i would request the commission consider endorsing my amendment with the one change that reducing the 66% to the 50% plus 1 would be my request to the commission and grateful for your consideration. president miguel: thank you. commissioner antonini: think you for coming to address us. i have a question on your first point, and that is the secretary standards. i want to ask if you are in conjunction or agree with the staff's position on this or feel it needs modification? commissioner wiener: the current language is in which i negotiated, so we are in agreement about the new language, which i have described. apparently the hpc is an agreement with it as well, except they want to cut out the

planning commission from the approval process for the local interpretation, which i disagree with that. so i think at this point we seem to have a broad agreement. not 100 percent signed, but among staff and myself among this provision, except i think the planning commission should be part of the approval process. commissioner antonini: think you. basically the difference is the planning commission and the approval process. i think having some flexibility is very important. >> just to be clear, this agreement is over who improves the local interpretation of the standard that you might be able to produce. it is about who might approve the local interpretation. >> one thing i forgot to mention

-- commissioner olague has informed me that she will be co- sponsoring these at the board, so i do have a co-sponsor. president miguel: -- commissioner antonini: we are talking about the planning commission being involved in the creation of the local interpreted the guidelines. and the recommendation from the hpc is that they solely do that. once the guidelines have been worked out and adopted, so to speak, i do not know the exact process that will take place -- once that is done, whether it is hpc or planning commission, and then subsequent projects that require certificates of appropriateness would then still be within the purview of the hpc and not the planning commission.

supervisor weiner: yes. it is just the formulation of those interpretations. commissioner sugaya: i have maybe questions for staff. supervisor weiner: i will remain for at least a little while, if any questions arise. i am happy to respond. >> sophie heyward, planning staff. the city requires that ordinance's concerning historic preservation be referred to the historic preservation committee and this body for review, prior to transmittal to the board. the ordinance is before you. this includes amendments proposed by the hpc and superviso weiner.

these were heard january 18, 2012 and yesterday by the hpc. i will not go through the ordinances in the same level of detail i did in december. today, i will look at the review and recommendations made yesterday by the hpc, in the form of two resolutions. i have provided a summary of each of the resolutions for you. i will also put a copy of four members of the public. just a quick note on the format. what is highlighted in yellow on these sheets are the changes that were proposed yesterday by the hpc to the amendments that were recommended by supervisor weiner. i gave them to the director. the proposed amendments at this time are anticipatory, and have not been approved to the board,

nor have they been introduced at the board of supervisors. the legislation before you remains planning commission- initiated, and there is no specific deadline for your review. it does appear likely that the supervisor will introduce his proposed amendments in late february or early march. if the substance is the same as what is before you today, these modifications will not be research acquited -- the recirculated to you or the hpc. this presentation will review the resolutions passed yesterday and will highlight where there are differences between department recommendations and that of the hpc. i will answer any questions you may have about the proposed changes. the proposed change yours --with established the hpc. all references to the landmarks

advisory board have been removed. subsequent changes are proposed for a number of specific processes, designation and review of applications, applicability, and economic hardship and fee waivers for certificates of appropriateness. the local interpretation of the secretary of interior standards and the guidelines for historic property. at yesterday's hearing, the hpc past two resolutions in response to the amendments passed by supervisor weiner. those resolutions represent months of work by the hpc. at the hearing, expressed regret that no commissioners were available to come to today's hearing to provide a more nuanced explanation of their proposed on petitions to the amendments. they also noted that they will follow these resolutions with a more detailed letter that i will

distribute both to you and to the board of supervisors at a later date. i will begin with resolution 672, which addresses article 10. i believe he should have copies of the draft ordinance as well. for section 1001.1, the amendment would require that 66% of property owners in may proposed historic district -- in a proposed historic district agreed to the designation on nomination. the hpc may initiate regardless of the percentage of owners that agree or disagree.

the proposed modification, as you see on this first page, is to substitute the language about 66% with a simple majority. as the supervisor indicated, he seems to be ok with that change. the second area i want to address is about designation by the board of supervisors. this appears on pages 14 and 15 of your draft ordinance for article 10. this addresses outreach to owners with an potential historic districts. the amendment requires that the department conduct out reach and report the results of that to the board of supervisors when transmitting the recommendation regarding designation. at yesterday's hearing, the hpc first expressed a desire to

include occupants, so it is not just owners participating in this outbreak. there were some concerns that the response to outreach not be required to be in writing. there was a point that not everybody would feel comfortable expressing their views in english in writing. lastly, there was an objection to the statement the department's goal shall be to obtain the participation of at least half of all property owners in the proposed district. the property owners and vote should be considered by the board of supervisors, and the hpc voted 4-2 to strike that language. feel free to interrupt me if you have questions. moving on to section 1006.6,

