know, a couple of years ago. and if i had to come before a committee, they might tell me what i have to do, tell me what type of paint i might want to put on my house instead of the way i want it to look. so i think there's a lot of concerns that people will have on how they want their homes to look. and they don't feel that you should be the one making that decision for them. i hope that you all do take in consideration. because you used to come to the community and meet and have some of the things that people might have concerns about. and i think this one is very, very much needed. to go into the community. you have 11 districts, and you can hold meetings and let people know what -- the fact that they can't opt out. like i got a chain linked fence going on my side. maybe you'll decide that, no, we don't want you to have a chain linked fence, everybody has to have a wooden fence. i don't want you making decisions on how i have to live. i'm 77 years old. when i bought my house in 1968, i didn't know that people was

going to be planning on how my area was going to be. thank you very much. >> my name is george williams. i'd like to highlight two items in a letter. one relates to section 1006.3, regarding notice of certification of appropriateness hearings in historic districts. notices require -- was recommended to be required for all owners and occupants within 300 feet. and that's even for a non-contributory building so if you're in an historic district, you're not a contributory building. you want to do something to your front porch, you've got to spend the thousands of dollars to go out and and do a physical survey of properties within 300

feet in order to develop a list of occupants because that's the only source of obtaining those signatures. the second item is section 1006.7. the standards for certificate of appropriateness. the h.p.c. recommended that all certificates of appropriateness shall comply with the secretary of interior standards. we think that's really tying the hands of the landmark commission. there was a property recently on townsend street that allowed a four-story addition at the extreme rear of that property. that probably would not have met the standards. we think that you ought to leave some room there for local interpretation rather than say shall con ply with the secretary of intear -- comply with the secretary of interior standards.

say h.p.c. shall consider the standards or comply to the standards except as modified by some policy determination or provide some wiggle room so you don't tie your hands, so you have to comply with the secretary of interior standards. because they were not essentially designed for a city such as san francisco. thank you. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is josh. i'm an executive director here in san francisco. worked on policy advocacy to protect and empower vulnerable communities particularly in the green sector. i've got some serious, grave concerns about what looks to be a failure to adequately safeguard the interests of disadvantaged communities, communities with concentration of low, moderate income homeowners, fixed income homeowners that pro live rate

in our city's southeast sector, in our city's southeast sector, mission district, and in the sunset. the reason i say the safeguard is because, let's be honest, living in the historic district is a burden. it drives people out. we see this in other cities. it is not for everyone. and so we don't see any type of process in the proposed article 10 to address those concerns and those needs of those homeowners. in fact, i don't think they're even aware that this discussion is going on here at city hall. if you don't have any safeguards, what you invite is the sheer force that drive folks out of communities, plus you invite blockbusting, a very insidious form -- [inaudible] that i've seen and have personally zelt with in the city of pasadena. ms. jackson indicated that one concept that other cities have turned to is an opt out type of provision. if you don't want to live in one of these districts, despite the best intentions of the commission, of the board, or

the initiating force, you don't have to. the city of houston, texas, right now, they just passed their own article 10. and i think in 11, their equivalent, in houston. the debate there was to make sure you're not demolishing historic resources. but they have a provision that possibly will result in rolling back some of their historic districts. they're going to have to revalidate all of their existing historic districts. and no new historic districts unless you have 2/3 of all the homeowners and property owners saying we want to live under these rules. they also had to address issues around paint, making sure people aren't saying they're paint is not historic or as ms. jackson said that chain linked fence not historic. i've seen instances where people get liens on their homes and get their neighbors calling trying to drive them out of the community because they're not living under the rules of the new historic districts. the lenses by which the historic creation are being viewed through, don't have a lot of equity consideration in terms of community.

what is the community historic nature of a district? that would need to be worked with. i think we're really, honestly, far away from something that works to deal with this. we've got an informational packet about the houston instance that folks -- i've got enough for everybody. i don't believe it. and also, welcome at the city of chico, california. if you're going to do this, this is bad. if you freeze work -- it may not be the intention but at a time where we need to be working, there's a good project, there's out of work working people. get more residents to work. that's only works when we got more work for everyone. we've got to be reasonable about this. thanks. >> commissioners, michael teriot. i have considerable experience tpwhoth historic preservation, the actual work involved, and in new construction.

