proposal, and i met with the members -- and i have been very collaborative with trying to come up with items that people can live with. formally balloting the property owners to gauge support. we want to know if there is support for the district. this will encourage the community to buy in, and the most successful kind of outreach. this would encourage property owners to vote or be surveyed and this would be non-binding. there has been some misinformation, that i am proposing that they have to vote to form a district. this is not true. this has nothing to do with the creation of the district. i am proposing that we have a

robust outreach process and a lot of people don't realize their homes are being surveyed, or the impact in terms of doing work on their house. we have to make certain that people understand. no. 3 is having the ability for people to own homes in the historic district, to be able to stay in that district. the last thing we should be doing is gentrifying the historic district. there are many property owners, who are unemployed and lower- income, who were on the fixed- income and retired. they may have deserted the property many years ago and could never afford the property today. they are staying in their homes by the skin of their teeth. the last thing you should say to someone is, you have a choice of either paying for what can be

expensive treatment for maintaining your homes, or proposing the economic hardship, the system where people can apply to receive the hardship, if they have a significant hardship and work with planning staff -- and this is still consistent with the historic integrity of the district. not advocating letting anyone do whatever they want, they would work with planning staff to find an alternative, with affordable housing developments, to take advantage of the economic hardship. i will know that there is an error, addressing article 11. this is for the affordable housing projects. this should be identical and receives review.

this is requiring that when you form a historic district, you have to have a finding, with the regional requirement. this is for the future of the bay area. the sidewalks and the pedestrian safety improvements -- they are not part of the district unless they are called out, and we have a pedestrian safety project that has been held up because of the belief that this touches a historic district. and they must make the sidewalk more wide, and this should not be happening. and in terms of the secretary of the interiors standards, directing the planning commission to work together -- coming up with guidelines and interpretations of those standards, not to disregard the standards but to have

guidelines, just like the trust has done. this does not include the locality with the interpretations -- they do not require compliance with the secretary of interior standards, and the presumption that if you comply, you are exempt. in addition, articles 10 and 11 correctly -- they say nothing about the secretary of the interior. these articles have never required compliance. we have this through policy. these items have been overstated. i want i want to address a letter that

the commission received from the state historic office and i understand someone is here, and i was very, frankly, surprised to see this letter and honestly, it is troubling to me that this letter would suggest with no real basis that these amendments would somehow jeopardize the city's certified local government status. we have worked closely with the city attorney and planning and checked in with the shipo about this and made very clear that staff and the planning commission made the recommendations, we should send over theing the shipo for the letter's comments and the letter reads like an advocacy piece instead of a balanced frese a government regulatory agency and contains significant factual errors if letter does no more than express policy agreements with some of the amendments. they are absolutely entitled to

the opinion about these and i welcome those opinions. but to convert those opinions into a suggestion that we could lose our s.l.g. is a status in my mind goes too far. the letter criticizes the process and the order in which the h.p.c. and the planning commission have heard certain things. i don't know why the shipo would be concerned about whether planning hears it first or the h.p.c. hears it first. the leter is also one sided. it specifically states that the shipo consulted with mr. burrow from heritage who i respect very much but is opposed to the amendment and reviewed the executive summary of the legislation without reviewing the legislation itself. but nevertheless, they said that legislation it was unreviewed could jeopardize the c.l.g. status. did not talk to planning staff before sending the letter as i understand it. the shipo's concerns and there

are a few that i think are very unfounded. first of all, articles 10 and 11 and to suggest that the rules used to implement them for something obligated to create somehow c.l.g. status doesn't make sense. the shipo also suggests there are things i am proposing that could endanger c.l.g. status and under the current article, i that could cause danger to the status. i am trying to initiate a process for a district creation. that 66% has been in article 10 and 11 for decade. h.p.c. recommends removing.

i am recommending putting it back in. the shipo is suggesting putting that back in, it's currently there and been there for decades that that would cause us to lose the c.l.g. status. my question is, is that stating that our c.l.g. status has been invalid for decades? >> article 10 and 11 has never mentioned the standards but if articles 10 and 11 don't state that you have to comply with the standard, that could lose the c.l.g. status. again, it's never done that before, but have we had the faulty c.l.g. status for decades? any office and planning staff have made clear that we will be presenting and working with the shipo on the planning commission. we are going to include it and welcome the feedback especially about c.l.g. status because i will not allow us to use our c.l.g. status that is extremely important for a lot of projects with federal funds and i look

forward to working on this. thank you, again. i am happy to answer any questions either now and and the heritage and the h.p.c. and answer any questions anyone may have. president olague: we will have our commissioners ask you commission in the event that you may have to leave again. the public comment looks lengthy. >> i'll stay as long as i can. president olague: supervisor antonini? antoni commissioner antonini: thank you for addressing us on this issue and i had questioned on the third one on the hardship and who would be the interpreter of the integrity of the restoration

