difficult for clients, but we all deal with them. building codes, planning codes, zoning codes, americans with disabilities act, fire and accident codes, structural engineering, mechanical, electrical sustainability guidelines, grant restrictions -- these all apply to our projects. the secretary of interior standards -- it is not that difficult compared to, say, fire and exiting code. we do not place restrictions on nationally or internationally recognized standards that have evolved over many decades. i would like to give some

examples on some projects i have worked on on what was the most stringent -- was it preservation or was it other codes? in golden gate park, for instance, ada actually had much more interesting restrictions. we had to do something that did not appear to include ramps. with everything slope, you do structurally, we did not want to provide visual obstruction. the poured sandstone columns -- we inserted steel. on the veterans building in greenberg, we wanted to not disturb any historic fabric to add the ada ramp. but it did not look like a modern, contrasting ramp. it had to blend with the historic building, so it did.

on third street, wheat maintained -- we maintained -- president miguel: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is rose hilson. please support architectural heritage and hpc's stance on this legislation. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am not an architecture. -- an architect. i am not a developer. i use tim as my expert. if he is for it, i am against it. i think we should leave this to the experts.

that means san francisco heritage and the hpc commission. some of the points that i am concerned about is the outreach process. i think in san francisco, where many of the homeowners do not speak english, or may not read proficient fleet -- that is a major problem. also, that affects renters. i think the bar is a little bit too high in that regard. i know in the past there have been many important ordinances and changes with regard to the housing element. there have been demolition controls. people just did not understand and did not get involved. i think the same is going to happen here.

thank you. >> i am speaking in support of the amendments proposed by supervisors weiner and olague. the devil is in the details. if you look at the details, but are incredibly modest. everything that was proposed several months ago by supervisor weiner has been watered down, negotiated, and moderated in such a way that there is very clear consensus on most of these items. i want to speak to a few of them where the hpc disagreed with the supervisors. 10.1, it is important to understand that the 50% to nominate a district -- all that

means is for a district that is nominated ben nobody else, by any expert, by heritage -- if it is never good-nominated, it requires 50% of the neighbors to sign that nomination to enforce the hearing. but the hpc can hold a hearing when there is 5% or 0% of neighbors. it is not an urgency issue. there was originally some language about getting neighborhood bias to surges -- to service. that language has been removed. i think it is important to look at -- i think it is surprising and disappointing the was a recommended deletion of anything to do with the hardship exception. it seems like overreach. i think the supervisor tried to make a modest, reasonable

proposal. i think you ought to support him on that. a couple of issues have come up. 1111.7 -- even for an unrated building downtown, the hpc can stop demolition if it thinks it needs to be reclassified. they have 180 days to make that decision. if baseball and do not make that decision, that building can go forward. it is a very modest proposal. it has nothing to do with property owners such s gdr's. there is no reason not to have a 180 day limit, to give the hpc standards by which they can review whether an unrated building ought to be reclassified before it is

considered for demolition. finally, there is modest language on the cumulative impact on the district and what that means. the ordinance says that even if a building demolition downtown is appropriate, the hpc can consider the cumulative impact. the supervisor of its own language -- president miguel: thank you. it is the additional public comment on this item? if not, public comment is closed. commissioner? >> supervisor weiner asked me to clarify a point about character depth of defining features and where that are located. there is no part of the proposed legislation or any amendment that said that only character- defining features visible from the street would be subject to certificates of appropriateness. any details would be subject. i just wanted to mentor to

clarify that. commissioner sugaya: just along the line, on 1006.6, the language here that includes "shall be adopted by both the hpc and the planning commission"-- let us assume that space the way it is. does that mean that as the department develops interpretation of the secretary of the interior -- i am assuming the standards remain as the standards. >> that is correct. commissioner sugaya: preserving, restoring, and rehabilitation. >> yes. this is based on local interpretations of the existing guidelines. commissioner sugaya: exactly.

so all the standard still exist. >> that is correct. it would reference the full standards for the treatment of historic property, all of the various -- commissioner sugaya: as we enter into the process, i assume that the staff level there will be some drafting work done at the hpc and planning commission and we will have informational sessions there. what happens in the case that the hpc or the commission does not adopt the standards or interpretive guidelines? >> my understanding is the way it is drafted in the matter is that if both commissions did not adopt them, they would not be in effect until both commissions adopted them.

commissioner sugaya: can i get clarification from the city attorney on that? i do not think it will happen. but the language as it stands could lead to estimate, so to speak, where one of the other commission will not act to adopt. >> regular standards will apply without interpretation. commissioner sugaya: thank you. in terms of the up to 150% definition, it could be the case that a building, in this case -- the hardship applies. give me some feedback here.

