critical remark to not rush this particular aspect of the legislation but build an additional safety mechanisms to prevent only a few people would be allowed to vote on it. >> commissioner guy. >> -- commissioner guy sugaya. >> i'm the only person who has the privilege of having dealt with article 10 since the 1980's. i'm ready to vote on it myself and get it out of here but i don't think i have the votes. that said, there's several things i've been taking some notes. surveys in themselves that are conducted by either the department or with independent consultants or whether they're done by a neighborhood organization like is being done in the sunset and other areas, are in and of themselves not historic districts. they're really a tool in which information is gathered and

information about properties and potential districts emerge with respect to to whether they may be eligible for the national, california or maybe a local landmark or historic district. so that's information and it then takes an additional set of decision makers to actually take that and turn it into either a landmark or historic district. so for me, surveys are a wonderful tool because they start to inform people and neighborhoods and communities as to exactly what they have sitting there in their streets and in their alleys and wherever these resources might be. that's much better than someone coming to the planning commission -- coming to the permit bureau and saying i want to do something to my house and they turn around and say it's 50 years old like commissioner martinez said, and then you have to go do an historic resources evaluation.

and you go what's that? and that costs you money to do that. i know, because as the firm i'm working for, we do those kinds of reports. and it would be much better if there was already information at hand through the survey process for property owners to know whether or not they have an historic resource or not. secondly, in terms of survey work or the extension of that in being listed as an historic district, the tenderloin is not a local historic district. it's listed on the national registry of historic places. therefore, it is only subject to design review and the kinds of things that you might think of as certificate of appropriateness things, only through the california environmental quality act procedures. there's no jurisdiction that the h.p.c. has over that national registry district at this time. and one of the reasons that the

tenderloyal community i believe -- tenderloin community, if you're a national registered district you're eligible for the preservation tax credits which are worth 20% of your rehabilitation costs. so there is a huge difference between, i think, the national register and california register designations versus local because it's at the local level where -- maybe i shouldn't say this -- where you do have more control over things like design and the certificate of appropriate process comes in. secondly, thirdly, fourthly, wherever i am at, in a lot of instances i think when you talk about communities that have been impacted with perhaps increasing property values and people moving in and kind of the general term of gentrification, my own feeling and experience is that those things took place before

historic districts were established. my take on the whole issue of historic districts is gentrification began because people saw something there, older buildings and they liked the character of the area, and once that process started, then those people who then moved in formed those historic districts. i don't think that people came in and formed the historic district out of nothing and then people went oh, wow, this is an historic district and started to move in. i think it was the other way around. also interestingly i think here in san francisco, there are a number of communities, the filipino community, the lgbt-q community, japan town, that are looking at ways to recognize and be -- use historic preservation tools. they're looking at it a little bit differently in that they're talking about cultural preservation or cultural

resources or cultural heritage rather than the traditionalist or -- historic preservation terminology, not terminology but the process that's being discussed here under articles 10 and 11. and i think that articles 10 and 11, the traditional historic preservation process will still have a role but it's interesting they're trying to recognize, and i think it's happening in the mission, too, ways that they can recognize their cultural values and try to preserve and enhance those values through the planning process and through agencies like the mayor's office of economic and work force development. and that's resulted at least at the planning level in some more innovative approaches to social and cultural preservation and a few planners under director ram have been working on some tools that could be applied in manila

town and south of market and also japan town. so i think that this is you know, one part of a greater kind of awareness going on in the city and i'm, you know, quite happy the way article 10 at this point has come together. as an advocate and one who worked on passing prop j it's the melding of what's in the charter and we're not going to get rid of the charter unless people want to go out and vote on it again and rescind it, i suppose. so it's in the charter and what the language in the charter has in what article 10 had in it, i think the h.p.c. has done a tremendous amount of work along with staff in trying not to formulate an entirely new ordinance. in reading through this, i think the majority of the language is still article 10 and not something that has been

brought out from outer space, you might say. so the changes that i see really have been made to accommodate what the charter now requires the h.p.c. and the preservation process to do. >> commissioner antonini. >> i thank commissioner martinez. i stand corrected. thanks for pointing out the i misinterpreted the situation when you have a -- an interim period of controls that construction can go on during that, so that's good to know and then of course as far as the level of approval needed for designation, i would certainly like to look at that a little bit more and what we want to stay with a level that's similar and not make it more restrictive but not make it you know, much less. so i would afree with those things. in general terms, i think there is this fear of you know,

