and i know commissioner martinez says there are going to be procedures, i would really like to know what kind of documentation, i think it would be important that your commission really think about how you spell that out for documentation for the determination process. because if it does have an impact on you know, the other sort of permits that happen in a process it's important to figure that out. that's part of our concern with kind of moving forward on this today. the other issue about section 1006.3 with the notification within 300 feet, one of the issues when it impacts a noncontribute tore building is something of big concern. i think that's one of the reasons the notification issue and d.r. process is usually within 150 feet for a reason. because we really want people that are going to be impacted to be weighing in on this decision versus sometimes neighbors have an ax to grind or other things going on when you get a little further

outside the radius. then the issue of 1004.4, the designation for the board of supervisors, i think the property owner issue is huge, like ms. jackson and others have illuminated we want to be sure that communities that traditional not informed about what's going on are coming out to these hearings, really understand the implications, are in a position to essentially vote on whether or not they want to see this happen. i think that is a really important clarification that must happen. i would put that actually in addition to 2/3 of the board of supervisors because i think it's really important in the disenfranchised communities. we've seen it through the shipyard project and other projects that even though you might see numbers, there is still a small minority of people involved and know what's going on. i'd hate for to us pass legislation that people are not adequately informed about that impacts their ability to stay in their community or improve their homes and other things along those lines. so i mean my concerns here are

just more how this informs the process, the planning process of the other entitlement issues we have to look at and also the impact on communities of color we've discussed because what is a cultural resource is the cultural resources as well as the buildings. i know that's your intent but we want to make sure before moving forward on that legislation we've adequately taken into consideration those controls. >> commissioner martinez. >> i'd like to clarify something. the business about the supermajority of the board of supervisors or the 66% of the property owners' consent, is an enormous -- there's nothing like that in article 10 now. that is not required by article 10 now. what article 10 now requires is that if an application for

historic district comes from the public, that application has to be signed on by 66% of the property owners. in fact, that has never happened a single time in the history of san francisco. that has never happened. all of our historic districts have happened by other means. the power currently of the board of supervisors to establish an historic district by a majority vote is unmitigated and i see no -- i mean we're talking about we're not making substantive changes, that to me is a substantive change that is actually against the spirit of prop j which left the power of this commission and the board of supervisors to create historic districts to be unmitigated by any such requirement. that being said as i said before, there isn't going to be an historic district without a majority of the proper police station agreeing to it. people defer to the district supervisor about these things.

the district supervisor is not going to be in favor of a district if they're not going to be re-elected by it. and i think this commission can create some procedures around consent and what we expect in terms of community meetings and so on and so port. but right now the only thing in article 10 is if the application comes from the public you have to have 66%. that's the only thing. so what spur is asking for is way beyond what exists now. so that's the first thing i'd like to address, and the second is to answer commission antonini's question, i want to clarify the way it is now, when you initiate a district, no permits can be approved for however long it takes and that is onerous. we would never get any districts approved if we stop every single permit for the period -- i mean we'd never get an historic district approved if we stop every permit for god knows how long, even 180 days would be a revolution on our hands if we stopped every

permit for that length of time. so what i was thinking of is the market octavian ya plan where we have the interim control procedure that gave some scrutiny to protecting historic resources while the plan went forward. that went like a year, a year and a half we had those procedures and they worked fine. so we're trying to come up with something similar to have some interim controls while the district was being nominated. as much as i would like to reduce it to 180 days, realistically speaking these districts take a long time and especially if we're going to do the community outreach, especially if we're going to have all the meetings in the community, even a year is optimistic, i think, with these things. i think they sort of go hand in hand. if you want to do the outreach we've got to have the time. and i think we've established a procedure where anybody can get a permit for anything, even demolition, they just have to come to us or if it's a minor

alteration, they can get approval from the staff. we wanted to make it similar to what happened to market octavia and i don't think there were many complaints about that procedure. we're loosening it up from the way it is now which is really onerous. the historic districts on the table now are painfully small. you know, any idea about the entire city becoming an historic district, we're so far away from that, i mean no district has been established since dogpatch. we're not even close to establishing any districts right now. we've identified a lot of potential historic districts, and a few, two i can think of have strong community support. i think we'll be lucky to have those two districts in the next four or five years, frankly. and the districts that have been identified in the mission are really south mission, are really quite small.

