having all city departments undertake an inventory of their existing properties. this is not a new thing. executive order 11593, signed by president reagan was it? anyway. 11593 directs all federal agencies to inventory their properties to see which ones may or may not be eligible for listing on the national register. at the state level, there is governor's order 5020 something. again, it addresses that all state agencies should inventory

their holdings to see whether or not they have historic properties that they own. i would recommend that if we are going to take into consideration the missions and whenever the language is for public agencies like the city, i think it might be good -- i do not know whether it comes from the mayor or the board of supervisors resolution to have said the department's inventory of their current holdings. that is all i have. the would like emotion, but nobody else has had a chance to speak. -- i would make a motion, but nobody else has had a chance to speak. commissioner antonini: i am generally in support of what has been arrived at by working with supervisor weiner as well as the hpc. there are probably areas where i can to go a little more toward

the supervisor's position. i will spell this out. there is some interest in the planning commission having more input on the landmarking process in certain instances. i think that is desirable. there is a difference and there is a proper role for hpc, obviously. there are some dual- jurisdiction situations, where we can have input from the planning commission, where it is a corporate. that should be included. our approval today will be worked on by the board of supervisors, obviously. so we will be somewhat advisory at this point. but i would like to see that included wherever possible. sticking with some sort of attempt to get over 50% of property owners to be approving, being told as to their sentiments in a historic district, i think is only

proper. my understanding from the discussion is that this is not totally binding but you have to have agreement, but you do have to at least have their input. this will have significant ramifications on the property owners, as far as what will be expected in the future, what can and cannot be done. we all want to air to the side of -- err to the side of preserving our heritage. but we also have to make sure owners know what is going on and are informed properly. it will have some huge ramifications. certainly, about reached the occupants who may not necessarily be owners is important. we want to outreach to them as much as possible. i think the requirement that you try to out -- and get input from at least 50% is pretty

reasonable. it is not going to stop the historic district, i do not think, if it is desirable. they do not have to agree to it, but at least they have to be informed, from what i understand. this business about the affordability component and trying to lessen fees or ameliorate to some degree the standards, if there is a certain degree of affordability -- this has some merit to it. it is a situation where you will allow more height and bulk it is affordable, using an analogy. i am not sure i always agree with that. there is a resource you want to preserve in a certain way. i think that is a standard you should be held to. i would be very careful where this goes in. i am concerned that if a case is made that because of the affordable component, the standards are less and to a significant degree, it defeats the purpose of what we are trying to do in the first place.

i am not sure that whether it is affordable housing or market rate housing they need to be preserved just as strongly in either instance. where we missed the boat here is certainly we must allow, particularly the owner, to have as high an income level as possible, 150th percentile. despite testimony earlier, i think it is very expensive when you have to retrofit a building seismically, excessively, and certainly to historic standards. i think we need to make as many incentives as possible, because we are going to require that we keep these buildings in san francisco, as we should, particularly for housing units. we need to make it possible for the owners to do this. today, we will consider a long project that is a new affordable unit for seniors at a

certain income level. in an ideal world, the more of those we can build, which is much less expensive than trying to convert an older building and somehow making it work -- there has to be a formula somewhere. perhaps supervisor weiner, who is something of a visionary, can come up with a way to incentivize the restoration of historic buildings and make them safe for everyone in return for some kind of affordable housing built in the area that would preserve the rights and the needs of the tenants who are in there at present. i think that is a direction which should be going on that. finally, secretary standards -- we need to allow some flexibility. we need to allow additions that are in context with the historic building. we have a case like a today were will speak to that specifically. certainly, buildings that have been altered, where asbestos siding was put on -- i think

that somebody trying to restore this should be able to strip that off and bring it back as close as possible to the appearance that it had when it was part of the original district -- would siding or whatever the particular -- wood siding, or whether the particular medium was. there was a commentary on a time limit for renovating -- for re- rating a building. if there is a building rated fairly low on the standard, i think we need a limit. let us make a decision in a reasonable amount of time to allow the project sponsor and others, who may feel this was an opportunity to demolish it and build something more useful. let us make a decision whether it is going to be raided to a

standard where the rights are going to be traded. in regards to this affordable housing question, i think we may be able to work out a system whereby the affordable housing can be traded to another project, just as we do with inclusion mary, -- inclusionary, to allow someone to make these changes, which are not going to be cheap. i hope there is enough wiggle room in this to be able to approve these as written this particular time, and still allow for modifications at the board of supervisors. commissioner borden: i want to thank everyone who has been involved. it has been over two years, 3.5 years now, since we have implemented language for dealing with the changes that we anticipate.

