and the secretary of the interior standards. i can address each of the topics positive and provide a summary of the changes proposed by the h.p.c. and/or by supervisor weiner and highlighted the differences on the slides in yellow and where the the department has made a recommendation in green but to date the planning commission has not diskuzed in details the proposed changes to article 10. and there is a difference in the way the h.p.c. and the planning commission typically reviews legislation. and i just want toing a knowledge that the h.p.c. has gone through line by line each ordinance, article 10 and 11. today my presentation is summary but it is a fairly detailed summary and you may wish to discuss each topic individually or you may want to cut me short. i want you to encourage me if this gets too detailed at any

point. the first topic is designation and this is article 10. and the existing article 10 allows five bodies to initiate landmark designation for individual properties and the planning commission and the arts commission and to issue that resignation and the planning commission and in the exist ing article and may initiate designation of the historic district. >> and as o proposed in the revised article 10 and i

apologize there is a typo at section 10.401 and this is reflected in the draft ordinance. and the planning department and property owner or any member of the public may request and the term we used for revision is nominate and that the h.p.c. initiate designation of an individual landmark or of a district. any member of the public can approach the historic preservation commission and request that the designation be initiated. the board of supervisors may initiate designation at any time. this is for an individual property or historic district. and what is in yellow on the slide is the proposed amendment by supervisor weiner that he would retain the requirements in order to request that the h.p.c. initiate designation and 66% of property owners that agree jointly to the request. and the h.p.c. at any time may initiate the designation of the historic district.

commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: since you said we could interrupt along the way. >> yes, go ahead. commissioner sugaya: that is clear, then, in the way the ordinance is set up with respect to supervisor weiner's 66% and as mr. martinez, commissioner martinez pointed out, that is only one way that an initiation can take place. it does not replace the ability of the h.p.c. or the board of supervisors. >> and that is correct. and this is on page 11 of the draft ordinance of article 10. >> commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: and it appears that the planning commission can no longer initiate, and only as individual citizens? >> the historic preservation and the board of supervisors can initiate. the planning commission can request that the h.p.c. initiate. >> thank you. >> that is reflected in the charter language. >> it is in the charter

language. >> there's a fee. >> the second topic is referrals to the board of supervisors and the revised version of article 10 and this is on page 13 of the draft ordinance if the h.p.c. initiates designation and that will go to the board of supervisors with no stop at the planning commission and if they request designation, that will be forwarded to use in the planning commission and on to the board of supervisors. and the change that the supervisor weiner is proposing to the adopted version preferred by the h.p.c. is that when an historic district designation comes here to the planning commission, his amendment would require that your recommendation to the board of supervisors include findings regarding housing and transit policies of the general plan as well as any

conflicts and these are not findings that the h.p.c. makes but findings that the planning commission would make in the referral to the board of supervisors. >> the next topic is on page 14, section 10.04.43 and this is designation. in the revised article, they will consider any individual landmark designation or historic district designation that has been initiated that reflects a procedural change. this is the first instance in which the -- this is the second incidence to address balloting or outreach and that they conduct outreach to owners prior to the recommendation being referred to the board of supervisors and so that when the board considers that designation they are also considering the input that we have received from neighbors within the district. and the goal would be that we

would have participation from 50% of owners in the district. can i get an interpretation of the language? does that mean he is looking for 50% approval? or is he looking for 50% of whatever way we're going to conduct this thing of people live in the district and they can be yes, no, send me more information, whatever. >> line 14 states that he is looking for the department's goal is that we have participation of at least half of all property owners and is not necessarily approval, disapproval, participation. commissioner miguel: the way i am interpreting this is it is a goal participation but all it is

is even if they don't reach 50%, it would not be a nonqualifier for the thing moving forward but we would attempt to do that. is that what i am interpreting? >> as part of the package in the recommendation to send to the board of supervisors and couldn't get participation to acknowledge and try to get that participation. >> and the 33% or whatever percentage -- >> we would forward whatever we received. commissioner moore: with more and more banks and foreign corporations and foreign individuals owning property in san francisco, i think that poses very significant challenges and i would like to see that also from understanding what that means in addition to this proposal. >> the next topics are multiple entitlements and this is charter language that mandated a change. and in the existing article 10,

