have anything, any clear examples of how of how that has played out? and, yeah, you go to other cities and i think it's something that the city also needs to be looking at. you visit other cities in the country, and you see -- or in the world, really, i guess. you see all of this kind of adherence to art and the history and certain artists, a certain respect is given to -- you know, we don't have a poet museum in san francisco. do we? i didn't know. i'm told we do that's great. we do have to have a way of capturing the city that's just outside of the physical building. i'm excited about the cultural district discussion, too. we have ashbury, but i don't think we have a lot that captures it, you know, a place where people can go to understand the history. i know the lgbt, now, there's like a temporary museum in the castro that now looks at that

issue. as far as latino heritage and the mission, and how we're able to capture and keep some of that. so, you know, it is a complicated issue. and some of us don't have the advantages that commissioner sugaya has of having on worked on article 10 since the 1980's. that's why some of us feel like we do need more time to digest and understand, as do communities. so i would like more time because i haven't had that advantage. president miguel: commissioner wolfram commissioner wolfram: a few words about the historical districts. i think there's a common misperception that our city is kind of completely covered with historic districts, that it's frozen in amber. and actually compared to cities that we like to compare ourselves to, whether it's chicago or new york or philadelphia, or boston or washington, we have many fewer,

substantially fewer, historic districts than those other cities. there are very, very few historic districts. when you walk around the city, there are areas that are spectacular that you would think would be historic districts and aren't. i would say that i have maybe a little bit of a response to president miguel's response to the history of the city. when i walk around the western addition, i think of the city in different ways. when i go to the western edition, i think, what would this neighbor be like if it had not been completely demolished and devastated? would we have had preservation controls that have kept the character of that neighborhood and kept its community intact? so i think that there obviously are places the city has improved and changed and developed, but there are large parts of the city where we have not had good planning. and the destruction of these historic resources has had a

terribly negative impact on the city. i walk out of this building, and i see -- well, i was just going to say, what would it be like if the fox theater were still there? is there are incredible areas of the city where we have not treated the historic resources well. and i think that's important to consider. thank you. president miguel: commissioner martinez? commissioner martinez: i also want to address something that mrs. jackson said, which upon reflection i realize maybe there's a misunderstanding about the historic district. every historic district is different. and every historic district has a different set of rules about what you can and can't do. and that set of rules is put together when you're establishing the district. and so the formulation of the rules is part of the public process that happens when you decide to do the districts. so the public will have full input on what the rules really

are. and if the rules in the district say whatever your fence is, it's fine, nobody will bother you about the chain linked fence. some districts he -- districts -- the cottage row, the people changed the fentions and the people were very -- fences and the people were very upset. so we had to change the district to include fences because people were very upset that there was a tradition of no fences and some people started to put up really big fences. but that wouldn't have happened without the people in the district wanting it. so it's really -- every district is different. every district has a different set of rules. and those rules come about through the public participation. so if all of you -- if you happen to be in a district, and you want to be in a district, and you don't care about the fences, nobody's going to bother you about your fence.

i just wanted to say that. president miguel commissioner damkroger? commissioner damkroger: thank you in my time as a planner and working for a nonprofit -- well, every historic district survey and designation that i was involved in came from the community as a way to give that neighborhood or that community a voice. a way for them to recognize what their neighborhood was about, to empower all the people in the district to have a role in what happens to their district, to give them greater sway at city hall. because they were now a historic district. and they were important in the role -- you know, the city's history. so it was used as a tool. also to provide incentives for members of the district. you know, here we have the

historic district building tax credits and so forth. but it was ought sought as something to proif additional power to people in the district. president miguel: commissioner? >> thank you. i think this has been a great conversation. think we have been in this little shell working on articles 10 and 11 more recently. it's like coming out and seeing the world again so it's great to hear comments from the public and from the planning commission about where we are and what's up. to me it seems like there are two -- not one but two 900-pound gorillas in the room. we should probably identify them. one is this question of equity and does historic preservation get in the way of keeping the diversity and providing opportunity for people? and the other is, does historic preservation get in the way of the needed change and development that a city has to have? i don't fear weather one of

those. i think we should be concerned but i think we can do some things about that i've been spending a lot of time in boston lately. i lived there 25 years ago. i worked with the boston landmark commission. so it was interesting to see 25 years later what's going on. i look at that and see they've really preserved a lot of town. it's great. they've also been able to develop. the downtown has changed, grown, and they have their own i-tech sector, their own new businesses. that seems like a growing, live city. i used to live in the south end. i would not want to live in the south end now, because it has totally changed. it is very boutiquey, high restauranty, and very different from what it was. so i think that is an example of historic preservation helping, not by itself, but perhaps helping by some change. also a property i worked on a long time ago in roxburyy, a community health center that was an historic building, these people were hanging on by the thread. we helped get them a national