this shows up on page 30. as noted, the department has worked with the supervisor to draft revised language regarding the development of interpretations of the standards. as you just discussed with the supervisor, the department and supervisor are almost in complete agreement, but for the fact that the hpc removed the reference to the planning commission in adopting the proposed local interpretation of the guidelines. i hope that is clear. dealing which is spelled out for you here. lastly, sections g and h would create a new economic hardship exception. the supervisor has introduced language that would create an exemption for certain projects

and this introduced language also calls for house consideration of the mission and needs proposed by city owned properties. in addition, this creates a language by which certain applications may be exempt from fees associated with this. on the bullet-pointed sheet before you, it appears the hpc struck this language. i also want to acknowledge that this topic engendered a lot of discussion. the end action was that the proposed striking it. however, they wanted to acknowledge that they understand the issue but would like to have further time for a more in- depth discussion about the lack of moderate income housing in the city. the would like to further discuss the proposed solution. at this time, they are proposing the language be

removed. i think that are open to further discussion at a later date. those are the primary modifications recommended regarding article 10. i can move on to article 11, if you would like. commissioner antonini: to get a clarification, before we go off. a little bit of confusion about the beginning. you said there had been a compromise reached to a simple majority, which would be 50% plus one of property owners to be involved in a non-binding survey as to create think historic districts. below that, i think there was some lack of understanding between the supervisor in the hpc about whether this vote would be taken into consideration. is that the difference? >> the issue of outreach comes up twice.

the first is in a section that is generally a little bit confusing. that is the difference between a nomination and an initiation. in the draft version by the hpc, any member of the public may come and nominate a historic district. the hpc can decide whether or not to go ahead and initiate that designation. the hpc retains the right to initiate any historic district. a nomination means a request that is signed by a majority of residents in a district. the hpc must at least consider that request. the board of supervisors may at

any time in the shade designations. the second time this comes up is later on in the process of initiation, when the board of supervisors received in the initiation -- attached with those will be the results of the outreach. without which conducted by the department, the language that the hpc objected to was that the department goal was to have the participation of the least 50% of the district in the survey. date requested that tenants be involved in the outreach. one occurs at a hearing. one gets packaged with the recommendation that goes to the board. commissioner antonini: the

second part is whether there is a lack of agreement about whether the tenants might be cumbersome? this might be something that would be taken up during the curing at the board of supervisors, to try to distill this into what language is practical. >> to put it more simply, a nomination never has to happen. initiation may happen. that can start the process without a nomination. commissioner antonini: without weighing in, i can feel the supervisor's position on this. it is important to have as much coverage as possible. but the ultimate decision would have a profound affect on the owners of the property, perhaps even more so than tenants with a property interest. >> if i may, i believe the supervisor is open to the idea of including tenants. the disagreement was on some of the other language in that section, if you look at the last three lines under the cheat sheet. but i believe he is open to the

notion. our terminology is typically owners and occupants. that is what tenants would be. but it is the other part of that paragraph where there is some disagreement. commissioner antonini: i think i understand. it is whether they have to consider the vote in making that determination. thank you. commissioner sugaya: along that line, the language the hpc has stricken that the supervisor is proposing -- it states it is the goal to have 50%. stated that way, i assume that if the department has done its outreach, which is my second question, and obtains whatever it is that needs to be obtained, if you come up short, that does not stop the process, in other words. you have done your best.

you get 45% or whatever. >> that is correct. i would also clarify that department practice when going through a survey or designation process is to conduct this our reach. we want to meet as many people as we can. i would characterize the objection yesterday to name a certain percentage of people who had to have responded, or even setting a goal as a percentage. it made them uncomfortable. commissioner sugaya: with respect to the department process, have you thought about how this modifies the current practice of how you go about looking at a historic district, for example? >> always certainly defer to mr. frye. this language was drafted after

our current practice was in place. we already conduct a lot of outreach to post cards, mailings, and community meetings, which some of you have intended. this acknowledges our current practice. supervisor weiner: it is not meant as a criticism of planning staff. they do a lot of work. it would have more formal survey of voting. you are methodically going through and figuring out where folks stand. if for whatever reason people are not being responsive and only 10% respond, and half are for, half are against -- that is information the board in the

hpc can ignore if they choose to. president miguel: if a lot of times it comes up far short of the 50%, it is a guide to the department. maybe they are not doing the outreach properly. it takes the concept of trying to reach that goal of 50%. commissioner moore: with ownership of large tracts of posing -- of housing in single hands, it is hard to get 50% when 20% or 30% of the housing is owned by one particular entity. i think it is very difficult to get a numerical 50%.