the projects that require a c.u. and a c.o.a. and would be heard by the landmarks preservation board and this body would have notices combined and would only be heard by the planning commission. that is no longer possible with the passage of prop j and when there are multiple entitlements the historic preservation commission will first hear the certificate of appropriateness and the planning commission may modify the determination of the certificate by a 2/3 vote only for projects that are located within historic districts. and again, this is language that is outlined in the charter. supervisor weiner's proposed amendment would require when the planning commission considers or modifies the c. of a. they explicitly consider the general planning and all planning code policies in the findings. and then this is the first place where supervisor weiner also establishes a new section that creates permit and fee waivers that i'll get into in a moment.

commissioner miguel: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i guess the supervisor isn't here, but maybe you can give us. and anything we do, we do have to take into consideration the general plan and it is assumed that it would be assumed in the general actions even if it is not enumerate and my fear is that someone would say we didn't refer to the general plan and there is nothing wrong with the general statement but says something we are already doing. >> you already do that in the motions and recommendations and it just mraks it explicit in article -- it just makes it explicit in article 10. >> thank you. >> this is again an adjustment to basically conform with prop j. at this point in time or prior to passage of prop j, i should

say, the landmarks board didn't issue certificates of appropriateness. they heard the proposal and would make a recommendation to the department if there was a finding that there was no impact or that the project was consistent with the standards outlined in article 10 and the department would issue a certificate of appropriateness. if there was a significant impact or if the project involved demolition, the certificate of appropriateness is referred to the planning commission. and that included all demolition permits. and now with the passage of prop j, the historic preservation commission, first of all, issued certificates of appropriateness and in addition, the historic preservation commission has delegated to the department the specific approval and these are administrative certificates of appropriateness that do not require notification nor are they publicly heard.

this is new and this is a function that is currently or was not allowed under the existing article 10 and the historic preservation commission has already taken steps to move that forward. this next section deals with notification for c. of a. in the past it was only required if it was heard by the planning commission and when it did require notice the a 20-day newspaper ad and mailed to owners 10 days prior to hearing. the revised article 10 eliminates the requirement that the certificate of appropriateness and the requirements are different for landmarks and historic district. for individual landmarks there is a 20-day notice to 150 feet of the subject property and with

the historic districts there is a 20-day notice to owners and occupants of the buildings and within 300 feet of the subject building. supervisor weiner's amendments would reduce the mail notice within the historic district to 20-day mail notice to owners within 300 feet and occupants within 150 feet of the subject property. and this is on page 25. and to a small degree this may address the issue that commissioner moore brought up about sometimes it's hard to track down the actual occupants in the historic district. so this is a topic that's worth paying attention to. these are the standards for review of application for certificate of appropriateness. it is true the existing articles does not reference the interior secretary standards and treatments. the existing article 10 outlines a series of standards to which

properties and projects should comply and they are very closely linked with the standards as we know them, but not explicitly referenced. historic preservati commission amendments require that the historic preservation commission and the department as well as the planning commission insure that approved work comply with the secretary of the interior's standards and guidelines for the treatment of historic property. supervisor weiner's amendment would require that the standards be considered. and supervisor weiner's amounts would allow the department and the h.p.c. to use adopted guidelines and interpretations or bulletin. and the department does have some concerns about conformance and we are working with the supervisor's office on revised language. the department's position and the appropriateness to insure compliance with the secretary of the interior's standards for individual landmarks as well as projects within historic

