the san francisco board of supervisors land use and economic development committee. member chiu the vice-chair and kim will be joining us momentarily. >> clerk: please silence all cell phones.

thank you. i want to thank sfgtv for broadcasting today specifically caroline and jennifer loe. just a couple housekeeping matters, if anyone is here for item no. 6, relate together condo lottery legislation item no. 6, it is my intent to enter a motion when this is called to continue the item one week to may 20th. this item last week was transferred from the full board back to this committee for a hearing today but we are not yet ready to proceed with that hearing. if anyone is here for item no. 6, it's my intent to enter a motion to continue the

item in one week. in addition if you are intended to make any public comment for any item on the agenda please fill out a card and please indicate the agenda item number for the item you would like to speak. madam clerk call item no. 1. >> 130070 [planning code - duboce park historic district]1300701.sponsor: wienerordinance amending the planning code, by adding a new appendix n to article 10, preservation of historical, architectural, and aesthetic landmarks, to create the duboce park historic district; and making findings, including environmental findings, and findings of consistency with the general plan, and planning code, section 101.13 >> i'm as the sponsor. before us today is consideration of the first new article 10 historic district. this is approximately 3 small blocks in length bounded by the waller

street scott street and dead-end streets. district includes 87 buildings and i would call the planning department to provide an overview of the district. there are folks here from the district today. i see supporters and opponents of the district and this district has undergone a spirited discussion over the last few years. the district underwent and extensive community process after it was identified as a potential district as part of a survey associate with the plan. shortly after i took office we began holding a number of community meetings over the past two years approximately 8 different community meetings including planner workshops that the planning department conducted in local cafes.

numerous people participated. we have taken significant community feedback about the scope of the district and this district is actually i believe the most narrowly crafted district than any historic district in the city in terms of what it covers and the items for which it requires historic review for certificate of appropriateness. the reason that is as narrow as it is on community feedback about not wanting the district to cover anything beyond the truly characters of the district. also my request because to me it was very important for any district that we consider to be very narrowly and sharply focused on what actually makes this district historic and unique. for anyone in this propose district is truly one of the most beautiful areas of the city thanks in significant

part to the people who live there who have absolutely transformed it and turned it into the beautiful neighborhood that it is next to one of the most beautiful parks in the city. this district also gave us an opportunity to take a look at how we administer the mills act which allows for tax credits for owners of historic property to maintenance contracts in the city. it's been used in a very robust ways and counties in the city of california has been somewhat looser here. it was illusory for those small property owners. that became an apparent during the process around this district so i offered legislation working with the san francisco heritage and

planning department for the use of the mills act. we have a usable miss act in san francisco and that was important to me because if we are telling residents in the district that they can get potential tax credits that they are in the district, i thought it was important that it should be reality and we have now made that a reality. after we went through this lengthy process with many community meetings with a lot of views expressed pro and con -- and everywhere in between, i requested the planning department conduct a survey of the property owners in the district. you may recall that i temd to have that as a requirement in article 10 and i did not get that part of article 10 passed by the board but i nevertheless requested the planning department survey

the residents and owners in the district because for me it was very important to have a good sense of what people thought. that survey was conducted late last year and 38 households responded only one response per households. there were some consolidated. 38 households responded and approximately 1/3 of the properties in the districts responded and the survey came out 2-1 in favor of the designation. after the survey there were those who raised concerned that the survey may not have gotten to all home owners. my staff conducted significant due diligence looking back to make sure that every property was mailed and and in fact the mail had gone to every property and

in addition the department and i had e-mailed to the district to alert about the survey and forwarded to the neighbors. as the survey, a very dedicated residents in the proposed district have been talking to their neighbors and i know have conducted their own survey and which shows a different result than the survey that the city did. i understand and respect that there is a diversity of viewpoints on this proposed district and that is precisely why and frankly insisted that the planning department conduct a survey through the planning department using our official means so that we would know where people stood. that survey is an important piece of information, but i do acknowledge that this is not

unanimously supported within the district, that there are opponents. we have tried very hard by drawing the district narrowly and by revamping the mills act. i want to address one item that i think keeps coming up the most more than other concerns and that is generalized frustration with our planning and dbi process in san francisco. i can tell you within this district but also elsewhere the number of times people have contacted our office because planning process is taking too long, dbi process is taking too long, something is stuck somewhere and in terms of this district, we've heard that over and over again. i had this nightmare situation trying to ado ortrying

to put a garage in or whatever it might be, so why are you trying to put more process on us? i completely understand the general frustration with our planning and dbi process in san francisco. we don't resource the properly and things take too long and too complicated and too challenging for property owners. that is an issue that goes beyond this district. but i honestly believe this district will not have an meaningful impact with the experience that you are going to have with the planning department. this is will not make it worse. it will make this beautiful architectural unique neighborhood thchl district only covers certain things. there are many many projects that will not require necessity additional scrutiny as a result of this district. in addition we have a

created certificate of appropriateness which means that certain a lot of different projects that used to have to go to the historic preservation commission can now be handled by staff. there are some projects that will be easier under this district because there will be a lesser version of historic research. an evaluation report will be required and would otherwise be required under ceqa. i would like to in invite if there are no comments, planning department mary brown to talk about the proposed district.

