could not have been done. we have big institutions. grace cathedral was over there, and the union club, the hospital owns pieces of property that you would not know they own. we have the tenants working on this -- a lot of them -- but not all of them are going to be involved. we had quite a few condo owners, and we had some property owners who own those apartment buildings and actually live in the city, but we would never have been able to get 50%. to get 20% was almost impossible. in a building like the co-op that i moved into, the board did not care, and it did not come to us owners. in the building where i live, they did not care. in a lot of the condo buildings, they are a second home. people are away. just as a lot of the apartment

buildings are owned by absentee landlords who live in some other country a lot, so that cannot happen -- president miguel: thank you. [reading names] >> hello, commissioners. i am a fifth generation san franciscan. i live on telegraph hill currently. i am a real estate broker for 42 years. i am a property developer. i have done over 40 projects in the city. in 1970, i was asked to join a group called the san francisco architectural heritage. we have spent a lot of years educating the group's -- groups of the world in san francisco. i was on the board under three

mayors. i am here to make it simple for you. i would like you to recommend the hpc recommendations and no on supervisor wiener's amendments. i have another suggestion referencing to the secretary of interior standards. this is a national item. why don't we solve the problem, if there is one -- and i think there are a few -- in washington rather than in san francisco? there are enough people against the existing situation. let's solve it nationwide because i think there are enough people in the country that can do this to everybody's satisfaction. he is going to set preservation so far back. i have spent 40 years on this and a lot of hours. i do not appreciate what he is trying to do. i do not think he has a clue, really. thank you. president miguel: thank you.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i am an architect in the city. i have been involved in preservation for a couple of decades. a member of the american institute of architects. i would like to, first of all, the department for their work on the amendments to articles 10 and 11. without the landmark preservation advisory board, the language no longer makes sense. we have, by prop. j, now appointed by the mayor a board whose expertise is recognized as the authority in these items. some of the amendments that have been proposed to articles 10 and 11- and it has been a long process over many, many months -- some of the amendments are a solution looking for a problem. survey is the buildings are there. as we plan for our future, by knowing what we have, we can

actually avoid conflict rather than from it up, as is being suggested -- rather than drum it up. the adoption of the interpretations by the hpc is right. they are the experts. that is their purview. bringing it back to this commission seems less about good public policy and more about politics. today i would like to ask the commission to move forward the experts' revisions. the hpc and san francisco's architectural heritage. they are the ones who rightly should be in control of how we interpret ceqa. obviously, the board of supervisors will have the last comments, so there is still time for politics later, and it is a sport in this town. as an architect, there are four codes we need to know. we need to know the california

building code. we need to know the san francisco amendment. we need to know the planning code. and we need to know ceqa in the case of buildings more than 50 years old. to suddenly suggest that we could no longer put sprinklers in four-story wood frame buildings because we do not like it or think it is onerous or need a financial hardship exemption -- no one is proposing that. it is ludicrous. let's not put ceqa through the same torturous process that we have been engaged in here for so long. please forward the hpc's provisions. and let's move on. >> i have renovated a number of buildings in san francisco. i also range the monthly meeting places for the victoria alliance

where we meet every month in a different architecturally interesting space. one thing that i think is fairly obvious to everybody is that definitions of what is attractive in terms of architecture do change. hates victorian. i happen to like victorians very much, and i would say that most of my friends who have renovated victorians -- my friends and myself being over the age of 50 -- when we work on our buildings, we wanted to do the right thing. we wanted to make sure that what we were doing was appropriate for the building. what i'm saying these days is with people who are "renovating" buildings is it is not necessarily -- they are not

necessarily being done by people who have a love for the building they are doing. if you look at the glossy real- estate magazines or go to open houses, you see buildings that are described as being victorian. you look at the buildings and go, "my god, what in the world was somebody thinking?" what someone was thinking -- and they got it through the building department without a problem -- and a lot of our problems have to do with dbi as opposed to the planning department -- is, cassette and bottom line, how can i make as much money possible -- "bottom line, how can i make as much money possible on this victorian structure and maximize the square footage and leave as little as possible of the building?" i would like to see the planning commission adhere to the suggestions that san francisco

architectural heritage has made an historic preservation commission, finally, to move this legislation along. we are still losing a lot of our historic structures, and we need to do something to make sure that it is not in the name of development that our history is lost forever because there will be people who come after us who will wonder, "how was this allowed to happen?" thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

i represent a group called friends and parishioners of our lady of guadalupe. yesterday, there was a meeting, and i spoke about the history, but i will try to summarize in a few moments i have available here. 1848, u.s. has invaded mexico. after so much blood was shed, the treaty of guadalupe hidalgo was signed between mexico and the united states. mexico gained a great part of the territory -- mexico gave a great part of the territory to this country. but the citizens who remain here who are spanish and portuguese and mexican -- they became automatically american citizens. 1849, the church of st. francis