districts. that is why on this slide there is the first green highlighted section that's the department's recommendation. commissioner sugaya: i have a question. it's not a question, it's a statement. when i said that projects would have to comply, supervisor weiner made the statement that ceqa doesn't require compliance. i think technically he is right but the language in ceqa says that a project that complies with the secretary standards if it does follow the standards, then the potential impacts that are being evaluated will fall to be less than significant. >> so if they don't follow the standards under ceqa, there is a problem because there's going to be an issue that the proposed project has significant and

unavoidable impacts. so in this case i think if we're saying that, oh, it is okay if we consider them. but we don't have to do that. and then it's setting up what isn't a standard anymore and i don't understand how the h.p.c. can make a decision. >> as i said, the department is working with the supervisor to draft some alternate language and we will certainly bring that back for your review. the next section is all in yellow in the power point -- there, it's back, which is all in yellow because this is a new section proposed by supervisor weiner introducing the idea of economic hardship into articles 10 and 11. and supervisor weiner's amendment would add section 1006.6 g and h on page 31 of the draft orred n ordinance for wor

on city-owned property first the department and the h.p.c. consider the relevant public agency's mission when considering the application for certificate of appropriatend. the second amendment creates an economic hardship exemption from the requirement of a c. of a. for projects within historic districts and the intention was not to include individually designated landmarks. these are for projects within historic districts and any project that is located within rshg h, rm, or any residential project where 80% or more of the units are affordable in the historic district would apply. commissioner antonini: i have a question. i know we discussed this when the supervisor was here. this is a little -- it sounds like he is proposing to exempt them for certificate of appropriatene

appropriateness, but i would think you still have to make the changes to the structure to make them conform or do the restoration in a manner that it's historical even though you might give some, maybe it's spoken to later in here about the fees. but i think as we discussed with the supervisor earlier, certainly making it more affordable and giving tax incentives like the mills act and other types of things that help to do it and i don't really want to see this be a situation where we're creating different standards for different situations. >> i should claire nee the projects that qualify for the exemption would still need to go through the process of receiving a certificate of appropriateness so they would still be before the historic reservation commission and would be reviewed, but it does provide the h.p.c. the flexibility to loosen some of the standards to look for alt mat materials that

would be -- to look for alternate materials that would be compatible br less costly than perhaps wood windows and allow a fiberglas clad window where they wouldn't formally. commissioner antonini: that is what we understood earlier and reads different than the language here. >> this language on the power int says an exemption from the c. of a. and that is not technically -- >> it is the standards for the c. of a. i apologize. >> we may need another word there. okay. >> the next section we refer to as the stop work clause. in the existing article 10, no application for a permit to construct, alter, or demolish any structure on a landmark site proposed for designation may be approved once that is under consideration. >> the h.p.c. has revised that language such that if a landmark

designation has been initiated for a district or for an individual landmark, if the project moves forward and applies for a certificate of appropriateness, any work can be granted provided it gets the c. of a. and essentially as long as we treat it like a landmark pending the designation, work can be approved. without a certificate of appropriateness, no permit may be approved for 180 days for an individual landmark for which designation has been initiated or one year for a project within an historic district that has been initiated. this time period may be extended by the historic preservationer to board of supervisors one time for 180 days. and supervisor weiner's amendment would reduce this stop work period for projects within historic districts from one year to 180 days. and then anything his amendment would require that the last 90 day of an extension that's approved or that is extended

would need to be approved by the board of supervisors. >> it is a little confusing. maybe we ought to talk about this. i unand i remember when the language came up before about the stop work for 180 dayses for individual one and one year for historic districts and what the supervisor is saying he wants to reduce the stop work period the same for historic districts as it is for individual landmarks, i guess, if i am interpreting that correctly. and there is the ability for the board of supervisors to extend either of these, i guess, for 180 day. that may be extended and either the h.p.c. or the b. of s. one time for 180 days. the last part i don't quite understand what the last clause is here.

