building codes, zoning codes, ada, fire and life safety, engineering, energy air and leed guidelines, grant funding constraints, and other things. for a very few projects which involve historic resources, which are perhaps 5% or 10% of all architectural projects, there are also guidelines that are widely recognized. there are secretary of the interior standards, local preservation codes. many of these guidelines and codes have also been refined, just as building codes have been refined for decades. historic resources codes have also evolved. the proposed amendments for articles 10 or 11 are inevitable hurdles which, if applied to

other codes, would be illogical -- for example, requiring written votes for zoning and area plans, including non- property-owners from exercising its rights granted them under state and federal laws, exempting affordable housing, and many other unreasonable issues like that. thank you very much. >> it is ironic that the blue- collar, or people from districts that have limited income, would be against historic preservation, because the amount of development that has been done primarily displaces those

people. one of the main thrusts of the legislation for historic preservation has been to preserve buildings and neighborhoods that house people who are primarily blue-collar, who are primarily unable to come to meetings like this. if you are concerned that everybody here might be white and rich, that is because the people who otherwise might be here to fight for historic preservation are probably working right now. there are probably janitors. they are probably simply unable to fight for something that benefits them. when a developer comes in and puts in luxury condominiums, those are usually one bedroom homes. they are usually very -- usually very expensive, not very affordable. that is in the record. some of the buildings that have

recently been displaced by development and were not able to be preserved by historic preservation were luxury homes. the other point i wanted to make is that the change in the articles to disenfranchise voters and any citizen who is not a home owner to participate in the designation of historic resources is not going to fly for any politician. it is not going to fly for anybody who realizes that everybody is a member of this community and cannot be disenfranchised. supervisor wiener: i know you got here sort of like, but the legislation does require that tenants be part of the survey as well, tenants and owners. >> i was talking about 100 4.1. is that what you are saying has changed since yesterday? supervisor wiener: in terms of

the survey or voting to create the historic district, tenants have always been there. at the hpc, i accepted that recommendation, and we are adding a clarifying line to make that even clearer. >> that is good to hear. thank you. supervisor wiener: ms. platte. and if there are other speakers, please line up before we close public comment. >> i have sat on the landmarks preservation advisory board under four mayors. i participated in writing the initial articles 10 and 11. i have been a historic preservation commissioner since then. i am unalterably opposed to this legislation. i support the heritage and other preservation community members' legislation. i am disappointed that what i thought had been agreed to in

terms of compromise does not seem to exist. i am also concerned, i think, because i do receive your calendar in the mail, that last week's calendar was talking about how we had substitute legislation all the time, going back to the department in planning commission review. i called the department last week to find out what was good to be on the calendar this week, and they did not know about it. i have looked at the historic preservation officer's letter. he is approving the legislation that he saw on late march. march 30 and march 22. i am shocked that this draft is so unprofessional vis-a-vis

historic preservation law. i encourage you all to take the time to read it fully. i would ask you to read the version of against the supervisors, so you understand what is going on. you cannot absorb legislation like this, with people talking for 10 minutes over an hour or two. you really have to think about it. this is going to affect the lives. hopefully not for the next 40 years, but it may. i have also been really concerned that the supervisor does not show up except once, so i do not know who once these amendments, or why. or what projects that are attempting to solve. a lot of us would like to know that. i think i got a bitter sense today, with some of the downtown testimony that took place. i think that is a conversation we all need to have in a different place. thank you.

>> i have the dubious distinction of being the primary author behind proposition j, which was sponsored by the other 10 members of the board of supervisors, and passed with a majority vote of the people of san francisco in 2008, aimed at increasing historic preservation protections in the city and county of san francisco. let me respectfully put this in a little bit of context, because i think there is a lot of misunderstanding. in the last 45 years, almost one-third of san francisco's history, 1% of the built environment of san francisco, 11 small historic districts and approximately 275 individual

landmarks -- to hear some of the stuff we see and hear and some of the testimony, you would think this will apply to 95% of san francisco. it applies to 1% of san francisco. i hope we preserve another 1%. there have been 25 hearings. there have been missteps. in those 25 hearings, there have been an lot of compromises. i salute supervisor winner for bringing some of those about. this will take me more than 2 minutes, because it has taken many minute -- many years. this is the first time that this has gotten to the ultimate policy body, the board of supervisors. the outstanding issues you've heard about today, which are taken 3.5 years to get here, do not need to be resolved in the next 10 minutes. i think all of you have the

opportunity to become somewhat expert on the issues that were being talked about, and some of them are being the subject of disparate treatment. if you want to have the majority vote on zoning and not just for historic districts, and that is the public policy, do it across the board. but why do it for 1% and not the other 99%? if the planning commission gets to comment on the stuff the historic preservation commission does, then why don't we let the historic commission comment on the east of the planning commission does? chairperson mar: try to wrap up, if you can, relatively briefly. >> with regard to the exemption provisions, we have balanced the need for the development of affordable housing in san

