planning department to discuss replacing the stairs. right now, they do not meet any kind of code. they are too narrow. the handrails are too low. they are way too steep. the landings do not meet code. they are unsafe. i am an architect. i like to design things. i wanted to modify this stair so it would meet code and work better, and i think compliment the building better. at the time, when i had discussions with the preservation staff, i was told "if you are going to change the stair, even though is not original to the building, you have to go through an eir process. you have to go before this body to get a conditional use approval." which would take what might be a $30,000 project and turn it into an $80,000 project.

it becomes economically a hardship for me to do that. i am here before you not to talk about the specifics of the proposed amendments, but just to in general talk about the process. i am an architect and i am a preservationist. i belong to the national trust for historic preservation. and i do support preservation of historic resources. but when everything becomes precious, nothing is precious. in terms of my specific circumstances, that's there is not original. -- that stair is not original. i see nothing precious about it. when the legislation is so onerous to make it difficult, something needs to be changed. thank you.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is miss horton. i want to urge you to uphold the voice of the voters, who voted against proposition e in the last election. that would have given the board of supervisors and the mayor the power to amend the initiative ordinances. in some way, we are doing that here. supervisor weiner, being a supervisor, is not adhering to this mandate which the voters passed. i would like to urge you to uphold proposition e and adopt only the amendments to articles 11 and 10, as discussed by heritage and spur and the

historic preservation commission. president miguel: thank you. danielle kirshenbaum, jim siegel, katherine wittgen. >> in the past, i have represented the pacific heights residents' association. i am a co-founder of the neighborhood network. today, i am only speaking for myself. however, i am sure i am not alone when i commend all the effort and diligence that has gone into the proposed amendments. it seems to me that all of this energy and effort would be far better spent under the leadership of a visionary who can unite us rather than divide us. for one example, perhaps supervisor weiner can invite historic preservationists like me to sit down with developers,

rather than turning us into adversaries, where i feel compelled to appear here in a negative way. i am gratified that the supervisor has adjusted certain parts of his proposal. the process up to this point, though, has left too many of us suspicious and resentful. i am putting my money where my mouth is. i have two weeks before my next job begins. during that time, i am available to anyone who would like to discuss the merits of various ways to implement a means for serving the essence of san francisco. as for today's item, i would like to echo paul wermer in supporting san francisco architectural heritage's position. thank you. >> good afternoon, everybody.

i am the owner of two national register properties in this city, as well as part of the landmark western development expansion. i would like to support supervisor weiner's amendments, although i think we have to keep to the 66%. i have strong feelings on the secretary of the interior, and many of us to invest in historic properties fill the roles in san francisco are too strict. a few years ago, i purchased this building in ohio that is a landmark building. it was going to be demolished for a library. i disassembled the entire building and replaced the cupola. i had to build this in sonoma county, because i knew there was no chance in hell i would be able to rebuild it in san francisco under the current secretary of the interior

standards. sonoma welcomed the project. it turned out so well, preservation magazine did an article about me and the project. what i have learned out of this magazine -- they say to the line on style be true. -- to thine own style be true. a lot of these recommendations from san francisco belong in the smuggling column. a family spent 10 years trying to rebuild their falling down heritage house, only to be told they should be building a glass and steel structure on the property so nobody could confuse it with the original estate. all you need to do is put a plaque up, saying the building is not original. the standards need to be changed. there is a building where owners want to take the asbestos shingles off. because they do not have a photograph of what the building looked like, they are not allowed to do it.

