department well. >> thank you very much. colleagues, if there are no questions or comments, we will move to public comments. if you want to begin have not followed a card -- filled out a card, you'll be limited to two minutes. i will call of josh arsay, and the commissioner from the hearing. >> i am here for a bright line. we strongly support what is here

today and ask you to put it forward. i was looking to hear some very important things, which is including a vote for prop. 0 tenants. if -- a vote for property tenants. axiomatic in the proposition is safeguards, safeguards for low- income communities, communities of color, committees with limitations. i have actually had to litigate cases in which historic preservation if you do not have the right safeguards, there is no protection from the

legislation. . olague had raised the question a number of years ago. and it was a joy to work with you and get this approved. but you have to of knowledge that there is a propensity with that committees safeguards -- that community posey said guard. low-income homeowners cannot keep up with the preservation joneses. it is important to have historic preservation the part of what we're doing as san francisco, but we talk about new districts, new landmarks, it makes the tenants and economic hardship waiver very important. i do not think any more changes need to happen. it has been changed a lot, but just making sure that the affordable housing peace is

dialed in, sounds good to me. let's go forward. >> thank you. and if commissioner martin as would line up, so we can move forward with this. >> i am on the preservation commission. the president could not be here this afternoon, so i am representing him as well. i am -- i appreciate the work that supervisor weiner has done on this. my commission has had the most exhaustive issues with the public. i think the main issue is the economic hardship thing. i think this is a much better version than what we had. this will apply to different districts.

it was created because of a certain type of development that they thought was stylistically inappropriate and very unattractive stucco boxes were being billed to the district. now there will be an exemption for people to build the same unattractive boxes in the same districts. i think more thought has to be given to this on a district by district basis. the vagueness of what it means that safeguard standards will still be protected, i think that is too vague. i think it needs more work. on that one, and on the secretary standards, i do not think that the planning commission has charter purview over interpreting the standards, anymore than my commission has the right to

china in on the service in transportation. it is simply beyond their expertise. my commission desk -- i'm going to continue. and credit commissioner camacho will ask you to continue. -- and commissioner -- >> commissioner, i will ask you to continue. >> ok, one issue is, who was going to pay? if someone comes to the commission asking for something in a district, the expense is going to be -- i know how things work. it will not be inexpensive to conduct this. it will be an additional burden on to property owners if they want to be in a district.

the implication that it is a vote kind of bothers me because it will raise the of petitions to the public better it is a boat and it matters. some of these districts may be companies, corporations. their expectation is that it will be a vote, too. i do not think you can count on them to have the best interest of san francisco in mind. they are not altruistic. they are there to make money. i think that's great, but it is qualitatively district talk about the commercial the street and an -- then it is to talk about the other.

i think we've made progress. >> thank you. >> i'm on the board of directors. i did not attend all of the hearings, but many of them. i found the degree of consensus on this draft quite astounding. where things started a few years ago, very polarized. there were a small number of potential conflicts agreed to by all parties. i also agree with director rand that we can have preservation and housing in this city. i think we have done a good job

of drafting a good balance of the big issues and the state policy. i think the this agreement that you are hearing -- the disagreements you are hearing today are small. i would urge you to reject these arguments and keep the balance. it for example, the planning commission having involvement in the policy question, such as the standards, is an improper whereabouts of those policies. the draft before you that does not make an imposition to the secretary's standards mandatory for contributory sites is also an important way to balance these amendments. i urge you to support the draft before you.

