>> the planning commission is back in session. i would like to remind all of us to remember to turn off a self phones and electronic devices. commissioners, we are now on item 10. planning code controls for historic preservation, including but not limited to articles 10 and 11. >> i want to remind you we have been working on this for quite some time with stuff of the historic preservation commission. just to remind us all, this started as part of a package of cleanup amendments to years ago we proposed with the code. articles 10 and 11 were added to that. because of the ongoing

discussion, we recommended and the commission agreed that the rest of the cleanup package proceed to the board. the board has approved those other amendments. what you will hear today from sophie is the package of recommended changes to the articles that the historic preservation commission have suggested. i wanted to just let you know that they're often so many versions of articles 10 and 11 of the last couple of years that it is too confusing and very cumbersome to try to compare them all. our recommendation here is just to look at it fresh and look at the recommendations the historic preservation commission is making that are changes from the existing article, and to focus on that. so he will present the key issues that came out of that discussion rather than go every page, which could take as days. she will be highlighting the key issues.

written trying to compare those to previous recommendations you have made or the or part of an original ordinance, our recommendation is to look at this all new and compare it to the existing code. with that, i will let sophie do the hard work. commissioner sugaya: article 10, as i understand, has been drawn by the historical preservation commission. this has been voted on, or whatever appropriate action was taken. my understanding is that article 11 has not reached the same recommendation. at some point in the future, pending their hearing process, will we have another informational hearing? president olague: that is an

action item. but once they have reviewed supervisor weiner's legislation and weighed in on this, this will make their final recommendations. it is going to happen in that sequence. commissioner sugaya: is our understanding that the memos that have gone to the hpc and article 11 will come back at the same time? president olague: i assume so. commissioner moore: that is the question i meant to ask. i think it has been answered. president olague: basically, after the hpc has final recommendations regarding article 10 and 11 and supervisor weiner's legislation, after that has all gone through, we will hear it.

i think that is clear enough. >> good afternoon, members of the commission. the item before you today is an informational aid for discussion. it does not require action. it is a review of the department-sponsored amendment to articles 10 and 11, as drafted by the historic preservation commission and continuing through last week's hearing. i have just not distributed to you and members of the public a signed copy of the draft ordinance for article 10 that reflects changes made at last week's hearing. as commissioner sugaya pointed out, the hpc has not yet acted on article 11 or the proposed amendments by the supervisor. this draft ordinance i just distributed to was not included in your pockets. you did not receive it until today. the ordinance you received in

your pockets -- packets does not reflect the most current changes. i would like to acknowledge that the historic preservation commission president is here, as well as the legislative aide for supervisor winer. i will turn -- weiner. i'll turn the presentation over to them and then return with some housekeeping items. as a highlight components of where the public hearings have focused, you may wish to consider today specifically review of applications, scheduling and notice, appeals, and applicability. in addition, there are four memos in which the supervisor has suggested amendments to articles 10 and 11. those were included in your packet. there are also memos from the

staff and the public in response. finally, there are fee waivers for certificates of appropriateness. i will turn it over to president chase and ms. gillette and will then return to outline the process of moving forward. thank you. >> i think it is still afternoon. good afternoon, president olague, planning commissioners. thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today as you review the articles of the planning code. i am here, with another commissioner. commissioner john also indicated he would be here, but has been called away because of business. we are here to support the measures that we have spent a year working on very diligently. i just want to say to you that

our review methodology process has been to have an open discussion with the director of planning, the members of the planning department's staff, so the hayward, tim fry, and the city deputy attorney. most importantly, the public participated in the process. for nearly a year, we have reviewed comments. they have offered substantive language changes valuable to the ordinance proposal before you today. representatives of san francisco architectural heritage, spur staff, private property owners, and neighborhood groups have spoken in favor and opposition to various changes.

in this process, we have sought to be objective, balanced, and consistent in both our language and demeanor addressing the issues that are now before you. the hpc's proposed changes reflect three areas, in my opinion. they are conforming language printing articles 10 and 11 into conformance with the charter amendment passed by the passage of prop. 8 in 2008, -- proposition j in 2008, seeking consistency with other parts of the planning code, and specifically review of historic resources and the public process in san francisco. thirdly, changes provide consistency across articles 10 and 11. the were a number of inconsistencies which we believe we have rectified in this effort. supervisors got -- supervisor

weiner has proposed other changes to our to call 11 which will take up, but were unable to get to to provide today. parenthetically, the issue around article 11 -- we have voted on two occasions now. we have voted an intent to pass the ordinance and forward it on to you. we have just been waiting this last time for the verification as to form from the deputy city attorney. we will take that up on november 2. we would be pleased to report to the planning commission on the results of our discussions from november to, and recommendations when you take that up at the appropriate time. we are here to provide the historic preservation commission perspective, if you should need