nomination which helped get them money. i drive by today, they have several buildings. the building they were in has been restored. it's in the middle of a very distressed neighborhood. and i feel that's a great thing that they were able to do seeing the result today. so i understand that commissioner's concern that this is all potential and everything is in the process of becoming, but i do think one difference from what i was in boston then, people would say, jim, we have never done it that way. and when i moved here, i people would say, wow, that's interesting. let's try it. so i say let's try it, and let's see what we can do and let's be the change agent and see what's possible. i'm excited about working with the public and with you all on making that happen. president miguel: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: something we haven't exactly addressed is from my viewpoint the ordinance that we're talking about -- let's leave article 11 out for

a minute. but article 10 is merely a means to do certain things for the h.p.c. and the board of supervisors. the decisions about historic districts, the decisions about whether something gets landmarked is still going to be made by people. it's still going to be made by the majority of the h.p.c. and the majority of whatever it happens to be of the board of supervisors. and the majority of the h.p.c. building on things like certificates of appropriateness. so i think that the great fear that this document is somehow in and of itself going to result in a lot of wholesale districting and landmarking and all of that i think is unfounded. now, i say that -- i have great faith in the current h.p.c., you know, the appointment process. but can you say that of the planning commission, too.

so we have to rely somewhat on the appointment process and have some confidence that the mayor and the board of supervisors who will be apointing people who are competent and take into account the kinds of things that we've been discussing today. but i just don't see -- i mean, we could spend the next year tweaking language in the ordinance. and i don't think those changes are going to make any difference in how the two commissions and the board of supervisors actually make their decisions on whether or not the district -- to district something or not. president miguel: commissioner christina olague? commissioner olague: i'd just like to move to extend this. >> a couple of things for staff. one, to understand if you choose to continue it, you are continuing the whole package. so i think it's important for

us to hear from a consensus that you don't want to move together with the package that you voted on in august. that's fine. i just want to make sure that that's the direction. the second thing is to understand what you want to do in the next -- commissioner olague: i keep hearing, you've been talking about this for two years. think we had one discussion with the joint hearing with everyone, like two years ago. then the planning commission really has not discussed article 10 and 11 since that time. so we want more discussion at the planning commission level, i think is what i heard. we would love to have it together with everyone. but if that's not possible, at a minimum i'd like to hear what their discussion is in-depth. not just like a 10, 15 minute report back at the beginning of the hearing. that's not sufficient to me. i'd like to hear -- like, what are some of the discussions? what are the things that the h.p.c. is proposing? if we can't have a joint hearing, because that's kind of physically difficult given our schedules, you know. >> so you're asking for -- commissioner olague: additional hearings, yeah. like on 10 and 11. i like additional hearings with

some consideration given and discussion given to what the h.p.c.'s input is. >> tara sullivan from the department. taking back to what the director was asking, i just want to clarify. and i am more than happy to have in-depth discussions with the planning commission on preservation issues. so we will go ahead and start scheduling some hearings. commissioner olague: yeah. >> items to try to get in. kind of go through it. maybe not as line-by-line as we did with the h.p.c., but issue by issue or however you want to do it. but i just want to make sure that that's what you're requesting. commissioner olague: i think the majority of this commission is requesting it. >> and then the h.p.c. will continue to go on with article 11, and then we can somehow merge all of this in the next few months. commissioner olague: but make sure that, yeah, that we're part of the discussions on that. >> ok. all right. commissioner olague: that's what i'm hearing from the majority of this commission. president miguel: i know there are people rung in but there is

a motion second to continue which is nondebatable. commissioner olague: commissioner with the instruction that you're hearing -- >> commissioners, first of all, let me -- since this is a joint commission, if the desire with the motion on the floor is the desire to cease discussion now, today, is that the desire? commissioner olague: yeah. >> you want to cease discussion? you want to vote on the motion? clearly no other action can take place with this motion at the moment. so is this a motion of just the planning commission or of the joint body? planning commission motion. commissioner olague: yeah. because it has to do with the legislation. whatever. >> so for that, the question before -- yes, a date or is it indefinite or what?