>> both the h.p.c. and supervisor weiner recognize the opportunity for the stop work period and supervisor weiner's require that it be asked for in two s.e.c.s sections and the first by the h.p.c. and the second 90 days would need to be approved by the board of supervisors. >> i think so, i guess. the board of supervisors, the h.p.c. could do one 90 day, but in order to get the 180 dayses, they have to have a buy-in from the supervisors. i think i get it now. >> that is correct. miguel commissioner sugaya: under the h.p.c.'s version, once it is initiated, there is stop work for a period of 180 days. >> that is correct.

the discussion is about the extension. and under the way the h.p.c. words it, and that can be extended for another 180 years. and the historic commission and there and can be offered to the historic commission property. and supervisor weiner's amendment lessens that. and increases the amount of oversight in the extension. >> okay. that actually concludes the changes that i have summarized for article 10. moving on to article 11, i will note that most of the changes that were made in article 10

have v a corollary in article 11 and rather than go through them in detail, i summarized them on this slide. section 11.11.07 are procedures for designation. section 11.11 deals with applications for permit to alter and there is one recommendation the department is making to fix a typo and i think that will be fix bid tomorrow. and then 11.11.06 also addresses the standards for review and the department has the same recommendation that we have for article 10 and that is that the department's position is that projects should be required to comply with the standards. and there is one set of topics in article 10 and i promise just two slides -- in article 11, i'm sorry, that i wanted to go over. and that is the way that demolition of significant or contributory buildings is treated in article 11. and in the existing article 11 there is a high degree of review

outlined for the demolition of significant buildings that are categories one and two. and there is also a very high level of review for demolition of contributory buildings, category three and four, that have sold their t.d.r.. they have taken advantage of the t.d.r. economic benefit. and c. of a. must be filed and additional information is required regarding economic value and for contributory buildings that has not sold the t.d.r. and that is category three and four buildings. the criteria are les stringent. they have not taken advantage of the economic benefit. under the revised article 11, the h.p.c. may only approve the demolition of contributory buildings and category three and four that have not sold their t.d.r. when there is a specific set of findings made and that is there is no remaining value or an imminent safety issue and the

rehabilitation of the reuse will not meet the goals of the project and the replacement project is compatible with the district and the economic and social benefits outweigh the preservation benefits. category five may be demolished providing they have not gained significance such that they can be reclassified as more significant buildings and also that the replacement building is compatible. and supervisor weiner's proposed amendment addresses reclassification by the board of supervisors of article 11 and applications to reclassify under his amendment would be void after 180 days if there is no action by the board of supervisors. commissioner sugaya: does that mean they can just sit on it?

>> is this the one mr. martinez was concerned about? >> i believe, yes. applications for designation may be denied when it would contribute to the cumulative effect on the integrity of the district and supervisor weiner's amendment adds a note to the clause that this criteria may be considered only if the demolition would substantially diminish the integrity of the commission. commissioner miguel: thank you very much. >> i have received public comment via letters and you have received them as well and i have brought hard cop piste and i am available -- copies and i am available for questions. commissioner miguel: thank you very much. it becomes an esoteric topic until you bring it down. and even then. a number of comment cards. i am going to limit comment to

two minutes. this is an informational hearing. it very obviously is going to keep coming back so we're going to do a two minute on this. [calling of speakers] >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am an architect and co-president of the mission delores association and former member of the landmark preservation board when it voted unanimously to adopt the secretary's standards as our evaluation criteria. and i know it never made it into the legislation. but it was there for a long time. anyway, we request that you recommend the revisions of

article 10 and 11 so carefully and diligently negotiated by the h.p.c. and reject the modifications that would water down the program that is lame enough and weiner's changes have not deserved the same attention as the h.p.c. gave the document previously and they are constantly morphing and to increase the likelihood of the intended or unintended and to me the most doubtful is the prt there and i have never had a problem with the standards and they are flexible enough to accommodate even san francisco's

special character if creation of local standards is an invitation to create loopholes for special interest and could eliminate protection conceivably for historic structures entirely. it's also a time sync that city planning can move forward. and a few have been designated and so why make it harder to designate them? thank you. >> i really appreciate your attention and i want to compliment the historic preservation comio