>> two separate topics. first, i really wanted to thank the commissioners to give a lot of concern>> i want to thank the commissioners to give thought to the design of van ness, antonini and sugaya and moore. the people in a community may be worried about this -- and they may forget. it was very grateful that you gave a lot of thought to this. i hope we will have more -- with the improvements that were proposed. this is very important and this is well-integrated. it is a shame to have a big, a prominent place overcome by those who are not looking at design.

as david baker once talked about -- is important that these look like cleaning shops. i was the community organizer, when i heard this proposal. it's not to say that this was not a good one, other than the interior design. they had all been evicted and this was in perfect shape. he said needed to be turned down and the group wound up fighting this for six or seven years in court. but initially, this had the support of my own organization. he was mentioned -- and this was the other topic. i want you to be thinking about who they have served, and what kind of neighborhood that this really has.

sugaya, this is a neighborhood with mixed economics. there will be people who will really like this. this is a good store as it is, a limited, specialty store. but what i collect signatures, i am reminded, more than when i am shopping their of how many people who are shopping there, they may be coming from chinatown or the tenderloin, hispanic people and chinese people and also the low-income people who will not be well served at all, if this stohr is there -- i think that perhaps it did not do a good job of looking to see if they could find somebody else.

we have an independent, large grocers and they will attend. -- attempt to adjust their products to the population. he says this is not a good store but who will best serve? middle-class people -- people who drive up, and most of the people walk up. they come from areas without cars and they will have long trips to get to a regular market. this is a concern. the main concern is cds. -- cvs. we have two walgreens. it is better to have one large market. it is not going to be the same. even though this was expensive,

they had sales and i would buy from them. i hope that you are thinking about the population. >> is there additional public comment on the items not on today's agenda? >> good afternoon, planning commissioners. i have the privilege of attending the historic preservation committee. i talked about the ordinance of david chew and wanted to make certain that you get copies of the letter i could not send to everyone. i know they have a problem with my e-mail id. i have an issue with some of the changes coming up in supervisor chu's ordinance. this is not just dealing with historic preservation.

a lot of this that concerns me has to do with the planning code section -- and i have lost my train of thought. the density requirements and the open space exposure, the expansion of the zoning administrator is powers, as a regular planning change situation. i wanted to bring this out and said avoiding the last minute. >> good afternoon. i am joe butler. last week, i saw a video, with diamond street being demolished in 2 minutes. it brings up the question of why we are allowing housing to be demolished in san francisco when there are vacant lots in mission bay.

and more recently i have learned that 481 jersey was also proposed for demolition, with the date of 1900 in the data base which means we don't know the date. it has clearly been remodeled. two or three years ago, brand- new kitchen and bathroom tile. purchased not by a family that could live there but a developer who wants to demolish this and put even more there. i kind of remember us going through this in the '90s. we have the criteria for existing housing, and we weren't going to allow this to be demolished. this is the bubble all over again. i thought that we have learned something but maybe not.

>> and is there any additional public comment? >> peter warfield, the executive director -- the previous speaker spoke about demolitions and in the course of the library bond program, unfortunately, in relatively recent years there were demolitions of branches that were -- landmark, being considered for landmarking -- and this is most unfortunate. and there were other branches -- one of them is still considered for demolition. and this is north beach. the ortega branch was demolished.

more recently, the planning department itself had a report on appleton and wofford, reporting that the neglect and actions by the renovation, under the bond program had actually caused library branches, specifically named, to become no longer landmark-worthy. that is the kind of demolition, this is a demolition of historical value. and much more recently, the oldest branch in the system, a little bit over 100 years, was considered by the historic preservation commission by landmarking. we did not do this at the time the library wanted renovations. this was changed for concessions to improve certain

aspects of the renovation. in the last few months it appeared that there were blazingly bright pieces of metal that had been screwed into the facades. the apparent explanation is that what looks like triangular metal pieces are on the front -- they were there to deny homeless people and others the small ledge that they supposedly were walking across from the entrance to the library, and up and over the fence into the back. this involves drilling holes into what is a historical facade and damaging not only this, but the appearance of the building as well. large, rectangular-looking pieces, and they have painted

