supervisor weiner. >> let's ask >> let's ask the people can clear the room as quickly as possible and we will begin in a few moments.

>> the meeting will come back to order. ms. miller, we will call -- have recalled items five and six together? we have called them. supervisor winner. adis >> thank you, mr. chairman. today, we are considering legislation sponsored by amica as well as supervisor kolodzola updating the article that i have not been updated in decades. as a result of passage of time and changes in practice as well as the adoption by the voters of the proposition j. and updating is necessary. this legislation has been subject to no fewer than 25

public hearings. today being the 26 public hearing. last year, i made a number of proposals for making articles 10 and 11 even better by making them more inclusive of impacted communities and by crafting local applications -- or requiring the craft of local applications of the national preservation standards to the san francisco unique urban environment. this is an important opportunity for our city to step back and discuss our historic preservation and fit into our complex and wonderful environment.

we recognize it is important to have history while we change and evolve and grow. articles 10 and 11 are part of that model. i support preservation. i supported proposition "j," which created the historic preservation position. i am working closely with san francisco architectural heritage and planning staff on legislation to improve access to the mills act, which provides aid to rigorously maintain those historic homes. i support historic preservation

and truly believe that a sound preservation policy is a key part of keeping san francisco unique, interested, and vibrant. we also need to acknowledge that historic preservation is not the only important policy in san francisco. we also need to encourage housing production, affordable housing, pedestrian safety, great libraries, usable parks, and we need to make sure that each of these policies is taken into account and balanced. we must remain in a city where young people want can settle down and raise families and of their lives. for there as been enormous amount of discussion and

information about these proposals. i want to be clear about what they are and what they are not. and when they want to note because some have stated to the contrary, we do have a letter from the state historic preservation office with whom we have been working closely over the nut -- the last number of months indicating that these amendments will not in any way impact the certified local government status. in addition, of course, we are not amending ceqa. it will continue to have significant protections for historic preservation in addition to those protections contained in these proposals today. i also want to stress that i do not think any of these proposals by nea are in the same form that they were on the day that i first proposed them. before each of these proposals we have gone through an extensive -- extensive process

of dialogue and negotiation and compromise among the many stakeholders. i have done this in the way that i have approached legislation generally. you put out a proposal, you have a discussion and negotiation, and you come up with something that we can put into law. in terms of these specific proposals -- and i will not go to all of them, but the most significant ones. one is to require that before an historic district is created, we actually engage in a formal survey with the property owners of the district to see if people who own property and live in that district support or do not support the creation of a district. this will encourage community buy-in. the goal is to have participation. the vote will not be binding, but will provide an valuable information to policymakers, including this board, in terms of deciding whether to legislate

the district. i will also note that we expanded it at the request of the historic preservation commission. it will now be a vote of property owners and all other occupants, including tenants. there is a small amendment to offer today to clarify that. i have it here. i will read it into the record later on. it's basically very much clarifies that there will be a survey conducted of property owners and occupants with the goal of at least half all property owners and half of all occupants participating. they are to be tallied separately and combined and submitted to the board of supervisors for consideration. >> and that was for an amendment to article 10. that is item no. 5 -- >> that is both 10 and 11.

>> ok. >> in addition, this will increase of reach for the survey process so that the people who live in the survey areas know that they are being surveyed and what that means. in addition, to avoid gentrification of historic districts, we will provide economic hardship provisions. not all property owners are wealthy. many are on fixed incomes or retired or unemployed. maybe they inherited the property and they do not have a lot of money. it can be a hardship for some people to be required to engage in the full historic treatment. this economic hardship provision will require that when someone demonstrates a hardship, we will work with them in a way that is -- that respects the historic integrity of the

district, while also acknowledging that people should not be forced to make the choice between remaining in a -- or between leaving an historic district or being able to maintain their homes. this also has provisions for affordable housing projects to make sure that these projects, which are always cash stretched. every penny counts in producing be affordable housing that we need. they also will be receiving consideration from the planning department, which will work with them to find affordable alternatives. this will require the evaluation of consistency with the general plan and other sustainable committee strategies, transit oriented development needs. in addition, it will make clear that when we create a district,

