going to take from the h.p.c. you could direct staff to work with our office to presenting a version to the planning commission at a later hearing that would be approved as to form by our office and on that one, you could take a new vote and that would be the version then introduced to the planning commission. so my apologies for the lengthy procedural response. >> thank you. if i may, commissions are, i don't have the ability to request the monitor, but the first option marlena mention said kind of what the planning commission typically does which is that you don't -- typically don't recommend specific language when we see an ordinance. you recommend to the board that certain changes be made. what she's suggesting that's one option. the other option is to actually have staff work out the details with the city attorney and bring the final detailed language back to you. >> and at this time, though, let's assume for a minute that

the vote fails on the resolution, either resolution. the original resolution is still intact. is that right? thank you. >> commissioner olague! >> when the cleanup legislation which is how we began this discussion started it was out without the adams and all the time given to extra meetings and everything else at the hps which we were -- hppings, which we were informed of but not part of any discussions on articles 10 and 11. i would like to actually have more of those since we're -- seem to be going down the path of extensive discussions on 10 and 11 which i don't believe, i was not informed that was the intent of the original resolution that was passed by the planning commission, that at the time, then i feel that i need more time. i would like more time to consider the amendments that the h.p.c. gave to this alleged

cleanup legislation which became extensive discussions on articles 10 and 11. so i'm in month position today to pass any kind of resolution that finalizes the conversation at the planning commission level that includes input from the h.p.c. on articles 10 and 11 which i believe the conversation evolved into. so i would like more time on the planning commission level to consider the amendments and have a few more exchanges, whether it's in a room like this with both commissions, whether it's in separate -- you know, at separate times because it seems a little bit exhausting to our commission secretary to try to schedule meetings with both commissions present. so i'm not going to be forwarding any kind of resolution on anything today because i want more time to discuss articles 10 and 11. so which, again, was not part

of -- i assume was not part of the intent behind the original cleanup legislation. so that being said, i think that i heard the comments of some members of the public and i think that the -- at some point the department now i know is engaged in some information sessions and there's been a couple on the mission but the in the mission on the area that's been surveyed but i think the planning department owes it to members of the public to inform people of what areas are being surveyed and what the implications of that are. i know because we haven't finalized the reform, i'm trying to find the right word -- of articles 10 and 11 or rewriting of articles 10 and 11 so that it conforms with prop j and all the rest of it i don't think those conversations have been complete yet. because of that, i know that articles 10 and 11 will have

some implications on how ultimately these areas are evolving, how they move in terms of a lot of different issues. so seems to me that the conversations on the survey and the articles 10 and 11 have to sort of go hand in hand somehow so that there's a complete view of how this is going to look ultimately. and i still do have some outstanding issues as they concern equity and i think that there's ways of resolving it rationally without you know, -- in a balanced discussion with some more exchanges on this. but i do believe that given the history that some other cities have had whether as someone from the a.i. says this chico and whatever examples -- or houston are examples are actually parts of included in

the way we're drafting, relooking at 10 and 11, isn't really the point of the comments. i think the point of the comments is that how do we view this in a way that doesn't have the same sort of impacts on low-income communities and disadvantaged communities that has played out in other cities. so i think we need to be very astute and very careful in how we examine that or how we reflect on that issue as we move ahead with articles 10 and 11 as you know, we're looking at the mission district and other areas that are currently in that survey area. so i think what i'm asking for is more time to reflect on this, to look at equity issues more closely, to make sure there is language included that -- you know, that i think the city has always, prop m and we've always been committed to the issues of economic

diversity and diversity of population in the city, and i think that we need to be sensitive to how we move ahead and make sure that there's language included whether it's the opting out or looking at other best practices so that we're clear that low-income communities and disadvantaged communities are also -- that we're sensitive to the needs of those communities as we move ahead with strengthening these preservation laws. so prop j was all about you know, strengthening preservation, i don't think anyone has any issues with that, it's just the impacts that you know, are implicit in that historically not been kind to disadvantaged communities. so i just think we need to be sensitive to that and i'm confident we can with the commissioners like martinez and buckley and others sitting on the hsk who have always worked on these issues also. i'm asking for more time. i don't think we're ready to move ahead with this.

