but you have to wonder. even if they said we are wrong by 100 percent signed, they went from 20-mad to 90. there is no explanation about what the discrepancy is all about. the only conclusion one could come to is the discrepancies are the only way you get to keep the seven-month time. remember, these trucks going out every two minutes are going to go out during the america's cup. if you go down and see a truck right now, there is a truck coming from the pier 27 site. the trucks are on the right. everyone pulls out of the left lane because they are so frustrated. and so the whole left lane gets clogged up. it is going to be a mess. these traffic lights are all the way along the embarcadero.

i would encourage you to read the page. things you. -- thank you. president miguel: any additional public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am the deputy director of spur. i want to let you know we have a new expedition opening tuesday night. it is on the topic of what it will take for housing to get the -- our housing to get to survive the next major earthquake. i want to invite you to attend. we have a couple of postcards that i will need for you to take a look at. thank you. president miguel: additional general public comment? if not, the general public comment is closed. and thank you.

we will start your general calendar with item number 11. we are taking it out of order. it is case number 2 thousand 11 011.0167t. ." >> sophie hayward. the item before you is a planning commission and them is to article 10 and 11. action before this commission is whether to adopt a proposed amendment and forward them as proposed war further modifications on to the board of supervisors for their revike toe supervisor wiener is here and request that he address you before i give my full presentation. just in case you do not copies of the proposed ordinance, i brought additional drops for you. -- drafts for you.

supervisor wiener: good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for having me. since the last time i was here we had a hearing at the stapur preservation committee and i spent time in dialogue with the commission, and the commission developed recommendations yesterday. last time i was here on january 18 i gave you an extensive presentation on the amendments. i do not feel the need to do that again. i will refresh your memory if you need that, but i wanted to point out a few things. first, and i cannot recall if this happened right before or right after the last commission hearing, and as a reminder,

almost all of the proposals are already in compromise form. i start off with the proposal and to engage in months and months of discussion and negotiation with planning staff and others, so almost all of these significant items are not in original form. they are the result of negotiation and compromise. as always, that is an important part of the legislative process. i did work out language with planning staff around standards, so my proposal is -- hpc has apparently accepted it, for land -- individual landmarks and contributors within historic districts the secretary of interior standards shall be applied, in addition to the local interpretations and applications that will be developed for non-contributors in vacant lots. the secretary standards shall be

considered, in addition to the local interpretation of application. i think this goes a long way and allowing us to craft a comprehensive set of interpretations of the standards for recognizing the unique urban context, while also acknowledge in a higher standard should apply. the one area where i disagree with the hpc in this provision is i am proposing a process be a joint process, and that both hpc and planning commission would need to sign up on the final product. the rationale being historic preservation is an important policy among at numerous, and this commission is charged with taking the broad view of how preservation fits into the complete context. i think it is extremely

important for the planning commission to sign off. hpc has expressed the view that only they should sign off and the planning commission should simply have feedback role. i disagree with that strongly. the hpc, as i discussed last time, i have included an interpretation and pro- affordable housing provision allowing for a limited economic hardship to opt out for individuals experiencing hardships who would then -- if they cannot afford to maintain property to the maximum historical degree that might typically be required, they went work with planning staff to find alternative that is lower cost, but still appropriate. in other words, they did not get a complete free pass to put in

aluminum windows, for example. also taking into account the affordable housing project for low income coming very low- income, moderate-income and for middle income. affordable housing projects are typically constrained. the historic preservation commission recommended removing that section entirely. i strongly disagree with that. it should remain in. we need to make sure we are not harming our historic districts and supporting affordable housing projects. and there was some push back in particular that the affordable housing component goes up to 150% of ami. i believe heritage has inaccurately described that as market-rate holding. that is inaccurate.

80-120% is a moderate income. at 120-150 is middle income. if you have housing that is restricted up to 150% of ami, it is not luxury housing. it is housing we desperately need in the city where we are losing the middle class. and so i disagree with the agency's decision to remove the entire section. they also -- one of my proposals is to require an on-finding informational survey vote of property owners that would be used for information for policy makers in deciding whether to let the legislative district, the hpc recommend in removing the vote aspect of it and making it just out reach. i disagree with that. i believe the survey vote should

remain. there was some expression that tenants should be included in addition to property owners. if there is a desire to include tenants in that vote, if the commission would like to amend -- recommend that come i am open to that, but it does make it more challenging to get a majority of people to vote. if heritage or others are interested in including property owners and this commission wants to recommend that, i am open to considering that. i did initially limit the property owners, because they're born to be the most directly impacted by creation of a district. and-- they're going to be the most directly impacted by creation of a district. they recommended removing the 66% of property owners required to have a hearing on nomination. that is in articles 10 and 11 for many decades.