sidewalks, streets, pedestrian ball outs are not part of that destroyed unless they are spies of a call out as character defining. we have had situations where we wanted to make pedestrian safety improvements and because something runs through a district court judges on the district, there are additional delays and expenses in evaluating that as part of the historic district even if the sidewalk is not in any way character divining. pedestrian safety should be one of the top policy goals of the city. in addition, it will require that the planning commission and the historic preservation commission work together to craft a consistent set of local applications and an interpretation of the secretary of interior standards for the treatment of historic properties. this version of article 10 and 11 will for the very first time

make sure it applies to our historic districts. it has never been required legislation before in san francisco. it now will be. it will also recognize that the secretary of interior standards may not always have perfect applicability to our unique urban setting. we should have not only our own standards, but our own consistent standards and applications. and the planning commission will after approve them. i understand that some people would like doggerel only to be for the hpc. while it is appropriate for the hpc to have jurisdiction over certain projects, relating to the rules, that is where the planning board should be involved in order to take into account all public policies.

before i wind down, there has been some e-mail traffic and some insinuations that are completely incorrect in the last few days that there is something wrong with the process leading up to what we are considering today. there has been a fair amount of misinformation out there. we're out had 25 hearings at the -- the historic preservation commission supported many of my suggestions and did not agree with others. the planning commission unanimously supported this legislation with my amendments with one exception, that the planning commission asks for staff and my office to work together to rework the economic hardship provision, which we did. i then introduced to the legislation reflecting that

feedback at the board of supervisors on march 22, more than 30 days ago. and then last tuesday, after the city attorney had gone through and found a number of a typographical errors, for example, an upper case that should be a, something that should be hyphenated or not hyphenated and we change the long title to make it more reflective and accurate. i introduced substitute language last tuesday. for all of those typographical errors i could have walked into day and introduced all of those changes today and adopted them with no continuant since it was the first time anyone saw it. instead, i suggested is substitutions are that when it is put out next thursday it has. accurate version of the legislation. there's no continuance required today. there were no substantive changes made in the substitute legislation offered on tuesday.

i request that the committee for this with a positive recommendation to the full board. supervisor olague, which like to comment? >> i appreciate all of your work over the years. it is a long time since prop. j. was passed by the voters. it is just a matter of bringing those changes about to articles 10 and 11. i'm anxious to hear from the public and happy to see that we are finally after the all of these years, finally seeing something put in place. i'm very excited about this month. >> thanks. with that said, we have a presentation from the planning department and then followed by the mayor's office.

>> good afternoon. i'm with the planning department. i'm very pleased to be your after a very long haul getting to this point. it was stated three and a half years ago that the proposition j was created, but not implemented until now. i was going to go through some quick background items. before i do that, i want to say that i know there is a lot of concern about preservation issues and the affects on growth or development in the city and the directs on homeowners. i want to emphasize that the department believes strongly that there is absolutely no conflict between a robust city

and a detention program. i think this is where the city will want to invest. to be sure, i think we need to make some changes to the process on a project by project basis. we have been working on some reforms, but ultimately, i think we can have our cake and eat it, too. we can have a robust historic district and a city that is livable. and one that people want to invest in. the planning commission initiated changes to articles 10 and 11 in july of 2010. since then, there have been 25 public hearings i both commissions, and in some timbre of last year, a supervisor weiner submitted additional statements for the commission to consider. there has been an enormous amount of progress to get everyone closer to agreement than where we were a year ago. i'm really grateful for that.

in february, both commissions voted to approve the amendment and there are very few places where the two commissions disagree. the amendments are in compliance with the certified local government programmatic agreement, which is very important because it allows a great deal of independence for federally funded projects. i know that is important for the mayor's office. before i turn it over to tim frisz, the presentation coordinator, i want to thank all of the hard work on this. hon-- and i want to thank the sf that worked on this.

they have worked very hard on this. and as the director of the apartment, i'm glad we can get to the point where the staff no longer has to spend time rewriting the regulations, but actually can help. this is of huge importance and it really reflects the importance of these articles to the city. thank you. >> i have put up on the banister, a number of copies of the letter for the state circulation office, as well as the clarifying amendment that i described earlier so that folks can see it. >> may i also have the presentation?

