it takes the concept of trying to reach that goal of 50%. commissioner moore: with ownership of large tracts of posing -- of housing in single hands, it is hard to get 50% when 20% or 30% of the housing is owned by one particular entity. i think it is very difficult to get a numerical 50%. i have put that to a question. >> still free to interrupt any time with questions. amendments with the following

modifications. we are on article 11 now. the first deals with section 1107e. again, this is very similar to the language we just discussed in article 10. the amendment would require this department to conduct outreach to owners in a potential conservation district, and to report results of the outreach to the board when transmitting their recommendation regarding the designation of the conservation district. essentially, the historical resignation -- preservation commission recommended the same language in article 11 that they did in article 10, which is occupants and tannins be added and the goal not be stated to be 50% of president owners. the second change, also

reflected in article 10, is applications for permits to alter, and deals with economic hardship. this is on page 28 of the draft ordinance. supervisor weiner has introduced language that would create an exemption from fees for certain projects. those should be applications for permits in historic districts for projects where 80% or more of units are designated for households with an income of 150% or less of the area my -- of the ami. although the hpc is uncomfortable with this language at this time, that are open to further discussion of the problem and the proposed solutions. the department has made a recommendation in the same

section. on page 29, this is a typographical error. supervisor weiner's language for the exemption -- basically, this section has been reorganized, and two lines appear twice. the hpc agreed to clean it up. in 1111.6, the language -- the department has worked closely with the supervisor to draft language regarding local interpretations of the standard, and the hpc made a very similar change in article 11 that they recommended in article 10, which is removed the planning commission from the process. lastly, there were two changes recommended by the hpc on page 40 of the draft ordinance, in

111.1.7 a and b, standards for demolition. the supervisor, would change the time line and make denial of applications for the demolition of category five buildings subject to a finding that the demolition does not substantially damaged the integrity of the preservation district. the hpc first recommended the language be removed, saying that an article 5 building shall be void if within 180 days of such determination the board of supervisors has not read designated the building to a higher category. -- has not re-designated the building to a higher category. finally, the language be removed

that notes that the cumulative effects of integrity of the conservation district associated with the demolition of the contributory district shall be considered and may be grounds for the denial of the permit to demolish. the supervisor added "if it is bound to the demolition would substantially diminish the integrity of the conservation district." the hpc recommended striking this language primarily because they felt the word "substantially "to would be debated ad nauseam at public hearings. the wanted to wait until there was a former demolition -- former definition of "substantial." that includes the comments of the hpc. the department recommendation remains the same as that which we presented to the hpc. the recommendation is that the planning commission recommend

approval of the draft ordinances, including the proposed amendments by supervisor weiner, with two modifications. one is that the local interpretations of the standards remain as we drafted it. that includes the planning commission in the process. the second is that the department recommends that the typo in the draft ordinance be removed. i do not think anybody will have a problem with that. i will note that a lot of topics came up at yesterday's hearing. we have not had a policy discussion about some of the implications of those changes. i will defer to the director. this concludes my presentation. i will pass the buck. again, i would like to acknowledge supervisor weiner. thank you for coming. we are both available for questions.

president miguel: commissioners, the you have direct questions? otherwise, we will do our normal afterward. commissioner sugaya: this is more of a comment. i guess i will wait until after public hearing. commissioner antonini: mine is pretty short. on the first part of the article, the discussion regarding the economic hardship, the difference in discussion was the level at which 150% -- the were not sure whether to have it that high at this time. that is the difference between the versions. >> that topic certainly came up. i think the whole topic of where there are shortages opened up at the hearing.

that is when the commission seemed to indicate they felt a larger discussion was needed, outside even the context of articles 10 and 11. they did not fill prepared at this time to make a recommendation. president miguel: we could continue, which would allow for what the supervisor has in mind, if it was found desirable by the board of supervisors. >> the h pc -- the hpc allowed that. commissioner sugaya: along that line, if i were a developer and i was closing a housing project with the kind of creatures that are contained in here, how does the city in force -- what mechanism exists that says a developer has to provide moderate-income housing in the one under 20% to -- 120% to 150%?

>> for most of our project above a certain volume, there is a trigger for below market rate apartments. i believe the supervisor to address this in more detail. the provision for requiring the units does not really address the slightly higher moderate income necessities that still exist, but for which we do not have a requirement at this time. this is an incentive rather than a requirement. commissioner sugaya: the project, let us assume for a moment, if it did meet that and get approved -- wouldn't there have to be -- or is this adequate, the way it is worded -- additional legislation to have the city be able to enforce that particular percentage of moderate income housing?

supervisor weiner: this really would not be applicable to the city bmr program. that is usually far less than 80%. this is for a project where an affordable housing developer moves forward to do this project, and they were a nonprofit and have all sorts of requirements. they have government funding, or not. and the housing is designated as serving certain income percentiles. that might be 0-50 homeless or low-income. it could be 30% middle income. the requirements -- that is an issue that exists right now. it is what it is. this does not really alter that. all it does is to get a certain consideration. anyone who takes a government incentive or money and then is a

fraud by not selling our marketing the homes that way is committing malfeasance. it would not change in terms of enforceability. commissioner sugaya: sp ophie, i have another question. on the 180 days, is there a requirement that the board acted in that time, or can they just sit on it? >> i think this modification would, in essence, create a retirement whereby if they did just sit on it and not take action, the application would be void. what came up at the discussion

yesterday was that a number of these applications for reclassification come from the owners, who would like to take advantage of the tdr opportunity. that was why they struck this. commissioner sugaya: i am not saying there is any reason to think the board would sit on it to kill it. but i think that is one reason why it should not be in there. president miguel: i will open this up for public comment. paul werner, suzanne rucher, sarah karlinsky. >> good afternoon. my name is paul wermer. it is hard to communicate intelligently on a document undergoing multiple revisions

one does not have time to review. i will point a little bit and say i strongly endorse the positions taken by san francisco architectural heritage. i feel they have paid a lot more attention to what has happened in the past few days, and urge you to follow their recommendations closely. thank you. president miguel: if i have called your name, come forward, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is richard. i worked in historic preservation for decades. i understand and support supervisor weiner's comments and amendments, including planning commission input in the process. there are those who would have you believe the amendments are not a bad thing. i will speak to a few of the points. they say the amendments impose a high bar for our strictest denominations.