and you mentioned substitute material and i know we have used those successfully where seismically some of the gargo e gargoyles or structures at the tops of build fgs they were in the original material were a hazard and we have replaced them with materials that are lighter and would be safe in a seismic event. but i guess i am concerned because i would hope we're able to keep the appearance and the facades that look as if they are original and perhaps we're able to do something with tax credits or other ways to make it more affordable for existing residents as well as purveyors of affordable housing. >> that is a very valid point, and so there are two things. first n coming up with this language, i worked very closely with preservation planning staff on and i believe that staff actually in response to my proposal proposed a language that i accepted. we have intentionally referred

to the planning code section that talks about economic hardship and intentionally made sure the department has the discretion to work with people on this. i absolutely want to make sure that any alternative material is going to be consistent sand going to be visually a good thing for the district. and so i imagine planning staff would put out some sort of guidance and you did bring up -- i want to note you brought up the tax issues and specifically the mills act being first and foremost. i want to let you know that even though mr. buhler and i have our share of disagreements, one thing we both agree on is that we need to have more mills act contracts in the city and give people real incentive. right now it is a bit elusive in san francisco. he has experience in l.a. which has been succecessful in planni

those acts and i am convening a working group for anyone who wants to participate to talk about how to get a more robust mills act in san francisco. commissioner antonini: thank you. president olague: i just wanted to, i guess, thank you for including language that at least starts to ask the question regarding economic hardship. that's something i have been concerned about. i don't believe there are many historic districts in san francisco. the historic district that comes to mind is liberty hill. that's a beautiful district, but i do have concern sometime that it is, i believe, the less diverse of the districts in the mission area. and one of the general plan priority principles has always been that we encourage a

diversity and i believe economically and also there are just a lot of thing here in the general plan that a diverse economic base be maintained by protecting the industrial and service sectors from displacement is a little bit different and that future opportunities for resident employment and ownership be enhanced. and it also says that the city's supply of affordable housing be preserved and enhanced. and that existing housing and neighborhood character be conserved and protected in order to preserve the ul churl and economic -- the cultural and economic diversity of the neighborhood. i think that is a master plan consistency of the section 101 of the general plan. and i think there we as a city make a commitment to presevening some kind of cultural and economic diversity in the neighborhood. i think that it's important when we're looking at intensive fine historic preservation and some

of the rules that governor it that we ask questions about economic hardship, that we ask questions about the balloting of property owners which someone at another hearing, i believe, asked that tenants might be included. i think that's something that maybe we can discuss at some point. maybe h.p.c. will discuss it. certainly open to that thought and be good to include ten nanlts in that -- to include tenants in that. also, the fact that historically historic preservation hasn't always been, i guess -- i think we're starting to see a lot in san francisco which i am kind of encouraged by when we discuss japan town we talked about the creation of cultural districts and then we talked about in the western soma plan we talked

about the creation possibly of an lgbt, like a leather district and we talked about the filipino district in the soma. so those are issues, of course, that have to do with issues outside of the physical and i think that that's why i am encouraged by some of the amendments that you have recommended because i think it goes a little bit beyond just prioritizing historic preservation that by accompanying other priority issues in the general plan. so i think that to the extent that we can look at and continue to discuss, i have had discussions also with commissioner martinez and others how we continue to look to

integrate the historic preservation than it has in the past and is a real positive direction. i appreciate a lot of the recommendations that have to do with finding consistency with the general plan and talk about economic hardship and looking at how to make affordable housing pencilled out in the districts. one of the concerns i had is when we were discussing eastern neighborhoods, we talked about aq rehab, acquisition rehab, and some of that type of housing would not be necessarily federally funded and might step outside some of those issues. but again, how we continue to also respect that need, i think, is important. >> in terms of tenants in the balloting, i am open to that

discussion. we have several h.p.c. commissioners here and request that the h.p.c. provide feedback on that because i am curious to know what others think. i am glad you brought up liberty hill. we had real estate cent situation there -- we had a recent situation there where there were two women raising children in liberty hill came to me almost in tears during my office hours and they are working class and own a home there but they had some neighbors who thought that they weren't doing a good enough job keeping things up and they were trying to put an internal addition that didn't increase the envelope to raise their kids there. and they were getting really tormented to the point where they tried to put up a garbage enclosure to satisfy their neighbors in terms of keeping everything tidy. and some of the neighbors went to the h.p.c. to suggest they would need a certificate of appropriateness to put up a garbage enclosure.

