i want to speak to a large subset of buildings with no historic designation, are not within the historic designation but because there 50 years old or older are subject to height and historic review. even if there is categorical exemption, they can be caught up with historical boards that can cause -- can cost tens of thousands of dollars. these are four buildings subject to [unintelligible] there was a study done by the planning department that shows the review process is more lanky and burdensome than required and the department spends three or four times longer getting categorical exemptions issued another local governments in the state. i want to suggest we give planners more discretion to limit the historical view. [tone] supervisor wiener: thank you

very much. >> i support historic preservation, but preservation of communities, not just buildings. as a civil-rights attorney who spent three years litigating fair housing claims against real-estate speculators in pasadena, calif., using historical precedents to get african-americans out of their homes, using things like color of paint, i say we should set the highest possible threshold for the creation of these new historic districts. certainly the proposition j intended new rules for the districts and this means increased safeguards. the city of pusan recently adopted new requirements while adhering to a now means note demolition policy. let's look at an opt out provision.

we must not drive out low- income, fixed income families or tradesman and tradeswoman with record unemployment. [tone] supervisor wiener: thank you. >> i would like to say i went before the city planning commission and i was opposed to the fact that in my area, list of the homes there are 50 years old or older. i want you to understand this very carefully. a survey was done about a month and a half ago. only three residents showed up. in my community, we have a lot of asians, latinos and some owens. nothing in their language was put around their doors. they were not there. if you look at this audience today, you do not see -- the

thing of it is, i had my house painted and i had solar put on my home. i don't like the fact someone can tell me what i can and cannot do to my property and if you can't afford it, most of us are low income anyway. thank you very much. [tone] supervisor wiener: 01 to ask a question about the precise issue. i know there was a meeting that was completed and as i understand it, the attendance at the meeting was very for. given that surveys which could eventually lead to districts, people should be aware of that and there are consequences, some of them very good, some creating additional costs for people, i don't want to make assumptions about all of these meetings, but

in my experience they have not always been well attended. what can we do to make sure people know exactly what is happening and what the consequences are for their properties? >> notices for the survey were sent to every property owner in the district. we also provide those for three separate languages. we had it translators at the hearings and that the presentation for non-english speaking persons. we also posted flyers throughout the community to let anyone interested know about the community meetings. all i can say is it might be because of a high number of renters is why we had a low turnout for those community meetings.

the planning department is initiating a review of all of its community correspondence this summer to identify better ways of how we can do outreach and we hope we can implement those in the future. hufsupervisor wiener: are those multilevel notices sent out in the bayview? is that a common practice? >> yes, they are, but the survey in the days till -- in the bay view area, we only had limited participation in that survey, so they're noticing procedure may be slightly different. >> i understand the point about the high percentage of tenants, that they may not be as motivated as a property owner to attend, but the fact that you still have low attendance even among property owners says to

me there is something not happening -- i don't know what the answer is. i know it is difficult to motivate people to come to meetings, but the tenants should be interested because if you have a piece of property that could be surveyed, that could create additional costs or time. he may have a property owner who is less likely to do that. i just want to stress how important is to do something to get more people engaged in these surveys. thank you. back to public comment. >> just to follow on the discussion about the low attendance at some of these informational hearings. it may be because a lot of people did not understand the

significance of what it means a property owner and how can affect them in the future. nothing what actually advise them of this. i hate to be harsh, but the information on the planning department website is a little rosy compared to the experience many people have once their properties are shown to be historic. maybe a little more realistic description would be helpful in generating some interest. i would also like to take issue with the idea that surveys are just technical documents. [tone] supervisor wiener: thank you. >> good afternoon.

i'm sure of the housing coalition and have 20 years in the field of architecture. what i wanted to say was when i think of something historic, i think of something that has distinction. it is a monument to a significant achievement. most of what i have seen in the 10 years i have participated in land use policy is the district's that have been coming out do not really rise to that level. i box at the third street boxing gym. to claim that eight rail yard of the slaughterhouses qualifies as a historic district because there are acute victorians their stretches the bounds of credulity for may. as an organization like fact --