possibly gentrification in general terms but i agree with commissioner sugaya's remarks in that i think these changes occur because of smart growth. because people are realizing they do want to live within cities, particularly san francisco, much more than they did 20 or 30 years ago and they find areas that you know, are convenient and areas that they feel make sense, not driving from 50 or 60 miles away. and as a result, property values will increase and you know, the historical provisions of it are part of the situation but only a part of it. and i think he probably is correct that that comes after people have an interest in an area. and in general terms, i don't think any of us benefit from structures that are functionally or seismically or structurally compromised, most notably the residents of those be structures and we've seen fires and various things that occur. and so i think we can do this where everybody wins just as we have done it with new

construction where we have asked that you know, the builders of new construction set aside a certain amount into an affordable housing fund, i'm not suggesting this is what would happen with buildings that be being restored but somewhere where present residents could be taken care of and the usual provisions that are in many of our laws to assist because nobody wins from things that are in bad condition and are hazards. and so i think that this can be a situation that can be worked out and we can make -- preserve our buildings and also we can have a city that has a balance and diversity. >> commissioner owe laying -- olague. >> i didn't mean to imply that gentryification is caused by historic preservation laws. that happens to be the topic of discussion today. commissioner chase, i realize

that there are zoning lows and those low-income communities have historically in san francisco been subject to pressures from outside issues, outside of historic preservation. but that historically i'm like commissioner sugaya, i believe we have to be careful how we frame the language in articles 10 and particularly 11 as they relate to historic districts because as was witnessed in pasadena and other examples given from mr. arcey, there is that -- i'm not sure what comes first, you know. so i think that's something we need to look at. if the language is in place and the potential is always there, so i think that's why we're so kind of dogged about wanting to make sure that the language is inclusive and balanced and looks at all the needs of san francisco as commissioner moore pointed out earlier, i guess we are looking at commissioner

miguel, we are kind of coming at it from different perspectives because we have multiple issues we might view from a planning commission perspective versus an hsk which looks at more in terms of historic preservation but how we balance those things i think the potential is there. also, i am well aware that historic tenderloin is a national historic district and not local, but i guess what i was thinking out loud when i mentioned it because it might be an example, i don't know that there are many examples nationally where there are a lot of affordable housing complexes and buildings that are locked in already as part of the affordability goes. i don't know that we have many examples of that nationally where that's the case. i don't think we do. so i was sort of thinking in terms of equity so sometimes when i make my comments i'm kind of thinking differently, maybe, than how it comes across. also i have been part of the

discussions around cultural districts and i think that's critical along with commissioner sugaya and commissioner martinez and hopefully other commissioners, buckley and others will join that discussion eventually. but again, it's nothing that's been established, ever. so that's why we're still kind of like in this kind of groove where everything is just kind of like potential. so we have these potential for cultural historic districts, certain commissioners have been involved in the issue of cultural districts probably since the mid 1990's but there is no such example of a cultural district, i don't believe a district established for cultural reasons. i'm not sure that there are many and not even in japan town. i think that's where some of the discussion originated. i think there's a lot of potential but i don't think we have anything, any clear examples of how of how that has played out? and, yeah, you go to other cities and i think it's something that the city also needs to be looking at. you visit other cities in the country, and you see -- or in the world, really, i guess.

you see all of this kind of adherence to art and the history and certain artists, a certain respect is given to -- you know, we don't have a poet museum in san francisco. do we? i didn't know. i'm told we do that's great. we do have to have a way of capturing the city that's just outside of the physical building. i'm excited about the cultural district discussion, too. we have ashbury, but i don't think we have a lot that captures it, you know, a place where people can go to understand the history. i know the lgbt, now, there's like a temporary museum in the castro that now looks at that issue. as far as latino heritage and the mission, and how we're able to capture and keep some of that. so, you know, it is a

complicated issue. and some of us don't have the advantages that commissioner sugaya has of having on worked on article 10 since the 1980's. that's why some of us feel like we do need more time to digest and understand, as do communities. so i would like more time because i haven't had that advantage. president miguel: commissioner wolfram commissioner wolfram: a few words about the historical districts. i think there's a common misperception that our city is kind of completely covered with historic districts, that it's frozen in amber. and actually compared to cities that we like to compare ourselves to, whether it's chicago or new york or philadelphia, or boston or washington, we have many fewer, substantially fewer, historic districts than those other cities. there are very, very few historic districts. when you walk around the city, there are areas that are spectacular that you would think would be historic districts and aren't.