i have put that to a question. >> still free to interrupt any time with questions. amendments with the following modifications. we are on article 11 now. the first deals with section 1107e. again, this is very similar to the language we just discussed in article 10. the amendment would require this department to conduct outreach to owners in a potential conservation district, and to report results of the outreach to the board when transmitting their recommendation regarding

the designation of the conservation district. essentially, the historical resignation -- preservation commission recommended the same language in article 11 that they did in article 10, which is occupants and tannins be added and the goal not be stated to be 50% of president owners. the second change, also reflected in article 10, is applications for permits to alter, and deals with economic hardship. this is on page 28 of the draft ordinance. supervisor weiner has introduced language that would create an exemption from fees for certain projects. those should be applications for permits in historic districts for projects where 80% or more of units are designated for households with an income of 150% or less of the area my --

of the ami. although the hpc is uncomfortable with this language at this time, that are open to further discussion of the problem and the proposed solutions. the department has made a recommendation in the same section. on page 29, this is a typographical error. supervisor weiner's language for the exemption -- basically, this section has been reorganized, and two lines appear twice. the hpc agreed to clean it up. in 1111.6, the language -- the department has worked closely with the supervisor to draft language regarding local

interpretations of the standard, and the hpc made a very similar change in article 11 that they recommended in article 10, which is removed the planning commission from the process. lastly, there were two changes recommended by the hpc on page 40 of the draft ordinance, in 111.1.7 a and b, standards for demolition. the supervisor, would change the time line and make denial of applications for the demolition of category five buildings subject to a finding that the demolition does not substantially damaged the integrity of the preservation district. the hpc first recommended the language be removed, saying that

an article 5 building shall be void if within 180 days of such determination the board of supervisors has not read designated the building to a higher category. -- has not re-designated the building to a higher category. finally, the language be removed that notes that the cumulative effects of integrity of the conservation district associated with the demolition of the contributory district shall be considered and may be grounds for the denial of the permit to demolish. the supervisor added "if it is bound to the demolition would substantially diminish the integrity of the conservation district." the hpc recommended striking this language primarily because they felt the word "substantially "to would be debated ad nauseam at public hearings.

the wanted to wait until there was a former demolition -- former definition of "substantial." that includes the comments of the hpc. the department recommendation remains the same as that which we presented to the hpc. the recommendation is that the planning commission recommend approval of the draft ordinances, including the proposed amendments by supervisor weiner, with two modifications. one is that the local interpretations of the standards remain as we drafted it. that includes the planning commission in the process. the second is that the department recommends that the typo in the draft ordinance be removed. i do not think anybody will have a problem with that.

i will note that a lot of topics came up at yesterday's hearing. we have not had a policy discussion about some of the implications of those changes. i will defer to the director. this concludes my presentation. i will pass the buck. again, i would like to acknowledge supervisor weiner. thank you for coming. we are both available for questions. president miguel: commissioners, the you have direct questions? otherwise, we will do our normal afterward. commissioner sugaya: this is more of a comment. i guess i will wait until after public hearing. commissioner antonini: mine is pretty short. on the first part of the article, the discussion regarding the economic hardship, the difference in discussion was the level at which 150% -- the

were not sure whether to have it that high at this time. that is the difference between the versions. >> that topic certainly came up. i think the whole topic of where there are shortages opened up at the hearing. that is when the commission seemed to indicate they felt a larger discussion was needed, outside even the context of articles 10 and 11. they did not fill prepared at this time to make a recommendation. president miguel: we could continue, which would allow for what the supervisor has in mind, if it was found desirable by the board of supervisors. >> the h pc -- the hpc allowed that. commissioner sugaya: along that line, if i were a developer and i was closing a housing project

with the kind of creatures that are contained in here, how does the city in force -- what mechanism exists that says a developer has to provide moderate-income housing in the one under 20% to -- 120% to 150%? >> for most of our project above a certain volume, there is a trigger for below market rate apartments. i believe the supervisor to address this in more detail. the provision for requiring the units does not really address the slightly higher moderate income necessities that still exist, but for which we do not have a requirement at this time. this is an incentive rather than a requirement. commissioner sugaya: the

project, let us assume for a moment, if it did meet that and get approved -- wouldn't there have to be -- or is this adequate, the way it is worded -- additional legislation to have the city be able to enforce that particular percentage of moderate income housing? supervisor weiner: this really would not be applicable to the city bmr program. that is usually far less than 80%. this is for a project where an affordable housing developer moves forward to do this project, and they were a nonprofit and have all sorts of requirements. they have government funding, or not. and the housing is designated as serving certain income percentiles. that might be 0-50