i voted for proposition j. i think probably everybody up here did. everyone felt very positive that this was something we needed to see happen in the city. i think what has been very challenging, and what this legislation is trying to do, is recognized this balance between uplifting historic preservation, which is tantamount to what a lot of people love in san francisco, why people flocked here -- this natural, unique character and neighborhoods. existing historic districts. i do not think there is any debate about the purpose and the goal of what we are trying to achieve here. obviously, the devil is always in the details. that is where we are having issues about coming together on this. the perspective from the planning commission is that whenever we implement needs to conform with the general plan, which is bigger than one

historical issue. every day, we decide a lot of items that have conflicting needs, in a lot of cases. we have to make a decision we think is best, depending on the general plan, to advance and francisco. looking at whether or not the planning commission should have say on that -- we do not diminish the expertise the historic preservation commission has. i do not know what the secretary of the interior standards are. i think there are people more equipped to know those things. when i go looking at the amendments and look at what the hpc has done, i think there is a pretty decent balance of "we are trying to accomplish, starting off with 100 4.1.

what has been clarified is the issue that has not been nominated by the city, but by a neighborhood group, is 66%. there is somewhere in the code that has a 66% threshold. doesn't that exist already? >> the existing article does include a requirement of 66% of owners subscribing to an application to designate a historic district. commissioner borden: so what he is suggesting is similar to what already exists? >> it is basically putting back into the code after the proposed amendments that which was removed during the complete redrafting process undertaken by the hpc. my understanding is that the supervisors supported the changes made yesterday by the hpc, switching it from 66% to a majority. commissioner borden: i think that is fine. i did want to point that out because everyone was wondering

where the number came from. it is not random. it was in our code for many years. i want to point that out. in the issue of 100 4.3, going more to the of each issue, i do think it is important that you have this out reach, particularly because it impacts people's properties. people want to propose a business improvement district, it impacts the taxes on their property. being in the historic district impact how, if you were to do in the updates to your property, that would change. it is important people know. we obviously cannot be sure that everyone is going to know. that is never going to be possible. i think any way that we can garner support -- knowing about this and knowing their feeling is important. i think it is good. i think the statement that the

department goal is to obtain half of the property owners is a lofty goal. we can take it out, but i do not think -- is a goal. it does not force it to be 50%. i just think that having goals is always a good thing. if you do not have goals, you do not achieve them. that is something to think about. in terms of 100 6.6, something commissioner sugaya brought up -- if these plan marks are being looked at by us and the hpc, could there be a still made? maybe you could add language around a shot clock or a deadline. the board of supervisors, when they introduce legislation, there is a 90 day rule by which other bodies have to review legislation, and it has to come back to the board.

maybe we could look at something like that, if we were genuinely concerned about the fact that there would be inconsistency with moving forward on this. it is noisy out there. that might be something we could consider as a commission on nine -- on that one. on hardship, this has been something that was brought up and we have seen. nobody is saying that preservation prevents affordable housing projects. nobody feels that way. but the concern is that sometimes it is onerous to meet the material and other standards that other projects in that same district would support. i am actually supportive of some level. i do not think the wait is written is necessarily the best

guide. but we should look at how we do hardship consideration. it is talking about fees, not standards. you would still have to get certificates of appropriateness. it still would have to comply. it would allow the flexibility of being creative to suggest could materials. it is not listening historic preservation. it is uplifting it. -- it is not lessening historic preservation. in my view, maybe this is not the right language. i would hope that whatever we put forward today, we would say we would like to further explore the economic hardship. it is not an exemption from standards. it allows us to be more creative. i think that 1107, with owners and operators, i think that is important.

i know they wanted to strike the language when there is boundary changes. it is not binding. i do not think there is a problem with the board of supervisors taking that into consideration. whatever the rest of us feel about that, we could keep or not. looking at 1111.6, i would keep in their the language about having standards and guidelines adopted by the hpc and planning commission, talking about conformance to the general plan. i agree with commissioner sugaya. a preservation element would be ideal. obviously, within our housing elements, there are principles

to maintaining the same housing stock to preserve it. there is also a proportion of the element that talks about maintaining our unique character and communities. but i do think that looking at a historic element would be great to do. unfortunately, i know you have to have an eir, so that is not going to be in the near future. but i do think the planning commission having a voice in that is important. the final, 111.7, talking about category five buildings -- like the shot clock issue, i think there has to be a deadline by which a few people have to act. i think if you do not have a deadline, people do not act. i think that is why the board of supervisors shot clock exists. i think we should put a number

in this section of the ordinance. the goal is not to make preservation the enemy of progress, but to make it harmonious. anything we can do to force a decision quicker is a good idea. commissioner moore: i am very appreciative of the rapid-fire response from this -- from miss heyward and her team from yesterday to today, coming with something that is succinctly formulated and easy to understand. i am in support of the hpc's comments amending supervisor weiner's language, yet also finding common ground together with him. in addition, commissioner borden, on the 100.6 g and h, she did say that pending further

