>> she is finding it. it is fine. >> the 40 should read 43 buildings that have sold. >> 134 have not. >> 134 buildings have not sold their tdr. >> you can read read that for us to avoid any kind of confusion. >> the hbc determined that there are approximately 43 category four buildings that have not sold their tdr.

that have sold their tdr. >> just send us a memo with the correction. otherwise, people one that picked -- will nitpick. next week on november 7, the historic preservation committee is scheduled to review article levin. they are also scheduled to review the memos submitted by supervisor wiener. we will make sure that they get a copy of that. we will transmit any recommendation regarding article levin and any

recommendation recommended by supervisor wiener to the planning commission. we are hopeful that sometime in the future there will be a date set for adoption of a recommendation that we can pass on to the board of supervisors. that concludes my presentation. i am available for questions as is the presentation coordinator. i would be happy to directed to specific areas as -- of article 10 as a start for your discussion or you could start it on your own. >> let's open it up for public comment. >> good afternoon, president, members of the commission. i am from san francisco architectural heritage.

i would like to commend the historic preservation commission for their diligence in reviewing the set of clean-up amendments before you. heritage has attended most of the 15 or more hearings that have gone into developing the current set of amendments before you. the major substantive issues that are outstanding from our perspective are the potential additional amendments being flooded by supervisor wiener including a vote among property owners for the port of supervisors to move forward with the designation of historic district. the proposal to develop alternative to historic standards for local interpretation of in san francisco and economic hardship provision a proposal to limit designation of private landmarks and buildings within a historic

district to only those features that are visible from the public right of way. heritage has submitted two detailed letters dated october 3 and october 17 regarding our specific positions on each amendment that has been floated to date. we continue to be in regular dialogue with the supervisor's office and the joint task force and the community stakeholders to work out some of the issues and to get clarity and to try to identify public -- common ground. we have made some progress in that. there are some outstanding issues where we have not been able to reach agreement. i hope we would be able to get back to you and jointly propose a global package for adoption the next time this comes before you. thank you very much.

>> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. great to see you. i am the deputy director of san francisco planning and urban research. i would like to start out my comments by commanding the -- commending the historic preservation commission for their review of articles 10 and 11. i appreciate president chase for being here to answer any questions you may have. in the letter i gave to you, we categorize our comments in three different buckets. the first are questions that we think are significant and are important and that the commission should look at. the second are issues that we support but fall into the bucket of clean-up and all of the good

stuff that goes along with clean -up. we wanted to present some thoughts to you. the first series said that we strongly support that we want you to take a look at, in section 106.7, which has been numbered 106.6, it states that a proposed work on a landmark or within a historic district must meet the secretary of the interior standards. there has been a lot of discussion about what that means. i was sitting here before the meeting talking about, what does that mean? i am open to learning more. my initial reading was that they are very strict requirements.

it must conform to the secretary of interior standards, that is somewhat problematic. if that requirement were reserved for a landmark parcels, that would make sense. these are including not to shoot the territory -- not contributory buildings. this is for projects that are receiving a section 309 review or a complicated entitlement, you would be bound to conform to all of the applicable requirements in the historic preservation code. that is just one. i know i only have 27 seconds to go. i want to call up the economic hardship provision. we feel this is very important. a critical component of this package moving forward.

we like or the language is going. we would urge the mayor to a work closer with the department of housing. they deal a lot with affordable housing. with that i have one second and i thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. i am a planner. in addition to that, i have taught architectural history for the better part of 40 years in various colleges and universities throughout the country. i am also of -- a member of the heritage task force that was just referred to. i am representing myself tonight. i strongly support the comments and the letter that you have. there are three criteria to be on this task force. one was to believe that historic

preservation is important. another was to believe that the preservation of housing in san francisco is important. the third is to be concern for the people that actually live and work in the buildings in san francisco. the historic preservation committee has worked very hard on these articles. it only has purview over one area and that is historic preservation. as you know, the planning commission has a much broader mission to balance all objectives. in your balanced review of articles 10 and 11, it is crucial. as a historic preservationist, this subject is too important to just be left to historic preservationists. it is imperative that these measures be tested against a broad days -- a broad based,