one suggestion on the new amendment that came in today regarding obtaining a vote or feedbox -- feedback from districts. there are 500 tenants in one building in my area. i do not think it is practical to survey. it makes sense in residential areas and landmark districts, but in article 10, you might want to think that through for article 11. >> maybe you know better than i do in terms of how that is defined, the word occupant. i think most people would agree that residential -- and on >> as

i read it, it could be every occupant. it could be thousands and thousands of occupants. >> ok, thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am the deputy director of spur. i've never been part of a quartet, so this is pretty exciting for me. i'm here to support the version of article 10 and 11 that have been introduced by supervisors. i'm very pleased to stand before you i do not think i attended all 25 hearings, but it was pretty close. the version before you represent a very high degree of concurrence between both the planning commission and the hpc

stakeholders. it is really positive to see how far we have come. my e-mail -- we are very supportive of the way this language as currently drafted. we believe that making the secretary of standards mandatory for contrary to in buildings is appropriate, while leaving flexibility for non contributors and other parcels of strikes a very good balance. we are also supportive of having the city develop its interpretations and guidelines for the secretary of interior standards and having those adopted by the hpc and the planning commission. the planning commission was

balancing all of these provisions that it holds. i would urge you to move this draft as amended by supervisor weiner forward and we look forward to supporting it at the full board. thank you. >> thank you. mr. buehler? >> my name is mike buehler, executive director of stanton's -- san princess for architectural heritage. it has been nearly one year since the committee convened on historic preservation last may. and in a green with past speakers we have made tremendous progress since that time. we have been able to reach agreement on the majority of issues. but like to take tough -- i

would like to thank staff and others for their hard work at that time. however, there are issues that will take extra time to resolve. those are outlined in our letter. would like to make a survey of owners and occupants. we would like the planning commission to have an appropriate role in commenting on, but not veto authority over the historic preservation commission. who would also like to require the board to bresler to consider their views of both owners and documents -- require the board to consider the views of both owners and occupants.

there are several outstanding questions that we believe warrant further study. first of all, the proposed language has not been considered by either the preservation commission or the planning commission and its current form. we have questions about what type of state and local funding would qualify for the exemption. how many units are in the proposed development that would qualify for an exemption and how do we comply with the standards and the proposed exemption? >> thank you.

>> i am here on behalf of the san francisco housing coalition. we, too, what like to ask you to move this forward and we want to commend the great work the planning staff has done on this. we have been tracking this for about three years now. when it first emerged there were issues that simply cause us concern, since it appeared that our historic resources were less as a city to address the change and challenge that we need to do. certainly that is produced in the amount of housing that we need. we think it has made enormous strides since then and we like the idea of economic hardship will robust the world since they of competing views on it. we think it should not be

delayed any longer. please, move it forward. >> good afternoon. i am the executive director of the a. philip randolph institute here in say diego. i'm here to speak to families that are blue-collar workers and working class and ethnic communities. i would like to see this sort culture influences the city and reserves of four children's children and the generations that follow, so they can be proud of the city they grow up in. i would like to ask the board to consider an inclusive approach that addresses community interests and protects residents affected by the preservation efforts. i think it is important to consider the voices of residents

that would be affected by preservation and i support the proposed idea to allow residents to vote to create an historic district in that area. i'm also in support of an economic hardship waiver. in conclusion, i would like to ask to support today's proposed historic preservation plan, and these safeguards for the committee, and move forward. thank you. >> my name is debora neiman and i'm here representing myself and my sisters. we own an old house and a mission. we are here to support the efforts for historic preservation. historic preservation can be a noble thing to do, but the codes and laws governing its are

confusing, and the rights of property owners within a potential historic district are not always easy to understand and require time and effort, and in some cases, the hiring of an attorney to figure out what in means and what designation's it has for the homeowners in a district. i'm here to give our support for the supervisors amendments, which require an outreach to owners within potential historic districts with the goal of participation of 50% of the owners with in that district. i would actually vote for more than 50% or dissipation, but this is a start to modify the code is so the strong efforts are made to all property owners within a designated district.

