and informative however they don't really apply that well to our wood city. they don't apply well to our local circumstances. so i think we need to come up with our own interpretations. i think this is a good point by spur. i think it should be complied with the secretary standards as interpreted in some form by us in the department. in terms of -- what other points were brought up. i think i've -- oh, in terms of the notification, again the 300 feet is a lot less than notifying everybody in the district. so again, we're kind of liberalizing that. and i felt it important and certain issues to include the occupants instead of just property owners because renters have a stake in the area, too, whether or not they own property, renters do have a stake in the area especially in

terms of if it means that speculation is going to be sort of dampened down. so i think i've covered most of the things that have been brought up. thank you foric indulging me. >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you. now it's on, you think. i think this entire discussion has great potential for us to be able to help with much of our housing stock which is historical and much of it is in bad condition and --

discourage frivolous opposition that might use the process as a way to block new development or you know, -- and there's always obviously you have to make a decision on each one, what's appropriate, what isn't, but we want to make sure. so i kind of agree with some of the things the public brought up in terms of these time periods. i'm not as concerned with the individual landmark one which was brought up. i think they had a couple of commenters that said this extension has to be approved by the board of supervisors. again, you're dealing with extensions of 180 days. i think it's limited to one more after the first one if i'm not mistaken. that is not the worst. when you get into the historic district we've gone to a much longer period of intertrim controls, we've gone to a full year from 180 days. and you know, i think that's something we have to be really careful with and perhaps a shorter period of perhaps a second 180 days either approved by the h.p.c. or the board of supervisors would maybe be a little more realistic. because that controls would then stop any activity, if i understand it correctly for the period of time during the time any changes, maybe i'm interpreting it wrongly but the controls would be in effect to block anything that might be going on.

if i've misinterpreted that, i apologize. and the final thing, or not final but another one is the designation by the board of supervisors and i think concerns have been reached that unless there was a 2/3 agreement of the property owners in a particular district, that it would require a 2/3 vote of the board of supervisors. and i think we've heard testimony to that effect by the public that you know, we really want the people who are in the district to be in favor of it and if there isn't a consensus, then i think the bar should probably be a little higher to that district being created rather than just a majority but maybe a 2/3. certainly something to consider. because if you don't get consensus among the property owners in a district, then i think it should require a little higher bar. and let's see. i think those were most of it. the noticing there was a question of 150 feet or 300

feet for the certificate of appropriateness. i think it was pointed out that this is a smaller district -- distance than is the case now. whatever is practical i think certainly you should notice everyone but if you aren't noticing everyone maybe the 150 feet might be more practical. that kind of conforms to section 311 and 312, i believe. and those are the main points that i see that i think there has been some agreement on, the secretary of interior's standards, we try to be considered but not necessarily in complete conformity. that's a semantic thing but it is important. >> commissioner moore. >> i fully agree with what my fellow commissioners have voiced. i am very supportive of many of the comments the public is making. what i regret is that the relationship between the historic preservation

commission and the planning commission over the few months that you have been in office hasn't matured more, that we -- i'm speaking for myself -- would have a clearer understanding about the far reaching consequences of the historic district which is my largest concern. while i'm in full support for giving you a nod on the historic building designation, my concerns about historic district designations are higher than ever. we are a relatively young city but we are old you have nuff that the entire city could turn into an historic district and i do not believe that any of us has enough experience and enough capability to look into the far-reaching consequences. i'm not talking about the next four years, next eight years. i'm talking about the next 30 or 50 years of what it would be if the entire city one by one would turn into historic districts.

i'm going to leave that as an open question, but i would encourage us to do for the two commissions to really get down and dirty and discuss really with your expertise being the guide and i abdicate all of my professional judgment to you on the subject, to discuss what that really means to you and what it might mean to the planning commission which comes to the subject with a wide array of different obligations. that is in strong resonance of what i feel the public is saying and that i think it's in strong resonance with how i understand the responsibility of these commissions to be, and that is a much wider array of subjects than what is addressed in the regulations and in the definitions of what comes together when we talk about historic preservation. i'm not saying that in disrespect but i would like to broaden the discussion that when we really put historic

