these complex set of amendments and am very pleased that the h.p.c. will have the ability to comment on the full breadth of the amendments and i think that is a good process. immaterial to talk brief h -- i want to talk briefly about the secretary of the interior standards and in the packet of the letter of november 1 that lays out all the positions on supervisor weiner's memorandum to date to make the secretary of interior standards required for all work within districts and we feel that this is the appropriate standard for landmark buildings and the contributors and the buildings we are worried about are the vacant parcels and the noncontributory buildings and while the current set of historic districts are relatively discrete, relatively small, the series of districts

that are currently coming out of the survey process are much larger and they represent a wide diversity of of building psychology. and in western soma is something that sticks out. and in the remaining seconds i want to draw the attention by supervisor weiner and his amendments that exempt work on sidewalks or streets in the historic district from review unless they have been explicitly called out in a landmark district designating ordinance to support that as applied to future article 10 districts. thank you for your attention. commissioner miguel: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. first, i would like to express my appreciation for the

commission's commitment to receiving the historic preservation comments and before this comes back before it in january and february and it has been an exhaustive process spanning two years and we are all anxious to see it come to a conclusion and it is important to poll the integrity of the process and i am glad you will have the information and in terms of the position on the amendments to article 10 and 11 and the h.p.c. revisions we have approached it with two priorities. one to the extent that prop j is intended to update the ordinance which is 45 years told reflect the best practices nationwide we have advocated for best practice. secondly we have proposed amendments introduced by supervisor weiner compared to

other planning initiatives in the city. and i should note that we have supported or agreed to a variety of the amendments introduced by supervisor weiner including in concept a proposal for an economic hardship provision and we support robust community outreach policies provided they apply to all planning initiatives city wide. and we have also agreed to a number of changes to article 11. and to go over our major concerns, of course, we are opposed to the proposal that will make the secretary's standards optional. there are two different ideas that are being proposed by supervisor weiner and one is to adopt local interpretations and we have expressed openness to the concept of district by district guideline. the other, however, all together is to make them optional and basically cancels them out and renders them meaningless. a second we're opposed to the 66% owner consent threshold. commissioner miguel: thank you. >> it does not reflect best

practices. thank you. commissioner miguel: next speaker. [calling of speakers] >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is eva hearten and i am chairperson of speaks on the sunside action and preservation committee. and i sent you this morning a letter and >> i would like to urge you to see if it is possible to approve the proposed amendments to article 10 and 11 to bring the planning code in information with the mandate of the board of

supervisors. since we split on the amendments by a supervisor, i wanted to propose that they are being sent back to the historic preservation commission and how they will do it separately. i was wondering if that is possible? and the difficulty with and getting the just of what the supervisor has proposed is that it came in piecemeal fashion over several occasions, but the historical preservation commission was not -- the opinion was not included that much in the staff report. i am mostly concerned about obtaining the 66% of the property owners consent.

and anybody who has worked in san francisco neighborhoods knows that it will be impossible. i have been a planner in the planning department and worked on the neighborhood, commercial, residential zoning. it will kill any historic district. it is also very expensive, and i am wondering where the money might come from. commissioner miguel: if i have called your name, please come out. -- come up. >> good afternoon, commissioner miguel. i am an architect for the city. we plan for our growth and a zone for varying uses, densities, and height. part of that planning process is

surveying the oldest buildings. i ask the move the version forward approved by the mayor and the board of supervisors. they are the experts in this matter by design of the new commission. i support the points of the state office of historic preservation in their letter, also the heritage letter and that of the national trust for historic preservation. san francisco should be a national model, not moving backwards or towards houston. this year's event is the no. 1 tourist destination in the united states. how is it that we fell to no. 2? let's consider that both cities are top destinations as they have an architectural and cultural legacy that is the basis of the attraction. savannah's architectural legacy survived by isolation and other cities in georgia.

adopting things that take us backwards will take us away from all that makes our city unique and worth visiting let alone worth choosing as a place to live and work. the most affordable housing is the oldest and smallest house building on the block. , listening demolition controls by eliminating the compliance will provide more market rate housing. and brimming with vacant lots, it is easy if you want it. it is easy if you try, let's keep sherman out of san francisco. commissioner miguel: thank you. >> afternoon, commissioners.