good afternoon, supervisors. tim prius on behalf of the planning department. we have already brought into compliance articles 10 and 11 of prop j. it is also important to mention that it is 45 years since oracle 10 was adopted and nearly 30 years as an article of and was adopted. the original intention of these amendments was to incorporate the charter into the planning code. but as the public process evolves, it became more evident that we needed to align with current reserve -- preservation historic best practices. i would like to dive right into an overview of the amendments to

articles 10 and 11. i will briefly go over the sections where they were debated at hearings. there were a number of amendments that were not debated or a outstanding questions that were not resolved through the process. to start with amendments to the landmark designation process, these begin in 10.04 0.1. it includes our stipulation that if a majority of property owners petitioned the hpc to start the process for the district, the hpc is required to hold a public hearing on the request.

this is the part of the amendment that supervisor weiner was just talking about. the amendment reflects the full process. however, the hpc did vote for-2 to strike this amendment to require a 50's -- 50% goal. the reason they were required in touch a high level of water per dissipation and limitation on non english household. they voted unanimously to approve and maintain his amendment, stating that all -- although 50% participation was a lofty goal, it was desirable. regarding entitlement, once a property is designated, certain types of work will require a

certain type of search of a gift of appropriateness. that is prior to any building permit or any other entitlement. the requirements for this process begin in section 10.06 on page 19. these are based directly on the charter. at one part of the process but i would like to point out to you is that the planning commission has the authority to modify a certificate of appropriateness within a district when process requires administrative review. there is another process also already in place and we will be codifying it. it will be an effective tool in streamlining the apartments and the age -- hpc review. the standards for review of certificate of appropriateness are located in 10.06b on page

29. this introduces the secretary of the interior standards to article 10. the secretary of interior standards are in nationally accepted a framework that are designed to promote responsible preservation practices. they must comply with the standards if a project pertains to an individual landmark for a contributor within a landmark district. the language was crafted to allow flexibility in applying the standards to allow flexibility and vacant lots with an unmarked districts. many have developed local guidelines based on the standards and use of amendments provided in the mechanism to be used. regarding vietnam is, the hpc voted to support the review. however they did strike to --

wrote to strike aspects of the amendment. a 180-day clock was implemented to make sure that the scheduled is followed. in sections 10.06g and h, and beginning on page 30, these are not an exemption from the c of a process. what the exemption does provide is the flexibility and improvements of those projects based on certain criteria. again, the tendency is to allow for flexibility.

both. hpv hpc and the planning commission realized they needed more study to allow for these exemptions. the hpc voted to strike him an antelope it was finished. it the department worked with the supervisor in the -- and the new language before you is a result of those efforts. we believe it is intended to provide a much clearer framework for qualifying projects. just to move on to article 11. articles 11th differs from article 10 in that is used to regulate the architecturally significantly different buildings within the downtown zoning district. it is also an important tool for

implementing the policies of the downtown plan. most amendments were similar to those proposed in article 10. this is a brief summary on the slides and those amendments. i will not reiterate their concerns, or their agreement regarding the secretary of interior standards notices, etc.. however, there was notion the h pc joe's to revise, and that is regarding demolition. the hpc voted unanimously to strike the part of the sentence that i underline here on the strike -- the slide. they felt the situation was vague and would be difficult to quantify a public hearing. this concludes my presentation.

as everyone has stated, the department works very hard with both the commission and the public and supervisors. over two years on this chapter of the code. thank you for listening. >> thank you for all of your incredible work over the years. if there are no questions from planning staff, the office of housing,, alt. >> good afternoon. i am the director of housing. our department had appeared at one of those previous 25 urine is many months ago. -- 25 hearings many months ago. it was of prime importance to us

that we maintain our clg status. we value our relationship with the office. if we are happy to see that the language of these amendments maintain our status. we are especially pleased to see you in ridge -- language that recognizes the flexibility necessary as report those processes. it is a long and sometimes laborious process. we are happy to see the final results. we support the legislation if we feel it will -- will