until property owners get more of a say, i will have to personally write letters to every person in a proposed historic district to advise them of the pitfalls of being involved in a landmark district. you have tons of bureaucracy which adds to the project. the time delays affect the cost, which to pass on to the tenants. i also want to say when i tried to sell the landmark mansion 10 years ago, every realtors said the fact that it was a landmark lowered my property value by as much as $1 million, because of the limited amount of people who would buy more property. we need to make it easier for people. it saddens me to say this. i personally paid to have the fallon building landmarked. i would never recommend anyone landmarked the property in this city. with the current conditions. i fully support the supervisor

proposals. thank you. >> good afternoon. i will start out by saying spur and jim haas's , and some of my feelings about the specifics of article 10 and 11. i support and applaud the supervisor for bringing all of this up for discussion, and for negotiating in such good faith, getting resolution. i am the vice president of san francisco victorian alliance, but i will be speaking for myself today. the issue there is clearly the that my comments are very well informed by my own experience, and that of the other members of victorian alliance, in trying very hard to do thoughtful and good preservation of our historic resources.

however, the current state of the situation of preservation is that we have great dysfunction in the current hpc and planning department, with a wild misinterpretation of the secretary of interior standards, where false historicism is the ultimate bogyman. the last speaker's comments i reiterate. many things that are recommended would appear as remodeling. we have unscrupulous developers who intentionally neglect historic properties so they can become immediate safety concerns, requiring demolition without consideration of historic preservation. yet homeowners who love their properties and are trying to maintain, restore, or enhance their properties are dictated to unmercifully by hpc and the planning department, based on these misinterpretations of the

secretary of interior standards. in victorian alliance, we try to do a carrot instead of a stick. we try to help people understand how to love and return their homes to historic character. my feeling is hpc and planning department are not even using a stick right now. it is a club in people over the head. -- club, beating people over the head. most of what has been done and defined the character of the city would not be allowed under the current interpretation. i would hope that the local standards we develop could be more flexible and support individuals, and put some teeth into protection against unscrupulous developers. with that, i support very heartily supervisor wiener's amendment, and hoped to adopt it. thank you very much. president miguel: thank you.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i am an architectural historian. i have been active in historic preservation for a long time now. for the last 10 years in san francisco, i have been active on certain boards. i oppose supervisor weiner's amendments and support the position put forth by san francisco heritage and the hpc. in general, i would favor a robust historic preservation program for the city of san francisco. i recognize there are frustrations around historic preservation processes. i also think it is a mistake not to acknowledge that preservation has worked extremely well in san francisco city wide for the last 40 years, supporting the tourism industry , and enriching the lives of the citizens who voted in favor of

preservation when they passed proposition j in 2008. i hope san francisco i would hope that san francisco would follow the example of other cities that do not have as much acrimony as we seem to have here. the city of beverly hills supported more robust new preservation ordinances. i would respectfully are urging you to support the greater public interest and maybe if we could look to the planning commission to provide the leadership that today's testimony is proving is lacking in san francisco for a healthier discussion around preservation matters and historic buildings. thank you. president miguel: thank you. [reading names]

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i would like to start by thanking the planning department for keeping the dialogue going over so many months. it has been exhausted, but i think we have come much closer together than where we were even just a few weeks ago. the proposed legislation, however, remained remarkably fluid, as evidenced by the refinements' put forward and recommended unanimously yesterday. between the new language introduced by supervisor wiener regarding the secretary standards and the hpc revisions yesterday, most of the major concerns have been addressed in proposed legislation. we urge you to adopt the hpc revisions that were approved yesterday, but we do remain particularly concerned about the proposed economic hardship provision that is in supervisor

wiener's proposed amendment. it is important to note that proposition j was updated, and it is unlike any other i have seen in my career. other economic hard to provisions in other cities target low-income and very low- income residents. the primary beneficiary of this proposal, it appears, would be residential projects that significantly exceed the city's existing definition of moderate income units. the potential result, although perhaps unintended, with potentially displace a very low in, and low-income residents in favor of projects that exceed moderate income levels -- this place very low income and low- income residents. as a result, we cannot support the proposed economic hardship provision in its current form. however, in concept, we are supportive of developing a balanced best practices economic

