to do an eir. if the work you're doing on a historic resource does not interfere with the historic character of the building -- it is only if there is an impact. supervisor weiner: in terms of when the staff determines whether an eir is needed -- >> our environmental review officer would determine what the level of review was. supervisor weiner: cannot be appealed to anybody? >> my understanding is it is not. supervisor weiner: has planning been doing any work or given any

thoughts about how to -- i think for a lot of people, doing historic preservation, reviewing whether it is an eir or additional historic review to determine whether it is a resource. the lot of people are ok with that. there is a sense that the costs can be high, and the amount of time it takes can be high. the you have any thoughts about how to make that process less expensive to people who are trying to do projects? i have heard of projects where because of the need to do some sort of review, it can tip the project from canceling out to no longer being economically -- from penciling out to not been economically viable, whether because of the cost or the time. i wonder what thought to have about how to make the process

less time consuming. >> sure. if i could just jump ahead to this slide, this shows the number of permits and entitlements the department processed last year. about 4200 entitlements. the vast majority did not require hiring. the overall majority met what we call our ceqa checklist. it is folks to work anything from ordinary maintenance and repair to fairly sizable dormers on a property. we determined this would not pose an impact on a historic resource. they do not require additional historical review. the 149 projects that did require that additional review or major alterations to a property. the potentially did not meet the checklist.

-- and a potentially did not meet a checklist. -- they potentially did not meet the checklist. we are required from ceqa to provide some written determination or evaluation for why we are okay or not ok with the project. to follow up, there were only eight focused eir's in the past year that related to direct impacts to historic resources. that does not regard larger processes -- larger projects. supervisor weiner: that was 8. >> that are currently in process or have been certified. supervisor weiner: do you know how many of those projects went away, because it made the project not work economically anymore? that seems like an important statistic. >> we can look into that. i am not sure we have that information. supervisor weiner: we talk to

people doing projects, and we get categorical exemptions appealed to the board of supervisors. it is a big deal, because a lot of times if you order an eir that is the end of the project. you never have an actual eir, but just the decision to impose one. supervisor cohen: my question still relates to serve a process. i would like you to articulate to me so that i can have a better understanding as to how vendors or a person new contract with -- how you go about selecting them. >> i cannot give you much more information other than we adhere to the city hiring program. i am not sure if the director -- >> as with any contract, which would be looking at the qualifications to meet

requirements of the state in filling out the historic survey. the state has very specific requirements and survey forms that require detailed information about the history of the area and architectural character. our selection of consultants is based on their expertise in those areas. supervisor cohen: when you make the selections of people, has there ever been a case where a surveyor or member of staff has had to recused themselves because they may have had a relationship with the company or a consultant that has been hired to survey? >> not that i am aware of. >> i cannot think of one. supervisor cohen: thank you. supervisor weiner: proceed. >> this is a slide that indicates the number of permits processed last year.

just to go back quickly, all discretionary actions within the city and county of san francisco require some level of ceqa review. we are different than many other jurisdictions in the state. there are many permits that are ministerial or as a right. those are stuck to turley exempt -- those are statutorially exempt from ceqa reviews. in the city and county of san francisco, none of those are exempt. this is the first steps. we can often resolve it during a historic resource service. the second step is whether there is an impact to the historic resource. i showed on the next slide the majority of permits were found not to have an impact on any historic resource.

i covered the policies legislated under the code, our requirements under ceqa, and i would like to address how preservation works with the policies under discussion by supervisor weiner. every project will have a number of policies that can be considered. it is on the planning code, the general plan, and what is included in the project. as mentioned, we work with applicants and always encourage them to meet with us early and as soon as possible in order to identify any potential issues, and any potential issues -- and potential serb -- any potential solutions to those issues that may arise. we do that understanding of

perspectives at the earliest stage possible. with parks, because larger projects that involve historic resources often take more time, we have been collaborating earlier and on a more regular basis. we understand the budget limitations, develop revenue- generating services, and develop historic resources under that management. for public libraries, we have a number of examples. this is provided upgrades to meet the needs of the community and retain their architectural character. the proposed improvements at the intersection of delores and market streets are still under public review. it is a great example of how all

policies can work together to achieve a solution that meets the goals of the project and the city priorities as reflected in the market and octavia plan. in regards to next steps, to answer visor's it -- to answer supervisor weiner's question, we are always looking for ways to simplify the ceqa process. we will expand this document to include other ceqa and environmental review. this is to minimize the number of reports required from outside consultants and the costs incurred as a result of that. our goal in working with the planning commission and the hpc is to transmit revised articles 10 and 11 to the board of supervisors for consideration. we are going to consider outreach efforts to engage the public. we continue to seek funding for additional survey work because

of the benefits, and providing more information, better service, and consistency in our decision making. this concludes my presentation. supervisor weiner: i have one final question, and unless my colleagues have questions, i will let you go. i think a lot of times when people think preservation, what comes to mind is housing stock and beautiful public structures like the golden gate bridge. but ceqa goes beyond that to other kinds of structures. old warehouses that are no longer being used. old automated uses -- automotive uses a long -- along van ness.

