in 1975, heritage commissioned the first intensive architectural survey of downtown san francisco, in part in an effort to avoid the piecemeal loss of our historic structures downtown. it was one of the first such compilations in history. it would be adopted as 11 5 in the planning code. the downtown plan rated historic resources and created incentives for their protection, such as transferable development rights. it mandated retention of 248 significant buildings and established six conservation districts to preserve the scale and character of significant groupings of historic structures. today historic resource surveys are wildly recognized by the american planning association, office of historic preservation and others as essential component to any local preservation program. cities across the country

conduct historic surveys as a matter of course. with los angeles undertaking its own city-wide survey right now encompassing over 880,000 parcels. four decades after the adoption of the landmarks preservation ordinance and nearly 25 years since the adoption of the downtown plan, proposition j was approved by 57% of voters in november 2008. this ballot measure was intended to bring the city's preservation laws into 291st century by adopting best practices that have long been this place in other large city as cross the country. the first step in implementing proposition j was to replace the former landmarks preservation advisory board with a seven-member historic preservation commission meeting minimum professional qualifications. since being sworn in n. january 2009, the commission approved all but one project that has come before it, miraculous approval rating of over 99%. in terms of unfinished business,

the heart of proposition j remains unimplemented. over two years after the passage of prop j, articles 10 and 11 remain virtually unchanged since the time of their adoption. the planning department has been working with the h.p.c., planning commission, stakeholders and preservation, development and other communities to craft a balanced amendment to fully implement the changes mandated by proposition j. for our part, heritage worked alongside many in this room on all sides of this argument to reach agreement on key provisions in the amendments to articles 10 and 11. as i think they, too, will attest the h.p.c. and planning staff worked diligently, cooperatively and transparently to develop the current set of recommendations. so what is the legacy of our historic preservation, protections and activism and advocacy over the past four decades? there are many and i don't have time to go over all of them today, but in terms of economic

benefits, the city's largest industry, tourism, is one of the main beneficiaries. a new survey released last week by the san francisco travel association ranged historic buildings and architecture as the city's number one culture attribute among eight categories tested. seven of the top ten most interesting san francisco attractions are historic resources. the city's unparallels historic character play aid role in attracting the region's economy. we remember scores of apartment buildings were converted to workable and living spaces for high-tech start-ups. the multimedia gulch remains a mega center in the city. i would like to briefly respond to some of the policy areas identified for discussion today, specifically two of the areas when discussed earlier by representatives of city agencies.

in terms of affordable housing, it's worth noting that san francisco has the highest concentration of historic single room occupancy hotels in the country. the lower knob hill, national hotel registrar district and upper tenderloin district include over 700 historic contributing buildings. these districts were strongly saw ported -- supported by and introduced by the developers as a means to provide access to economic incentives including 20% federal rehabilitation tax credit, property tax relief under the state program and code flexibility under the state historical building code. three affordable housing projects involving historic buildings are currently under way or recently approved, including 240 units that include veterans commons at 150 otis street, crescent manner at 467 turk street and central ymca at

228 golden avenue. two of thesetwo of these three e taking advantage of the federal rehabilitation tax credit. you received in your packet this afternoon, a letter from bob herman, an architect who has been developing in deciding affordable housing projects for over 40 years including five projects the gone through presentation reviewed in san francisco. it is interesting to note is that with regard to the street that has been shown in one of the signs before you, it did not hamper that. there were also approved as compatible with the lower historic district. the historic preservation and not be a stumbling block for

creating excellent affordable housing in severances go. as for parks, i appreciate his remarks. it is worth noting that the city does have several parts that are individually listed as local landmarks or are part of designated historical district. in addition to the examples, they're both a part of local historic districts. in the image of the golden gate park includes individual city landmarks. this is the topic that has been the subject of much controversy. it is the heritage pose a belief that historic designation could be a valuable planning tool had informed decision making and going forward. by providing a comprehensive list of features, landmark status will guide decisions such as clarified where and where not

to accommodate local development. we think it is useful to look to the experiences of other cities such as san diego, who york, and developing a model for the department of decision making that segregates projects as a major and minor while only requiring a review of major projects that affect historic features. this model has worked effectively and is a model that is being followed and loss angeles as well. in 2009, notably designated all of the park which is four times the size of the park, a local cultural landmark. i'm hoping that the committee of the board of supervisors will consider the following points and considering areas to focus on for reform. it is important to distinguish between issues that are based