[tone] we do not want to see a legitimate goals of historic preservation get in the way. supervisor wiener: next speaker. >> i am here to speak on behalf of the sierra club. the sierra club supports historic preservation not only as a means to keep history alive but to keep the things from being torn down and being built from scratch. i would encourage people interested in historic preservation and members of the board of supervisors to weigh in on the desires of homeowners of victorian buildings when they want to convert the a ground floor and to a garage, you are altering a potential historical building. i would like to take you to low,

mass. where all of the old factory buildings have been converted into housing and boutiques stores. it's the most beautiful historic district in that part of massachusetts. [tone] supervisor wiener: you talked about adding garages, but how about a summit was to convert an old automotive use into a new use which is not auto-related? sometimes historic issues can come up in terms of the evaluation. how do you or the sierra club view that kind of process? >> i cannot speak for the sierra club, but i would say some of the old -- what they called they

are handsome buildings. they're very attractive and there are some in my neighborhood there is one that is a fairly attractive building and if it can be preserved, and the interior turned into an expanded dance studio, i personally -- it sounds like a nice idea, but i'm not on the commission. i'm a student of history and i'm not an expert. i would like the experts to weigh in on that kind of thing. >> thank you. >> i represent the san francisco green party and i want to speak to the historical preservation issues to golden gate park and other parks in the city.

we are facing a situation where activists are being forced to resort to historic preservation to defend the parks from a rampant wave of privatization, bringing in private businesses, ramping up fees on public spaces and putting industrial facilities in public spaces so that the park department can make money for itself and its operations. if you want us to not have to resort to the very real possibility to landmark these places, you need to crack down on recreation and park and put a stop to the privatization nonsense. i've spoken to many activists to agree with this, and that includes removing director and replacing him. [tone] [applause] supervisor wiener: i want to remind the audience of the board's rule against applause, billing, etc.

let me read from the speaker cards to get more people up. [reading names]

>> i am a resident of the historic district and liddy hill and i happen to live in a historic victorian. the biggest challenge around historical preservation policies currently in place is a broad brush attempt at precluding any reasonable development within the city. for example, within the historic district, if you happen to live outside the historic district or a potentially historic district, the standards are also imposed in a broad brush manner. the time delays, the actual costs, the evaluation of consultants all apply even if there is a possibility that any work being done on a property could effect either the historic nature of the property or the historic nature of properties around it. there's no judicious approach

and how it is being used in balance with other priorities such as the housing element, the transportation element -- [tone] that is the biggest challenge, there is no balance. supervisor wiener: thank you. >> supervisors, chamber of commerce -- [tone] [laughter] that must mean i get three minutes. this is an important and sensitive issue. san francisco needs to tread carefully on this issue. every neighborhood, downtown, all the way out to the sense that is an area of historic importance. but we cannot block the city into one generation's vision of what it is. if the 1950's had blocked the produce market at the foot of

sacramento, we would have no embarcadero center. if another generation had locked in what ever than ness ave look like 1914, this would not exist today. we have to have a balanced approach. with our parks as well. with so much testimony about the golden gate park, a polo field now used for soccer, soccer fields that were once a sewer plant, changing it uses -- [tone] we want to urge you to develop rules and regulation of balance. supervisor wiener: thank you. >> hello, supervisors and department heads. i'm the president of the mission dolores neighbor association and the money new steering commission for the renovation of mission dolores park. i want to also tell you that

what we did as a neighborhood group, for the last five and half years, we raised over $80,000 to complete the survey work in our neighborhood. we hired carry and company to do the work and of march 17th, 2010, our survey and historic district was unanimously adopted by the hpc. a proposed historic district was outlined that includes mission dolores park and the mission dolores median. we consider as a group those two elements, the spine and the heart of our proposed historic district. i must say -- [tone] supervisor wiener: could you complete your thought? >> as being part of the steering committee, i want to commend rec and park for putting together a

good design team. supervisor wiener: thank you. >> i'm a commissioner at the san francisco human-rights commission as well as a member of the san francisco coalition for responsible growth. i would like to thank the supervisor cohen for comments regarding diversity. and i hope she continues to ask them and pursue this issue. i would also like to think supervisor winner for calling this hearing. it's -- sank a supervisor weaner for calling this hearing. it is very important. an official told me a 20 foot tall building on valencia street was surveyed according to the hpc guidelines and could not receive a vertical addition if

it was going to be seen from the street and it would preclude any vertical addition to it. this is for a building zoned in a 50 foot height and bulk district. [tone] this will impact affordable housing, the transit quarter and a potential liability for the city for reducing its impact on taxability here in san francisco. supervisor wiener: thank you very much. >> i will just give you a visual to look at. i do not think there is a problem with historic preservation. there are details to work out when you have to balance competing interests. you just work on them. if balance does not occur and is fixed, balance is a balancing act that goes on all the time. what i think is one of the

