the requirements -- that is an issue that exists right now. it is what it is. this does not really alter that. all it does is to get a certain consideration. anyone who takes a government incentive or money and then is a fraud by not selling our marketing the homes that way is committing malfeasance. it would not change in terms of enforceability. commissioner sugaya: sp ophie, i have another question. on the 180 days, is there a requirement that the board acted in that time, or can they just sit on it?

>> i think this modification would, in essence, create a retirement whereby if they did just sit on it and not take action, the application would be void. what came up at the discussion yesterday was that a number of these applications for reclassification come from the owners, who would like to take advantage of the tdr opportunity. that was why they struck this. commissioner sugaya: i am not saying there is any reason to think the board would sit on it to kill it. but i think that is one reason why it should not be in there. president miguel: i will open this up for public comment. paul werner, suzanne rucher, sarah karlinsky.

>> good afternoon. my name is paul wermer. it is hard to communicate intelligently on a document undergoing multiple revisions one does not have time to review. i will point a little bit and say i strongly endorse the positions taken by san francisco architectural heritage. i feel they have paid a lot more attention to what has happened in the past few days, and urge you to follow their recommendations closely. thank you. president miguel: if i have called your name, come forward, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is richard. i worked in historic preservation for decades. i understand and support supervisor weiner's comments and

amendments, including planning commission input in the process. there are those who would have you believe the amendments are not a bad thing. i will speak to a few of the points. they say the amendments impose a high bar for our strictest denominations. i say there are those who advocate historic preservation by ram-down. obtaini encourages establishing criteria that make sense to owners, and encourage owners support for historic preservation. they say the amendments are out of step with widely-recognized preservation practice. i say the preservation practice being referred to is not working well here for those of us to try

to work with it. the time and place to change it is here and now. they say to modify the secretary of the interior's standards and would damage the local government status. i am confident that dianne feinstein and nancy pelosi would be able to take care of us in that regard. without amendments, 40 years of historic preservation will likely be brought to a halt. president miguel: we have to pause for a moment until the koran reasserts itself. -- quorum reasserts itself. >> a two minute recess? just for the benefit of the public, the commission will take a two minute recess until we reassert our quorum.

thank you. president miguel: thank you, supervisor.

>> single pages. i think that represents an enormous amount of positive process. we should be very pleased. i am just going to comment, kind of go down the list of the proposed amendments by the hpc to supervisor weiner's amendments. with regard to the secretary of the interior standards, we are very positive about the department's recommendation, and very pleased that the hpc has for the most part agreed with that recommendation. the one place we would disagree is something that was

highlighted by a supervisor weiner. we would like to see the planning commission and historic preservation commission about the local interpretation of the secretary of the interior standards. i think that is important for good policy making. we feel this is incredibly important and ought to be included in articles 10 and 11. i would just like to note that if you look at the language that has been stricken, it is not just that the proposed project must meet 80% of 150% of median incomes, but also that it go through a certain process with the zoning administrator and the hpc. there is a substantial amount of process built in there, which i think is good and important. i will say that in terms of the process for nomination of

historic district, i was pleased to see the proposed recommendation by the hpc to have the majority of property owners vote to have the district certify the hpc. it seems the supervisor is open to that amendment, and we would be as well. i think that is a nice compromise, so i was glad to see it. finally, we would be open to having occupants be part of the information vote that goes to the board of supervisors. that seems to make sense to me. we are a town, we all know, of 2/3 renters. with that, i will conclude my remarks and urge you to move this forward. we have been working on this a long, long time. thank you.