and our members are interested in the course of this legislation. on both counts. i want to thank you, actually, for the good work you've done on this legislation. i think it is a far better document than the one that had us hit the streets early last year. it's a comfort to be able to come in here and talk about specific details on a rational basis rather than be out screaming on a sidewalk someplace. i have been sitting in on the meeting that the city's coalition has been holding on this. and i'm aware of their recommendations and have been in the court with them. obviously -- i understand the impetus behind the one-year period for a historic district. but i think if do you accommodate that with 180-day period plus the possible extension that you've given yourselves so that a year is

not necessary. the matter of the 300-foot noticing versus the 150-foot noticing it s a matter of simple mathematics. you go up by the square of the radius, the number of folks you have to notice. if you go to 300 feet, it becomes radically more expensive for any property owner that needs to make even a minor change to his or her property. so i'm very much in accord with the 150-foot notice. i ask you to take the recommendation that you've heard from sarah and george williams very seriously and to move in that way. thank you. >> good morning, members of both commissions. mike buehler on behalf of san francisco architectural heritage. san francisco heritage has attended all but one of the h.p.c. meetings over the last two and a half months where revisions to articles 10 and 11 have been deliberated.

i think all will agree, of those who participated in the process, that h.p.c. approached its charge very deliberatively and thoughtfully, seeking to strike a balance between a mandate intent of proposition j, and the interest of property owners. the throughout h.p.c.'s review guided by best practices drawn from model ordinances and policies as well as the language of the city charter. i'd just like to address a few points summarized in the staff presentation and also addressed by some of the speakers before us. with regard to the initiation process, the proposed initiation process in the revised ordinance models best practices in other cities such as los angeles, where, for example, the commission has the opportunity to screen and reject frivolous nominations before moving them forward. likewise with regard to the administrative certificate of appropriateness process, this will greatly streamline the current review process by exempting minor work from

faulty of a review. i think this is a very important proposal. and to clarify some of the concerns raised by the earlier speakers, it will greatly streamline the review process to make it less onerous. if you live in historic districts. and likewise, with regard to the period under which the interim controls are in place, i would like to underscore what staff already said that cases will not be frozen as suggested by some of the earlier speakers. but they will be allowed to proceed as if the district had already been designated. that means that the administration certificate of appropriateness process will be available to those property owners as well as the regular c of a process for major projects. in terms of notice procedures, again, the h.p.c. in the interest of streamlining the process actually is curtailing the existing requirement that

require notice to all property owners within historic districts. the proposed language or notice within 300 feet, i think all will agree that that is a significant reduction in the notice requirement that currently exists. i think to a certain extent the experiences in other cities are relevant, but in terms of what's going on in houston and chico, unless they are actually proposing the language, i urge you to consider those cases in context. and be limited to their circumstances. heritage looks forward to continuing to be a regular participate in this process as the revisions to article 11 continue. and also looks forward to -- [tone] balancing interests of prop j and property owners. thank you very much. president miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment on this item?

if not, public comment is closed. commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: i have a prosecutorial question. we have already passed one resolution that's gone on to the board of supervisors so that resolution stands no matter what. i mean, not no matter what. but we've already taken action. but you mentioned that city attorney has not reviewed it, and therefore there might be a few things that might come back to us. and then at that time if it does come back to us, will we then have to take another vote? >> tara sullivan, department staff. i want to -- the third scenario -- i actually might turn this question over entirely to the city attorney to answer, actually. commissioner sugaya i'm assuming, for example, that nothing happens today. >> deputy city attorney.

there's a couple of different options for the commission if they want to take action today, the planning commission to specify which commission i'm talking about. the resolution that was in your packet amended your prior action that you took. and actually, there's a lot of prosecutorial challenges with doing that under the rules so a better action if you do want to take an action today would be to make a brand new resolution, which is the resolution that tara passed out. as you're aware, you did already make -- take a resolution to introduce certain amendments to the planning code at the board of supervisors. and i believe you took that action in early august. that, if i understand correctly from the staff, that ordinance has not yet been introduced at the board of supervisors. staff has held it pending the h.p.c.'s work that they've been doing to propose amendments to articles 10 and 11. so i believe if the planning

commission wishes to take an action today, there are at least two different paths that the commission can take. one is you could vote to pass the resolution that tara presented to you today, which essentially doesn't incorporate the h.p.c.'s comments and recommendations directly into your legislation to be introduced but rather recommends to the board of supervisors that the board of supervisors do so through the amendment process. essentially the planning commission is signing off on all of those proposed changes -- or whichever changes you choose to sign off on. you don't have to do the whole list. you could choose to do some or all. as a way both to avoid any referral back, trigger from the board of supervisors to the planning commission, and also to indicate the planning commission agreement with certain recommendations. alternatively, if you'd like to make sure that whatever changes and recommendations you're going to take from the h.p.c.