that, as outlined in the staff report and recommendations, should you wish as you proceed tonight. again, thank you for this opportunity. president olague: thank you. >> president and commissioners, thank you for this opportunity. i am one of the legislative aides to commissioner weiner. he asked that i read an informational memo for today into the record. commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to address you on the revision to articles 10 and 11 that you are considering. this legislation provides an opportunity to update historic preservation rules and it sure they fit our changing city. our role should be to erase -- to preserve what is best of our past but to have a process that

is flexible. the supervisor is putting in number of amendments to the articles on the historic preservation commission has forwarded to you or will forward to you. the supervisor has discussed these amendments with planning department staff. he has modified them in response to valuable feedback from staff. he also proposed the amendment to the hpc. he asks you to consider them and perhaps recommend them. a more detailed memo which fall, will follow will track the precise language of the memos as that are approved, according to form. there is a summary of the most significant. and economic hardship opt out. owning property, can increase costs and administrative hurdles in a historic district. being a property owner does not mean one is wealthy. many are on fixed incomes, are

unemployed, or do not have significant resources. property in a historic district should not be limited to those with resources. we need to make sure that they are not gentrified and affordable housing is possible. the supervisor proposes a limited economic hardship opt out so that people of modest means can make changes to their property without incurring significant cost of making changes consistent with historic preservation standards. in response, the planning department's staff proposed a form of economic hardship to opt out that the supervisor believes is on the right path. ensuring strong outreach and support for property owners before a historic district is created is important, because of the significant restrictions on one's property when it is in a historic district. it is important that operators have a bye in before a district is credit.

-- buy-in. there should be an advisory vote, with the majority of property users voting. any supervisor, would pay close attention to the vote. this will insure our reach to end engagement of property owners, and provide a gauge of the support for the proposed district. some have expressed the concern about balloting around zoning. however, placing one's home in a historic district leads to immediate restrictions on what a property owner can do to his or her property. historic districts have a direct impact on the details of a person's home. balancing -- balloting is fair. the supervisor initially proposed that the balloting be more binding, but after

consulting with staff agreed to make it less binding. third, the current draft of article 10 states that the department and property owners or members of the public may request a designation. currently, the planning code requires that when property owners applied for application, it must be subscribed by or on behalf of at least 66% of property owners in the proposed district. the supervisor would like to maintain this requirement that property owners have an application that has been subscribed to by at least 66% of property owners in the proposed district. the first step toward creating a historic district is to survey the area. surveys are important, but also have an impact on people's

properties. people need to know when their neighborhoods are being surveyed, and what the significance is. the supervisor initially proposed board approval to commence the survey, but has since accepted a counterproposal which would greatly increase our outrage when surveys are occurring. as to the specific preservation standards, the planning department relies on the secretary of the interior pepys standards for changes to a historic building. it also uses this as a tool to determine effects on resources for ceqa purposes. for projects that comply, the standards are typically exempt from ceqa review. these standards are generic across the country, irrespective of the location or size. however, in an urban center like san francisco, with our zoning and history, we should not use a

one size fits all set of standards. as a result, the supervisor proposes the department prepare san francisco standards, following an examination of the planning code and consideration by the hpc. the department strongly supports this proposal, and it makes a lot of sense. finally, limiting to portions of the building visible from the public right of way. phillies have portions visible from the street and other portions that are not visible. property owners should have more flexibility for and less administrative review of the parts of their homes that are not visible from the public right of way or public space. there are already multiple levels of review and oversight provided to the planning and development -- and building department. finally, preserving the compromise on the downtown plan. when it was approved in 1987,

stringent demolition proposals were imposed on significant buildings, but not on category three or four buildings, unless there were -- unless they had transferred settlement rights. there is no reason to abandon this compromise. as noted, the supervisor will provide a more detailed memo shortly, when we have the articles approved. thank you for considering these proposals. president olague: thank you. >> commissioner, so free -- sophie hayward, planning staff. the executive summary, on page 5, there is an error, line for -- four, which states there are approximately 40 contributory buildings which have not sold

there -- their gdr. -- tdr > as a matter of fact, there are 58 that have sold their tdr. we just wanted to correct that. commissioner moore: would you mind repeating that? >> it is page five, with the executive summary, line four. commissioner moore: i don't see it. >> para graf to, line one -- paragraph two, line one. i'm sorry. maybe it is different for you. president olague: it should be under article 11. commissioner antonini: second paragraph under article 11. president olague: page five, review of the application for demolition.

i think that paragraph, right there. it is paragraph two, that section there. >> i apologize. i did not get the pagination change. it was a pds. -- pdf > there are 58 buildings that have sold their tdr >> i do not have any numbers. >> the hpc determined that there are approximately 40 contributory buildings. >> 58.