>> i am jim haas. for most of my adult life, i have been involved in preservation in one aspect or another. i currently hold the building preservation seat on the city hall preservation advisory commission appointed by the mayor. as we enter the "first century and preservation passes its 50th birthday, -- as we enter the 21st century and preservation passes its 50th birthday, people started writing articles that raised issues such as what is really authentic. people asked whether preservation was being interpreted too prescriptive fleet, and other matters. you will find these articles before and published by the national trust for historic preservation, in books such as

"the future of the past," written by professor steven symms of notre dame and elsewhere. some years ago, i mentioned to your planning director that it might be good to invite some of these people to san francisco and have a big conference to discuss the status of preservation. as you are well aware, there is some frustration in this town over this subject. after several months, he reported back to me that he could get an attraction, but the preservationists he talked to indicated that things were fine the way they were, and there was not a need to have any kind of discussion. i think what you are seeing today and what supervisor winner this -- weiner is trying to do is reflective of the issues that have been raised in these papers and discussions, as well as the frustrations among constituents in san francisco. i think he has worked extremely

hard to take these motions and put them in legislative form, and work them through in a manner which, in my opinion, will serve the public well. i urge you to move this forward with his amendments, as he has negotiated. in a better world, it would have been better to have this kind of discussion at a big public forum several years ago, and then move into the legislation. we are doing it backwards. but i think what supervisor winner has -- weiner has done is going to make life easier for everyone. thank you. >> my name is suzanne rector. i want to speak in support of the hpc version of articles 10 and 11, including the new

amendments drafted yesterday. i do appreciate the willingness to require a simple majority instead of supermajority requirements. i do worry, however, about reaching the majority owner threshold. i worked as an organizer here in san francisco. i have a lot of experience with attempting to do public outreach. i seek contact rates hover at about 10%, depending on the method used. i have to say the planning department will revolutionize target and voter outreach to owners and neighbors, but i worry generally about even getting written responses to this. it seems like creating that barrier, that 50% mark, is problematic. i am worried it will actually be a huge barrier to the creation

of historic district. furthpersonally as a renter m me engaged then my elusive landlord. -- than my elusive landlord. i know there are specific implications for property owners as opposed to renters. but i am more engaged in the community. i have more stake in what is going on in my neighborhood. if we want to include renters, which i think is an important part of this process, i fear with those contact rates being as low as they are, it is only going to get worse. i go to commissioner moore's statement earlier that having the 50% mark is actually quite a barrier. but i do want to support the hpc recommendations from yesterday as well. thank you very much.

>> i am robin leavitt, the no- name person. president miguel: i recognize your address. >> this is a picture of my home. it is a victorian inn hayes valley, built probably in the 1890's. the records were destroyed in 1956. since the building was constructed, probably after the earthquake in 1906, it was subdivided. it is probably initially side by side town home units, divided into four units. the stair going into the upper stair was added. in 1920, a garage was added to it. the house was probably lifted up to do that. this area down below was also modified. the point is that this building

is not original to what it was. since this picture was taken shortly after i bought the house in 1995, the front stairs have deteriorated significantly so the have to be replaced. i went to the planning department to discuss replacing the stairs. right now, they do not meet any kind of code. they are too narrow. the handrails are too low. they are way too steep. the landings do not meet code. they are unsafe. i am an architect. i like to design things. i wanted to modify this stair so it would meet code and work better, and i think compliment the building better. at the time, when i had discussions with the preservation staff, i was told "if you are going to change the stair, even though is not original to the building, you have to go through an eir

process. you have to go before this body to get a conditional use approval." which would take what might be a $30,000 project and turn it into an $80,000 project. it becomes economically a hardship for me to do that. i am here before you not to talk about the specifics of the proposed amendments, but just to in general talk about the process. i am an architect and i am a preservationist. i belong to the national trust for historic preservation. and i do support preservation of historic resources. but when everything becomes precious, nothing is precious. in terms of my specific circumstances, that's there is not original. -- that stair is not original.