transit shelters. i believe the youth guidance center, a jail, effectively. the muni presidio yard. street lights. potentially groupings of plants or trees. can you comment generally on those sort of non-traditional -- outside the hiding -- outside the housing stock and the public monuments, and how we should think about that in terms of these other policy goals that we have? >> the california and national register criteria outlined criteria on what is eligible as

a historic resources at the state and federal level. those criteria are used by the city in determining what is a historic resource. the building, a site, an object, a collection of objects can qualify as a historic resource under the events criterion, the persons criterion, or the architecture criterium. there are a wide variety of different types of resources that can be classified under each of those criteria, and they do not have to be a of the highest style or the most remarkable in terms of the design, or the most significant person had to have resided there, or the most important event had to have occurred. it is all related to the broad patterns of our history and what is represented through the built environment. in terms of how those identification's come into play with other policies, as the

director mentioned, it is very different. we treat things very differently in terms of what is it a dandified under a survey and what is important for a city to regulate under the code. if you designate something under the code, it is sometimes a very rigorous process, and it is time consuming. but that is because the city has agreed to protect those buildings at all costs. if something is identified as a resource under a service, it is to just understand the light of the land. what is a historic resource and what is not. it helps us make more informed decisions and fully disclosed to the public about what the impacts are in regards to the project or any other decision. supervisor weiner: for each of the items i listed, and i'm sure there are many others, the definition is prod -- is broad. if you have a transit shelter

that were to be identified as a historic resources, and if muni then decided that in order to more effectively operate its transit system it wanted to either remove a transit shelter or make significant change to its bus storage yard, that could potentially trigger environmental review that could be an additional cost to muni from its scarce budget. >> supervisor, i think that is right. as tim said, there are technical criteria that are not just about architecture. it could be an event that happened there, a type of business that was located there. those are the hardest to explain. you look at a building and it might be a very plan warehouse. i think most of the project to

mention -- it is important to remember that the eir is done for a lot of other reasons. i think the real key we have to look at is when does a historic resource issue cross the line -- when is it the only finger crossing the line to a full- blown eir. it takes a lot of time. nobody in this room is going to deny that. that is a tough question. i would argue that the larger issue with respect to the ceqa process is how we conduct reviews of the eir. supervisor weiner: i agree. >> i think what is important today is to understand where it is the historic preservation issues are causing a project to go into a full-blown eir, as opposed to other issues like traffic, shadow, and all the other things we do with.

-- deal with. i would love to engage with you on a discussion of how the city could streamline the overall ceqa process. supervisor weiner: we are on the same page on that one. chairperson mar: i know we have a number of department representatives. supervisor weiner: we have several other departments. we give planning quite a bit of time because that is sort of the heart of our preservation process. i would ask the remaining departments, if possible, to make your remarks in more of the 325 minute range. that would be terrific. mr. schumacher from the mayor's office of housing. >> i am perfectly suited for three to five minutes. that is the limit of my knowledge on all topics. i guess i want to just jump off

where this started. i think the challenge and are facing is a complex process that is ceqa. in the case of federally funded affordable housing, what i came to talk about is how we need to understand our local decision making, whether it is in the creation of district or review, in light of how it interacts with those other processes. i think there are lots of things we could say about how effective inappropriate landmarking, surveying, and historic district creation is. but we also need to be cognizant of how it interacts with other systems, especially one that is clearly a very broken tool. one of the things i've heard coming up to this that i think will happen after this hearing is that we need to be cognizant and thoughtful -- if we know we are acting with a broken tool,

how do we work together to fix the tool? that is the real culprit, and not just this aspect. that would be my request as we get through this. wherever we go, i think we have a very broken tool in ceqa and we need a lot of us to help fix that. these other processes interact with it in a way that is highly and healthy. -- on healthy -- unhealthy. ceqa has metastasized to the point that it no longer accomplishes its purpose in any meaningful way. it works counter-productive lee in a significant number of cases. in some cases, it works as it should. but there are incredible forces pulling it apart. how does this relate to historic preservation?

the planning department has done a great job of explaining how it works broadly. i want to talk a little bit about affordable housing. i think most people would say there has been a long history of impressive preservation of historic resources that have been accomplished by and for affordable housing purposes. i see leon here from swords to plowshares, and one of the project i worked on was one of the oldest cottages in the city at 214 delores. if you don't like how it turned out, please don't tell me. tremendous work in the tenderloin and the mission with a single room occupancy hotels. there is a long list, i think, of obvious and impressive accomplishments of these two goals are working together. it is clear we do not have, in my mind, a conceptual problem with the concepts, but rather how does it work as it relates

to cynically to different issues. . -- we have a clear and reasonable process in terms of how things unfold. the best example is that we struggle to try to figure out ways to meet historic preservation standards as relates to window replacement when we are forced to look at hand-milling windows to match the standards of the day. we wish we could replace windows in a more energy-efficient way in places like the tenderloin and places where we have beautiful tesoro -- sro's that do not reflect efficiency standards and that are leaking. that is a relatively circumscribed issue. the one i think is worthy of getting our heads around now is the issue of districts.

