unfortunately stiement san francisco does a good job of building and a poor job of maintaining. it is important for things that we have with our classic buildings and classic works of art that they be maintained and that may be a perfectly good use of those funds. the specific use of a specific nonprofit to utilize the funds and a little bit of caution on that. we have to have a lot of oversight to make sure it's certainly not that it isn't a very beneficial use putting an elevator in for accessibility and various other things and we are not getting art produced out of the funds. we're getting some other things. and that would have to be a supervisory to make sure it is exactly what we are, and the art commission review, again, that is something that would be up to the art commission i think as to how do they feel about that. i think there should be some review to the art and oz to the appropriateness. and i have certainly, this is not what' before us today but i

would certainly like to see more classic art brought forward in areas where the format is all, for example, the civic center and if something were to be produced in the quadraangle between city hall and the other buildings, and i would hope it would be something that fits in with the development of architectural style and the same with a lot of the areas with daniel burnham-inspired buildings in the downtown area and so while i don't think we need to have any kind of policing of what art is going in, i think certainly we haven't seen too much of that in the last few years and certainly must have leaders that are worthy of having statues in their honor. now days we don't seem to do that. but just a thought. president olague: commissioner

miguel? commissioner miguel: i appreciate the comments from the mayor and supervisor's office. and i am going to move for the recommendation with the modifications done by the department and add on that the recommendation that the legislation seriously consider expanding this citywide in total. i realize it's going to take a touch more time and the developers i have been in touch with have considering some of the small details been very affirmative actually and i think we heard that earlier today as well. and so i don't think there would be a great problem with it. and that would be the motion. >> second. olague r commissioner moore.

commissioner moore: i want to thank ms. lieberman and mr. williams for being a living testimony to the success of the work in the early 80's. and couldn't be a better presentation than those people who actively thought it out and thought about it and see it success. i come from professional practice that created some of the buildings and discussed much of the art including the developer who is really made this happen. and it's realfully that area where my confidence is that it would work to fix that part of it. and there is maturity and there is local, international experience and public spaces but also in working with artists who are able to rise to the challenge and meet iing a large

kind of art scene that has created successful development in the district. and to that be expanded and would be wonderful. and will be an exhilarating idea as the city is growing and maturing and with the good planings and buildings with the select addition of art could add an additional component to create a thread throughout the city. is this a good time to talk about that? there is never any good time when you are asking for additional percentages with more allocating of funds in the building process that has become not only longer and more complicated but right now is pretty much under the shadow of a whole bunch of other constraints. the thing i am concerned about

and i am always cautious of is certainly creating another bureaucracy and another form of governance to make this process more complicated and i would say no. and the process that we have, can it be expanded? yes. do we need additional oversight? i think the oversight we have is quite mature and has through the many organizations and arts organizations and been matured and been modified enough that i am not really interested in supporting a specific institutionalizing of the art commission's doing the oversight or the interviewing, etc., but let it evolve that if the arts commission participate, there is always has and not any specific more formalized role than what is currently already doing and

that is a mature and good discussion. and i agree with the modifications of the mayor's office and the supervisor issues and ak jment of the areas that can be pushed down and some of the -- and probably my own ability to listen after four hours of sitting here, some of the 1a, 2a, 3a, et, and because there was no specific item of what that entails and i can't read that fast to pay attention to hear you speaking, aam not quite sure what i am i proving. and i would like to see a preconditional draft to what we are approving and see it right into the record that we all understand what we're supporting. i am sure it is a good intent and hopefully straddles the diversion comprise which are being made and moved a little bit fast for my taste. >> it is there in the document.

commissioner moore: i can't read while i am listening. commissioner borden: i can -- >> i can summarize the recommendations on page seven of the executive summary and some in the resolution and if it is easier, i will talk through the executive summary. and page seven, number one, maintain the downtown gallery associated with buildings that have the significant privately owned public spaces. number 1a, maintain the existing requirement for on site art for nonresidential buildings with the open spaces over 3,000 square feet located on the ground floor. below that size or on the roof tops are not required to provide the public art. 1 bill clintons, allow the other

projects to provide onsite art and that would be the developer's choice. 1c for large projects over $1 million art requirement and require the first $1 million be provided on site and 1d, this is the one that was not agreed to by the legislative sponsors but is part of the motion by commissioner miguel. the commission would then request that the board require this universally to noncommercial uses and if they are in other commercial districts not just the c3. the up withes mentioned are the soma mixed use and eastern neighborhood districts and not mentioned but always discussed by staff was the downtown residential and rincon district so if we could put that into the

motion would be great. and on page eight allow more flexibility in how the funds are spent and provided that the expenditures are decided through the public process with the arts commission and 2a, instead of providing the option that prescribes the certain on site or the payment to the fund and the department and the commission suggest that the requirement for all residential uses be deivied up in either amount to put on the fund. and if the nonresidential requirement is in place, there is no need for fiscal limits. and the ordinance has a lot of detailses about how it is spent in certain ways and the commission recommendation would be as long as it goes through the public process, that is good enough for us. 2c, remove the proposed 5% discount with on site and pay into the fund. and to remove the art work