you could direct staff to work with our office to presenting a version to the planning commission at a later hearing that would be approved as to form by our office and on that one, you could take a new vote and that would be the version then introduced to the planning commission. so my apologies for the lengthy procedural response. >> thank you. if i may, commissions are, i don't have the ability to request the monitor, but the first option marlena mention said kind of what the planning commission typically does which is that you don't -- typically don't recommend specific language when we see an ordinance. you recommend to the board that certain changes be made. what she's suggesting that's one option. the other option is to actually have staff work out the details with the city attorney and bring the final detailed language back to you. >> and at this time, though, let's assume for a minute that the vote fails on the resolution, either resolution.

the original resolution is still intact. is that right? thank you. >> commissioner olague! >> when the cleanup legislation which is how we began this discussion started it was out without the adams and all the time given to extra meetings and everything else at the hps which we were -- hppings, which we were informed of but not part of any discussions on articles 10 and 11. i would like to actually have more of those since we're -- seem to be going down the path of extensive discussions on 10 and 11 which i don't believe, i was not informed that was the intent of the original resolution that was passed by the planning commission, that at the time, then i feel that i need more time. i would like more time to consider the amendments that the h.p.c. gave to this alleged cleanup legislation which

became extensive discussions on articles 10 and 11. so i'm in month position today to pass any kind of resolution that finalizes the conversation at the planning commission level that includes input from the h.p.c. on articles 10 and 11 which i believe the conversation evolved into. so i would like more time on the planning commission level to consider the amendments and have a few more exchanges, whether it's in a room like this with both commissions, whether it's in separate -- you know, at separate times because it seems a little bit exhausting to our commission secretary to try to schedule meetings with both commissions present. so i'm not going to be forwarding any kind of resolution on anything today because i want more time to discuss articles 10 and 11. so which, again, was not part of -- i assume was not part of

the intent behind the original cleanup legislation. so that being said, i think that i heard the comments of some members of the public and i think that the -- at some point the department now i know is engaged in some information sessions and there's been a couple on the mission but the in the mission on the area that's been surveyed but i think the planning department owes it to members of the public to inform people of what areas are being surveyed and what the implications of that are. i know because we haven't finalized the reform, i'm trying to find the right word -- of articles 10 and 11 or rewriting of articles 10 and 11 so that it conforms with prop j and all the rest of it i don't think those conversations have been complete yet. because of that, i know that articles 10 and 11 will have some implications on how

ultimately these areas are evolving, how they move in terms of a lot of different issues. so seems to me that the conversations on the survey and the articles 10 and 11 have to sort of go hand in hand somehow so that there's a complete view of how this is going to look ultimately. and i still do have some outstanding issues as they concern equity and i think that there's ways of resolving it rationally without you know, -- in a balanced discussion with some more exchanges on this. but i do believe that given the history that some other cities have had whether as someone from the a.i. says this chico and whatever examples -- or houston are examples are actually parts of included in the way we're drafting, relooking at 10 and 11, isn't

really the point of the comments. i think the point of the comments is that how do we view this in a way that doesn't have the same sort of impacts on low-income communities and disadvantaged communities that has played out in other cities. so i think we need to be very astute and very careful in how we examine that or how we reflect on that issue as we move ahead with articles 10 and 11 as you know, we're looking at the mission district and other areas that are currently in that survey area. so i think what i'm asking for is more time to reflect on this, to look at equity issues more closely, to make sure there is language included that -- you know, that i think the city has always, prop m and we've always been committed to the issues of economic diversity and diversity of population in the city, and i

think that we need to be sensitive to how we move ahead and make sure that there's language included whether it's the opting out or looking at other best practices so that we're clear that low-income communities and disadvantaged communities are also -- that we're sensitive to the needs of those communities as we move ahead with strengthening these preservation laws. so prop j was all about you know, strengthening preservation, i don't think anyone has any issues with that, it's just the impacts that you know, are implicit in that historically not been kind to disadvantaged communities. so i just think we need to be sensitive to that and i'm confident we can with the commissioners like martinez and buckley and others sitting on the hsk who have always worked on these issues also. i'm asking for more time. i don't think we're ready to move ahead with this. i don't think we've had a deep enough discussion on the planning commission level to