francisco with historic uses, neighborhood concerns, downtown concerns. this exemption is written in a way that is for a single unit. read the legislation. i have for each of you. alternative language, easy and reasonable language. as it comes to the nominations of landmarks and historic district, members of the public may petition the government. this is an issue of fundamental fairness and access to the body politic and its governing bodies, by and through the planning department. what kind of fairness is that? i am delighted that, supervisor wiener, u.s.-made the compromises you have made. i am grateful the preservation advocacy community have made the

compromises they have made. but respectfully, i think there is still room for compromise. i think reasonable minds can still agree. i think san francisco architectural heritage has repeatedly brought up issues in a mature and sophisticated way. i respectfully ask that they not fall on deaf ears. you will see on this chart that is two pages, that includes a total of eight items out of hundreds of pages of legislation, that you all in the door getting close. i commend you on getting this far. it is your first hearing at the board of supervisors. it has been to 25 hearings at the historic preservation commission, a couple of hearings that the planning commission -- the four hearings, thank you. you all have the opportunity to have a couple of hearings at this committee to resolve these issues. i thank you, mr. chairman, for

the extra time, and will hand you each the chart and the proposed amendments, which i think are proposed and simple, and i hope to get your attention. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am here to speak in support of supervisor weiner's amen -- wiener's amendments. it is about community participation, putting community preservation in historic preservation. the formal survey of property owners and occupancy is actually a very good amendment to insert into the creation of a historic district to ensure there is community by and -- buy-in. the second is about affordable housing, making sure they exempt

low-income residents that cannot afford the upkeep in historic districts, making sure that are not forced to move out because the cannot afford the increased cost of living. this has been a tremendous and arduous public participation process, 25 hearings alone. crafting the legislation took a tremendous amount of effort. thank you for introducing these much-needed changes, which would bring articles 10 and 11 into compliance, and creating safeguards for low-income communities. supervisor wiener: thank you. is there any additional public comment? of the chairman will close public comment? chairperson mar: yes. supervisor wiener: i want to thank everyone for coming out today and for those on all sides, over time.

this is been a very lengthy process with enormous opportunity for public input. i want to suggest a few things. first, in terms of negotiation, i can say, without a doubt, this is the most-negotiated peace of legislation i have ever sponsored. just about every amendment that i have proposed of any significance has been significantly negotiated. i think it is -- sometimes, we see it that if you can get away with it, it is an effective technique to allow the negotiations to proceed so you meet somewhere in the meadow, and then you come in at a hearing and said, "let us negotiate the rest of it away." which is what we have heard some. this does not apply to her, because she has negotiated from good faith in the beginning. but we have heard from some

people who have not necessarily been involved at the planning commission level. with all due respect, they are all legitimate points of view, and i respect them, but this has gone through enormous process and debate and dialogue and discussion. planning staff have put in inordinate work. i think these are ready to move forward. a couple of things i want to address in particular -- miss horton raised the issue of tenant mail being returned, not being able to do that outreach. the reason why this is not binding, among others -- we understand there are times when it will be hard to do the outreach. that is why we made a goal of getting 50% and is being simply information for the board of supervisors. it does not prevent the board from legislating a historic

district. we put tenants in at the request of the historic preservation commission. i acceded to that request. with that said, tenants at times will be more challenging to engage in this than property owners. maybe that will not always be the case. it may be at times. that is information the board will take into account, and that is why it is not binding. i also want to disagree with something mr. peskin stated, that this is limiting the right of a citizen to petition his or her government to create a historic district. anyone can show upper -- show up at many of numerous forms -- forums and request that the district be organized. anybody can do that at any time.

what will not happen, which had been proposed by the hpc, that any individual could walk in and forced a hearing on any district. i want to create a historic district of everything north of market and east of van ness. i am triggering a nomination. that is what would happen. anyone can request an hpc. these are very common sense and modest changes. i think we have before us is a very good accommodation that takes into account a lot of different things, which is why the planning commission was so supportive, and why the hpc was supportive of some of the items and there was a split vote on other items. i would first like to move the amendments, which are distributed, making crystal

clear that it is occupancy and owners. i would move to forward items 5 and 6 to the full board with a recommendation. chairperson mar: the supervisor olabugue have any closing remarks? csupervisor olague: i know you did a lot of work on the equity issue. i would like to know why you were so compelled, offering recommendations, regarding this ordinance. >> what led us to get involved, i think, was -- clearly, the intent of proposition j was to move from -- only 1% of the city is historic districts now. clearly, the voter intent was to

get more. the concern that we had, and me individually, resulted from experiencing some challenges for folks when you relax and try to roll back to create new historic district. not that this would happen in san francisco, but it could happen anywhere. you could have folks a historic preservation drives up costs. it gentrifies. it makes homes more valuable based on architectural aesthetics. to remove the community preservation into part of the equation, we said we want more historic districts, but we also want to see homeowners who do not want to reside in a historic district or do not feel they can bear the cost of renovation, that they do not have to live in a historic district. as supervisor wiener said, there