this over. but this is a form of discussion that is -- destruction of this unconscionable. without. -- protect the historic assets of the city. >> and is there additional public comment? seeing none, public comment has been closed. moore? >> i would like to identify myself to the commission as the commissioner who took issue with how she identified herself. i gave her feedback -- -- i encouraged her to find a way to let me know that this is her who was commenting -- and that her comments are welcome and to the point. this is in her interest to know that the smiley face, most

likely will end up in the spam. and this is the technology we use to keep the unwanted e-mail away. this was a positive comment and i move for you to identify yourself in e-mail's to myself. >> and now i know how to identify her. we appreciate your comments, always. we appreciate it when you come to make public comment. >> it did take time to recognize. >> thank you. if we can move forward on the calendar, to the first item on the regular calendar. this is item number nine, case 2011. the amendment to the planning codes, including but not limited

to article -- >> >> i have a question for the city attorney. before we start -- the staff memo that we received under environmental review says that the proposed amendment, which i believe refers to the entire package that we got, including the underlying material -- and the underlying material, under section 15 -- of these guidelines. those guidelines say in effect that the inactivity -- that refers to what we are considering today, this is not subject -- no. 2 says the activity will not result in the

indirect physical change in the environment. my question is the -- underlying material that we have, from the proposed amendment -- it seems to indicate that there is a reasonable indirect physical change that may take place in the environment because, he is exempting -- he is exempting certain regulations that would take place with respect to historic resources were there is affordable housing being proposed. and there are language changes that say -- a review of the projects -- with something else in article 11, the language, instead of saying to comply with the standards -- says that the staff for the commission will

keep this in consideration. taking this into consideration would result in the loss of resources, and i would like to know whether or not in this case, they are required to have environmental review? and therefore this item cannot be before us. >> kate stacey. the environmental review officer is -- unauthorized entities to determine what level to review as appropriate for activities which can include legislation. i would ask you to comment on what the environmental review officer has determined. >> because of the questions, i would like to confirm that this is adequate.

i would like for this to be heard as an informational items today. >> i think -- you were going to have a hearing today. a few comments to make before she makes her presentation. what is before you is an ordinance that we have put together, initiating some time ago. it would implement the charter amendment that is now three years old. and it would make some very much-needed changes to these articles. these articles have been around since the 1960's. there are a lot of concerns that were expressed about this item being in front of you today. i would like to clarify what we are doing and not doing today. we are reviewing the ordinance

with a couple of components, if i can describe it that way. the bulk of what we have been reviewing today is the ordinance amendment that has been reviewed by the historic preservation commission. there is the supposed -- proposed ordinance by supervisor winter. this lays out what was proposed by the historic legislation committee. this is in each of several major categories. this is played out in the case report and the presentation that she will give you today. when this commission does act, and when you do make a recommendation to the board of supervisors, this recommendation will go to the board of supervisors. they will have a hearing on this item on january 18. the recommendation will also go

to the board of supervisors. so when we present a recommendation to the board, whenever this will be, there will be two sets of recommendations. we will present what the commission's represented, and the staff recommendation is our recommendation to you. and to the preservation commission in january. what will go to the board is the independent recommendation. i want to clarify that this is what is happening today and when this does come back we will prepare our recommendations the way that we all was it -- always. -- legislation is in front of us. >> someone raised the concern that the staff had made recommendations regarding weiner's suggestions or amendments to article 10 and

article 11. i want to show the public this is common practice. any time that we have legislation from the board that comes before us, it is accompanied by a recommendation to the staff. we always consider this and sometimes we will be amending best or approve or disapprove. this is a common practice for the legislation to come to us, with the staff recommendations. this is just what we have done at the planning commission level. >> the director in terms of the procedures, if we will not vote on this today, we can get some kind of -- i don't know if this is a ruling or decision by the environmental staff, with respect to this applicant -- application, and the proposed

amendment. when this comes back to us, will we have a recommendation from the historic preservation commission on the amendments that he has proposed? but they have not yet considered? will we be the beneficiaries of their continued review, of his amendment in the form of a recommendation or something back to the commission before we vote on this again? >> assuming the timing works out that way. the calendar is full in january. assuming you make the recommendation, we would move that recommendation on to you, and you would have that before the next hearing. >> i don't think we will hear this before february. we certainly will request that