requirement and four, consider adding alternative sources for public funding administered by the art commission and then commissioner miguel said al add ed the recommendation and not part of four but part of the motion is that the legislators should consider expanding this proposal citywide. president olague: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: the only question i would ask is we are not for a longer term study recommending that large-scale residential over a certain size should be considered at some point to also contribute? >> yes, we are. commissioner moore: okay. i didn't quite hear that. president olague: and that part is not in the recommendation,

but there was a recommendation so not only nonprez denial projects but also residential projects -- is that part of the motion? that part will be added. commissioner moore: and i think it needs to be specified and cannot be every residential project. >> no, the size requirement. >> it is currentfully there. president olague: and i believe he wanted to put in a request to the board to put off hearing this at the land use so there is more time to do additional outreach and -- commissioner miguel: and i support that. president olague: i think we're ready. secretary avery: commissioners, the motion before you is for approval of staff's recommendation 1, 2, 3, and 4

with the inclusion you recommend the legislators consider expanding the proposal citywide and the size requirement is included and that the land use committee postpone their consideration to allow more outreach. >> one slight amendment to that, i believe the commission wanted 25,000 square foot size to apply to residential and nonresidential projects both. >> okay. as ms. rodgers has reiterated -- please exexcuse me. on that motion, commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: aye. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner fong. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner miguel. >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya. >> aye. president olague: and we are going to take half an hour break because we will have to leave the building to get lunch and come back. so we need the time. secretary avery: commission is taking a 30-minute break.

>> the planning commission is back in session. i would like to remind all of us to remember to turn off a self phones and electronic devices. commissioners, we are now on item 10. planning code controls for historic preservation, including but not limited to articles 10 and 11. >> i want to remind you we have been working on this for quite some time with stuff of the historic preservation commission. just to remind us all, this started as part of a package of

cleanup amendments to years ago we proposed with the code. articles 10 and 11 were added to that. because of the ongoing discussion, we recommended and the commission agreed that the rest of the cleanup package proceed to the board. the board has approved those other amendments. what you will hear today from sophie is the package of recommended changes to the articles that the historic preservation commission have suggested. i wanted to just let you know that they're often so many versions of articles 10 and 11 of the last couple of years that it is too confusing and very cumbersome to try to compare them all. our recommendation here is just to look at it fresh and look at the recommendations the historic preservation commission is making that are changes from the existing article, and to focus

on that. so he will present the key issues that came out of that discussion rather than go every page, which could take as days. she will be highlighting the key issues. written trying to compare those to previous recommendations you have made or the or part of an original ordinance, our recommendation is to look at this all new and compare it to the existing code. with that, i will let sophie do the hard work. commissioner sugaya: article 10, as i understand, has been drawn by the historical preservation commission. this has been voted on, or whatever appropriate action was taken. my understanding is that article 11 has not reached the same recommendation. at some point in the future,

pending their hearing process, will we have another informational hearing? president olague: that is an action item. but once they have reviewed supervisor weiner's legislation and weighed in on this, this will make their final recommendations. it is going to happen in that sequence. commissioner sugaya: is our understanding that the memos that have gone to the hpc and article 11 will come back at the same time? president olague: i assume so. commissioner moore: that is the question i meant to ask. i think it has been answered. president olague: basically, after the hpc has final recommendations regarding article 10 and 11 and

supervisor weiner's legislation, after that has all gone through, we will hear it. i think that is clear enough. >> good afternoon, members of the commission. the item before you today is an informational aid for discussion. it does not require action. it is a review of the department-sponsored amendment to articles 10 and 11, as drafted by the historic preservation commission and continuing through last week's hearing. i have just not distributed to you and members of the public a signed copy of the draft ordinance for article 10 that reflects changes made at last week's hearing. as commissioner sugaya pointed out, the hpc has not yet acted on article 11 or the proposed

amendments by the supervisor. this draft ordinance i just distributed to was not included in your pockets. you did not receive it until today. the ordinance you received in your pockets -- packets does not reflect the most current changes. i would like to acknowledge that the historic preservation commission president is here, as well as the legislative aide for supervisor winer. i will turn -- weiner. i'll turn the presentation over to them and then return with some housekeeping items. as a highlight components of where the public hearings have focused, you may wish to consider today specifically review of applications, scheduling and notice, appeals, and applicability. in addition, there are four

memos in which the supervisor has suggested amendments to articles 10 and 11. those were included in your packet. there are also memos from the staff and the public in response. finally, there are fee waivers for certificates of appropriateness. i will turn it over to president chase and ms. gillette and will then return to outline the process of moving forward. thank you. >> i think it is still afternoon. good afternoon, president olague, planning commissioners. thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today as you review the articles of the planning code. i am here, with another commissioner. commissioner john also indicated he would be here, but has been