district definition into law together with the authority you would have and from what i read, we would hardly have any left, i need to be sure that i support it. so you have my support, but it's a conditional support. >> commissioner buckley. >> thank you. thank you, commissioner moore, a perfect segue for my comments. we were surprised yesterday at 4:15 when we got through article 11, at least a cursory look we have not resolved all the language issues, a lot of things to look at and i hope the planning commission does not feel we expect you to have picked this up and be ready to go and i think that we certainly want to move this along but we have been spending a lot of time on it, it will take you a lot of time to look at it and understand all of the issues that it means, and to have the public digest it as well. so thank you for being patient and letting us go through our process and we look forward to

conversations like this one in which we can share what we're working on and what concerns you have and how it can move forward. second of all, i've been very impressed with the caliber of the historic preservation commission as i am with the planning commission. i think we have people who are very experienced in their field and they're not just experienced in the field, they're experienced in working in the community. we have people not only concerned about the physical properties of buildings but people concerned about the community. and i certainly would not be here on the commission if i felt like this was something that was going to only push physical qualities in districts and pricey buildings. i'd be on that side out there. i think we have a group that is very concerned as the planning commission is about how we use historic preservation as a good planning tool. how can we use it as a way to build communities, how can we do it as a way to include people and not exclude people and this south mission historic survey is a good example where we have a traditional survey in place, we need to work with the

community, need to understand what else is out there we want to celebrate our heritage and to incorporate that into our surveying and our publicity process. so i think the comments of people who expressed concern are good but i think we have a very good commission that has an interest in the broader diversity, i don't think it's a commission that wants to cover san francisco in amber and have it all be historic districts. we certainly believe it's a living, breathing city, we're all involved in changes, we're also very interested in how we can preserve the best and most important of what where we're at. we appreciate your taking the time to work on this and i'm sure we'll have a good process as we move ahead. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner owe laying? >> one of the points that commissioner moore made, we don't have a lot of time, we haven't had the time to reflect on things. and when we talk about you know, using historic

preservation as a way of stabilizing the existing communities in some instances the disadvantaged communities the tender loyal was made a historic district but the advantage there there was a locked-in affordability due to the work of citizens housing and others. we don't have a lot of examples of that where it's already sort of locked in before the district is established. and then in the mission we have the example of liberty hill, the highest cost district in the mission district and it's probably also the less diverse and -- the less diverse and most costly. i think it's the only district in the mission district that is historic. i think that commissioner martinez raises an interesting point as has commissioner buckley in the past that maybe we can use historic preservation as a tool for stabilizing certain disadvantaged communities but i don't think we have many examples of it and that's why we need to be sensitive to how

we codify a lot of the language in 10 and 11 and around the historic district designation as commissioner moore points out because we don't have a lot of examples of how maybe the potential there, maybe san francisco will be the place where this is sort of defined, so then let's take on the challenge and define that in language that really does support these goals and these values and i think that we have enough of a diverse group here we can maybe actually find ways along with the city attorney, members of the public involved in the discussion to make sure that the language is there. but i just think that we have to -- we're in unchartered territory as far as historic preservation and stabilization of communities. and we're all ready to step up to that challenge and see how we can address all of these multiple whatever, needs or goals the city has.

>> commissioner gordon. >> i just want to support what commissioner olague said and commissioner moore just said. one of the things for example that sfruck me in section 1004.1, any member of the public can request designation and thought about the d.r. process, and people claiming buildings are historic and i don't know how that process would inform our d.r. process and i know commissioner martinez says there are going to be procedures, i would really like to know what kind of documentation, i think it would be important that your commission really think about how you spell that out for documentation for the determination process. because if it does have an impact on you know, the other sort of permits that happen in a process it's important to figure that out. that's part of our concern with kind of moving forward on this today. the other issue about section 1006.3 with the notification within 300 feet, one of the

issues when it impacts a noncontribute tore building is something of big concern. i think that's one of the reasons the notification issue and d.r. process is usually within 150 feet for a reason. because we really want people that are going to be impacted to be weighing in on this decision versus sometimes neighbors have an ax to grind or other things going on when you get a little further outside the radius. then the issue of 1004.4, the designation for the board of supervisors, i think the property owner issue is huge, like ms. jackson and others have illuminated we want to be sure that communities that traditional not informed about what's going on are coming out to these hearings, really understand the implications, are in a position to essentially vote on whether or not they want to see this happen. i think that is a really important clarification that must happen. i would put that actually in addition to 2/3 of the board of