hardship provision for san francisco. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> hello, commissioners. i owned a home in the mission. i just want to say we love the beauty and character of san francisco and do not want to see it ruined, but the goal of preservation has to be pursued in a practical and realistic way so neighborhoods are not ruined and people cannot be ruined financially by unnecessary rules and costly bureaucracy. there notification -- the majority of homeowners are not lawyers -- fair notification. we cannot afford a lawyer every time we get some cryptic notice about historic preservation rules. i say stick to the 66% in terms of maturity. how we got better notification from pg&e when they were going to put in a smart meters and dpw when they were going to put in

new asphalt. affordability -- many people on these buildings have limited means. it is expensive to maintain and cost prohibitive to restore buildings that become eyesores and safety hazards because people cannot afford to fix the electrical or heating. we live in a patchwork neighborhood. we have beautiful houses that look like the day they were built, side-by-side with houses that have been heavily modified, stripped of their trim, and degraded in other ways. it makes no sense to impose the same standards on both of these types of properties because they are on the same block. i am not a lawyer or planner, and i cannot understand the details and nuances of the legislation, but we do have a problem, which supervisor wiener's legislation addresses of -- addresses. for this reason, i support it wholeheartedly. president miguel: thank you.

if i have called your name, please come up. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am with the san francisco preservation consortium. i have no doubt that everyone in this room -- the planning commission and our 16 million or so tourists a year -- led san francisco's historic architecture as well as the new things that are going on -- love san francisco's historic architecture. the question is how will san francisco grow? we could double in size over the next few decades. we should follow the example of the city of los angeles, which is conducting a citywide survey to identify historic resources and protect them. historic preservation is inherently green, and we need to do survey first. we need to understand how to do contractually appropriate development, and after we have done that, to look at where new

development will occur. the city is a collage, and historic resources are part of it. until we survey them, identify them, and protect them, our collage is going to be perhaps precariously put together. this is an interesting photomontage of shanghai over 20 years. i had the unique opportunity to give some shanghai planners a tour of san francisco several years ago after they had lost a lot of the historic resources. they asked us -- "what can we do?" they look at our historic preservation ordinances as a guide. we have to make sure we get this right. what we do not need our additional hurdles, obstacles to

survey -- are additional hurdles and obstacles to survey, chipping away at the standards, including affordable housing criteria that is up to 150% of ami. rather than looking at historic preservation incentives -- i am sorry, i am trying to read my own riding -- writing. what is important is that we do not adversely affect our own historic resources, especially looking at them cumulatively as we lose them one at a time. i urge you to support the historic preservation commission's recommendations from their january 18 transmission to you, to let go of the recent changes with the 50% outreach component.

i would also like to say it has been difficult for the public to follow this process. hpc met yesterday, and we have not had a chance to really digest what the final amendment is. president miguel: thank you. >> thank you. president miguel: [reading names] >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is gloria ramos. i am both an architect and a general contractor, but more than that, i am el latino has been asked -- a latina who has been asked to kind of interprets some of the historical guidelines, etc., for a latino community that is trying to preserve a historic landmark.

i have to say that i really support the architectural heritage recommendations because -- and the historic preservation commission because they have gone through public hearings, and their attempt was to simplify. i must say i have tried to follow for the last couple of days the changes that were presented, and i find them really confusing. when i try to explain these two other people in the community, it makes it very complicated. because they are changing so rapidly. i would really like to see it as simple and straightforward.

i am also in favor of low-cost housing. i have spent my lifetime on it. in fact, what i interpret this to say is that if somebody proposes something, which is a development, they get a break, if you will, in costs. i am not so sure that it helps the low-income housing groups. i would like to keep it -- i would like you to pass something that is simple, straightforward, easy to interpret, and that has gone through the public hearing process. too often, when things get put in at the last minute, the implications are just not recognizable. thank you. president miguel: thank you. [reading names]