on local ordinances vs. state and federal requirements. it does not have jurisdiction over. and filtering through before you, obviously that is the area to focus on. we look forward to continuing to engage in a fact based discussion as to what the issues might be. and looking elsewhere for best practices that have been used elsewhere to address those challenges. with respect to proposition j, we're hoping that the board will exercise leadership in finally moving forward the amendments to implement the intent. likewise, with respect to incentives, more to be done to enhance the accessibility to incentives.

it provides property tax relief of 50% or more. right now, very few contracts are emplace. it is worth noting that only a handful of contracts have been improved while hundreds of other contracts have been approved. this is a significant economic incentives. finally, with respect to supervisor cohen's remarks, we provide more opportunities for residents to identify the places that matter to them. particularly, places that are not based on their architecture. supervisor mar: i just have one

question regarding additional libraries. i understand what you're saying. and there are frequently pluses and minuses. is tehrn terms of the ability to effectively manage given away the plot is the aha -- law is setup, recognizing the up side you have described? >> is important to have our eyes wide open. as we discussed previously, in

terms of the ordinance, issues can be addressed proactively in determining what would be reviewed going forward in making sure the policy objectives and making sure there is flexibility to allow for that. supervisor wiener: what would you anticipate how they would have jurisdiction over other than the buildings in the park? what kinds of changes? >> be a step would be determined

by the features developed. the landscape area, they have talked about every blade of grass being restricted. >> outside of the buildings, what would your take thbe? >> i think the cultural landscape attributes are important. supervisor wiener: can you explain what you mean? >> that is a list of features. >> the controversy is a good example. the natural character has been called out in the master plan for protection. being identified as significant is what prompted the need for

an environmental impact report to make sure that those are maintained with appropriate ballots going forward. supervisor wiener: the project you are referring to, in addition to the eir, which is currently occurring or will come before us at some point, under the district you are envisioning, the hpc would have to approve the change? >> in terms of crafting the designation ordinance, there are opportunities to define the level of review. but yes, i think there would be a role in reviewing the project. hopefully it will come early in the design process is that any potential impacts can be addressed.

at the tail end of the process, which i think is a much more severe expensive approach than need be. >> any aspects outside of buildings in your view would be subject to hpc review or approval? >> none that come to mind specifically. i would refer -- defer to the experts. some of the natural aspects do not date back to the period of significance. it is difficult for me to speculate what those elements would be. the ocean to my colleagues have any questions? we're going to move into public comment. the number of comment cards has

have decreased significantly. public comment will be limited to what it. i will be flexible. if you are in the middle of the thought, will be flexible about that. the number of cards and has significantly increased from when the hearing began. so i am going to call out a number of names. if you could line up going down the middle, i apologize of advance the names of going to butchered. i am sure there will be quite a few we will start with commissioner. >[reading names]

>> thank you, supervisors. it is a pleasure to be speaking with you today. i am currently the president of the historic preservation commission. you have a letter in your packet that i will not read because of the limitation of time have imposed on us. i would like to speak to a couple of the issues that are most important to your discussion today. which i believe centers around

the issue of the role of the historic preservation commission. i think you have heard testimony that the historic preservation commission since its inception has worked diligently to work with the community. i have heard as you have heard of issues that may have been issues for particular departments or agencies of the city, i think you should be aware that those issues brought before the historic preservation commission for ones that were concerns to the community. he did not go out and seek fees as issues that need to be addressed. there also provided as informational hearings to us. let me just say that of the projects and the items that we have heard over the last couple of years, we have indicated a 99% approval rate.