robust process. against goals for housing production, economic sustainability, job creation, and all of the other considerations you deal with each week. supervisor winner has saw to propose amendments that have to deal with articles 10 and 11 and thereby multiple -- a balance multiple goals. i hope you will consider the wiener amendments and the comments that i believe are intended to bring balance, fairness, and a robust public purchase a petition -- participation to the process. >> it is there additional public comment on this item? >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is martinez. i am on the historic preservation commission. i am speaking for myself. i would like to ask staff to

include a modification of the charter amendment. when reading these changes to article 11, you have to read it against the charter amendment. proposition j was passed by a substantial majority. clearly, under the sense of the general public, that historic preservation controls were not adequate in san francisco. it was clear in the charter amendment that this would create a more powerful group and create more protections for historic buildings. when looking at the changes to articles 10 and 11, you have to look at them against the charter amendment. i am not going to make any comments about supervisor

wiener's amendments. we have not discussed them as a group yet. i urge you to read what we have done against the charter amendment and the spirit by which the public passedit. >> any additional public comments on this item? public comments are closed. >> i would like to weigh in on the some of the comments made. i have some comments. the first thing is the category three and four buildings. i think that obviously, the first thing we would like to do is to see if there is interest in selling tdr's. the ones that are contributed -- contributory, being able to sell them up to the standards.

individually are looking at all of the different buildings. i am pretty supportive of that one. the portions that are not visible from the street, they would still be subject to dr. that is the subject before us. it would depend on the nature of the change. i am not sure that we need to extend the historic protection to those areas that are not visible. sides would be, front would be, things that people could see. the san francisco standards, my understanding, and i may ask for a comment on this, we interpret the secretary of the interior's standards in each case anyway. but the supervisor is trying to do is to someone standardize

our interpretive process rather than have some sort of guidelines for our interpretation. we need more detail on that. what are these guidelines? and what are you really saying? the other instances that have been brought up, a better corporate 4 historic surveys. it is important that you have a building in an area that is under survey. that is good. the informational polling of property owners to see what they think. it is not necessary for the historic district to have an agreement from these property owners, but rather the fact that they are interested in that. the standard of whether 66% --

that number would have to be looked at. is it too high of a standard? what is the standard to be set? there has to be some agreement about a majority of property owners. the hardest one is the heart ship. i agree that a lot of property owners cannot afford to do things. the suggestions that were made were really good. we have a city that has a huge percentage of our housing stock that is aging. it is in bad shape and seismically compromise. it is a fire hazard in many cases. these provide a lot of power affordable housing. i would suggest that we try to look into the possibility of using a concept such as transferable development rights and housing rights for somebody that has house and property that is historically designated.

it is going to have to be improved anyway, even theft bank that is not historical. even the if -- if it is not historical. he would have to be able to afford what is necessary to improve this property. they would have to provide units of sight for the current residence or if the current residence did not want to move to the s, they would be provided for. it was the concept that was used many years ago. he did it the reverse. he built the new building and use the old building as the affordable offset. what you do is you renovate the old building and you build the affordable offset with the new building.

this is something to think about. it opens an interesting discussion piece. i think it could have a lot of potential. more and more, this is going to come before us. we will have larger and larger portions of our housing stock that will fall into this category. the same could apply to commercial categories. there is a lot more flexibility for ways to raise money on commercial properties to make it affordable to raise the money necessary. >> in section 1010 of the already adopted ordinance, i do not know if staff has given consideration to introducing something new along the lines

of the federal executive order and the state executive order. these are both executive orders that more or less -- i guess if bay are executive orders, you are ordering public agencies to survey existing properties. staff knows what i am talking about. i am just introducing it as an idea. when i testified at supervisor wiener's hearing, i said that, i have not done it, that i would pass along the wording of those consecutive orders. these would be asking city agencies that own property, however they own property, to undertake survey work so that they would know in advance before doing work what the

situation was with those properties. and not get themselves into trouble. that is one suggestion. i do not know if i want to go into all of the points of supervisor wiener's memorandum. one point would be, are there and come limits that would trigger this or property value limits? would it apply to every owner? that is a detail that needs to be looked at any way. >> i know they have done some research on what has been done in other cities. >> i think that will come up when it comes back to us. >> on the preservation of standards, i do not have a problem in creating san francisco design guidelines or preservation guidelines.