hpc recommended removing that. i suggested keeping it in pure and i agree with this as suggested reducing that to 56% plus one. i am fine with that. finally, there are a couple of unique items relating to article 11 about having -- miss hayward can describe in more detail, the 180 they hold and relating to demolition. i disagree with their desire to strip those out. in somum, i would request the commission consider endorsing my amendment with the one change that reducing the 66% to the 50% plus 1 would be my request to the commission and grateful for your consideration. president miguel: thank you. commissioner antonini: think you

for coming to address us. i have a question on your first point, and that is the secretary standards. i want to ask if you are in conjunction or agree with the staff's position on this or feel it needs modification? commissioner wiener: the current language is in which i negotiated, so we are in agreement about the new language, which i have described. apparently the hpc is an agreement with it as well, except they want to cut out the planning commission from the approval process for the local interpretation, which i disagree with that. so i think at this point we seem to have a broad agreement. not 100 percent signed, but among staff and myself among this provision, except i think the planning commission should be part of the approval process. commissioner antonini: think

you. basically the difference is the planning commission and the approval process. i think having some flexibility is very important. >> just to be clear, this agreement is over who improves the local interpretation of the standard that you might be able to produce. it is about who might approve the local interpretation. >> one thing i forgot to mention -- commissioner olague has informed me that she will be co- sponsoring these at the board, so i do have a co-sponsor. president miguel: -- commissioner antonini: we are talking about the planning commission being involved in the

creation of the local interpreted the guidelines. and the recommendation from the hpc is that they solely do that. once the guidelines have been worked out and adopted, so to speak, i do not know the exact process that will take place -- once that is done, whether it is hpc or planning commission, and then subsequent projects that require certificates of appropriateness would then still be within the purview of the hpc and not the planning commission. supervisor weiner: yes. it is just the formulation of those interpretations. commissioner sugaya: i have maybe questions for staff. supervisor weiner: i will remain for at least a little while, if

any questions arise. i am happy to respond. >> sophie heyward, planning staff. the city requires that ordinance's concerning historic preservation be referred to the historic preservation committee and this body for review, prior to transmittal to the board. the ordinance is before you. this includes amendments proposed by the hpc and superviso weiner. these were heard january 18, 2012 and yesterday by the hpc. i will not go through the ordinances in the same level of detail i did in december. today, i will look at the review and recommendations made yesterday by the hpc, in the form of two resolutions.

i have provided a summary of each of the resolutions for you. i will also put a copy of four members of the public. just a quick note on the format. what is highlighted in yellow on these sheets are the changes that were proposed yesterday by the hpc to the amendments that were recommended by supervisor weiner. i gave them to the director. the proposed amendments at this time are anticipatory, and have not been approved to the board, nor have they been introduced at the board of supervisors. the legislation before you remains planning commission- initiated, and there is no specific deadline for your review. it does appear likely that the supervisor will introduce his proposed amendments in late february or early march. if the substance is the same as what is before you today, these

modifications will not be research acquited -- the recirculated to you or the hpc. this presentation will review the resolutions passed yesterday and will highlight where there are differences between department recommendations and that of the hpc. i will answer any questions you may have about the proposed changes. the proposed change yours --with established the hpc. all references to the landmarks advisory board have been removed. subsequent changes are proposed for a number of specific processes, designation and review of applications, applicability, and economic hardship and fee waivers for certificates of appropriateness. the local interpretation of the secretary of interior standards

and the guidelines for historic property. at yesterday's hearing, the hpc past two resolutions in response to the amendments passed by supervisor weiner. those resolutions represent months of work by the hpc. at the hearing, expressed regret that no commissioners were available to come to today's hearing to provide a more nuanced explanation of their proposed on petitions to the amendments. they also noted that they will follow these resolutions with a more detailed letter that i will distribute both to you and to the board of supervisors at a later date. i will begin with resolution 672, which addresses article 10. i believe he should have copies of the draft ordinance as well.

for section 1001.1, the amendment would require that 66% of property owners in may proposed historic district -- in a proposed historic district agreed to the designation on nomination. the hpc may initiate regardless of the percentage of owners that agree or disagree. the proposed modification, as you see on this first page, is to substitute the language about 66% with a simple majority. as the supervisor indicated, he seems to be ok with that change. the second area i want to

address is about designation by the board of supervisors. this appears on pages 14 and 15 of your draft ordinance for article 10. this addresses outreach to owners with an potential historic districts. the amendment requires that the department conduct out reach and report the results of that to the board of supervisors when transmitting the recommendation regarding designation. at yesterday's hearing, the hpc first expressed a desire to include occupants, so it is not just owners participating in this outbreak. there were some concerns that the response to outreach not be required to be in writing. there was a point that not everybody would feel comfortable expressing their views in english in writing.