i say there are those who advocate historic preservation by ram-down. obtaini encourages establishing criteria that make sense to owners, and encourage owners support for historic preservation. they say the amendments are out of step with widely-recognized preservation practice. i say the preservation practice being referred to is not working well here for those of us to try to work with it. the time and place to change it is here and now. they say to modify the secretary of the interior's standards and would damage the local government status. i am confident that dianne feinstein and nancy pelosi would be able to take care of us in

that regard. without amendments, 40 years of historic preservation will likely be brought to a halt. president miguel: we have to pause for a moment until the koran reasserts itself. -- quorum reasserts itself. >> a two minute recess? just for the benefit of the public, the commission will take a two minute recess until we reassert our quorum. thank you. president miguel: thank you, supervisor.

>> single pages. i think that represents an

enormous amount of positive process. we should be very pleased. i am just going to comment, kind of go down the list of the proposed amendments by the hpc to supervisor weiner's amendments. with regard to the secretary of the interior standards, we are very positive about the department's recommendation, and very pleased that the hpc has for the most part agreed with that recommendation. the one place we would disagree is something that was highlighted by a supervisor weiner. we would like to see the planning commission and historic preservation commission about the local interpretation of the secretary of the interior standards. i think that is important for good policy making. we feel this is incredibly

important and ought to be included in articles 10 and 11. i would just like to note that if you look at the language that has been stricken, it is not just that the proposed project must meet 80% of 150% of median incomes, but also that it go through a certain process with the zoning administrator and the hpc. there is a substantial amount of process built in there, which i think is good and important. i will say that in terms of the process for nomination of historic district, i was pleased to see the proposed recommendation by the hpc to have the majority of property owners vote to have the district certify the hpc. it seems the supervisor is open

to that amendment, and we would be as well. i think that is a nice compromise, so i was glad to see it. finally, we would be open to having occupants be part of the information vote that goes to the board of supervisors. that seems to make sense to me. we are a town, we all know, of 2/3 renters. with that, i will conclude my remarks and urge you to move this forward. we have been working on this a long, long time. thank you. >> i am jim haas. for most of my adult life, i have been involved in preservation in one aspect or another. i currently hold the building preservation seat on the city hall preservation advisory commission appointed by the

mayor. as we enter the "first century and preservation passes its 50th birthday, -- as we enter the 21st century and preservation passes its 50th birthday, people started writing articles that raised issues such as what is really authentic. people asked whether preservation was being interpreted too prescriptive fleet, and other matters. you will find these articles before and published by the national trust for historic preservation, in books such as "the future of the past," written by professor steven symms of notre dame and elsewhere. some years ago, i mentioned to your planning director that it might be good to invite some of these people to san francisco and have a big conference to

discuss the status of preservation. as you are well aware, there is some frustration in this town over this subject. after several months, he reported back to me that he could get an attraction, but the preservationists he talked to indicated that things were fine the way they were, and there was not a need to have any kind of discussion. i think what you are seeing today and what supervisor winner this -- weiner is trying to do is reflective of the issues that have been raised in these papers and discussions, as well as the frustrations among constituents in san francisco. i think he has worked extremely hard to take these motions and put them in legislative form, and work them through in a manner which, in my opinion, will serve the public well. i urge you to move this forward

with his amendments, as he has negotiated. in a better world, it would have been better to have this kind of discussion at a big public forum several years ago, and then move into the legislation. we are doing it backwards. but i think what supervisor winner has -- weiner has done is going to make life easier for everyone. thank you. >> my name is suzanne rector. i want to speak in support of the hpc version of articles 10 and 11, including the new amendments drafted yesterday. i do appreciate the willingness to require a simple majority instead of supermajority requirements. i do worry, however, about reaching the majority owner threshold. i worked as an organizer here in

san francisco. i have a lot of experience with attempting to do public outreach. i seek contact rates hover at about 10%, depending on the method used. i have to say the planning department will revolutionize target and voter outreach to owners and neighbors, but i worry generally about even getting written responses to this. it seems like creating that barrier, that 50% mark, is problematic. i am worried it will actually be a huge barrier to the creation of historic district. furthpersonally as a renter m me engaged then my elusive landlord. -- than my elusive landlord.

i know there are specific implications for property owners as opposed to renters. but i am more engaged in the community. i have more stake in what is going on in my neighborhood. if we want to include renters, which i think is an important part of this process, i fear with those contact rates being as low as they are, it is only going to get worse. i go to commissioner moore's statement earlier that having the 50% mark is actually quite a barrier. but i do want to support the hpc recommendations from yesterday as well. thank you very much. >> i am robin leavitt, the no- name person. president miguel: i recognize your address. >> this is a picture of my home. it is a victorian inn hayes

valley, built probably in the 1890's. the records were destroyed in 1956. since the building was constructed, probably after the earthquake in 1906, it was subdivided. it is probably initially side by side town home units, divided into four units. the stair going into the upper stair was added. in 1920, a garage was added to it. the house was probably lifted up to do that. this area down below was also modified. the point is that this building is not original to what it was. since this picture was taken shortly after i bought the house in 1995, the front stairs have deteriorated significantly so the have to be replaced.