was established. at that time, they were only -- but then, in the year 1849, gold was discovered, and people came from all over the world. but there were so many italians, the italians went to st. francis, but after a while, they closed the spanish, and the mexicans go out, and they went to the other side of north beach and bought the land to establish our lady of guadalupe church. then, in 19006, we had the earthquake -- in 1906, we had the earthquake, and our lady guadalupe was destroyed, but a priest made a new one of concrete. then, we have our lady

guadeloupe and st. francis -- they became famous because they started to say, "if you have not visited north beach, you." later on, more italians came. in 1924, they opened st. peter and paul. the thing is, mexicans, they love their church. in the year 1950, there was a tornado right in front of the church that destroyed the neighborhood. at the moment, this church is for sale, and we are going to lose part of the history. do not allow this, and do not

allow the 66% because it is not good for you people who do not know your history to make decisions for us. president miguel: thank you. >> thank you. >> hello, commissioners. i am tony kelly from the neighborhood association. i believe we were the last ones to actually create a historic district. i am speaking in support of san francisco architectural heritage and the amended compromise coming from the historical preservation commission. three points in particular -- first, about owners and occupants. we are definitely in support of that. we are doing research in our neighborhood association about soft sites after finding in the aftermath of the eastern neighborhoods, houses are being built. i do not know if you know this,

but what you consider to be family housing really is not in practice, and we may have to come back to you about that at some point. we have had to be proactive and our own research about what kind of sites we are talking about so we can get to those owners before the developers do. what we are finding, especially in the sites that have been owned by the same person for more than 20 years, is that a substantial portion of the owners are out of town. trying to reach them and get a response about anything -- i do not know what your hit parade is going to be. you silly including -- i think including tents and occupants is very important to that. relating to that, the 50% goal -- i believe you want to strike that language. relying on the planning department's out reach is difficult and would lead us into a situation where a low amount of written response, which could be due to outreach and not to apathy on the part of the owners, would look like a lack

of support from the district 1 in fact it may be nothing of the sort. so i suggest you strike that language. the third part, about the harsh language, i believe it deserves another look. it strikes me as rather naive language here, and i will tell you why. you are certainly familiar with the drama around inclusion rehousing and blue market rate housing, and you get the housing inventory every year and see with the goals are for affordable housing in the city and where we actually are. there has been pressure for us to add middle and, as well as moderate income -- to add middle-income as well as moderate income, redefining the heart chip accord, when we really have not done what we need to do in terms of low- income housing -- redefining the hardship of board -- redefining

the hardship upward. at a minimum, i suggest this to be the city's median income, not the area median income. we have been through this many times over the years. this legislation acts like we have not had that conversation, and that is why i say it is a bit naive, and i think it needs to be looked at. president miguel: thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon again, commissioners. golden gate park preservation alliance. we support architectural heritage and the hpc version of articles 10 and 11. we are extremely concerned about two items and how they relate to golden gate park. to repeat something i heard in an earlier letter, cultural landscapes provide a sense of place and identity. they mapped our relationships with land over time. they are part of our national heritage and each of our lives.

we need a secretary of interior 's standards in order to protect golden gate park. secondly, we are concerned about a new amendment. i just saw the standards for preview of applications. for applications pertaining to city-owned properties, the department and hpc shall consider the relevant public agency's mission and operational needs. this opens a real can of worms. let me tell you why -- the current president of the rec and park commission is a developer. when residents complained about the move towards privatization and commercialization of our parks, he says he does not like the term and prefers the phrase "site specific revenue generation." what does this mean? what is the implication for golden gate park? let me show you a few examples

that this policy has included. this is a clear example of site specific revenue generation. this was proposed in 1915. the international exposition was going to be put in golden gate park. it was basically going to wipe out the park. fortunately, the people of san francisco found out about it. there have already been a groundbreaking. the project was moved to the marina and is put on still there. if you are going to meet the mission and needs of the department -- this is the freeway project. the panhandle freeway. the embarcadero freeway got built. people were really upset, and it finally spawned this freeway movement in san francisco, and it was not built. it would have wiped out the magnificent historic trees and

the panhandle. if this meant the department -- this met the department's mission and needs. we may laugh at these things now and think they cannot happen, but i can tell you -- they are happening now. golden gate park is being turned into a series of paid attractions. it is not following the golden gate park master plan, which is supposed to prevent this. we need oversight from outside the apartment. we need you to step up to the the plate. we are glad the hpc and architectural heritage have. please protect the park and do not adopt supervisor wiener's amendments. president miguel: thank you. [reading names] >> good afternoon.