it says that we speak very clearly and very concisely about balancing the issues associated with the work that our commission does. let me just say that we believe that historic preservation has a very important place. the notion that historic resources survey in historic designations provide not only the incentive of recognition and economic benefit to this community -- >> commissioner -- >> i would just say that it is incredibly important that it be taken up in your discussion. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

among the historic preservation commission, but i am speaking for myself. as a result of of almost a decade's long planning effort, the big areas, they resulted in the east plan, the mission plan, and the market octavia plan that was adopted by the board of supervisors, they could balance between development and historic preservation. and specifically, a policy of the summit plan says that it is to pursue formal designation of the east summit historic and cultural resource as appropriate. 8.2 of the adopted missionary plan to pursue formal designation of the historic cultural resources as appropriate, policy 3.2 0.10 of

the adopt the octavia plan calls for support of the future preservation efforts included the designation of historic landmarks throughout the plan. these policies were adopted by the board of supervisors after many years of planning. i asked you to uphold these plans and the balance that is already in them. >> have a member of the city hall preservation advisory commission where i hold the building preservation seats. it came into its own in the 1960's. it was formed by issues of the time. there was a lot of discussion in the preservation community. to look at things, you will find discussions in the journal for preservation. people write books and so forth.

i am concerned about the tension between sustainability in historic preservation. the planning director has been talking about holding its reservations of that for the last nine months earlier and has been unable to get any support to do that. having a day or longer session where we get people from out of san francisco and really get into the issues would be a very healthy thing. i commend the supervisor and his colleagues for bringing this issue out of the shadows and hopefully it will remain that way for some time. >> think you. at a time when the library is having to cut back services and

a lot of other programs, it will give them more power. has anybody even added up the money it costs and the city? they have free legal aid, but the city did not. with all the stuff that went on to north beach library, it would be interesting to find out how much it costs the city. there is another thing that is really important, too. the compromise with the historic people so that instead of some knives hidden electrical thing, you can just get off of a bus anywhere, who have these extra things you have to get off. they have to be on top. i was on one of those buses and there wasn't a ramp. the police cleared out of this huge area of people because it was so dangerous.

nobody got me off that bus. the police told me i should be patient because they were busy. supervisor wiener: thank you. when you hear the very soft bell, it means you have 30 seconds left. the deafening bell means time is up. speaking directly into the microphone. >> i have prepared remarks, this is clear that the planning department is tone deaf and complicity with the more regionalization of resources in the city that are so significant that the state has told us to bypass the city in our context. and it has impact on tourism.

the of the tourism dollars. how what to call for some of the african american property owners have tried have the properties preserved in have had all kinds of roadblocks from the city -- the city staff. some of them are here. supervisor wiener: if you submit a card, we will call you and you will be able to speak. >> i have been here since 1972, and the remember buildings that preserve or restore, we would be

carrying off the gingerbread instead of carrying wood shingles. it was a disaster. i remember when they tore off the facade had put something else on top of it. it was really terrible. now we have the support of preservation. have seen wonderful buildings around the world. the environmental review takes three to six months. a lot with that long. it is one purchase. we have to get a survey done. >> i will be talking at turbo

speed. i am interested in trying to figure out how a balanced policy such as the transit rich areas, transit oriented development, priority development. oriented areas and all the other policies that are going through city hall right now on land use. what i see here is a dilemma that can't be resolved in this room overnight. i don't see process flows from normal citizens whether or not they are planning. the supervisor convene this meeting and i don't think there is a process flow. our point is pretty good and i don't see that today. how would like to see process flow. i have not seen as much as i would have liked. there are plans in place and we're going through surveys del. but also in the bayview district. that is another one.

>> i have a homeowner in the valley of san francisco. i am here to express my extreme displeasure. i was required to higre an outside architect to produce a report. the city charged me to have the city review it. architect's cost was approximately $3,000. it could of god to seismic reinforcement, building features, or other things. the city has chosen the most cumbersome, most expensive, and most time-consuming process that

can be imagined. the result of it is that it discourages any type of increase to residential housing. >> i have a field services director helen partnership with the preservation. i worked with the organization have a local government streamlining and demanding ordnances for educating of the benefits of historic preservation. organizations have existed in california for the distinct purpose of preserving the history of california and the resources to reflect the history. the goal of historic preservation like many other planning tools is not about stopping that change. it is about managing the change.

it is about the sense of community pride, for future generations to enjoy. >> it will have clear processes and the incentives [chime] thank you. >> my name is sarah haden, i've worked in construction where i currently live in district 8. i like to emphasize historic preservation or sustainability. it is about maintaining in utilizing our existing resources. san francisco is at the forefront of the trends. that includes the recycling o