i would say that i have maybe a little bit of a response to president miguel's response to the history of the city. when i walk around the western addition, i think of the city in different ways. when i go to the western edition, i think, what would this neighbor be like if it had not been completely demolished and devastated? would we have had preservation controls that have kept the character of that neighborhood and kept its community intact? so i think that there obviously are places the city has improved and changed and developed, but there are large parts of the city where we have not had good planning. and the destruction of these historic resources has had a terribly negative impact on the city. i walk out of this building, and i see -- well, i was just going to say, what would it be like if the fox theater were

still there? is there are incredible areas of the city where we have not treated the historic resources well. and i think that's important to consider. thank you. president miguel: commissioner martinez? commissioner martinez: i also want to address something that mrs. jackson said, which upon reflection i realize maybe there's a misunderstanding about the historic district. every historic district is different. and every historic district has a different set of rules about what you can and can't do. and that set of rules is put together when you're establishing the district. and so the formulation of the rules is part of the public process that happens when you decide to do the districts. so the public will have full input on what the rules really are. and if the rules in the district say whatever your fence is, it's fine, nobody will bother you about the chain linked fence. some districts he -- districts

-- the cottage row, the people changed the fentions and the people were very -- fences and the people were very upset. so we had to change the district to include fences because people were very upset that there was a tradition of no fences and some people started to put up really big fences. but that wouldn't have happened without the people in the district wanting it. so it's really -- every district is different. every district has a different set of rules. and those rules come about through the public participation. so if all of you -- if you happen to be in a district, and you want to be in a district, and you don't care about the fences, nobody's going to bother you about your fence. i just wanted to say that. president miguel commissioner damkroger? commissioner damkroger: thank you in my time as a planner and

working for a nonprofit -- well, every historic district survey and designation that i was involved in came from the community as a way to give that neighborhood or that community a voice. a way for them to recognize what their neighborhood was about, to empower all the people in the district to have a role in what happens to their district, to give them greater sway at city hall. because they were now a historic district. and they were important in the role -- you know, the city's history. so it was used as a tool. also to provide incentives for members of the district. you know, here we have the historic district building tax credits and so forth. but it was ought sought as something to proif additional power to people in the district.

president miguel: commissioner? >> thank you. i think this has been a great conversation. think we have been in this little shell working on articles 10 and 11 more recently. it's like coming out and seeing the world again so it's great to hear comments from the public and from the planning commission about where we are and what's up. to me it seems like there are two -- not one but two 900-pound gorillas in the room. we should probably identify them. one is this question of equity and does historic preservation get in the way of keeping the diversity and providing opportunity for people? and the other is, does historic preservation get in the way of the needed change and development that a city has to have? i don't fear weather one of those. i think we should be concerned but i think we can do some things about that i've been spending a lot of time in boston lately. i lived there 25 years ago. i worked with the boston landmark commission.

so it was interesting to see 25 years later what's going on. i look at that and see they've really preserved a lot of town. it's great. they've also been able to develop. the downtown has changed, grown, and they have their own i-tech sector, their own new businesses. that seems like a growing, live city. i used to live in the south end. i would not want to live in the south end now, because it has totally changed. it is very boutiquey, high restauranty, and very different from what it was. so i think that is an example of historic preservation helping, not by itself, but perhaps helping by some change. also a property i worked on a long time ago in roxburyy, a community health center that was an historic building, these people were hanging on by the thread. we helped get them a national nomination which helped get them money. i drive by today, they have several buildings. the building they were in has been restored. it's in the middle of a very distressed neighborhood. and i feel that's a great thing that they were able to do

seeing the result today. so i understand that commissioner's concern that this is all potential and everything is in the process of becoming, but i do think one difference from what i was in boston then, people would say, jim, we have never done it that way. and when i moved here, i people would say, wow, that's interesting. let's try it. so i say let's try it, and let's see what we can do and let's be the change agent and see what's possible. i'm excited about working with the public and with you all on making that happen. president miguel: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: something we haven't exactly addressed is from my viewpoint the ordinance that we're talking about -- let's leave article 11 out for a minute. but article 10 is merely a means to do certain things for the h.p.c. and the board of supervisors. the decisions about historic districts, the decisions about whether something gets landmarked is still going to be

made by people. it's still going to be made by the majority of the h.p.c. and the majority of whatever it happens to be of the board of supervisors. and the majority of the h.p.c. building on things like certificates of appropriateness. so i think that the great fear that this document is somehow in and of itself going to result in a lot of wholesale districting and landmarking and all of that i think is unfounded. now, i say that -- i have great faith in the current h.p.c., you know, the appointment process. but can you say that of the planning commission, too. so we have to rely somewhat on the appointment process and have some confidence that the mayor and the board of supervisors who will be apointing people who are competent and take into account