move ahead with articles 10 and 11. i just don't. >> commissioner martinez. >> i really appreciate the comments of commissioner olague and members of the public. i would like to respond to as many of these comments as i can. i think a couple of things that tara omitted to mention as context is one, prop j, that you know, we initially approached this as a cleanup legislation and that we didn't want to make substantive changes. prop j requires substantive changes. it's a tremendous increase and creates a new body with tremendously more power than the landmark board had and even increases in some respects the power of the board of supervisors. substantive changes were required. so that really was kind of why this took longer is because really it is a complete

transformation of what we're doing. that being said, we tried to keep it as simple as possible and where possible, keep what was in article 10 and 11 in there, and in some cases in terms of the notifications, actually try to make it easier and simpler. i for one am very much in favor of trying to reduce the cost to the public. and that sort of thing. one of the things that prop j is did is give this commission the power to initiate and that power was not qualified. it was not qualified by any true sense of the public, it's pure. that we have the power to initiate. so i think that it was very appropriate that it shows up that way in our -- in this proposed article 10. however, what we have done,

which you probably didn't notice but i would like to point out, initiation is on what page? there it is. we say -- tara kind of skipped over this, but we say for nominations submitted to landmark -- let's see -- and/or cultural to support initiation as well as additional information which may be required by the application procedures and policies established by the h.p.c. this commission does plan on setting up some procedures and policies in due time, sooner rather than later hopefully, about our attitude about what kind of consent of the public is required, what kind of meetings we should have with the public. i personally will not vote for any historic district that a majority of the public comes here and says they don't want it. i just think that's inappropriate. i want to do historic districts

that have strong community support. so i think that's going to be the discussion that we have about our procedures and policies. so -- and i think we would welcome the opinions of your commission about that. but i did always want the process to be very transparent and democratic. i wanted it so anyone could come to our commission. this is implicit in prop j, that since we have the power to initiate, why can't anyone just walk off the street and come in with documentation and request it of us? it seemed to me just to say that clearly seemed appropriate to me, that we have the power to initiate any member of the public can request that, whether or not we take them up on it is an entirely different question. but i didn't want there to be onerous screenings in the way of coming to this commission

and just simply asking for it. so that's part of -- part of what's in here, and any requirement of a certain number of the residents agreeing to it is an infringement on prop j, an infringement on the power that was given to this commission and the board of supervisors by prop j. if this commission and the board of supervisors decide that they want to restrict that power, that's fine and that's what we've allowed for by establishing our procedures at a later date. so we will look at that at a later date. but i didn't think it was appropriate that those sort of restrictions should be codified in 10 and 11. and then i want to say something about districts. i think it's been somewhat coincidental historic districts and gentrification of districts have taken place. i see the potential of using

districts to actually stabilize existing poor communities because they have the potential of reducing poverty speculation -- property speculation. there is a pro and con there. it reduces property speculation, at the same time it reduces -- because it dampens down property costs, property -- cost increases, so property value increases. so you know, property owners may not want to dampen down their property value increase. so there's kind of a pro and con there and i think in the mission we've started a discussion with the nonprofits, i've been calling them, i think we want to have a community discussion, the pros and cons of doing historic districts. so i think that is something that needs to be done but i think the identification of historic districts with gentrification, i don't think that that has to be the case. i think it can actually be a

tool to protect communities rather than change them. and then in terms of the comments from other actually in terms of the interim controls, the way it is now, people actually have an opportunity to get a permit approved that will actually endanger the cite -- the site so we wanted to eliminate that. but the nomination has to be heard by this body within 30 days. we hardly felt that was onerous since it has to come to us so quickly we did not feel a 30-day wait on permits is going to be a hardship for anybody. in terms of the -- in terms of the one year or 180 days or historic districts, you have to

understand the way article 10 is now, no permits can be approved for 180 days. we're loosening that up by saying you can have any permit approved in one year, we're saying by just going through the district application of appropriateness procedure. so we're actually creating an avenue to not hold things up that didn't exist before. we're actually liberalizing it. in terms of this c. of a procedures and the procedures that are there now, actually after you establish the historic district as being potentially cheaper on the application level but i would like to see an analysis from the department at some point where we actually figure out what's more expensive in terms of application procedures because the public really wants to know this about what does it mean in terms of how much money p