a number of the planning commissioners that voted in support, they questioned the phasing in the infrastructure phasing plan that it was not described in detail. if you could just explain more about the phasing of the infrastructure to protect the residents from potential seismic or other natural disasters? >> have a the schedule of performances. they have the terminal infrastructure. the transfer the land to to block trucks. they are obligated to build the infrastructure associated with the development as was the adjacent parks.

as the infrastructure is there, they are also constructed at the same time. the rest of that is primarily borne by the developers. they will have to front the money to build the infrastructure tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. they don't get reimbursed for that until we issue the infrastructure financing bonds start when that is starting. we can issue bonds. it could be years between the time the developer from some of the funding.

supervisor mar: i will raise the questions i have indeed discussions. they have raised serious questions about the government structure and whether it is an accountable body had whether they have the capacity to properly manage in the way that the redevelopment agency did in the past. did you respond to those questions? >> it was created by the city, a nonprofit public benefit corporation. legislation was passed to enable the board of supervisors to give them a redevelopment authority. it was back in 1999 or 1997. it exists not just as the

redevelopment agency, but a non- profit public benefit corporation. the board has authority to approve or disapprove of the appointments. it is subject to the contract in budget authority of the board. it comes to you to approve if it were to amend these agreements. that act, in essence, like an agency of the city. he will have to gear up and change some of its role. the development, it could do that in various ways. right now, how it works is, the contract basically to provide the development expertise. we can rely on the redevelopment agency or the planning agency department. any agency that has that

expertise. we do that in the infrastructure development and those agencies that are involved in doing the same work. supervisor mar: this is my last point. we provide quite a bit of transparency. all of the numerous hearings you have done, he raises this as he supports the project, still kind of doing his best. i tell -- know jane kim keep raising the issue. you'll get above the base affordable housing. any local maneuvers, is that going to be specifically written in a way that we can see

what we argue in fact a 30% or higher? but i could talk about the mayor of's commitment. the elimination of redevelopment, it is a robust tool. these economic projects as well as affordable housing, we saw the governor come very close to 11 a redevelopment. it is a bill that is still up at this stage. they put forward a compromise bill that will diminish the amount of tax increment available to our redevelopment agency to carry out these projects. let's and francisco, it is unique in the way that it can generate or capture 65 cents of the dollar to put back into these development projects. the bayer shares all of our

concern that we have to change the law to make housing available use. and also put it a requirement. the redevelopment has to look at affordable housing. the mayor is definitely committed to that. the board is also talking to our state representatives to figure of the best way to introduce that to the various stages of legislation that are before the state. i could just assure you that the mayor is committed to making those changes. >> my understanding is that there is a controller report and a budget analyst report that should be coming? i think it is eight, nine, 10, and 11. >> and we anticipate a report. it will be issued later this week.

>> let me think that the black about and to stay this long. it is several hours of this hearing as well. the key for your endurance and perseverance as well. the key for their great presentation as well. >> there will be evident to some of these. >> if they could just explained a little bit of the dodd substantive amendments that you prepared for today? >> from the city attorney's office. i think each piece of legislation before you today does have an amendment that makes technical corrections to various references. some bill legislation has reference to the redevelopment plan which is a logger part of the approval structure.

there are technical amendments to a call the legislation to address the same issues that have changed in terms of the project approval process. there were pieces of legislation that you have amendments. they are not substantive, but i will bring them to the attention of the committee. there are changes to the special use district. the first what is on page 42. that is why the -- it was previously a process for submission that an applicant would make and it was discretionary to submit the documentation to the planning

department. the change now would require a submission application to go as well as the planning department. >> a couple of the changes are just changing the word "plan" to "agreement." >> those are some of the technical changes that were made to reference the correct documents. to drop the references to redevelopment plan and instead use "project." the other change to the special use district that i wanted to bring to your attention is on line 49. beginning on line 10, he used by the planning commission, the legislation before you have to

show the the both of them and the applicant could appeal the decision. this change in the light knowledge merely indicates that they could do that independently without having to go through the ownership secure requirements that would apply for other conditional use elsewhere in the city. it was just to clarify the intent. that is page 49, 11 and 12. >> the other amendments are for the subdivision code item. one of them is primarily along the lines that you had just mentioned. beginning on page 11, there is a reference here indeed hot definitional to plan documents, but now that there is not a redeveloped plan, will modify that definition to refer to the project had project documents.