san francisco is one of the most beautiful historic cities here on the west coast. in 40-years of preservation work, we hasn't -- we have designated historic districts. this is not an impediment to smart development. i feel that the proposed amendments, while well- intentioned, to treat these recommendations is that we will allow the commission to grasp of the city. that is simply not the case. i would like to preserve their legacy. furthermore, i am happy using this as an informational meeting and listening this item. commissioner miguel: [reading names]

>> as you know, for six and a half years, and we have worked hard to complete the historic survey and context statement and carry companies in their adopted statement on march 17. we unanimously adopted the survey context statements and a large historic district within the neighborhood, and it was asked to be increased in reference to significance.

since scott wiener has been in office, we have been going up against him in reference to him not approving the large historic district and he doesn't want the park, which has been identified as an individually eligible to be a in a national registry. he does not want the park to be part of the historic district and he doesn't want the median to be part of the historic district. in reference to one of his proposals, articles 10 and 11, landscape, sidewalks, it will affect us because if we are not able to get a local district, the median will not be protected it is a state landmark 784.

we adamantly opposed the change of threshold from the secretary of interior standards to a local standard, which i believe, we believe, will water down any kind of protection. >> i am particularly disturbed by a two specific proposals that have been brought up a number of times today.

the first is the supervisors proposal to require 66% of property owners to a firm before a local historic district can be adopted. and this is 2/3 majority is an impossibly high threshold. it is rather unprecedented. i can only conclude that this figure, an attempt to make its impossible in san francisco. the second point i have a serious issue with his his proposal to make the secretary of interior standards optional in favor of a san francisco standard. they already provide detailed guidance on the urban design issues, and they apply these applied flexibly already. there is really no good reason to change that.

i would urge you to approve the article 10 and 11 without his revisions. >> is it two minutes? sunshine requires three. >commissioner miguel: it requires up to three. >> scott wiener changes, in particular, i am concerned about the 66% as well as who is doing the voting. this is a 2: 1 majority, and it has been a very high bar that is

almost impossible in most circumstances. the other thing is, why only property owners? as has been pointed out by commissioner martinas, which a joint property owners? and what about foreign property owners? and why only property owners? that seems very anti-democratic. i like the library is a slogan, free and equal access to. it goes on with a number of things at the library provides. it doesn't say only property owners can come here because only property owners pay taxes. it doesn't say only property owners get to vote or speak at commission meetings, and i think that is something that is very problematic in this city and in

a system that is supposed to be democratic. i also think there are other weakening provisions that should not go through. there is reason to think that the historic preservation standards are not sufficiently strong rather than should be weakened. >> probably many other places had we not stopped at it.

we fought demolitions at a time when there were no demolition controls. when it came to a conditional use appeals, it was extremely difficult in a district like that, a historically district to get 20%, may be almost impossible. first of the cathedral had to be neutral. there are many buildings like that, properties where they are never going to go for an appeal. then there were the absentee owners, most of the properties. many of them overseas and many of them had never even seen their properties and were not very concerned about historic preservation. on the other hand, 90% of the population is renters. we lived there a long time. those were the people because of

a small number of honors that really fought to save the historic district. who votes? in the common interest a development that i eventually bought into, there was a board of directors. when the apartment hotel register district first proposed, the board said there was a request, this isn't for us. nothing to do with whether it had any cost or tax advantages. it is the board of directors, we are not going to deal with that. who will discuss how to hang the clothesline or something of that sort. we would never have been able to get any kind of percentage.