called away because of business. we are here to support the measures that we have spent a year working on very diligently. i just want to say to you that our review methodology process has been to have an open discussion with the director of planning, the members of the planning department's staff, so the hayward, tim fry, and the city deputy attorney. most importantly, the public participated in the process. for nearly a year, we have reviewed comments. they have offered substantive language changes valuable to the ordinance proposal before you today. representatives of san francisco architectural heritage, spur

staff, private property owners, and neighborhood groups have spoken in favor and opposition to various changes. in this process, we have sought to be objective, balanced, and consistent in both our language and demeanor addressing the issues that are now before you. the hpc's proposed changes reflect three areas, in my opinion. they are conforming language printing articles 10 and 11 into conformance with the charter amendment passed by the passage of prop. 8 in 2008, -- proposition j in 2008, seeking consistency with other parts of the planning code, and specifically review of historic resources and the public process in san francisco. thirdly, changes provide

consistency across articles 10 and 11. the were a number of inconsistencies which we believe we have rectified in this effort. supervisors got -- supervisor weiner has proposed other changes to our to call 11 which will take up, but were unable to get to to provide today. parenthetically, the issue around article 11 -- we have voted on two occasions now. we have voted an intent to pass the ordinance and forward it on to you. we have just been waiting this last time for the verification as to form from the deputy city attorney. we will take that up on november 2. we would be pleased to report to the planning commission on the results of our discussions from november to, and recommendations

when you take that up at the appropriate time. we are here to provide the historic preservation commission perspective, if you should need that, as outlined in the staff report and recommendations, should you wish as you proceed tonight. again, thank you for this opportunity. president olague: thank you. >> president and commissioners, thank you for this opportunity. i am one of the legislative aides to commissioner weiner. he asked that i read an informational memo for today into the record. commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to address you on the revision to articles 10 and 11 that you are considering. this legislation provides an opportunity to update historic preservation rules and it sure

they fit our changing city. our role should be to erase -- to preserve what is best of our past but to have a process that is flexible. the supervisor is putting in number of amendments to the articles on the historic preservation commission has forwarded to you or will forward to you. the supervisor has discussed these amendments with planning department staff. he has modified them in response to valuable feedback from staff. he also proposed the amendment to the hpc. he asks you to consider them and perhaps recommend them. a more detailed memo which fall, will follow will track the precise language of the memos as that are approved, according to form. there is a summary of the most significant. and economic hardship opt out. owning property, can increase

costs and administrative hurdles in a historic district. being a property owner does not mean one is wealthy. many are on fixed incomes, are unemployed, or do not have significant resources. property in a historic district should not be limited to those with resources. we need to make sure that they are not gentrified and affordable housing is possible. the supervisor proposes a limited economic hardship opt out so that people of modest means can make changes to their property without incurring significant cost of making changes consistent with historic preservation standards. in response, the planning department's staff proposed a form of economic hardship to opt out that the supervisor believes is on the right path. ensuring strong outreach and support for property owners before a historic district is created is important, because of

the significant restrictions on one's property when it is in a historic district. it is important that operators have a bye in before a district is credit. -- buy-in. there should be an advisory vote, with the majority of property users voting. any supervisor, would pay close attention to the vote. this will insure our reach to end engagement of property owners, and provide a gauge of the support for the proposed district. some have expressed the concern about balloting around zoning. however, placing one's home in a historic district leads to immediate restrictions on what a property owner can do to his or her property. historic districts have a direct impact on the details of a person's home.

balancing -- balloting is fair. the supervisor initially proposed that the balloting be more binding, but after consulting with staff agreed to make it less binding. third, the current draft of article 10 states that the department and property owners or members of the public may request a designation. currently, the planning code requires that when property owners applied for application, it must be subscribed by or on behalf of at least 66% of property owners in the proposed district. the supervisor would like to maintain this requirement that property owners have an application that has been subscribed to by at least 66% of property owners in the proposed

district. the first step toward creating a historic district is to survey the area. surveys are important, but also have an impact on people's properties. people need to know when their neighborhoods are being surveyed, and what the significance is. the supervisor initially proposed board approval to commence the survey, but has since accepted a counterproposal which would greatly increase our outrage when surveys are occurring. as to the specific preservation standards, the planning department relies on the secretary of the interior pepys standards for changes to a historic building. it also uses this as a tool to determine effects on resources for ceqa purposes. for projects that comply, the standards are typically exempt from ceqa review. these standards are generic across the country, irrespective

of the location or size. however, in an urban center like san francisco, with our zoning and history, we should not use a one size fits all set of standards. as a result, the supervisor proposes the department prepare san francisco standards, following an examination of the planning code and consideration by the hpc. the department strongly supports this proposal, and it makes a lot of sense. finally, limiting to portions of the building visible from the public right of way. phillies have portions visible from the street and other portions that are not visible. property owners should have more flexibility for and less administrative review of the parts of their homes that are not visible from the public right of way or public space. there are ady