supervisors because i think it's really important in the disenfranchised communities. we've seen it through the shipyard project and other projects that even though you might see numbers, there is still a small minority of people involved and know what's going on. i'd hate for to us pass legislation that people are not adequately informed about that impacts their ability to stay in their community or improve their homes and other things along those lines. so i mean my concerns here are just more how this informs the process, the planning process of the other entitlement issues we have to look at and also the impact on communities of color we've discussed because what is a cultural resource is the cultural resources as well as the buildings. i know that's your intent but we want to make sure before moving forward on that legislation we've adequately taken into consideration those controls.

>> commissioner martinez. >> i'd like to clarify something. the business about the supermajority of the board of supervisors or the 66% of the property owners' consent, is an enormous -- there's nothing like that in article 10 now. that is not required by article 10 now. what article 10 now requires is that if an application for historic district comes from the public, that application has to be signed on by 66% of the property owners. in fact, that has never happened a single time in the history of san francisco. that has never happened. all of our historic districts have happened by other means. the power currently of the board of supervisors to establish an historic district by a majority vote is unmitigated and i see no -- i mean we're talking about we're not making substantive changes, that to me is a substantive

change that is actually against the spirit of prop j which left the power of this commission and the board of supervisors to create historic districts to be unmitigated by any such requirement. that being said as i said before, there isn't going to be an historic district without a majority of the proper police station agreeing to it. people defer to the district supervisor about these things. the district supervisor is not going to be in favor of a district if they're not going to be re-elected by it. and i think this commission can create some procedures around consent and what we expect in terms of community meetings and so on and so port. but right now the only thing in article 10 is if the application comes from the public you have to have 66%. that's the only thing. so what spur is asking for is way beyond what exists now. so that's the first thing i'd like to address, and the second is to answer commission

antonini's question, i want to clarify the way it is now, when you initiate a district, no permits can be approved for however long it takes and that is onerous. we would never get any districts approved if we stop every single permit for the period -- i mean we'd never get an historic district approved if we stop every permit for god knows how long, even 180 days would be a revolution on our hands if we stopped every permit for that length of time. so what i was thinking of is the market octavian ya plan where we have the interim control procedure that gave some scrutiny to protecting historic resources while the plan went forward. that went like a year, a year and a half we had those procedures and they worked fine. so we're trying to come up with something similar to have some interim controls while the district was being nominated. as much as i would like to reduce it to 180 days, realistically speaking these districts take a long time and

especially if we're going to do the community outreach, especially if we're going to have all the meetings in the community, even a year is optimistic, i think, with these things. i think they sort of go hand in hand. if you want to do the outreach we've got to have the time. and i think we've established a procedure where anybody can get a permit for anything, even demolition, they just have to come to us or if it's a minor alteration, they can get approval from the staff. we wanted to make it similar to what happened to market octavia and i don't think there were many complaints about that procedure. we're loosening it up from the way it is now which is really onerous. the historic districts on the table now are painfully small. you know, any idea about the entire city becoming an historic district, we're so far away from that, i mean no

district has been established since dogpatch. we're not even close to establishing any districts right now. we've identified a lot of potential historic districts, and a few, two i can think of have strong community support. i think we'll be lucky to have those two districts in the next four or five years, frankly. and the districts that have been identified in the mission are really south mission, are really quite small. and so i think fears of the entire city being landmarked as much as i might like to see that, is somewhat not -- it's just not going to happen any time soon. that's all i have to say. >> thank you. if i might. just to follow on with what commissioner martinez has spoken to, and to speak to the issue of about equity, there are a couple of things that i've picked up on the

conversation today that i think are valuable to note. we've talked about public participation in the historic preservation process and i thank the public for bringing this to our attention. the notion around the 300-foot notice does exactly that. it provides for the community and we were very cognizant of the fact it should be residents as well as property owners, because we know that in communities of lower economic impact there are more renters than there are property owners. so this is something that we think is important and valuable. and i would just concur with commissioner martinez that while there is a fear about the designation of historic districts, you have to reflect on the fact that it was 11 years between the development of the dogpatch survey and the