not all affordable housing has federal funds in it. when it does, we have a programmatic agreement with the state preservation office. we are responsible under the environmental protection act to consult with them on any project within an area of potential effect. when it is a district, that district becomes the area of potential effect. it raises the standard significantly in terms of our review. if we are attaching an historic resource, that is an appropriate standard. but with ceqa, we have to be incredibly judicious about the number, size, and shape of districts. once we start landmarking or districting large swathes of land -- a look at an area under survey right now. that would have a very profound effect on the ability to move affordable housing forward if those were really to be the ships of future districts.

i know there will not include all those properties, but it is important we get the balance right, because it does have an effect in the way the supervisor laid out. it introduces a level of uncertainty and time into the process, whether it is ceqa or nipa, that may not be handled here, but often goes into the court. that doesn't mean these are inappropriate standards. i think it's very good to see there are 149 examples and only 8 tribbered by stark resources. i would just say, i think we would do well to think about its impact on affordable housing as we think about size and shape to the districts. again, i think there is a path forward here. i think if we're smart and don't

allow ourselves to go beyond the bourppedries of what's really laid out in terms of ordinance and statue and regulation, we have a chance. what always troubles me or troubles my colleagues is when i hear people asking for things to be brought into the process that clearly have not been legislated as much by the board or voters. that's what scares me about the survey conversation and other stuff because i think people's understanding is not as clear as it is expressed by the planning department today. >> thank you. are there any questions? thank you. we will next hear from the library. >> thank you, supervisors. the library department takes the stewardship of our public library building seriously and we have worked diligently to ensure our libraries are a.d.a.

accessible and technologically quipped to provided services in our neighborhoods and communities expect. this has been particularly evident with the branch celebrity improvement program, which has been the largest capital program in the history of the library. that includes 24 branches, 16 renovations and 8 new buildings. our branch library equipment building made a concerted effort to strike a balance the historic significances of our land mark building to ensure survival for the future. we're very proud of our architectural legacy of our branch libraries that range from centuries old ne-yo class ig buildings until carney's w.p.a. era and mid-century old buildings. our efforts resulted in the restoration of a number of our historic libraries and they received recognition for

architecture perfection from numerous bodies. to give you an example, we got a special achievement award for the branch library improvement program. governor's historic preservation award and california preservation foundation designer award were given to the valley branch library restoration and historic restoration award from the american publics worse association was also given to both -- to all three richmond senator milton marx branch, library and valley library. the library has invested in historic preservation, consultant studies related to many of our buildings. these services range in cost from $20,000 to $75,000 per project. additional design services associated with historic preservation also added to project costs. let me speak a little bit to the issue of our engagement with the historic preservation commission. when the historic preservation

commission formed in 2009, the library was in the busiest space of the branch library improvement program. eight projects were completing design and moving for the bid and award phase into construction and two final projects were in design. they related to the projects in nine separate meetings in 2009 and 2010. each meeting required additional staff time from the library department of public works and often the project architects to teaped the meeting. thrults in an average 12 to 15 hours of staff time conservatively for each meeting. on at least two occasions, the item was continued after the public and staff waited considerable time for public testimony. the library had followed every legal requirement for each project and worked closely with planning and the department of public works and it had been the practice of the branch improvement program to initiate landmark designation after the

completion of a given branch renovation. the h.p.c. discussed reversing this practice so they could weigh in on the approval of each respective project. however, because all approvals and permits had been acquired and these projects were either construction or beginning construction, the library was concerned any delay or changes to the project would incur additional cost and potentially jeopardize a program. while h.p.c. did not have legal authority to approve the project, the library nonetheless engaged with h.p.c. to address their concerns of several key projects and there are key projects we had dialogue with the h.p.c. we also engaged support from consultant turnbull and made some changes we could do without compromising the project. we are also pleased the h.p.c. agreed to put off their vote on designating these and other buildings as potential landmarks until renovations were

completed. additional engagement around historic preservation issues incurred additional library d.p.w. and architectural and staffing cost. and these did in fact result in delays to the park, ortega and merced branch capital projects. with regard to the north beach library project, the library commission was not in agreement with h.p.c.'s recommendation to landmark that library and it was compleezed the board of supervisors ultimately rejected the recommendation. the historic resource review was fully examined as part of the comprehensive environmental impact report for the north beach library joan dimaggio playground project. which was recently approved unanimously by the planning commission. i do appreciate the efforts of the historic preservation commission but as the administrator of the largest capital improvement program in san francisco's library history, i feel i also have the responsibility and obligation to

deliver library buildings on time and on budget to the public. another layer of reviews that require more meetings, costly presentations that delay the opening of our branch library is not a good use of taxpayer dollars. thank you. >> thank you very much. any questions? thank you. next we will hear from mr. ginsburg of the recreation and parks department. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm going to jump in where my colleagues left off and suggest that, that the launching point for the conversation really, truly is about balance. the san francisco recreation and park department oversees 220 parks and playgrounds in the city, including two properties outside the