clarification between the different groups, so i think the additional work is suggested here. i agree that referring to san francisco architectural heritage level of january 26, there are additional challenges and suggestions posed by them. i would be very comfortable seeing that further discussed and implemented. they have a broad list of observations which i support very much. overall, i think this is a great piece of work. i am glad we are coming closer. i do look forward to supervisors continuing to challenge the issues with each other, and coming on a resolution. president miguel: i am going to go to my comments as quickly as i can. i am very pleased with how the department and the hpc has moved on this. 3.5 years is a long time, but

sometimes in san francisco, projects are a short time. recently, it has been sped up, to everyone's great appreciation. there is a remark that it is down to four pages of questions at the moment. that is absolutely amazing to those of us who have been involved from the beginning. 1004.1 down to 50% plus one, i think is pretty simple and should go forward. 1004.3, no reason not to include the occupants in their. it is a goal. i agree that it will not be met. but that is no reason not to have the effort and for as much public outreach as to possibly

be done. this is a city of activists. it is a city work out which is often criticized. -- is a city where out which is often criticized. -- where outreach is often criticized. it should be in there. there are considered reasons often taken by this commission in a more general manner than the hpc, which deals with preservation principally as their basic interest. i believe that both commissions should be involved, quite absolutely. on g and h, san francisco sfmi,

i guess is the only way to put it, should be the standard, not ami, area median income. it makes a big difference. this is not absolute. the fees are not automatically waived. there is consideration of how this can be done, perhaps in a less expensive manner, to keep the basic concept and allow those projects to go forward, where people may not be able to afford the perhaps better materials and better methods of handling historic preservation, and yet still keep the basic concept. 1107, i still like the comments regarding as much out reach as

possible, an attempt at a written survey, and that the response showed reconsidered by the board of supervisors. it is not an absolute. it is an attempt to get more people involved in the city, and more people involved in preservation matters. 1111, back to the concept of the san francisco rather than the area's standard -- this is something that is going to take the board of supervisors' deliberations. but in general i think the hardship considerations should be taken into account, without any question. 1111g, i do not think there is a lot of problem with that, as was originally proposed without the strikeovers.

the 150% may be in question, and the area at income should be changed to san francisco standards. the same content to both commissions on 1111.6 should be involved that i made on 10, and 1111.7, i do not see a problem with putting the 180 days on there. in fact, i think it should be on there, without any question. we run into other situations where stopcocks are not imposed , and we have problems with it constantly. i believe in them, and i think they should be followed through. commissioner sugaya: miss heyward, a couple of questions

still. on the permit an application fee waivers, there is reference in the first sentence that says "in cases of economic hardships the applicant may be fully or partially exempt from paying fees per section 50e32 of the planning code." that requires an application to the department, correct? >> the zoning administrator makes a final call as whether the applicant meets the criteria. the process may be under review to further refine and clarify, going forward. commissioner sugaya: in this instance, in both sections, they

both reference having to meet those particular standards, this criteria. >> in both articles, the zoning administrator will need to confirm that they met the standards. it does not exempt them from the review of the hpc, but the fee. and the hpc has some latitude. commissioner sugaya: i am going to try a motion. i might vote against it myself. [laughter] in order to move forward, i think this is kind of a compromise motion. before i say that, i have one comment on 1004.3, and the language there should be some kind of survey or vote for something, with a goal of 50%.

with respect to the historic districts, it strikes me as something that is a little strange, because we do not -- maybe we should -- impose the same kind of process when we do area plans and try to implement, or consider implementing, ordinance is based on those plans. i frankly cannot see that there is that much of a difference. i mean, we should have taken a vote in glen park. all through the number of years the plan was taking place, how did the residents feel about it, other than those who were participating in the planning process? i do not even know if there was in the opposition during testimony. but apart from those, it might have been interesting to see

how the proposal faired with the rest of the residents within the plan area. be that as it may, i guess the motion -- i really do not like making a motion on a specific -- anyway, i would like to back up the hpc as much as i can. therefore, let us try this out. people can interrupt, so time in, here. i would like to move forward with this and approve the resolutions for articles 10 and 11, taking into consideration the following changes that the hpc has made with respect to supervisor weiner's proposed amendments, and that we accept the hpc language that it is the

majority, as has been stated a number of times. the supervisor did state he was ok with that. 1004.3, we accept the hpc addition of occupants, or whatever the language should be, to include people who are tenants. i assume that also includes merchants, not just residents. and that we retain the the last sentence, where the department shall have a goal of obtaining the 50% response. president miguel: you are keeping the strikeover in writing? commissioner sugaya: yes. in 1006.6, that we retain the planning commission and add la