applies to an existing building. that is either a landmark or in the historic district? someone then would want to convert? >> it applies to a project that would require a c of a. >> any c of a, whatever the scope of the project. commissioner sugaya: it could be new construction in a historic district? >> it could be. commissioner sugaya: in that case, the developer would come and apply for a c of a be exempted if the product or at 80% of a particular affordability level? >> the product would not be exempt from the historical preservation. it would be exempt from some fees. provided it did not meet the criteria, the hpc would have responsibilities to apply the

standards and where they felt appropriate to allow a substitute materials that would not meet the standards, or methods that may not meet the letter of the standard, but that the hpc still felt was appropriate. this is not an exemption from their review. commissioner sugaya: lastly, back to the creation of the guidelines -- in the case of a new landmark or a new historic district, i think it is not the case that staff, in a nomination process, would specifically identified as character-defining features of a landmark that are important to its historic significance. similarly, in a historic district, i think there are some in other districts that have been adopted over the years. specific reference to those things that make the district important to the city. >> that is correct.

commissioner sugaya: in those cases, those characteristics and guidelines, as you want to call them, would supersede or be a further refinement of whatever guidelines you develops. >> that is correct. two examples as today -- one is for the music concourse. the designating ordnance includes the landscape within the boundary of the landmarks, so even areas that would not normally -- projects that would not normally come before us would be in this because the designating ordinance has the landscape as a defining feature. 40-x lastly, -- commissioner sugaya: lastly, yesterday's hearing included acceptance of the other amendments that the supervisor had proposed. the ones we have listed here in

bullet form are cases where there is disagreement. >> that is correct. the commission went so far as to clarify that by passing 6-0 an overarching resolution in support of supervisor weiner's amendment, breaking it down into four areas, not all of which were unanimous. overall, they voted to support the amendment with modification. commissioner sugaya: i would like to thank everyone for coming out. it has been a long time since this was brought before us as an informational item or for action. generally, i think the process that has taken place has resulted in a number of positive compromises, from the historic preservation standpoint. i am personally not totally in agreement even with the hpc's

actions, but i am not going to second-guess them at this point. i think comments should still be taken into consideration by the board of supervisors. i do not know how much heritage will modify -- he will be modified and some of them. i think he is an agreement with some of the hpc actions. i think there are a couple of things. on the affordable housing exemption, i would like to take the approach of the hpc and ask the board of supervisors to take a good look at the thresholds and whether 150% at 80% is what the city policy directions should be. and also to take into consideration whether or not there are other parts of the

planning, or other codes that could be looked at in advancing either low or moderate income housing in the city. i think that is the crux of part of what the hpc was struggling with. this is a very specific kind of proposal that came out of where? it is not backed up by any specific policy document, except that we're all in favor of affordable housing. if you want to look at it from the housing element, is backed up. on the other hand, someone testified -- i do not think it is unfair to say that there might not be other instances where advancement of this kind of proposal can be inserted, either in area plans for implementing plans, and other places like that.

secondly, i think there are references throughout here that historic preservation projects and historic districts or water should be subject to looking at other general plan elements. of course, we always look at 101.1. the specific reference to being compatible or not in conflict, or other general plans, i think is slightly unfair at this point, because there is no comparable historic preservation element at this time. if we had a comparable historic preservation element, i would feel more comfortable. then, when we were considering rec and park project, we could say there is a historic preservation element and maybe you ought to conform with that. whereas now there is no element, but there are rec and park open space, housing, urban design,

and other elements that have not all been referenced here, but some of them have. i would urge the staff, and whatever motion that comes out of the commission -- i would like to have a recommendation added at the board of supervisors, and this commission take a look at moving forward on the creation of a historic preservation element, which i think was or is somewhere in the department at this point. second or third, or whatever it is. there has been reference to the preservation commission having to look at -- i forget the wording. for public agencies like rec and park or public works or whatever, to take into consideration their mission, and whatever that language was.

i think that it would be nice. i would also make a recommendation that, in answer to that particular amendment proposed by the supervisor, the supervisor also take into consideration having all city departments undertake an inventory of their existing properties. this is not a new thing. executive order 11593, signed by president reagan was it? anyway. 11593 directs all federal agencies to inventory their properties to see which ones may or may not be eligible for

listing on the national register. at the state level, there is governor's order 5020 something. again, it addresses that all state agencies should inventory their holdings to see whether or not they have historic properties that they own. i would recommend that if we are going to take into consideration the missions and whenever the language is for public agencies like the city, i think it might be good -- i do not know whether it comes from the mayor or the board of supervisors resolution to have said the department's inventory of their current holdings. that is all i have. the would like emotion, but nobody else has had a chance to speak. -- i would make a motion, but