and so i think fears of the entire city being landmarked as much as i might like to see that, is somewhat not -- it's just not going to happen any time soon. that's all i have to say. >> thank you. if i might. just to follow on with what commissioner martinez has spoken to, and to speak to the issue of about equity, there are a couple of things that i've picked up on the conversation today that i think are valuable to note. we've talked about public participation in the historic preservation process and i thank the public for bringing this to our attention. the notion around the 300-foot notice does exactly that. it provides for the community and we were very cognizant of the fact it should be residents as well as property owners,

because we know that in communities of lower economic impact there are more renters than there are property owners. so this is something that we think is important and valuable. and i would just concur with commissioner martinez that while there is a fear about the designation of historic districts, you have to reflect on the fact that it was 11 years between the development of the dogpatch survey and the designation of that from the previous historic district designation by the board of supervisors. so these are not things that will happen, we take them seriously, the community takes it seriously, there's plenty of public im-- input. and the impact of the community, i think we need to do a better job around the public benefit for this. we also need to be very

cognizant that it's not just historic preservation that causes gentrification and the increase in property values. it also has to do with how we look at the benefits of development and the zoning activities that take place, the zoning code regulations that allow for higher and greater density of development which may threaten properties in the single family or residential communities, that most people fear for their individual and their communities. the notion, too, and i think we best not forget that there is something else that's looming out there that does impact our recognition of historic resources and that's the california environmental quality act. the fact of the matter is the properties over 50 years of age despite what this commission or what the planning commission would like to do or not do, has

the requirement to review that. that is out of our hands. it is state legislation. what we have tried to do is where there is local impact and local responsibility for this to do this in a manner is that equitable to all. it is that equity in terms of public notification, that equity in allowing the public to participate in this process. it is the equity in allowing for the revisions to a planning code to be clear for everyone to understand. and those have been the premises upon which we have done our work. >> i appreciate all the comments that have come forward up to now. the public and the commissioners have spoken at this point. two commissions have different reasons for existing, basically. and so it's altogether possible and probable that our

recommendations regarding 10 and 11 will not be totally in sync. i don't expect they will. and that's perfectly all right. we approach it from slightly different places. i have problems with application of secretary of interior's standards in san francisco. i don't think they correctly consider this city and the way it has developed and the way it exists at the present time. and so some of that wording bothers me. i have very little problem with the wording so far regarding individual landmarks, but i have and i have to echo some of commissioner moore's thoughts, a lot of problem regarding historic districts in spite of everything i've been hearing, and greatly appreciate the comments. those of you who have heard me before, i hope i don't bore you with this, but basically my family goes back in san

francisco somewhere around 150 years. and when i look back as to the experiences that have been brought down to me regarding different districts in san francisco, that's how i view a lot of planning decisions. i don't view them in the short run. it's impossible for me to, and i don't think my obligation is such that it allows me to. and so when i look at it in the long run and i look at the differences that have occurred in this city over that period of time, that i know from personal family history, i realize what would have happened when areas of san francisco that were over 50 years old at the time had the potential of being declared historic districts. and many of these areas were well within what we're talking

about. 75 years ago, without question. they are not those districts now. and i have to wonder whether or not had they been designated historic districts, this city would have developed as well as it has over the years. we do pretty good i think in historic preservation but i think we have to be extremely careful in looking at the long term. 11 years is not a long term. it seems that way, having served on task forces and other things for over that period of time. it really seems that way. but it isn't. it really isn't in the history of the city. so i truthfully am not ready to vote on a resolution of any kind at this meeting. >> commissioner, do you mind, if i wanted to clarify

something from a procedural standpoint. >> yes. >> as to where we are and what your options are. is this not on? okay. the planning commission of course took an action back in i guess august to recommend this -- the original legislation that we put forward. and then we talked about a couple of options that you have today. a third option if you choose, if the planning commission chooses not to move ahead is to separate articles 10 and 11 from the rest of the cleanup package. i just wanted to put that in front of you because frankly just from my standpoint i'm a little concerned that there's been almost two years of discussion on articles 10 and 11 and i don't know when it will be resolved. and so one option in front of you would be to just take all the rest of that cleanup package and then continue to work on articles 10 and 11 with the historic preservation