thank you supervisor for initiating these changes. i urge the committee to accept all of his changes and the gold code. thank you. >> thank you. >> my name is richard solomon. my dear wife and i own a six wonderful san francisco apartment buildings but none of which are currently in historic districts. and our home is no. let -- is a landmark #190. we are greatly affected by these amendments. due to time constraints i will talk about one aspect. woeful interpretation of the

secretary of interior standards. this is the big one and it affects all the others. san francisco is famous for its victorian architecture. a substantial portion is more modern. but a vast amount of it was covered over with stucco and shindell as it is today. many people desire to restore them to their victorian glory. but there are those in the positions of authority that will that in the absolute historical photographic evidence. it is not acceptable to restore historical exterior by educated guesswork or by copying a building in another obligation. many of us in the hands on local

restoration and preservation of the community believe those results were not the intention of the standards nor are they good public policy. hopefully, our new local guidelines will help this common problem. the broad input into the guidelines will produce the best results, which must include input from the planning commission. >> my name is joseph butler. i'm an architect here in the city. and with the product -- the passage of prop. j., of voters in san francisco gave a metaphorical vote. balance is a funny word. hopefully not deleting the views of occupants. when you delete exemptions or

provide exemptions for affordable housing projects. balance means that the preservationists are back on a chair in the hallway outside the room were policy-makers are guiding development. while i appreciate the distance we have come in amending these articles 10 and 11 from where they began, those three items still need to be addressed and we should leave the interpretation to the hpc. we should not have a written vote simply by nonparticipating.

balance is funny when you finally get a seat at the table and your the sponsoring party of the legislation say it is time to step back. qáá)p&e%ei that is putting us out in the hall again. please, amend these amendments to move preservation forward, not backward. >> i will call some additional names. daniel. espinola. if there is anyone use -- whose name has not been called. i called you a while back. you can, and anytime you want.

>> i am a former member of the landmarks preservation board. remember that? i want to point out that the lpab adopted the secretary standards in 1984. the city has been using them for -- what does that make it? going on 25 years. i do not think they have held us back. the city commission is sorry that prop j. passed in the form that it did because all of these things are used to reduce the effectiveness of the preservation commission. i suggest you take the advice of the preservation commission as to which of these amendments to accept.

another consideration is that this historic preservation costs money. old buildings were built better and they are cheaper to maintain the new buildings. and i should know. by design new buildings. finally, one trip be concerned not to wander too far in the interpretations of the standards. we are still dependent on some of our restriction money. finally, it feels to me that the voting for the district's are designated and i'm very much afraid that would have that effect. please delete out one. thanks. >> good afternoon.

i'm not here on behalf of any client, but wanted to speak to some of my general experiences and impressions over the last few years. it is three and a half years since we have had an ordinance that matches up with members of the public about clear guidance. it is a situation i creates a tremendous amount of confusion. it is confusion that is certainly great for clarity. it lends itself to arbitrariness. this ordinance is long overdue and i strongly you -- strongly

encourage you to support it. i also want to speak to the san francisco specific preservation standards. we do live in a dense city and we want to concentrate growth near downtown. we may find it inappropriate intemperances or to allow all high-rise buildings in the proximity to small-scale historic buildings. i think this is an important issue for the future of the city. this is an appropriate change and i strongly encourage you to support this ordinance. >> i am a past president and current board member of the neighborhood association. as some of you know, the neighborhood association has been working to create an historic district in the oldest neera in san francisco. is the sub area of the mission district, named after mission

laura's church. there are two main issues i have with the proposed legislation i am very concerned about. in reference to standards, i think you should base anything related to the historic resources should be related to standards. we do not want the city to be putting bulb outs up and down the street. supervisor weiner thinks they would create safety, and we strongly disagree with that. we strongly oppose the part of

his legislation. in reference to scott weiner's response that it is all preservation, that is all relative. we are going to the national register. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am a member of the staff for the cisco -- the san pentico preservation organization among others. you have received a chart that lists the differences between the positions of articles 10 and 11 and legislation that the planning commission has forwarded to you. as a 40-year resident of san francisco, as an owner of a city landmark, and one that has been actively helping to preserve our city