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i am an architect and a structural engineer. as many of you know, i have brought projects before this board for over 25 years. i have an office in san francisco. almost all of my work is in san francisco, and my wife and i live here in the city. i have spoken to colleagues about the amendments before you today. most were reluctant to appear because their current work is judged by the policies you may or may not implement, but this is precisely why i am here. this is my first time testifying on a policy matter unrelated to a specific project. so i speak for them. one renown said francisco architect who would have been here today but is currently out of town -- one renowned san francisco architect. we support especially the amendments concerning the

secretary's standards, which are broadly written and are perfectly appropriate for landmark buildings like this, but they are not well-suited for every old building. because they are broadly written and had been used to argue both sides of the coin on controversial projects, or even worse -- as the basis for a red herring arguments to oppose projects on the grounds that have little or nothing to do with preservation for historic buildings. as san francisco continues to grow, you will see more adaptive reuse project and significant additions to buildings in the future. speaking from experience, these types of projects are very difficult to design, especially considering seismic and disabled access. for these projects, the standards simply do not work well. adopting a set of workable, flexible guidelines for designing buildings for interpreting the standards would benefit those like me, who take seriously our responsibility for designing buildings that will

preserve and enhance san francisco's unique character. most importantly, clear and fair guidelines to prevent the splitting hairs and drawing of sorts often played out during these public hearings -- splitting of hairs and drawing of swords. i urge you to adopt the amendments as proposed. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i live in north beach. i am a retired city employee. i have been involved in the present -- preservation movement for several years now. i am a third-generation san franciscan, born here. my mother was born here. her parents met here. my father was born in northern california. his grandmother is buried in the mission. i think i have a responsibility to try to keep san francisco the

way it is, and i think you people do, too. this is probably the most popular tourist destination in america. there is a reason for that. obviously, people come here because they think they know what to expect. it is important to keep it that way. i am opposed to supervisor wiener's attempt to emasculate the historic preservation commission. there was a good reason for the city to vote for proposition j several years ago. it was resoundingly approved, if you will recall. i think that the historic preservation commission proved itself to be more effective than many expected, and since that occurred, there has been a kind of concerted effort -- shall i say, destroy it. certainly emasculate it, but

developers and may i say carpetbagger's that have come here for different reasons. some of them to make their own mark on sentences go history, i guess. in regard to the current -- make their own mark on san francisco history, i guess. in regard to articles 10 and 11, i hope you will vote to keep tenants and occupants in the process. i am a tenant myself. keep the majority vote rather than any 2/3 requirement. do not restrict input to written communications. just show that you have a respect for san francisco the way it is and try to keep the process for nominating historic districts as simple as possible. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> linda chapman.

my personal opinion is that from what i'm hearing, the weight of the secretary's standards are being applied, probably not very practical or beneficial. on a tour, we stood in front of one of these buildings where they had stripped of everything that had been applied -- the shingles or whatever -- and they were putting on gingerbread. we stood down there and applauded the people who were doing it. i suppose if it were in an historic district, that would not be allowed. i agree that there is a difference between making alterations to a landmark, which may have to be very closely controlled, and trying to restore something where in a city, we have fire, you know? the photographs disappeared. entire archives of photographs disappeared. records and so on. we should not say that because that happened, we cannot do anything. sometimes, there is a better way than having one position and another position and fighting it

out. there can be more nuanced work on. my main position is about there being some kind of high standard in terms of a vote or whatever it will be. for this, i am speaking for nob hill from my experience of 12 years. we will never have an historic district in a neighborhood like that. it cannot happen. more recently, there was an attempt to have it in and essentially similar territory, dependent on getting a certain percentage of property owners. they could not do it, and i could have predicted that. i did not think they would be able to. we had a very powerful neighborhood association. hundreds of people came to the hearings -- literally hundreds. hundreds of people paid us dues and financed lawsuits and so forth, but we would not have been able to get 50%. i do not know how it will be used now because it is