commission. to sentionly sever the two. i wanted to make -- i essentially -- to essentially sever the two. i wanted to make it clear you do have that option. the planning commission needs to make a decision whether to move forward with the legislation because you have the authority to initiate changes to the planning code. if you do initiate -- if you do move forward with any legislation, of course we would forward the recommendations of the historic preservation commission and your recommendations but you have the sole authority to actually initiate the actual changes to the planning code. >> thank you. commissioner moore. >> i feel compelled to respond to director williams' comment and say for me personally cleanup language and article 10 and 11 are intertwined and i say do cleanup without knowing the original intent was cleanup

and it became something else. so i think some of the commissioners have acknowledged that this is really clarifying articles 10 and 11 in support of what proposition j was not able to really fully bring to the forefront when people voted on it. and while none of us, i assume, is not supporting proposition j, the fine tooth comb work requires to be be clear and to be responsible to the future, not our own immediate needs, requires this to be taken out on a longer time frame. i want to pick up on a footnote for commissioner martinez when you talked about homeownership and a vote of 66% of the people voting, i would like to ask that we consider we are in a very rapidly changeing life of homeownership and there is a large of -- number of owners amassing large numbers of properties in districts which

are potentially up for historic preservation -- historic district consideration. so when you take 66% you might only have five owners and i'd like to put that in as another critical remark to not rush this particular aspect of the legislation but build an additional safety mechanisms to prevent only a few people would be allowed to vote on it. >> commissioner guy. >> -- commissioner guy sugaya. >> i'm the only person who has the privilege of having dealt with article 10 since the 1980's. i'm ready to vote on it myself and get it out of here but i don't think i have the votes. that said, there's several things i've been taking some notes. surveys in themselves that are conducted by either the department or with independent consultants or whether they're done by a neighborhood

organization like is being done in the sunset and other areas, are in and of themselves not historic districts. they're really a tool in which information is gathered and information about properties and potential districts emerge with respect to to whether they may be eligible for the national, california or maybe a local landmark or historic district. so that's information and it then takes an additional set of decision makers to actually take that and turn it into either a landmark or historic district. so for me, surveys are a wonderful tool because they start to inform people and neighborhoods and communities as to exactly what they have sitting there in their streets and in their alleys and wherever these resources might be. that's much better than someone coming to the planning

commission -- coming to the permit bureau and saying i want to do something to my house and they turn around and say it's 50 years old like commissioner martinez said, and then you have to go do an historic resources evaluation. and you go what's that? and that costs you money to do that. i know, because as the firm i'm working for, we do those kinds of reports. and it would be much better if there was already information at hand through the survey process for property owners to know whether or not they have an historic resource or not. secondly, in terms of survey work or the extension of that in being listed as an historic district, the tenderloin is not a local historic district. it's listed on the national registry of historic places. therefore, it is only subject to design review and the kinds of things that you might think of as certificate of appropriateness things, only

through the california environmental quality act procedures. there's no jurisdiction that the h.p.c. has over that national registry district at this time. and one of the reasons that the tenderloyal community i believe -- tenderloin community, if you're a national registered district you're eligible for the preservation tax credits which are worth 20% of your rehabilitation costs. so there is a huge difference between, i think, the national register and california register designations versus local because it's at the local level where -- maybe i shouldn't say this -- where you do have more control over things like design and the certificate of appropriate process comes in. secondly, thirdly, fourthly, wherever i am at, in a lot of instances i think when you talk about communities that have

been impacted with perhaps increasing property values and people moving in and kind of the general term of gentrification, my own feeling and experience is that those things took place before historic districts were established. my take on the whole issue of historic districts is gentrification began because people saw something there, older buildings and they liked the character of the area, and once that process started, then those people who then moved in formed those historic districts. i don't think that people came in and formed the historic district out of nothing and then people went oh, wow, this is an historic district and started to move in. i think it was the other way around. also interestingly i think here in san francisco, there are a number of communities, the filipino community, the lgbt-q community, japan town, that are

looking at ways to recognize and be -- use historic preservation tools. they're looking at it a little bit differently in that they're talking about cultural preservation or cultural resources or cultural heritage rather than the traditionalist or -- historic preservation terminology, not terminology but the process that's being discussed here under articles 10 and 11. and i think that articles 10 and 11, the traditional historic preservation process will still have a role but it's interesting they're trying to recognize, and i think it's happening in the mission, too, ways that they can recognize their cultural values and try to preserve and enhance those values through the planning process and through agencies like the mayor's office of economic and work force development. and that's resulted at least at the planning level in some more