are a few of us who proposed a mandatory opt-out historic districts. somebody could say, "i do not want to live in the district." in the 15th hearing or so, we said, "what about a binding vote?" it is a great benefit to live in a historic district, but it is also a potential economic burden. add in language issues and the potential to have gentrifying forces, and it becomes a situation to be avoided. that is what we would like to see safeguards in place. supervisor olague: thank you. i want to thank you and ms. jackson for all your work in holding us accountable. at the end of the day, i think this is a reasonable piece of

legislation. i know i have seen it go through a lot of different changes. i have watched the hpc hearing. i have read it. i have sat in on a couple of hearings at planning, and even was included in some of the conversations that took place at spur at one time around these issues. at the end of the day, this is a pretty balanced approach to how we are going to apply proposition j. even when it comes to the issue of requiring review of historic districts and conservation districts, the planning commission required review, i think, is a reasonable one. the idea of reflecting on the regional housing needs allocation is a move that i think we are requesting planning

look at the arena and goals as it relates to many projects the city is reviewing. i do not think the claims we are seeing that this is disparate treatment are accurate. i think this sets a decent tone, and i fully support it. i want to assure members of the public, as has been made before, it is pretty dance language. -- dense language. we have read it. we do understand what we are proposing. claims have been made in the past that there are certain implications we have not studied or read the legislation before. we are supporting it fully, with our eyes wide open.

i just want to assure the public that we have in fact studied this. i think we have reached a reasonable place with it. chairperson mar: i want to thank supervisors wiener and olague for your hard work on this, but also the planning staff and everyone who has testified. i also appreciate the different compromises and work you have built in to listen to the various advocates from neighborhoods that have been critical about the legislation. this has been a long process with many hearings. i wish we had more time to talk through some of these issues. i know you disagree that that would be fruitful. i would urge my colleagues to think about continuing to listen and negotiate with the main proponents of proposition j. it troubles me that the main proponents of preserving historic preservation in our

city are not in support, it seems, of the legislation. i want to thank the supervisors for supporting everything from equity and how we look at development, but also promoting of affordable housing. it was wonderful here -- it was wonderful to hear the preservation from the mayor's office of housing about the pushing out of people with higher incomes, and adding the tenant voice into the process as well. i really appreciate that. it does feel like when the main proponents of proposition j r saying this is going to weaken the mandate of voters from proposition j, it does mean concern we are not taking in little more time to talk about that and negotiate. hearing from the public, i am very much torn by this vote.

i want to be supportive of this, but i think there are enough voices that are arguing toward stronger preservation policies. i will support the amendments, but i will vote no at the committee level on this issue. if i see progress with more negotiation with community advocates, i could support it, but at this meeting will be voting no, but supporting the amendments. supervisor wiener: the court advises me that i actually need to read the recommendations. they are relatively brief. the first is 1004.3 starting at page 14, line 20. it will read, "the department goal shall be to obtain the certification of the least half of all property owners and half of all occupants in the proposed district. property owner and occupant of

votes shall be tallied separately and combined, and shall be considered by the board of supervisors." in section 1107, item 6, subsection e, "with the goal of obtaining the participation of the least half of all property owners and half of all occupants in the area. property owner and occupant votes, tallied separately and combined, shall be considered by the board of supervisors when taking action on the proposed boundary change." the portions that are added are in bold or underlined. chairperson mar: these are not substantive amendments and could

be adopted today? >> that is correct. supervisor olague: i forgot to thank the planning department's staff. also, hpc, planning commission. i wanted to especially thank them for all their hard work. let us take the amendments. can we adopt the amendments without objection? could we have a roll call on items 5 and 6 fax >> on the map -- 5 and 6 fax 00 5 and 6? supervisor cohen: aye. chairperson mar: no. >> we have who ay -- two ayes and one no. chairperson mar: with no other business, the meeting is

adjourned. thank you. >> good morning and thank you all for coming out today. it is a beautiful sunny friday in san francisco. we are very excited to be here to talk about a big part of san francisco, the public rights of way of our city. 25% of san francisco is taken up by the public right-of-way.

when they were designed many years ago there was a distant -- different design sensibility in place that was about moving cars through the public rights of way rather than designing them for people to be in. fortunately, that is changing, and that is changing a lot to because of the people behind me. we have a different sensibility now embodied in the better streets plan, the budget plan, and many of the things in the city's general plan that is changing how we think about the public right-of-way and our city. it is manifesting itself in a lot of different ways, through streetscape improvements, we are changing the look and feel of our streets, we are turning parking spaces into parklets, we are opening up our streets and a lot of different ways, one of the most exciting of which is sunday streets, which is what we're here to talk about. sunday streets exists because of the leadership and partnership