those changes you will see on page 11 beginning line 23. and going to page 12 through lines 5 sx. there are amendments throughout. the other changes would bring to your attention is the definition of transportation infrastructure. this is the infrastructure that will be required that will be public infrastructure. we're just in the fighting the kinds of scenes that would be done in terms of the mta type infrastructure of the islands. the one item that was added to that list of items was operator restrooms. supervisor mar: any other questions? is there a motion? supervisor cohen: we do items 2-

12 to the full board. supervisor mar: any objection? >> mr. chair, the items 8-11 lead to be referred to the budget and finance committee. supervisor mar: i see that. with the exception of items 8- 11, also without recommendation. >> of the of that does need to be approved. >> can we accept the bid without objection? supervisor wiener: i will be supporting the motion. that motion, at least speaking personally, should not be interpreted in the project. i do support this project.

i remember moving to san francisco in may to 97, in reading about the treasure island development and following it closely over the years. well before i was on the board of supervisors. i of the the process has been extraordinary and evolving every level of government between toyota and the halls of washington d.c.. i cannot think of a project that has been more thoroughly thought through or more thoroughly designed. when you look at the seismic precautions in the transportation plan, and everything else, the changes that have been made in response to different concerns whether it is hall reservation or affordable housing. we're disappointed by the governor's decision to live in a redevelopment.

it has been a flexible process throughout, i think this process is very strong. nothing is certain in life. there will always be uncertainties about the future. i am quite supportive of this project. >> without objection, thank you. is there anything else before us this evening? >> there are no further items. hong >> of the meeting is adjourned, thank you.

chairperson mar: good afternoon. welcome to the monday, may 2 meeting of the 90's and economic development committee of the san francisco -- of the land use and

economic development committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. our clerk is alisa somera. >> please make sure to turn off all cellular phones and pagers. any documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. items will be on the may 10 supervisors' agenda unless otherwise stated. chairperson mar: we have 12 items on the agenda today. as the chair of the committee, i am going to do my best to keep it moving so we can get to all the items. the first item on the agenda. >> hearing on the impact of historic preservation policies on other major public policy goals, and the need to adopt legislation to ensure the policies are achieved. supervisor weiner: thank you,

chairman mar. i am really impressed. this is one of the reasons that i love san francisco so much. you bring up an important issue and people come out and care enough and are willing to take the time to talk about what everyone's position is. i want to thank everyone for taking the time to be here today to talk about this important issue. that issue is how we should balance historic preservation with the various other key policy goals in a forward- looking city. it would be hard to find someone who is not a historic preservation supporter, whether we are talking about our beautiful victorian or art deco building stock, magnificent landmarks like the fairy building, the castro theater, or city hall, or gems like golden gate park and dolores park, we

all cherish the greatness of our city passed. this is not to question the importance of historic preservation. there is near universal support for historic preservation. i enthusiastically joined that support, as i did when i supported the creation of the historic preservation commission. the purpose of today's commission is to discuss how historic preservation sits into the complex and ever-changing ecosystem called san francisco, how this policy goal fits in with numerous policy goals we embrace, goals like creating sufficient housing, particularly affordable and transit-oriented -- transit- oriented housing. and we have a goal of usable parks and libraries that reflect our past, but also reflect that

recreation and library use has changed dramatically over time. goals like making necessary changes to roads and public rights of way to enhance pedestrian safety and make our transit system modern. historic preservation is important, but it is not our cities only policy goal, or even its dominant policy goal, nor should it prevent needed change in the city, with the creating a usable public library in north beach, changing our parks to meet recreational needs, or allowing and used where houses and automobiles garages to be transformed for new uses. historic preservation is one important policy goal among various important goals. preservation should not be dismissed in the name of progress, growth, and forward momentum, given that we need to cherish and learn from our past. by the same token, other policy

goals should not be dismissed or undermined in the name of preservation. while we have much to love about our past, our city has changed, and continues to change. in other words, all public policies, no matter how meritorious, have limits. no policy, whether economic growth or historic preservation, should trump all else -- all else. our goal is to talk about what that policy balance is, and what it should be. how do we acknowledge that a living are been, world-class city needs to serve its past while also moving forward and changing? we will be hearing a number of different perspectives today. i look forward to that. first i am going to ask if either of my colleagues have opening comments. we are going to proceed.