nobody else has had a chance to speak. commissioner antonini: i am generally in support of what has been arrived at by working with supervisor weiner as well as the hpc. there are probably areas where i can to go a little more toward the supervisor's position. i will spell this out. there is some interest in the planning commission having more input on the landmarking process in certain instances. i think that is desirable. there is a difference and there is a proper role for hpc, obviously. there are some dual- jurisdiction situations, where we can have input from the planning commission, where it is a corporate. that should be included. our approval today will be worked on by the board of supervisors, obviously. so we will be somewhat advisory

at this point. but i would like to see that included wherever possible. sticking with some sort of attempt to get over 50% of property owners to be approving, being told as to their sentiments in a historic district, i think is only proper. my understanding from the discussion is that this is not totally binding but you have to have agreement, but you do have to at least have their input. this will have significant ramifications on the property owners, as far as what will be expected in the future, what can and cannot be done. we all want to air to the side of -- err to the side of preserving our heritage. but we also have to make sure owners know what is going on and are informed properly. it will have some huge

ramifications. certainly, about reached the occupants who may not necessarily be owners is important. we want to outreach to them as much as possible. i think the requirement that you try to out -- and get input from at least 50% is pretty reasonable. it is not going to stop the historic district, i do not think, if it is desirable. they do not have to agree to it, but at least they have to be informed, from what i understand. this business about the affordability component and trying to lessen fees or ameliorate to some degree the standards, if there is a certain degree of affordability -- this has some merit to it. it is a situation where you will allow more height and bulk it is affordable, using an analogy. i am not sure i always agree with that. there is a resource you want to preserve in a certain way.

i think that is a standard you should be held to. i would be very careful where this goes in. i am concerned that if a case is made that because of the affordable component, the standards are less and to a significant degree, it defeats the purpose of what we are trying to do in the first place. i am not sure that whether it is affordable housing or market rate housing they need to be preserved just as strongly in either instance. where we missed the boat here is certainly we must allow, particularly the owner, to have as high an income level as possible, 150th percentile. despite testimony earlier, i think it is very expensive when you have to retrofit a building seismically, excessively, and certainly to historic standards. i think we need to make as many incentives as possible, because

we are going to require that we keep these buildings in san francisco, as we should, particularly for housing units. we need to make it possible for the owners to do this. today, we will consider a long project that is a new affordable unit for seniors at a certain income level. in an ideal world, the more of those we can build, which is much less expensive than trying to convert an older building and somehow making it work -- there has to be a formula somewhere. perhaps supervisor weiner, who is something of a visionary, can come up with a way to incentivize the restoration of historic buildings and make them safe for everyone in return for some kind of affordable housing built in the area that would preserve the rights and the needs of the tenants who are in there at present. i think that is a direction which should be going on that.

finally, secretary standards -- we need to allow some flexibility. we need to allow additions that are in context with the historic building. we have a case like a today were will speak to that specifically. certainly, buildings that have been altered, where asbestos siding was put on -- i think that somebody trying to restore this should be able to strip that off and bring it back as close as possible to the appearance that it had when it was part of the original district -- would siding or whatever the particular -- wood siding, or whether the particular medium was. there was a commentary on a time limit for renovating -- for re- rating a building. if there is a building rated fairly low on the standard, i

think we need a limit. let us make a decision in a reasonable amount of time to allow the project sponsor and others, who may feel this was an opportunity to demolish it and build something more useful. let us make a decision whether it is going to be raided to a standard where the rights are going to be traded. in regards to this affordable housing question, i think we may be able to work out a system whereby the affordable housing can be traded to another project, just as we do with inclusion mary, -- inclusionary, to allow someone to make these changes, which are not going to be cheap. i hope there is enough wiggle room in this to be able to approve these as written this particular time, and still allow for modifications at the board

of supervisors. commissioner borden: i want to thank everyone who has been involved. it has been over two years, 3.5 years now, since we have implemented language for dealing with the changes that we anticipate. i voted for proposition j. i think probably everybody up here did. everyone felt very positive that this was something we needed to see happen in the city. i think what has been very challenging, and what this legislation is trying to do, is recognized this balance between uplifting historic preservation, which is tantamount to what a lot of people love in san francisco, why people flocked here -- this natural, unique character and neighborhoods. existing historic districts. i do not think there is any debate about the purpose and the goal of what we are trying to

achieve here. obviously, the devil is always in the details. that is where we are having issues about coming together on this. the perspective from the planning commission is that whenever we implement needs to conform with the general plan, which is bigger than one historical issue. every day, we decide a lot of items that have conflicting needs, in a lot of cases. we have to make a decision we think is best, depending on the general plan, to advance and francisco. looking at whether or not the planning commission should have say on that -- we do not diminish the expertise the historic preservation commission has. i do not know what the secretary of the interior standards are