i don't think we've had a deep enough discussion on the planning commission level to move ahead with articles 10 and 11. i just don't. >> commissioner martinez. >> i really appreciate the comments of commissioner olague and members of the public. i would like to respond to as many of these comments as i can. i think a couple of things that tara omitted to mention as context is one, prop j, that you know, we initially approached this as a cleanup legislation and that we didn't want to make substantive changes. prop j requires substantive changes. it's a tremendous increase and creates a new body with tremendously more power than the landmark board had and even increases in some respects the power of the board of supervisors. substantive changes were

required. so that really was kind of why this took longer is because really it is a complete transformation of what we're doing. that being said, we tried to keep it as simple as possible and where possible, keep what was in article 10 and 11 in there, and in some cases in terms of the notifications, actually try to make it easier and simpler. i for one am very much in favor of trying to reduce the cost to the public. and that sort of thing. one of the things that prop j is did is give this commission the power to initiate and that power was not qualified. it was not qualified by any true sense of the public, it's pure. that we have the power to initiate. so i think that it was very appropriate that it shows up that way in our -- in this

proposed article 10. however, what we have done, which you probably didn't notice but i would like to point out, initiation is on what page? there it is. we say -- tara kind of skipped over this, but we say for nominations submitted to landmark -- let's see -- and/or cultural to support initiation as well as additional information which may be required by the application procedures and policies established by the h.p.c. this commission does plan on setting up some procedures and policies in due time, sooner rather than later hopefully, about our attitude about what kind of consent of the public is required, what kind of meetings we should have with the public. i personally will not vote for any historic district that a majority of the public comes here and says they don't want it.

i just think that's inappropriate. i want to do historic districts that have strong community support. so i think that's going to be the discussion that we have about our procedures and policies. so -- and i think we would welcome the opinions of your commission about that. but i did always want the process to be very transparent and democratic. i wanted it so anyone could come to our commission. this is implicit in prop j, that since we have the power to initiate, why can't anyone just walk off the street and come in with documentation and request it of us? it seemed to me just to say that clearly seemed appropriate to me, that we have the power to initiate any member of the public can request that, whether or not we take them up on it is an entirely different question. but i didn't want there to be

onerous screenings in the way of coming to this commission and just simply asking for it. so that's part of -- part of what's in here, and any requirement of a certain number of the residents agreeing to it is an infringement on prop j, an infringement on the power that was given to this commission and the board of supervisors by prop j. if this commission and the board of supervisors decide that they want to restrict that power, that's fine and that's what we've allowed for by establishing our procedures at a later date. so we will look at that at a later date. but i didn't think it was appropriate that those sort of restrictions should be codified in 10 and 11. and then i want to say something about districts. i think it's been somewhat coincidental historic districts and gentrification of districts

have taken place. i see the potential of using districts to actually stabilize existing poor communities because they have the potential of reducing poverty speculation -- property speculation. there is a pro and con there. it reduces property speculation, at the same time it reduces -- because it dampens down property costs, property -- cost increases, so property value increases. so you know, property owners may not want to dampen down their property value increase. so there's kind of a pro and con there and i think in the mission we've started a discussion with the nonprofits, i've been calling them, i think we want to have a community discussion, the pros and cons of doing historic districts. so i think that is something that needs to be done but i think the identification of historic districts with gentrification, i don't think that that has to be the case.

i think it can actually be a tool to protect communities rather than change them. and then in terms of the comments from other actually in terms of the interim controls, the way it is now, people actually have an opportunity to get a permit approved that will actually endanger the cite -- the site so we wanted to eliminate that. but the nomination has to be heard by this body within 30 days. we hardly felt that was onerous since it has to come to us so quickly we did not feel a 30-day wait on permits is going to be a hardship for anybody.