>> [inaudible] commissioner olague: we want to continue discussion. >> so it's an indefinite. commissioner olague: indefinite. >> ok. the motion on the floor then for the planning commission only is an indefinite continuance on that motion. [roll call] that motion passes 5-1 with commissioner sugaya voting against. president miguel: ok. the hearing is still continuing. commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: the direction of the planning commission's discussion and concerns i feel are more appropriately directed toward the historic preservation. because that's where we would

be talking about issues such as historic preservation policies, historic preservation goals and objectives, and the way historic preservation in this city can be looked at by, you know, both the planning commission, i suppose, and the historic preservation commission. ultimately the board of supervisors. i think additional discussion on tweaking the ordinance will go nowhere. and would just result in delays that i think -- you know, will not be productive. that's why i voted against the continuance. i think if the commission really feels -- and i do, too, that there are matters of gentrification issues, equity issues, broadening, perhaps, the concept of historic preservation. it's a social and cultural preservation as well. and getting communities involved on that level, then i think the discussion appropriately surrounds the

historic preservation element which is kicking around somewhere. or maybe not. in the department. so. president miguel: commissioner damkroger? commissioner damkroger: charles and i were commencing on ways for the two bodies to work together on this. we could send delegates or two delegates to your meeting and then have a joint meeting again after that to discuss proposals. so we'd like to find ways in which we could help hasten this. president miguel: appreciate it. director chase: it is our intent to help as much as possible. what we want to accomplish is understood by you so that can you understand what our thought process was. and we're very happy to do that in the public forum at your

hearing and again at a potential joint hearing if that would meet your needs. president miguel: commissioner martinez? commissioner martinez: i would like to make a motion for my commission to amend the language in article 10 around the application of the secretary of interior standards to reflect the language that we came up with for article 11. in terms of it being mitigated by local interpretations or whatever that language was. president chase: thank you, commissioner. let's wait to see if we have -- >> [inaudible] >> i do believe that is correct. yes, you're allowed to have the discussion.

but maybe you should at your next hearing, i will be there with article 11. and i will put 10 on for discussion it sounds like there's going to be some tweaks to 10 anyway per city attorney and maybe incorporating some of your article 11 issues into 10. so we can just handle that at your next hearing and bring that back, if you would like. commissioner martinez: i just wanted to make sure that that's not overlooked. >> yeah. i had that in my head. and i will be working with linda to get a series of maybe informationals over the next month or so, as soon as possible. so they can start going through section by section article 10. so that's what i'll do. and we can fold any additional amendments into the discussions if you would like. president miguel: thank you. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i appreciate commissioner damkroger's suggestion in when we have a hearing maybe have some members of the h.p.c. present. i would suggest that staff work with the h.p.c. before our next

hearing, planning, to try to consolidate some of the language that they feel is appropriate into the revisions. and then i would hope that one hearing at the planning commission, maybe two at the most. because we're looking at particularly articles 10 and 11. a lot of the things that were brought up today were important, but they're more dealing with the preservation element. you know, housing, general concerns, which are important concerns. but they're not really what we're on. and i think we want to get these things cleaned up and get them finalized with the understanding that we'll always be concerned about those issues that were discussed today. president miguel: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: yes. i'd like to thank the h.p.c. for their volunteering some of their members to come to planning commission. ms. sullivan, i assume that h.p.c. will also be continuing deliberations on at least article 11 and perhaps, i don't

know commissioner martinez brought up one amendment to 10, so those will be scheduled in the future, i assume. >> i have an outstanding, longstanding permanent agenda item. also section 309 they would like to review because it relates to article 11 and the downtown review. commissioner martinez: if that's the case and if they're interested, commissioners, we might want to have some people go to the h.p.c. hearing as well. president miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: is the planning commission prepared to summarize its comment in a concise way and forward them to the members of the historic preservation commission to help dialogue? and these comments would reflect the comments of the public from today? it would be shedding more light and really helping all of us to understand together what we need to do. president miguel: having been at a number of joint commission hearings of various

commissions, i think this hearing this morning has been the most fruitful of anything. and one in which there has been the most give and take, back and forth comments of any, very truthfully. i'm greatly appreciative of it. i have to comment on what was made earlier. regarding what has happened to san francisco that could have preserved historic structures and districts. unfortunately a combination of what was then redevelopment thinking and that then sitting board of supervisors prevented that. thankfully both bodies are much more cognizant of the city than they were at that time, at least i hope so. yes very, very much so.

but we really appreciate it. and i think the suggestion that we, to some extent, attend and perhaps comment at each other's hearings, as much as it's a lot of work, could also be fruitful. so i really appreciate the cooperation. as i say, it's beyond what we've had before as far as a real exchange of information at joint hearings. staff, you've done a great job. i appreciate the fact we're giving you more work, but i think it's coming together. and to the members of the public, you've been very, very thoughtful in your comments. and they will be taken into consideration. >> thank you. commissioners, with that, that concludes this item. the joint bodies are in recess until 1:30.

president miguel: i think 2:00 is more logical. >> ok. your calendar says 1:30. the chair is now stating that they will not start the joint hearing again until 2:00 p.m. president miguel: to allow for some lunch. >> very good. president miguel: thank you. [recess until 2:00 p.m.]