i see nothing precious about it. when the legislation is so onerous to make it difficult, something needs to be changed. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is miss horton. i want to urge you to uphold the voice of the voters, who voted against proposition e in the last election. that would have given the board of supervisors and the mayor the power to amend the initiative ordinances. in some way, we are doing that here. supervisor weiner, being a supervisor, is not adhering to this mandate which the voters

passed. i would like to urge you to uphold proposition e and adopt only the amendments to articles 11 and 10, as discussed by heritage and spur and the historic preservation commission. president miguel: thank you. danielle kirshenbaum, jim siegel, katherine wittgen. >> in the past, i have represented the pacific heights residents' association. i am a co-founder of the neighborhood network. today, i am only speaking for myself. however, i am sure i am not alone when i commend all the effort and diligence that has gone into the proposed amendments. it seems to me that all of this energy and effort would be far

better spent under the leadership of a visionary who can unite us rather than divide us. for one example, perhaps supervisor weiner can invite historic preservationists like me to sit down with developers, rather than turning us into adversaries, where i feel compelled to appear here in a negative way. i am gratified that the supervisor has adjusted certain parts of his proposal. the process up to this point, though, has left too many of us suspicious and resentful. i am putting my money where my mouth is. i have two weeks before my next job begins. during that time, i am available to anyone who would like to discuss the merits of various ways to implement a means for serving the essence of san francisco. as for today's item, i would like to echo paul wermer in

supporting san francisco architectural heritage's position. thank you. >> good afternoon, everybody. i am the owner of two national register properties in this city, as well as part of the landmark western development expansion. i would like to support supervisor weiner's amendments, although i think we have to keep to the 66%. i have strong feelings on the secretary of the interior, and many of us to invest in historic properties fill the roles in san francisco are too strict. a few years ago, i purchased this building in ohio that is a landmark building. it was going to be demolished

for a library. i disassembled the entire building and replaced the cupola. i had to build this in sonoma county, because i knew there was no chance in hell i would be able to rebuild it in san francisco under the current secretary of the interior standards. sonoma welcomed the project. it turned out so well, preservation magazine did an article about me and the project. what i have learned out of this magazine -- they say to the line on style be true. -- to thine own style be true. a lot of these recommendations from san francisco belong in the smuggling column. a family spent 10 years trying to rebuild their falling down heritage house, only to be told they should be building a glass and steel structure on the property so nobody could confuse it with the original estate.

all you need to do is put a plaque up, saying the building is not original. the standards need to be changed. there is a building where owners want to take the asbestos shingles off. because they do not have a photograph of what the building looked like, they are not allowed to do it. until property owners get more of a say, i will have to personally write letters to every person in a proposed historic district to advise them of the pitfalls of being involved in a landmark district. you have tons of bureaucracy which adds to the project. the time delays affect the cost, which to pass on to the tenants. i also want to say when i tried to sell the landmark mansion 10 years ago, every realtors said the fact that it was a landmark lowered my property value by as much as $1 million, because of the limited amount of people who would buy more property. we need to make it easier for people. it saddens me to say this.

i personally paid to have the fallon building landmarked. i would never recommend anyone landmarked the property in this city. with the current conditions. i fully support the supervisor proposals. thank you. >> good afternoon. i will start out by saying spur and jim haas's , and some of my feelings about the specifics of article 10 and 11. i support and applaud the supervisor for bringing all of this up for discussion, and for negotiating in such good faith, getting resolution. i am the vice president of san francisco victorian alliance, but i will be speaking for myself today. the issue there is clearly the

that my comments are very well informed by my own experience, and that of the other members of victorian alliance, in trying very hard to do thoughtful and good preservation of our historic resources. however, the current state of the situation of preservation is that we have great dysfunction in the current hpc and planning department, with a wild misinterpretation of the secretary of interior standards, where false historicism is the ultimate bogyman. the last speaker's comments i reiterate. many things that are recommended would appear as remodeling. we have unscrupulous developers who intentionally neglect historic properties so they can become immediate safety concerns, requiring demolition without consideration of

historic preservation. yet homeowners who love their properties and are trying to maintain, restore, or enhance their properties are dictated to unmercifully by hpc and the planning department, based on these misinterpretations of the secretary of interior standards. in victorian alliance, we try to do a carrot instead of a stick. we try to help people understand how to love and return their homes to historic character. my feeling is hpc and planning department are not even using a stick right now. it is a club in people over the head. -- club, beating people over the head. most of what has been done and defined the character of the city would not be allowed under the current interpretation. i would hope that the local standards we develop could be more flexible and support