the kinds of things that we've been discussing today. but i just don't see -- i mean, we could spend the next year tweaking language in the ordinance. and i don't think those changes are going to make any difference in how the two commissions and the board of supervisors actually make their decisions on whether or not the district -- to district something or not. president miguel: commissioner christina olague? commissioner olague: i'd just like to move to extend this. >> a couple of things for staff. one, to understand if you choose to continue it, you are continuing the whole package. so i think it's important for us to hear from a consensus that you don't want to move together with the package that you voted on in august. that's fine. i just want to make sure that that's the direction. the second thing is to understand what you want to do

in the next -- commissioner olague: i keep hearing, you've been talking about this for two years. think we had one discussion with the joint hearing with everyone, like two years ago. then the planning commission really has not discussed article 10 and 11 since that time. so we want more discussion at the planning commission level, i think is what i heard. we would love to have it together with everyone. but if that's not possible, at a minimum i'd like to hear what their discussion is in-depth. not just like a 10, 15 minute report back at the beginning of the hearing. that's not sufficient to me. i'd like to hear -- like, what are some of the discussions? what are the things that the h.p.c. is proposing? if we can't have a joint hearing, because that's kind of physically difficult given our schedules, you know. >> so you're asking for -- commissioner olague: additional hearings, yeah. like on 10 and 11. i like additional hearings with some consideration given and discussion given to what the h.p.c.'s input is. >> tara sullivan from the department. taking back to what the director was asking, i just want to clarify.

and i am more than happy to have in-depth discussions with the planning commission on preservation issues. so we will go ahead and start scheduling some hearings. commissioner olague: yeah. >> items to try to get in. kind of go through it. maybe not as line-by-line as we did with the h.p.c., but issue by issue or however you want to do it. but i just want to make sure that that's what you're requesting. commissioner olague: i think the majority of this commission is requesting it. >> and then the h.p.c. will continue to go on with article 11, and then we can somehow merge all of this in the next few months. commissioner olague: but make sure that, yeah, that we're part of the discussions on that. >> ok. all right. commissioner olague: that's what i'm hearing from the majority of this commission. president miguel: i know there are people rung in but there is a motion second to continue which is nondebatable. commissioner olague: commissioner with the instruction that you're hearing

-- >> commissioners, first of all, let me -- since this is a joint commission, if the desire with the motion on the floor is the desire to cease discussion now, today, is that the desire? commissioner olague: yeah. >> you want to cease discussion? you want to vote on the motion? clearly no other action can take place with this motion at the moment. so is this a motion of just the planning commission or of the joint body? planning commission motion. commissioner olague: yeah. because it has to do with the legislation. whatever. >> so for that, the question before -- yes, a date or is it indefinite or what? >> [inaudible] commissioner olague: we want to continue discussion. >> so it's an indefinite.

commissioner olague: indefinite. >> ok. the motion on the floor then for the planning commission only is an indefinite continuance on that motion. [roll call] that motion passes 5-1 with commissioner sugaya voting against. president miguel: ok. the hearing is still continuing. commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: the direction of the planning commission's discussion and concerns i feel are more appropriately directed toward the historic preservation. because that's where we would be talking about issues such as historic preservation policies, historic preservation goals and objectives, and the way historic preservation in this city can be looked at by, you know, both the planning

commission, i suppose, and the historic preservation commission. ultimately the board of supervisors. i think additional discussion on tweaking the ordinance will go nowhere. and would just result in delays that i think -- you know, will not be productive. that's why i voted against the continuance. i think if the commission really feels -- and i do, too, that there are matters of gentrification issues, equity issues, broadening, perhaps, the concept of historic preservation. it's a social and cultural preservation as well. and getting communities involved on that level, then i think the discussion appropriately surrounds the historic preservation element which is kicking around somewhere. or maybe not. in the department. so. president miguel: commissioner

damkroger? commissioner damkroger: charles and i were commencing on ways for the two bodies to work together on this. we could send delegates or two delegates to your meeting and then have a joint meeting again after that to discuss proposals. so we'd like to find ways in which we could help hasten this. president miguel: appreciate it. director chase: it is our intent to help as much as possible. what we want to accomplish is understood by you so that can you understand what our thought process was. and we're very happy to do that in the public forum at your hearing and again at a potential joint hearing if that would meet your needs. president miguel: commissioner martinez? commissioner