the h.p.c. in its wisdom declined to go there. and in liberty hill it is a real issue and that i am glad you brought up acquisition rehab and especially in the mission where you don't have some of the best sights and for acquiring the properties and rehabbing hem there are affordable housing and two, three, four unit buildings and we want to make it as affordable as possible and i will say if you talk to affordable housing developers sometimes off the record, they don't want to get necessarily involved in this fight. there are concerns about impacts on their projects because those are projects not flush with money and that small cost increases can cause a problem not to pencil out. >> i know there has been times when we heard community centers

say that the issue of the materials being used there and the amount that the project has and people are saying if they pencil it in, and it can all work and maybe it can all work and hopefully it will. but i still think that some of the hardships issues have to be looked at. commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i want to thank supervisor wiener for being here and adding a three dimensional presence to the issues you are raising. i started at the planning commission when there was only historic preservation committee and there were many, many times were their advice and their ability to comment and guide us was missing. i am glad there is historic preservation commission. and i am glad that you will stand in the dialogue to work out the differences with them

which are important but there needs to be common ground of how to move forward. i started practicing in the 70's and with no backbone to historic preservation, we have lost an important amount of buildings under the perview that new is better and new makes more money. that is not quite true and i think the city is at a point of maturity to weave together old and new and under the right us a pis auspices and the right measure creates how we move into the future. i don't want to add to green and sustainable, etc., but we are at a critical juncture where we can combine the two and i wanted to thank you for being in the dialogue and finding a way to recognize things in a manner that we constructively can move forward. >> thank you, commissioner. >> commissioner sugaya? >> i am encouraged and we did

receive a copy of a leter from h.p.c. to yourself in which they are setting forth the desire to talk about the various amendment and i am encouraged that will move ahead. >> i welcome that. and it is no deeper than in favor of a lot of what you have proposeed. but a lot of it is okay, too. and i think that is what the h.p.c. would like to engage in conversation with. >> just a couple of things since commissioner moore mentioned and in with the permits and and historically used and whatnot. and we should extend the

argument to not requiring green energy saving. >> what was that? >> exempt them from using energy saving windows and insulation and how that is triggered. if there are triggers to that and i do know there are triggers with a certain amount of rehab that seismic comes into play. and as far as the balloting and to consider it for the area pla plans. and the eastern neighborhoods and market octavia and maybe we should propose to do it in japan town.

and that is something if we're thinking about doing one type of planning and as far as surveys, the surveys at times i think i see them as a planner and part of the data collection effort. and what kind of properties there are and the uses there are that all goes into the database from which the plan emerges and from that standpoint, i am not talking about independent surveys and informing the public and the planning staff and the commission that is a fairly use

ful tools. >> thank you for acknowledging something at the beginning that you don't support and there have been a lot of debates and you are either on this side and with the emails and letters and that it's just no, no, no. and i don't think that's productive and in terms of balloting, i think there is a significant distinction between historic district and the area plan and the historic districts are much, much smaller than the area plan, but in contrast to the rezoning and immediate and significant impacts on the ability to make a lot of changes to your home and not talking about upzoning or curb cuts that

you have before you as a standard for replacing your win dose and this standard for your roof and now it's that standard. i think there is a different impact on property owners of historic districts than the area plan, although i understand your point. and with surveys, i agree, they are valuable data. but in terms of the reality of how surveys are used in san francisco, once an area is surveyed, it becomes sort of a quasi district. and sometimes i have heard planning staff flip and refer to them as districts even though they are survey areas. properties are treated in a different way once they are surveyed and that is why i am in favor of robust outreach. commissioner sugaya: if i might, per the chair, i don't have a problem with that. i think, on the other hand, as you know under ceqa if there are

proposed projects if there is a survey or not t planning staff is asking for historic information especially if they are 45 years or older. >> right. president olague: and again, i just wanted to read here the subsection would apply to permits within historic districts and designated historic districts and allow exception for certain requirements when the conformance would create a significant hardship and area plan or any other issue that comes before us, that is always an issue that i feel very concerned about. so naturally i will always raise that issue. and it is not to disrespect or say that historic preservation isn't important, but any time any issue is raised here and i think no one would disagree sitting with me on this commission, i am always going to look at how well the economic

diversity of the city be p preserved. who is going to live here and might they be affected by certain things inadvertently? and i think there is ways to work with the historic preservation piece that could help increase the diversity but historically that is not the case and there are plenty of evidence to show that there is new ground to hit in san francisco with people serving on the commission who are also very favor to believe that issue -- who are favor to believe that issue. again, i am always going to ask that question and one of the reasons it first came to my attention and when the first generation of the amendments was made, there was some proposed language that would have severely limited the percentage of what could be demolished

within the interior of not of a resource but of a contributing resource so that led some people to have concerns about that change because that could have had certain limitations on what could or could not have happened in terms of certain affordable housing projects in certain areas like the tenderloin and others. i think that i don't think there's anything wrong in asking the question about how do we preserve diversity economically in the population and in the city. and i think that's directly related to it. so again, i don't know what the outcome will be. h.p.c. will have time to look at it and we'll hear from the public a lot. when i look at fox plaza, too bad there wasn't an h.p.c. at the time. >> i agree. president olague: certainly not opposed to the issue but i want to make sure that certain populations aren'ted adversely

impacted by this. commissioner miguel? commissioner miguel: yes, thank you very much for coming and i thank you for all the work you and your staff have done on this so far and the interactions you have had with all sides in the city and there's always more than two. some of the things i am concerned with is what i call adaptive reuse that goes to interiors and from the letters and emails i get and that i receive and i am assuming that this goes to your staff as well. i am getting a lot of support or not support with no reasoning or details behind them and that leaves me together with the several meetings i had and i have