>> in has been very hard for us to get a handle on exactly in what his amendments ha work. we were only able to get that into focus how this week. we had a meeting last night to discuss a our position on the amendments, so i was able to get a letter out to you last night by e-mail which you may not have seen since you had to start early today. we want to make sure that you get our position. these are copies of the letters. we will make sure you will have them. ironically, he was a couple of years ago the president of the neighborhood association, and we

have taken a very strong position rejecting his, most of his amendments. we are in favor of some of them, and we urge the commission to forward all the amendments to articles 10 and 11 that have been thoroughly vetted by the -- we would also like you to give strong credence to the historic preservation is analysis and rejection of certain of his amendments. we would like you to pay special attention to the letter of yesterday, december 6. we agree with those positions and we agree with the heritage positions. thank you for giving time for this. it is very encouraging that some much careful thought is being given.

commissioner miguel: the only other than i have not called is joan wood. if anyone else would like to speak, come to the microphone. >> those things being protected in the city, not just economically but also culturally. in my december 5 letter that i mailed under my crazy id, i have some things about history that sometimes people are not aware of because it is just buildings. we need to look beyond buildings

for some of the cultural issues. and some of these survey things that commissioner miguel mentioned will scare people and it has to be taken into consideration. it has been beaten like a dead horse. i was taught to speak proper english and not use these phrases, i am not very good with them. the san francisco standard, i don't think that is a cool thing to just stick with san francisco's standards, but there could be a blending. protection only for a portion of the building in the public right of way, that may not be such a good thing. and also, minor things like the postal service changes for first-class mail might change some of the legislation requirements. i also left a copy of the

coalition's letter on an. >> i live in district 5. my situation is somewhat different from most of the speakers today, so listen carefully. my wife and diet were almost full time on 7 it is historic preservation of our own properties and with our own money. we were recently denied permission to renovate the carriage house hidden from the street behind our landmark, in spite of intense neighborhoods apart. the hpc did not consider the general plan along the major transportation corridors. there remains a majority on what we believe to be an improper interpretation. we are quite familiar with the standards, working in the field, many don't make sense to us. even though we believe they need

more work, we generally support the amendments and believe their adoption will make historic preservation and the establishment of historic districts much more acceptable to property owners and will lessen the horror stories i hear almost every month. we need to reach a middle ground with those that have little or no personal experience working on historic properties. >> cultural landscapes are not widely understood. for those that do not know what a cultural landscape is, that is our parks. we believe the amendment

threatens the historic park and golden gate park. the draft for the soccer fields close to the secretary of the interiors standards, sadly the rest is a skewed towards development of the park. our department of recreation and park is hurting -- hurtling headlong into privatization. this is an issue of economic inequality. the tea garden used to be free and used to be free to residents. the arboretum is headed down that path. they will eventually charge residents. the place is a coastguard and now. golden gate park is in danger of becoming a series of paid attractions with a few trees sprinkled here and there. we don't need a secretary of and superior standards. please protect the parts and rejected the amendments. of like to say that the comment

time for the environmental impact report closes on december 12 and will have a great deal of information. will people will comment on it. thank you very much. >> our executive director is unfortunately able to be here -- unable to be here right now so i will be presenting comment on the proposed changes to articles 10 and 11. a defense project are works with limited english speakers to increase opportunity and sustainability on environmental justice issues. we have had conversations on the subject of low-income

homeowners that indicate a certain amount of distrust and hesitation with his historic preservation as it currently stands. before realizing this became an informational hearing, miss jackson stated that there is no way, know how which you want to live in a historic district. wright line has remained consistent in the opposition that no one should be forced to live in a historic district if they are unable to because of the increased cost of living costs by imposing the district lines. we have specific points that will help with safeguards with low-income communities. the first of which is that we strongly encourage the original proposal of a majority vote of impact that homeowners, a simple informational vote is not enough unless there is some provision involves.

the second, very briefly, would be the idea of economic hardships and is incredibly important. people that are unable to afford preservation in the district, to avoid the permits and fees evolved in the processes incredibly important. it should be made a sustainable and a broad alliance supports the idea of making changes. commissioner miguel: are there additional public speakers? >> good evening, commissioners. i would like to read a letter from the president of our coalition. i would just read part of it. the neighborhood proposes the

amendments to articles 10 and 11 this is due, in part, by the preservation program. it is held in high regard to many cities. it urges the planning commission to vote in the historical preservation program and oppose the misguided amendments to articles 10 and 11. any amendments to the historic preservation program should be enhanced and not to destroy it.