the 300-foot noticing versus the 150-foot noticing it s a matter of simple mathematics. you go up by the square of the radius, the number of folks you have to notice. if you go to 300 feet, it becomes radically more expensive for any property owner that needs to make even a minor change to his or her property. so i'm very much in accord with the 150-foot notice. i ask you to take the recommendation that you've heard from sarah and george williams very seriously and to move in that way. thank you. >> good morning, members of both commissions. mike buehler on behalf of san francisco architectural heritage. san francisco heritage has attended all but one of the h.p.c. meetings over the last two and a half months where

revisions to articles 10 and 11 have been deliberated. i think all will agree, of those who participated in the process, that h.p.c. approached its charge very deliberatively and thoughtfully, seeking to strike a balance between a mandate intent of proposition j, and the interest of property owners. the throughout h.p.c.'s review guided by best practices drawn from model ordinances and policies as well as the language of the city charter. i'd just like to address a few points summarized in the staff presentation and also addressed by some of the speakers before us. with regard to the initiation process, the proposed initiation process in the revised ordinance models best practices in other cities such as los angeles, where, for example, the commission has the opportunity to screen and reject frivolous nominations before moving them forward. likewise with regard to the administrative certificate of appropriateness process, this will greatly streamline the current review process by

exempting minor work from faulty of a review. i think this is a very important proposal. and to clarify some of the concerns raised by the earlier speakers, it will greatly streamline the review process to make it less onerous. if you live in historic districts. and likewise, with regard to the period under which the interim controls are in place, i would like to underscore what staff already said that cases will not be frozen as suggested by some of the earlier speakers. but they will be allowed to proceed as if the district had already been designated. that means that the administration certificate of appropriateness process will be available to those property owners as well as the regular c of a process for major projects. in terms of notice procedures, again, the h.p.c. in the interest of streamlining the process actually is curtailing

the existing requirement that require notice to all property owners within historic districts. the proposed language or notice within 300 feet, i think all will agree that that is a significant reduction in the notice requirement that currently exists. i think to a certain extent the experiences in other cities are relevant, but in terms of what's going on in houston and chico, unless they are actually proposing the language, i urge you to consider those cases in context. and be limited to their circumstances. heritage looks forward to continuing to be a regular participate in this process as the revisions to article 11 continue. and also looks forward to -- [tone] balancing interests of prop j and property owners. thank you very much. president miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment on this item?

if not, public comment is closed. commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: i have a prosecutorial question. we have already passed one resolution that's gone on to the board of supervisors so that resolution stands no matter what. i mean, not no matter what. but we've already taken action. but you mentioned that city attorney has not reviewed it, and therefore there might be a few things that might come back to us. and then at that time if it does come back to us, will we then have to take another vote? >> tara sullivan, department staff. i want to -- the third scenario -- i actually might turn this question over entirely to the city attorney to answer, actually. commissioner sugaya i'm assuming, for example, that

nothing happens today. >> deputy city attorney. there's a couple of different options for the commission if they want to take action today, the planning commission to specify which commission i'm talking about. the resolution that was in your packet amended your prior action that you took. and actually, there's a lot of prosecutorial challenges with doing that under the rules so a better action if you do want to take an action today would be to make a brand new resolution, which is the resolution that tara passed out. as you're aware, you did already make -- take a resolution to introduce certain amendments to the planning code at the board of supervisors. and i believe you took that action in early august. that, if i understand correctly from the staff, that ordinance has not yet been introduced at the board of supervisors. staff has held it pending the h.p.c.'s work that they've been doing to propose amendments to articles 10 and 11.

so i believe if the planning commission wishes to take an action today, there are at least two different paths that the commission can take. one is you could vote to pass the resolution that tara presented to you today, which essentially doesn't incorporate the h.p.c.'s comments and recommendations directly into your legislation to be introduced but rather recommends to the board of supervisors that the board of supervisors do so through the amendment process. essentially the planning commission is signing off on all of those proposed changes -- or whichever changes you choose to sign off on. you don't have to do the whole list. you could choose to do some or all. as a way both to avoid any referral back, trigger from the board of supervisors to the planning commission, and also to indicate the planning commission agreement with certain recommendations. alternatively, if you'd like to make sure that whatever changes