problems that may be existing is we don't have a commitment to historic preservation in this city and i think it is time for the city to make an unequivocal, bent to historic preservation so that everybody understands -- and unequivocal commitment to historic preservation so that everybody understands there are consequences. when you are a resident of the city of san francisco, your personal interest has to be balanced with that of the city's priorities call one of which should be historic preservation. [tone] supervisor wiener: thank you very much. next speaker. >> i retired about three years ago and was on the staff for heritage for 21 years. i have three answers to much of what has gone on today --

survey, survey, survey. the downtown plan has proven the worth of at has mitigated conflict and the downtown area, clearly identifying what can be done and what new construction can be built. i wanted to comment on the question -- transforming auto- related buildings, whole foods did a great job transforming an auto-related use. real food on fillmore did a good job doing the same thing. the other matter of a survey -- [tone] not to turn the city into a historic district but mitigate conflicts by giving people the impression they need.

supervisor wiener: next speaker. >> i'm with the russian hill community association. thank you very much for opening up the idea of the century old parking and auto repair facilities that were built after the earthquake because the homes that were built did not have a good rush. -- did not have a grudge. -- did not have a garage. before we start converting them into six story, $2.5 million condominiums, let's consider using them as sustainable, neighborhood transportation centers for car share, like cher, electric charging and transportation areas. thank you very much.

supervisor wiener: thank you very much. next speaker. >> i live at 1742 jones street. about four years ago, we repainted our house and had these medallions. about one year later, we tried to put an addition on top which would have liked one of them out. $20,000.12 months later, we withdrew the application. it has been said the historic commission has approved 99% of the things submitted to them. i think that's because of 99% are withdrawn before they ever reach the historic mission, such as ours was.

we got a notice we had to remove the cartouche is. they said they were not with the code. now i am probably $10,000 into this one already and will probably have to give in if we do not get some action on it. thank you. supervisor wiener: thank you. >> i am his wife. we have been told we have to take down our cartouche is. i love my home and i would like any and all of the to drive by. the house is spilling over with flowers. every time i walked out of the garage, and told how beautiful

our home as. tourists stop and take a picture of our home all the time. i devote my life, five days a week, to trying to make this city a better place to live in. our home is a big part of that because our home is open to everyone for any charity event they want to give. i'm involved with st. anthony's, where events are starting at our house to fund-raisers and get the homeless off the streets and the hungry fed. i started fence -- [tone] oh, mt god. supervisor wiener: just to be clear, you placed these decorative medallions on your home in the planning department sent a letter saying they would have to do a historic

evaluation? >> they said we had to remove them with a certain time or pay $250 a day until they are removed. >>supervisor wiener: that is because your home is a historic? >> i would just like to say, this is heartbreaking when i work five days a week to make this city a better place to live and some wants to come and destroy the front of my home. i don't know why. thank you. supervisor wiener: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. i am a 32-year resident. in san francisco. in 2005, i got involved with a group of historians, teachers, business people and other residents in an effort to save

and reuse 55 lacuna, san francisco's oldest public college. the campus had been zoned for educational and public use and was the largest parcel of public land outside of golden gate park. my question for you is i think the historic preservation commission should retain its authority and that's all i need to say. thank you. supervisor wiener: let me call some more names. [reading names]

>> good afternoon, supervisors. i am an architect and i have extensive experience working in san francisco, especially in residential areas. one thing in terms of the language in these districts, how it affects permitting one of the districts that was recently adopted, you run into a problem very quickly. $20,000, you hit a threshold pretty quickly when you are doing a window project. with the language of this

district, it requires a certificate of appropriateness when you are doing window replacement. it requires a hearing, a very simple hearing, but a hearing just the same. the planning fee for the certificate of appropriateness on a $20,000 job is -- >> which district? >> i have run into that problem down there. but it just goes to the broader view that you need to make sure that the small homeowners are not adverse limb pacted, especially when most people really want to maintain their houses. >> thank you very much. mr. whitaker. >> i have -- my name is jamie whitaker. i'm the president of the rankin hill neighborhood association. i have an overhead. i think we have a transportation problem. i think we have a problem holding up developmen