the way we are going to do this is we are going to hear from several city departments we have asked to come and talk about the issue. i thank them for being here. we are then going to hear from the executive director of san francisco architectural heritage. then we'll enter into public comment. i think people have already given their cards in for public comment. if you have not, there will be yellow cards on the banister. we have a lot of public comment. that is great. the time limit is 2 the laminates. that does not apply to the departments. but we would encourage you, if you are able, to make your comment in less than two minutes. you should feel free to do so. you do not have to, but if someone else has said what you want to say, feel free to summarize that. everyone will have up to two minutes. chairperson mar: i urge people

very strongly to keep it within two minutes. we have tall items before us, and treasure island is coming afterwards. but i know how important this issue is. supervisor weiner: will start with the planning department. >> thank you. thank you for calling this hearing. i think it is a great opportunity for us to explain our issues and talk about some concerns that have been raised. i am going to cover a couple of introductory issues and then ask the preservation coordinator to go to a more detailed presentation. there are two things i want to mention. one is that the city has an extraordinary architectural heritage, which you have certainly recognized. it is probably the most significant on the west coast.

secondly, as a department, the planning department is charged with starting that heritage, and is also charged with balancing historic preservation issues with the general plan and other policy documents. as you said, there is a balance that we have tried to strike. i fully recognize there are those who believe we have gone too far in one direction, and those who believe we have not gone far enough. i think that is partially what this hearing is about and what we will talk about today. if i could go to a few slides and talk about what we are trying to answer today, i guess i will use the big screen. there are five key questions that have come up in the context of this hearing in the last couple of years. we will try to answer those questions today. one has to do with the role of the historic preservation commission.

one has to do with the landmark commission advisory body. the second has to do with surveys we have been conducting of the last several years. will the result in additional burdens on property owners? the third has to do with time, resources, and the cost and process of getting those approved and working on a building that is not a historic research. the fourth has to do with environmental impact reports. i think there is an important corollary to the questions. there is a distinction between restoring a historic resource and whether that should be retained. the first is a technical question and the second is a policy question. finally, there is a question of the relative weight of historic preservation compared to other

policies, and the balance restrike with those policies. today, we are going to give you an overview of how we conduct our work in the department, the role of the historic preservation commission, and the purpose of the service. the california environmental quality act -- it is important to distinguish between what happens over the secret and what happens in other aspects of our preservation. there are other parts of the city represented by the departments here today. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am tim fry, with planning department staff. what i would like to present to you today is essentially where preservation is legislated at

the local level, and where preservation policies come into play in the department process. if you would like detailed information about the subjects, i have left plenty of time for questions. the preservation program began in 1967, with the adoption of article 10 of the planning code. this also created the landmark preservation advisory board. this was to recognize and protect san francisco's historic architectural character. in 1985, article 11 was created. article 11, when it was adopted, provided additional protection for the significant buildings in our zoning districts, particularly c3 districts. that was incorporated into the city charter. the historic preservation commission folded in under their

action duties all of the buildings identified in articles 10 and 11. the hpc act more as a decision making body, and play an advisory role not only to the planning department, but the planning commission and the board of supervisors. they are much like the advisory body the landmarks board. they are not involved in any determination under ceqa. they are not involved in related approvals. the also not involved in any survey properties. this map illustrates those buildings and districts that are

identified within the planning code. there are 11 article 10 districts and six article 11 districts. this comes out to roughly 2000 properties under these sections of the code. the city is designated just over 1% of the overall building stock under articles 10 and 11. these are the only buildings that are under the purview of the hpc. just to briefly focus on survey , our survey -- this is a survey tool. supervisor weiner: given that there could be additional historic district in the future , within a historic district, the historic preservation commission