lastly, there was an objection to the statement the department's goal shall be to obtain the participation of at least half of all property owners in the proposed district. the property owners and vote should be considered by the board of supervisors, and the hpc voted 4-2 to strike that language. feel free to interrupt me if you have questions. moving on to section 1006.6, this shows up on page 30. as noted, the department has worked with the supervisor to draft revised language regarding the development of interpretations of the standards. as you just discussed with the supervisor, the department and supervisor are almost in

complete agreement, but for the fact that the hpc removed the reference to the planning commission in adopting the proposed local interpretation of the guidelines. i hope that is clear. dealing which is spelled out for you here. lastly, sections g and h would create a new economic hardship exception. the supervisor has introduced language that would create an exemption for certain projects and this introduced language also calls for house consideration of the mission and needs proposed by city owned properties. in addition, this creates a language by which certain applications may be exempt from

fees associated with this. on the bullet-pointed sheet before you, it appears the hpc struck this language. i also want to acknowledge that this topic engendered a lot of discussion. the end action was that the proposed striking it. however, they wanted to acknowledge that they understand the issue but would like to have further time for a more in- depth discussion about the lack of moderate income housing in the city. the would like to further discuss the proposed solution. at this time, they are proposing the language be removed. i think that are open to further discussion at a later date. those are the primary modifications recommended regarding article 10. i can move on to article 11, if you would like. commissioner antonini: to get a clarification, before we go off. a little bit of confusion about

the beginning. you said there had been a compromise reached to a simple majority, which would be 50% plus one of property owners to be involved in a non-binding survey as to create think historic districts. below that, i think there was some lack of understanding between the supervisor in the hpc about whether this vote would be taken into consideration. is that the difference? >> the issue of outreach comes up twice. the first is in a section that is generally a little bit confusing. that is the difference between a nomination and an initiation. in the draft version by the hpc, any member of the public may come and nominate a historic

district. the hpc can decide whether or not to go ahead and initiate that designation. the hpc retains the right to initiate any historic district. a nomination means a request that is signed by a majority of residents in a district. the hpc must at least consider that request. the board of supervisors may at any time in the shade designations. the second time this comes up is later on in the process of initiation, when the board of supervisors received in the initiation -- attached with those will be the results of the outreach.

without which conducted by the department, the language that the hpc objected to was that the department goal was to have the participation of the least 50% of the district in the survey. date requested that tenants be involved in the outreach. one occurs at a hearing. one gets packaged with the recommendation that goes to the board. commissioner antonini: the second part is whether there is a lack of agreement about whether the tenants might be cumbersome? this might be something that would be taken up during the curing at the board of supervisors, to try to distill this into what language is practical. >> to put it more simply, a nomination never has to happen. initiation may happen. that can start the process

without a nomination. commissioner antonini: without weighing in, i can feel the supervisor's position on this. it is important to have as much coverage as possible. but the ultimate decision would have a profound affect on the owners of the property, perhaps even more so than tenants with a property interest. >> if i may, i believe the supervisor is open to the idea of including tenants. the disagreement was on some of the other language in that section, if you look at the last three lines under the cheat sheet. but i believe he is open to the notion. our terminology is typically owners and occupants. that is what tenants would be. but it is the other part of that paragraph where there is some disagreement. commissioner antonini: i think i understand. it is whether they have to consider the vote in making that determination. thank you.

commissioner sugaya: along that line, the language the hpc has stricken that the supervisor is proposing -- it states it is the goal to have 50%. stated that way, i assume that if the department has done its outreach, which is my second question, and obtains whatever it is that needs to be obtained, if you come up short, that does not stop the process, in other words. you have done your best. you get 45% or whatever. >> that is correct. i would also clarify that department practice when going through a survey or designation process is to conduct this our reach. we want to meet as many people as we can. i would characterize the

objection yesterday to name a certain percentage of people who had to have responded, or even setting a goal as a percentage. it made them uncomfortable. commissioner sugaya: with respect to the department process, have you thought about how this modifies the current practice of how you go about looking at a historic district, for example? >> always certainly defer to mr. frye. this language was drafted after our current practice was in place. we already conduct a lot of outreach to post cards, mailings, and community meetings, which some of you have intended. this acknowledges our current practice.

supervisor weiner: it is not meant as a criticism of planning staff. they do a lot of work. it would have more formal survey of voting. you are methodically going through and figuring out where folks stand. if for whatever reason people are not being responsive and only 10% respond, and half are for, half are against -- that is information the board in the hpc can ignore if they choose to. president miguel: if a lot of times it comes up far short of the 50%, it is a guide to the department. maybe they are not doing the ou