designation of that from the previous historic district designation by the board of supervisors. so these are not things that will happen, we take them seriously, the community takes it seriously, there's plenty of public im-- input. and the impact of the community, i think we need to do a better job around the public benefit for this. we also need to be very cognizant that it's not just historic preservation that causes gentrification and the increase in property values. it also has to do with how we look at the benefits of development and the zoning activities that take place, the zoning code regulations that allow for higher and greater density of development which may threaten properties in the single family or residential communities, that most people fear for their individual and

their communities. the notion, too, and i think we best not forget that there is something else that's looming out there that does impact our recognition of historic resources and that's the california environmental quality act. the fact of the matter is the properties over 50 years of age despite what this commission or what the planning commission would like to do or not do, has the requirement to review that. that is out of our hands. it is state legislation. what we have tried to do is where there is local impact and local responsibility for this to do this in a manner is that equitable to all. it is that equity in terms of public notification, that equity in allowing the public to participate in this process. it is the equity in allowing for the revisions to a planning code to be clear for everyone to understand. and those have been the premises upon which we have

done our work. >> i appreciate all the comments that have come forward up to now. the public and the commissioners have spoken at this point. two commissions have different reasons for existing, basically. and so it's altogether possible and probable that our recommendations regarding 10 and 11 will not be totally in sync. i don't expect they will. and that's perfectly all right. we approach it from slightly different places. i have problems with application of secretary of interior's standards in san francisco. i don't think they correctly consider this city and the way it has developed and the way it exists at the present time. and so some of that wording bothers me. i have very little problem with the wording so far regarding

individual landmarks, but i have and i have to echo some of commissioner moore's thoughts, a lot of problem regarding historic districts in spite of everything i've been hearing, and greatly appreciate the comments. those of you who have heard me before, i hope i don't bore you with this, but basically my family goes back in san francisco somewhere around 150 years. and when i look back as to the experiences that have been brought down to me regarding different districts in san francisco, that's how i view a lot of planning decisions. i don't view them in the short run. it's impossible for me to, and i don't think my obligation is such that it allows me to. and so when i look at it in the long run and i look at the

differences that have occurred in this city over that period of time, that i know from personal family history, i realize what would have happened when areas of san francisco that were over 50 years old at the time had the potential of being declared historic districts. and many of these areas were well within what we're talking about. 75 years ago, without question. they are not those districts now. and i have to wonder whether or not had they been designated historic districts, this city would have developed as well as it has over the years. we do pretty good i think in historic preservation but i think we have to be extremely careful in looking at the long term. 11 years is not a long term.

it seems that way, having served on task forces and other things for over that period of time. it really seems that way. but it isn't. it really isn't in the history of the city. so i truthfully am not ready to vote on a resolution of any kind at this meeting. >> commissioner, do you mind, if i wanted to clarify something from a procedural standpoint. >> yes. >> as to where we are and what your options are. is this not on? okay. the planning commission of course took an action back in i guess august to recommend this -- the original legislation that we put forward. and then we talked about a couple of options that you have today. a third option if you choose, if the planning commission

chooses not to move ahead is to separate articles 10 and 11 from the rest of the cleanup package. i just wanted to put that in front of you because frankly just from my standpoint i'm a little concerned that there's been almost two years of discussion on articles 10 and 11 and i don't know when it will be resolved. and so one option in front of you would be to just take all the rest of that cleanup package and then continue to work on articles 10 and 11 with the historic preservation commission. to sentionly sever the two. i wanted to make -- i essentially -- to essentially sever the two. i wanted to make it clear you do have that option. the planning commission needs to make a decision whether to move forward with the legislation because you have the authority to initiate changes to the planning code. if you do initiate -- if you do move forward with any legislation, of course we would forward the recommendations of the historic preservation commission and your recommendations but you have the sole authority to actually

initiate the actual changes to the planning code. >> thank you. commissioner moore. >> i feel compelled to respond to director williams' comment and say for me personally cleanup language and article 10 and 11 are intertwined and i say do cleanup without knowing the original intent was cleanup and it became something else. so i think some of the commissioners have acknowledged that this is really clarifying articles 10 and 11 in support of what proposition j was not able to really fully bring to the forefront when people voted on it. and while none of us, i assume, is not supporting proposition j, the fine tooth comb work requires to be be clear and to be responsible to the future, not our own immediate needs, requires this to be taken out onon