i think that if we are going to try to stay somewhat consistent, there is specific language in ceqa as far as using the secretary of the interior's standards. those are both for preservation and restoration and reconstruction and rehabilitation. the title actually is the secretary of interior standards for the preservation of historic properties and guidelines or preserving, restoring, rehabilitating, and reconstructing historic properties. even within the ceqa language, under the standards they have set of guidelines that address things like material usage and that kind of thing. i think that if we want to take that approach and try to create specific guidelines that apply to san francisco, i do not have

a problem with that. >> we have been talking under the staff in supervisors office about that particular issue. our belief is that it would be a good idea, but it would require time and money because it would require an environmental impact report. we are not suggesting all new standards. we are suggesting san francisco 's own interpretation of the standard that would apply here. that is what we have been talking about. i believe the supervisors supports that as well. there has been a misunderstanding among some folks about what that actually means. >> about limiting standards to what you can see from the right of way, i understand that. if you are looking at how

buildings are eventually it landmarked or considered historic resources, there are certain kinds of physical characteristics that are usually identified as being important to those buildings. it could be that in certain instances, those features are not visible from the street. you run into an issue, if you are not going to allow some leeway in approach and how you apply the standards, then we might run into some issues. i think that in most instances from my perspective and experience in the field, people who are looking at propose changes to historic structures usually set up a hierarchy. what is visible from the street and what is the primary facade

-- that passat is given high consideration and the other allegations, if you go around the building, especially at the rear, are considered secondary or tertiary and more changes can take place. from a practice standpoint, i think that kind of approach is already being used. >> i will like to thank charles for being present for the work that the hpc has done that will be coming to us shortly. i would like to associate myself with the remarks from jim. i am pretty much directly in line with his comments. the commissioner brought up two

very interesting comments, one on the public property, which was not touched here. i do not know the proper place for it. what ever is, it should be included. the only thing that i had a question on -- one of the things i questioned was a comment about viewing from the public right of way. we get involved in prior to being on the commission with what people view out of the backs of their buildings when we deal with big block open spaces. that is a concern to the general

public. they are not just concerned with what is out front. i know we are talking about historic preservation here. we are talking about how the city appears to the general public. these people that do look at the backs and some of the sides of the building are still a part of the general public. the concept that the front be treated as a more strict interpretation, the non-public right of way has a lasess strict interpretation with lasting guidelines does speak to me rather than dismissing it all together. i appreciate the work that has been done with spur and supervisor wiener's office.

>> i also want to echo the report. our biggest concession -- position was to make sure we did not gentrified districts. i definitely support the economic hardship. it does sound like we might need some sort of parameters as to how that is defined. the average, we have been having that with the westermann planning that has been going on. others that were upset about the historic survey and how other properties were impacted. they did not seem to know until it was much further along. i understand that the issue of having property owner survey was an advisory opportunity.

that might be a good idea. at an initiative like that where people's property is actually being impacted. people should have a perspective on how that should be done. i think it could be done on an advisory level. it is nice to get feedback when we look at these sorts of things. i think the wonderful strength of our neighborhood groups from across the city would be a wonderful place to start when doing that some -- sort of survey with property owners. the standards we have been discussing would take the secretary of interior standards and would it make how we implement them in san francisco. it would help with the consistency. it is often the discussion we are having at how people perceive historic value as being

maintained or improved upon or denigrated based on the person's perspective. we have home remodeling projects. in terms of things being visible for the public right away, commissioner sugaya raises some interesting points. there are some things that are considered historic or might impact the designation of a history with the building. to understand why you would want to include anything that would be visible from the public right away. in terms of the tdr's, it seems to make sense. we have a lot of open opportunities. i do not think we have anything to add on that point.

priest -- we for started talking about articles 10 and 11. finally, in getting to a place for codifying some of these things is important. they are actively involved in providing feedback on how this could be done. >> the heritage comments were most true to me. we get into a sensitive area of historic preservation and how it is being capsulate it. the commissioner is entirely composed except for perhaps one person out of a preservation architect. i