in terms of the -- in terms of the one year or 180 days or historic districts, you have to understand the way article 10 is now, no permits can be approved for 180 days. we're loosening that up by saying you can have any permit approved in one year, we're saying by just going through the district application of appropriateness procedure. so we're actually creating an avenue to not hold things up that didn't exist before. we're actually liberalizing it. in terms of this c. of a procedures and the procedures that are there now, actually after you establish the historic district as being potentially cheaper on the application level but i would like to see an analysis from the department at some point where we actually figure out what's more expensive in terms of application procedures because the public really wants

to know this about what does it mean in terms of how much money is a permit going to cost. so we do have to figure that out but i do think it has the potential when you have an historic district or survey area that actually, if you don't have to go through the whole seqa thing it could be cheaper. that's something that we have to look at. but i do want to point out the way that it is now is really onerous without allowing any permits once the initiation of an historic district is started. we're giving a path to open that up. and then on the point brought up by spur about the seven the interior standards, i actually agree with them, and we faced this issue with article 11 yesterday and we actually came up with some language that we like, which we haven't finalized but it will have something to do with to comply

with the secretary of interior standards and local interpretations thereof. what i would really like are this commission and the department to do is is actually to do local interpretations of the standards so people know exactly what circumstances the appropriate vertical addition is for a one-story building. i think that would add a lot of certainty to the process that it doesn't currently have and the department of the interior's bulletins are terrific, they're helpful and informative however they don't really apply that well to our wood city. they don't apply well to our local circumstances. so i think we need to come up with our own interpretations. i think this is a good point by spur. i think it should be complied with the secretary standards as interpreted in some form by us in the department.

in terms of -- what other points were brought up. i think i've -- oh, in terms of the notification, again the 300 feet is a lot less than notifying everybody in the district. so again, we're kind of liberalizing that. and i felt it important and certain issues to include the occupants instead of just property owners because renters have a stake in the area, too, whether or not they own property, renters do have a stake in the area especially in terms of if it means that speculation is going to be sort of dampened down. so i think i've covered most of the things that have been brought up. thank you foric indulging me. >> commissioner antonini.

>> thank you. now it's on, you think. i think this entire discussion has great potential for us to be able to help with much of our housing stock which is historical and much of it is in bad condition and --

discourage frivolous opposition that might use the process as a way to block new development or you know, -- and there's always obviously you have to make a decision on each one, what's appropriate, what isn't, but we want to make sure. so i kind of agree with some of the things the public brought up in terms of these time periods. i'm not as concerned with the individual landmark one which was brought up. i think they had a couple of commenters that said this extension has to be approved by the board of supervisors. again, you're dealing with

extensions of 180 days. i think it's limited to one more after the first one if i'm not mistaken. that is not the worst. when you get into the historic district we've gone to a much longer period of intertrim controls, we've gone to a full year from 180 days. and you know, i think that's something we have to be really careful with and perhaps a shorter period of perhaps a second 180 days either approved by the h.p.c. or the board of supervisors would maybe be a little more realistic. because that controls would then stop any activity, if i understand it correctly for the period of time during the time any changes, maybe i'm interpreting it wrongly but the controls would be in effect to block anything that might be going on. if i've misinterpreted that, i apologize. and the final thing, or not final but another one is the designation by the board of supervisors and i think concerns have been reached that unless there was a 2/3 agreement of the property owners in a particular district, that it would require a 2/3 vote of the board of supervisors. and i think we've heard testimony to that effect by the public that you know, we really

want the people who are in the district to be in favor of it and if there isn't a consensus, then i think the bar should probably be a little higher to that district being created rather than just a majority but maybe a 2/3. certainly something to consider. because if you don't get consensus among the property owners in a district, then i think it should require a little higher bar. and let's see. i think those were most of it. the noticing there was a question of 150 feet or 300 feet for the certificate of appropriateness. i think it was pointed out that this is a smaller district -- distance than is the case now. whatever is practical i think certainly you should notice everyone but if you aren't noticing everyone maybe the 150 feet might be more practical. that kind of conforms to section 311 and 312, i believe. and those are the main points

that i see that i think there has been some agreement on, the secretary of interior's standards, we try to be considered but not necessarily in complete conformity. that's a semantic thing but it is important. >> commissioner moore. >> i fully agree with what my fellow commissioners have voiced. i am very supportive of many of the comments the public is making. what i regret is that the relationship between the historic preservation commission and the planning commission over the few months that you have been in office hasn't matured more, that we -- i'm speaking for myself -- would have a clearer understanding about the far reaching consequences of the historic district which is my largest concern. while i'm in full support for giving you a nod on the historic building designation,

my concerns about historic district designations are higher than ever. we are a relatively young city but we are old you have nuff that the entire city could turn into an historic district and i do not believe that any of us has enough experience and enough capability to look into the far-reaching consequences. i'm not talking about the next four years, next eight years. i'm talking about the next 30 or 50 years of what it would be if the entire city one by one would turn into historic districts. i'm going to leave that as an open question, but i would encourage us to do for the two commissions to really get down and dirty and discuss really with your expertise being the guide and i abdicate all of my professional judgment to you on the subject, to discuss what that really means to you and what it might mean to the planning commission which comes to the subject with a wide array of different obligations.