>> we have a powerpoint presentation. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors, mary brown, department staff. i'm here to present the recommendation by the historic and planning commission for the proposed landmark district. both commissions were unanimous in the recommendation. the propose district is residential. 8 non-contributing buildings and 3 interior park. it's remarkably intact in turn of the century with victorian detailing. many cottages were developed by fernando -- the

district is also significant for the usual development history district in the way the contested nature of the tract impacted the district park. the proposed district is radioed -- rooted in the nearly decade plan. specifically the plan policy recommends landmark district in the area. the neighborhood group with the neighborhood association was engaged in the neighborhood planning process among many others and requested a survey to inform and compliment the area findings. the proposed to both landmark districts was identified and strong candidate for local landmark designation. property owners were notice of

these findings in 2008. because of architectural significance, high level of -- street boundary and long supportive group and the plan which recommended group of designation, the department recommended the hpc add the proposed district to it's landmark designation to the june 2011 hearing. property owners were notified of this hearing and including the standard review process for alterations. several neighbors and the dta and spoke if support of the process and no one contacted the department or spoke in opposition. a dozens individuals properties added to the program in june 2011. once added to the work program the department engaged in an

outreach process. beginning with a kickoff neighborhood history walking tour which was attended by dozens neighbors. it included community meetings, workshops and focus on the proposed district and also included three events that specifically focused on the future review of alterations to billions -- buildings in the district. >> one goal of this outreach was to gain a better understanding of the community's perspective regarding prioritization and review of the character defining features to address these perspectives. discussions with stake holders led to a review process with certain scopes assigned levels of review from no change in the current review process, administrative staff level overview and review at an hpc

hearing. key issues raised by the community include reducing or eliminating different scopes of work, reduce and review alterations at the rear building, increasing access to property tax savings by the mills program. i will outline the department's outlines to these issues. neighborhood feedback was used to guide discussions and revisions to the ordinance. the department significantly scaled back the level of review for certain scope of work and minimized the review. the designation ordinance was revise d the maintain the current level of review. examples of this includes replacement of windows, garage doors, roof replacement, seupgrades install

panels and many alterations including fences and s and stairways. these scopes of work were not required. additional staff review or fees. if the district is designated from projects would result in a faster review process with additional fee savings. for example a view large visible dormer would require a hearing however the review fees would be less than the state mandated in environmental ceqa. as well

as scopes of work included in the mills act contract. >> the goal of excepting these specific scopes of work was an attempt to reserve hearings for larger projects, insertion of parking garages and prominent facade alterations. these can occur concurrently with other entitlements and other construction cost. during the community engagement process many property owners expressed interest in the property tax savings offered by the mills act and the application process

presbarrier to these savings. supervisor scott wiener sponsored legislation to amend the program to make the application process quicker and cheaper and more predictable. the department coordinated with the assess ors office and reduce the application fee. the program became effective in october 2012. also supervisor wiener proposed an online questionnaire. 34 property owners participated in the november 2012 online poll -- and supported the project. a break down is found in your case report packet. recently the department has received

e-mails both in support and opposition of the proposed designation of property owners opposed to the district. also made flyers produced which made information which are inconsistent which made these available at public events. in response to concerns raised in the flyers, earlier this month the department mailed an update to property owners to address misconceptions about landmark designations and clarify benefits and review process. in conclusion the department has addressed concerns in the community outreach process and a landmark status is warranted. the commission has

forwarded the recommendation for designation. as an aside i would like to submit a memo of non-substantive changes to the ordinance. this concludes my presentation. >> the last thing you say mention? >> there were a few typos in the designation order and it's non-substantive. >> thank you. i should also that as for public comment as an amendment as part of legislation we adopted last year it set the uniform annual application deadline in may 1, to try to stream line this process. because it's going slower than we anticipated. the amendments that i'm proposed

would provide that for this district only just for this year the deadline would be october first so if property owners choose can participate this year and then they will synchronize starting with may first deadline. >> i had a quick question because i haven't had a neighborhood in my district go through this process yet. you said there is about 32 participation with the actual vote? i was just wondering if that was the typical turnout. >> it's the first time we've ever conducted a poll. many buildings have multiple property owners so it's hard to say exactly what the percentage would be. we said roughly 35 percent. >> so it could be that one property owner might own several properties. the total of property owners. >>