innovative approaches to social and cultural preservation and a few planners under director ram have been working on some tools that could be applied in manila town and south of market and also japan town. so i think that this is you know, one part of a greater kind of awareness going on in the city and i'm, you know, quite happy the way article 10 at this point has come together. as an advocate and one who worked on passing prop j it's the melding of what's in the charter and we're not going to get rid of the charter unless people want to go out and vote on it again and rescind it, i suppose. so it's in the charter and what the language in the charter has in what article 10 had in it, i think the h.p.c. has done a tremendous amount of work along with staff in trying not to

formulate an entirely new ordinance. in reading through this, i think the majority of the language is still article 10 and not something that has been brought out from outer space, you might say. so the changes that i see really have been made to accommodate what the charter now requires the h.p.c. and the preservation process to do. >> commissioner antonini. >> i thank commissioner martinez. i stand corrected. thanks for pointing out the i misinterpreted the situation when you have a -- an interim period of controls that construction can go on during that, so that's good to know and then of course as far as the level of approval needed for designation, i would certainly like to look at that a little bit more and what we want to stay with a level that's similar and not make it more restrictive but not make

it you know, much less. so i would afree with those things. in general terms, i think there is this fear of you know, possibly gentrification in general terms but i agree with commissioner sugaya's remarks in that i think these changes occur because of smart growth. because people are realizing they do want to live within cities, particularly san francisco, much more than they did 20 or 30 years ago and they find areas that you know, are convenient and areas that they feel make sense, not driving from 50 or 60 miles away. and as a result, property values will increase and you know, the historical provisions of it are part of the situation but only a part of it. and i think he probably is correct that that comes after people have an interest in an area. and in general terms, i don't think any of us benefit from structures that are functionally or seismically or

structurally compromised, most notably the residents of those be structures and we've seen fires and various things that occur. and so i think we can do this where everybody wins just as we have done it with new construction where we have asked that you know, the builders of new construction set aside a certain amount into an affordable housing fund, i'm not suggesting this is what would happen with buildings that be being restored but somewhere where present residents could be taken care of and the usual provisions that are in many of our laws to assist because nobody wins from things that are in bad condition and are hazards. and so i think that this can be a situation that can be worked out and we can make -- preserve our buildings and also we can have a city that has a balance and diversity. >> commissioner owe laying --

olague. >> i didn't mean to imply that gentryification is caused by historic preservation laws. that happens to be the topic of discussion today. commissioner chase, i realize that there are zoning lows and those low-income communities have historically in san francisco been subject to pressures from outside issues, outside of historic preservation. but that historically i'm like commissioner sugaya, i believe we have to be careful how we frame the language in articles 10 and particularly 11 as they relate to historic districts because as was witnessed in pasadena and other examples given from mr. arcey, there is that -- i'm not sure what comes first, you know. so i think that's something we need to look at. if the language is in place and the potential is always there, so i think that's why we're so kind of dogged about wanting to

make sure that the language is inclusive and balanced and looks at all the needs of san francisco as commissioner moore pointed out earlier, i guess we are looking at commissioner miguel, we are kind of coming at it from different perspectives because we have multiple issues we might view from a planning commission perspective versus an hsk which looks at more in terms of historic preservation but how we balance those things i think the potential is there. also, i am well aware that historic tenderloin is a national historic district and not local, but i guess what i was thinking out loud when i mentioned it because it might be an example, i don't know that there are many examples nationally where there are a lot of affordable housing complexes and buildings that are locked in already as part of the affordability goes. i don't know that we have many examples of that nationally where that's the case. i don't think we do.

so i was sort of thinking in terms of equity so sometimes when i make my comments i'm kind of thinking differently, maybe, than how it comes across. also i have been part of the discussions around cultural districts and i think that's critical along with commissioner sugaya and commissioner martinez and hopefully other commissioners, buckley and others will join that discussion eventually. but again, it's nothing that's been established, ever. so that's why we're still kind of like in this kind of groove where everything is just kind of like potential. so we have these potential for cultural historic districts, certain commissioners have been involved in the issue of cultural districts probably since the mid 1990's but there is no such example of a cultural district, i don't believe a district established for cultural reasons. i'm not sure that there are many and not even in japan town. i think that's where some of the discussion originated. i think there's a lot of