that is in strong resonance of what i feel the public is saying and that i think it's in strong resonance with how i understand the responsibility of these commissions to be, and that is a much wider array of subjects than what is addressed in the regulations and in the definitions of what comes together when we talk about historic preservation. i'm not saying that in disrespect but i would like to broaden the discussion that when we really put historic district definition into law together with the authority you would have and from what i read, we would hardly have any left, i need to be sure that i support it. so you have my support, but it's a conditional support. >> commissioner buckley. >> thank you. thank you, commissioner moore,

a perfect segue for my comments. we were surprised yesterday at 4:15 when we got through article 11, at least a cursory look we have not resolved all the language issues, a lot of things to look at and i hope the planning commission does not feel we expect you to have picked this up and be ready to go and i think that we certainly want to move this along but we have been spending a lot of time on it, it will take you a lot of time to look at it and understand all of the issues that it means, and to have the public digest it as well. so thank you for being patient and letting us go through our process and we look forward to conversations like this one in which we can share what we're working on and what concerns you have and how it can move forward. second of all, i've been very impressed with the caliber of the historic preservation commission as i am with the planning commission. i think we have people who are very experienced in their field and they're not just experienced in the field, they're experienced in working in the community. we have people not only concerned about the physical properties of buildings but people concerned about the

community. and i certainly would not be here on the commission if i felt like this was something that was going to only push physical qualities in districts and pricey buildings. i'd be on that side out there. i think we have a group that is very concerned as the planning commission is about how we use historic preservation as a good planning tool. how can we use it as a way to build communities, how can we do it as a way to include people and not exclude people and this south mission historic survey is a good example where we have a traditional survey in place, we need to work with the community, need to understand what else is out there we want to celebrate our heritage and to incorporate that into our surveying and our publicity process. so i think the comments of people who expressed concern are good but i think we have a very good commission that has an interest in the broader diversity, i don't think it's a commission that wants to cover san francisco in amber and have it all be historic districts. we certainly believe it's a

living, breathing city, we're all involved in changes, we're also very interested in how we can preserve the best and most important of what where we're at. we appreciate your taking the time to work on this and i'm sure we'll have a good process as we move ahead. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner owe laying? >> one of the points that commissioner moore made, we don't have a lot of time, we haven't had the time to reflect on things. and when we talk about you know, using historic preservation as a way of stabilizing the existing communities in some instances the disadvantaged communities the tender loyal was made a historic district but the advantage there there was a locked-in affordability due to the work of citizens housing and others. we don't have a lot of examples of that where it's already sort of locked in before the district is established.

and then in the mission we have the example of liberty hill, the highest cost district in the mission district and it's probably also the less diverse and -- the less diverse and most costly. i think it's the only district in the mission district that is historic. i think that commissioner martinez raises an interesting point as has commissioner buckley in the past that maybe we can use historic preservation as a tool for stabilizing certain disadvantaged communities but i don't think we have many examples of it and that's why we need to be sensitive to how we codify a lot of the language in 10 and 11 and around the historic district designation as commissioner moore points out because we don't have a lot of examples of how maybe the potential there, maybe san francisco will be the place where this is sort of defined, so then let's take on the challenge and define that in language that really does

support these goals and these values and i think that we have enough of a diverse group here we can maybe actually find ways along with the city attorney, members of the public involved in the discussion to make sure that the language is there. but i just think that we have to -- we're in unchartered territory as far as historic preservation and stabilization of communities. and we're all ready to step up to that challenge and see how we can address all of these multiple whatever, needs or goals the city has. >> commissioner gordon. >> i just want to support what commissioner olague said and commissioner moore just said. one of the things for example that sfruck me in section 1004.1, any member of the public can request designation and thought about the d.r. process, and people claiming buildings are historic and i don't know how t