first, i would like to comment on the gentleman who -- president miguel: your name? >> mike boyd. i am not connected with any organization. the gentleman who referred to 200 trucks and then 400 trucks -- i used to drive a 10-wheel dump truck and trailer -- president miguel: that is not on the subject, is it? >> ok. i worked at new college california school of law. we inherited a building under a surplus building federal grant act. it had been owned and operated by the city and county of san francisco. they pretty much trash it. i was the superintendent. we spent a year bringing it up to code without any money. we later ended up selling the air rights to the building next

door so that we could have funding to continue to develop the building. i believe it is a historic building. we bought a hotel on fillmore, also a historic building. reconstructing that to house 200 law school students at below market rent for the oldest -- i guess the only public interest law school in the country. we further have the lower market bid -- i support proposition j. i have traveled all over the world with a guy named ed roberts. the previous january 23, a chinese new year, was a state holiday and national holiday in his honor, although no one in

the san francisco city and county bureaucracy was aware of that. he was paralyzed from the neck down for 45 years and basically sued uc-berkeley for admission 50 years ago because they did not allow crippled students. but he was also a preservation attic. the recently built a building in berkeley that has no historic value that he would have hated and put his name on it. in travelling all over the world with him, i found -- found that people wanted to visit paris or san francisco, california, more than any other city in the world, and it was because of our rich, historic history. i support proposition j, and i do not support supervisor

wiener's amendments. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> i am representing a neighborhood association and preservation consortium. our neighborhood association expressed opposition to supervisor wiener's amendments back in january -- i think it was early january. meantime, of course, the hpc has weighed in on these amendments, but we have had no opportunity to decide whether or not we support those revisions. we definitely support the heritage's view of the amendments.

we also commend supervisor wiener for engaging in negotiations over the amendments and modifying them to a great extent. our concern is simply not to create more barriers to the creation of historic districts. we also do not want barriers to the survey of the city. we would like to see the city survey. as far as establishing a 50% threshold for our reach -- our reach, that there has to be a threshold of 50% owners, occupants, whatever survey before the historic preservation can be initiated, i have to say

this is my opinion, considering in the association, we have not had a chance to get to that, but in my view, it is very problematical. it is hard to know. we have not seen how the ordinance is written. we do not know to what extent there is room for a kind of hardening of this, so then it becomes a standard rather than a suggestion. the way it has been put forth here, it sounds as though it is a suggestion, a guideline to ensure outreach, and that is fine, but i do not know whether it has the potential to become a hardening kind of regulation or policy that the historic district will not be established unless there is this threshold met. i would like to see that threshold change, or at least

words added saying, "suggested 50% out reach -- outreach" to make it perfectly clear. as far as the other amendments that are concerned, we would like to support san francisco heritage and the hpc. we certainly do not want to -- [buildings -- [bell rings] ok. thank you. >> i am here on behalf of the housing action coalition, and we have been following this. for our own guidelines, our endorsement guidelines, we added language supporting historic preservation to our guidelines a few years ago.

initially, our views were that the city's amazing historic resources work at much less risk than the city's ability to meet its urban infill goals and its ability to change, as all cities must. we think supervisor wiener deserves enormous credit for bringing it forward pierre the process seems to have bogged down, and suddenly, conversation started and things started to move. it is plain that enormous compromises have been made, and that is significant in this town, given the way process moves. i think it is fair to say that we would support the planning commission playing a significant, active role in this as it moves forward. because you are required to take so many other factors into consideration. i think back -- that i would say that we would support the remarks that spur has made and

other experts. i think that the amendments that supervisor wiener put forward appear common sense. they appear achievable. and they deserve your support. to come this far means that a lot of ground has been given on both sides. i know it is a moving target. have not seen the latest l this moves it in the right direction. i support supervisor wiener's amendment. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> commissioners, my husband and i helped initiate two historic districts -- the liberty hill historic district, and the tenderloin. we also own two buildings in each of these districts that were landmarks. one was listed on the national register prior to the district being formed, the john mcmullen house and garden.

the other is the cadillac hotel. in each of these buildings where historic designation was initiated prior to the historic district, we managed to creatively -- that both buildings to national register standards for extremely low- income people. the john mcmullen house and garden was a boarding care home for people who are mentally disabled, so we not only met those standards, we also met the licensing standards by the state of california to do that kind of work. we did not have any problems with making it handicapped accessible, with having sprinklers or any of that. as a matter of fact, the historic community bend over backwards, and we receive many accolades and awards for those jobs we did. the cadillac hotel currently serves 160 low-income people. they are all on ssi, disability,

or welfare. again, the hotel meets the standards. i would like to refute the concerns that this cannot be done. both my husband and i have made collectively $32,000 a year up until 1992. we managed to do all this work under those kinds of restrictions, so i would like you to keep that in mind. i am here to support the retention of historic preservation committee's articles 10 and 11, and i am in complete opposition to supervisor wiener's amendments, which would impose a burdensome hurdle on the designation of future potential historic districts. what makes the city so unique and beautiful are the very things that preservation has sought to retain