when the staff meets, that this would include these comments and recommendations. >> we will have the full input at that time? >> we just requested this, and i assume that this will be the case. yes. >> good afternoon, members of the commission. the item before you is a review of the amendments to article 10 and 11. before i make my presentation i would like to note that supervisor winner -- weiner is here with jon martinez. i would like to give him a chance to speak before my presentation. >> good afternoon,

commissioners. as i would like to do when i am addressing commissioners i want to thank you for your service to san francisco. unlike the board of supervisors which is paid a full-time job, you probably work as hard as the board of supervisors, you are treated as if you are on a non- profit board, volunteering your time. i also want to thank you for considering my amendment, to article 10 and 11 of the planning code, and i welcome the continuance, we will go back to historic preservation on january 18. i have not looked at my calendar, but as soon as i am able i will go to the historic preservation. there are a couple of items that they have not yet considered.

i look forward to that. this evaluation, of articles 10 and 11, is an important chance to step back and decide how historic preservation -- how this fits into the context of our complex urban setting in san francisco, to discuss how we embrace the best of our past, and also embracing the future. and a change that this city constantly undergoes. we know that a great city must know and respect its history, and it has to be willing and able to change when appropriate. articles 10 and 11 don't totally answer this question, but this is a piece of the puzzle. i have prioritized the historic

preservation as part of my legislative agenda. i support preservation and proposition j, which treated the historic preservation commission. i did support this and i do stand by this decision. i have been working closely for many months, with the planning staff and members of the community on the proposed historic district. i could have walked into office in january and pronounced it this dead. the district probably does not move forward. i did not do this and instead i worked with the planning staff. this can be dramatic and bombastic, but i do support historic preservation and truly believe that a sound preservation policy is a major part of keeping this city unique and vibrant. we have to knowledge that

preservation is not the only policy goal in the city. housing production and affordable housing -- this is what we need to have. young families can come and raise their families here. we have to make certain that we are inclusive of the impact of the communities and retain popular support. the quickest route to losing political support is to be perceived as oppressive to the ability to control their property and their homes. at a community meeting last night, with the triangle neighborhood association -- commissioner martinez and michael mueller, they will tell you that there was a lot of concern about what the historic district would mean to them.

without me prompting them, they were proposing the things i proposed about balloting. this is a real issue and it is my goal to make historic preservation sustainable for the long run. the items i am proposing will address this in a little bit more detail. on each and every one of these i have compromised. i came out with the initial proposal, and i met with the members -- and i have been very collaborative with trying to come up with items that people can live with. formally balloting the property owners to gauge support. we want to know if there is support for the district. this will encourage the community to buy in, and the

most successful kind of outreach. this would encourage property owners to vote or be surveyed and this would be non-binding. there has been some misinformation, that i am proposing that they have to vote to form a district. this is not true. this has nothing to do with the creation of the district. i am proposing that we have a robust outreach process and a lot of people don't realize their homes are being surveyed, or the impact in terms of doing work on their house. we have to make certain that people understand. no. 3 is having the ability for people to own homes in the historic district, to be able to stay in that district. the last thing we should be doing is gentrifying the

historic district. there are many property owners, who are unemployed and lower- income, who were on the fixed- income and retired. they may have deserted the property many years ago and could never afford the property today. they are staying in their homes by the skin of their teeth. the last thing you should say to someone is, you have a choice of either paying for what can be expensive treatment for maintaining your homes, or proposing the economic hardship, the system where people can apply to receive the hardship, if they have a significant hardship and work with planning staff -- and this is still consistent with the historic integrity of the district. not advocating letting anyone do

whatever they want, they would work with planning staff to find an alternative, with affordable housing developments, to take advantage of the economic hardship. i will know that there is an error, addressing article 11. this is for the affordable housing projects. this should be identical and receives review. this is requiring that when you form a historic district, you have to have a finding, with the regional requirement. this is for the future of the bay area. the sidewalks and the pedestrian safety improvements -- they are not part of the district unless they are called out, and we have a pedestrian safety project that

has been held up because of the belief that this touches a historic district. and they must make the sidewalk more wide, and this should not be happening. and in terms of the secretary of the interiors standards, directing the planning commission to work together -- coming up with guidelines and interpretations of those standards, not to disregard the standards but to have guidelines, just like the trust has done. this does not include the locality with the interpretations -- they do not require compliance with the secretary of interior standards, and the presumption that if you comply, you are exempt. in