the hpc's proposed changes reflect three areas, in my opinion. they are conforming language printing articles 10 and 11 into conformance with the charter amendment passed by the passage of prop. 8 in 2008, -- proposition j in 2008, seeking consistency with other parts of the planning code, and specifically review of historic resources and the public process in san francisco. thirdly, changes provide consistency across articles 10 and 11. the were a number of inconsistencies which we believe we have rectified in this effort. supervisors got -- supervisor weiner has proposed other changes to our to call 11 which will take up, but were unable to get to to provide today. parenthetically, the issue around article 11 -- we have voted on two occasions now. we have voted an intent to pass the ordinance and forward it on to you. we have just been waiting this last time for the verification as to form from the deputy city attorney. we will take that up on november 2. we would be pleased to report to the planning commission on the results of our discussions

. >> the hpc determined that there are approximately 40 contributory buildings. >> 58. >> she is finding it. it is fine. >> the 40 should read 43 buildings that have sold. >> 134 have not. >> 134 buildings have not sold their tdr. >> you can read read that for us to avoid any kind of confusion. >> the hbc determined that there are approximately 43 category four buildings that have not sold their tdr. that have sold their tdr. >> just send us a memo with the correction. otherwise, people one that picked -- will nitpick. next week on november 7, the historic preservation committee is scheduled to review article levin. they are also scheduled to review the memos submitted by supervisor wiener. we will make sure that they get a copy of that. we will transmit any recommendation regarding article levin and any recommendation recommended by supervisor wiener to the planning commission. we are hopeful that sometime in the future there will be a date set for adoption of a recommendation that we can pass on to the board of supervisors. that concludes my presentation. i am available for questions a

martina's, -- commissioner martina's requesting -- i gave that request to the department so that we asked hpc to review that. we have already made that request. >> commissioners, if there are no other comments, we can move on to directors' report, directors announcements, and the review of the past week's events at the board of supervisors and historic preservation commission. >> his good afternoon, commissioners. where are tentatively scheduling an informational hearing on november 17th with regard to their purchase the property. we have said repeatedly we are not -- they're not able to buy properties, it how we use them and control through the permitting process. that is the situation we're in with the academy at this time. just some scheduling announcements -- tomorrow, i will be speaking at the annual san francisco business times structures breakfast at 8:00 a.m. along with the mayor and several other speakers. i will be covering some of the of long-range planning along with the central core plan we're getting underway. the commission is off next week due to the jewish holiday. i will be

. >> setting aside the nsr, why would it not be kept to hpc? >> this is not a landmark building. it is not a historic district. goonot every his story building requires review by the historic preservation commission. goo>> we will move into public comment. can i see a show of hands of how many people are interested in speaking on this item? the first speaker can step forward. whoever would like to speak first. >> i saw three hands. i see a lot of people. sometimes i make a decision about how much time public speakers can have, and all of a sudden, 25 people stand up, so raise your hands. three minutes. >> i am here to add my voice to my friend and colleague, who has been one of the few residents who has actually defended the character and history and architecture and cultural values of the buildings and the history of chinatown. when he lived on a commercial street, it was the first interesting encounter i had with him, and when he started working on his building in which he lived in as a renter, i was very inspired by what he was doing. the bigger issue is we are often dependent

it will be after the hpc has w eighed in. there will be time to review their perspective on it. commissioner, did you have something to add to that? >> not acknowledging the work that has been happening and their group of experts. i wanted to be sure to say that. the largest dialogs occurred not in this room, but in the many months before. i think for the further development of the final ideas. >> like commissioner miguel, your comments have echoed my sentiment at this point. i do appreciate the comments of mr. chappell when he mentioned that the planning commission does have a broader mission. we are not dismissing prop j. we are also looking at the other priority principles and aspects of the general plan that also have an influence on how we use land in the city. we are not a singular body that looks at things through a singular lands. we have many things to take into consideration. i am glad that supervisor wiener is at least starting the conversation on the economic hardships in historic districts. that is a concern about members of the public at many times maintaining prop

. >> i will like to thank charles for being present for the work that the hpc has done that will be coming to us shortly. i would like to associate myself with the remarks from jim. i am pretty much directly in line with his comments. the commissioner brought up two very interesting comments, one on the public property, which was not touched here. i do not know the proper place for it. what ever is, it should be included. the only thing that i had a question on -- one of the things i questioned was a comment about viewing from the public right of way. we get involved in prior to being on the commission with what people view out of the backs of their buildings when we deal with big block open spaces. that is a concern to the general public. they are not just concerned with what is out front. i know we are talking about historic preservation here. we are talking about how the city appears to the general public. these people that do look at the backs and some of the sides of the building are still a part of the general public. the concept that the front be treated as a more strict interpretat

i know the hpc even, mr. martinez, i know you were fine with it. maybe it is the renderings we were looking at, but i am not able to sit here and feel like i can get to the place where i'm comfortable with this design and neighborhood. although i am really supportive of the fact that the developer was willing, and it is a beautiful building to me, but just not here. it is not a criticism of the -- you know, we are subjected in our opinions, obviously. as civilian commissioners, with the exceptions of commissioner moore and commissioner sugaya, we do not have professional experience dealing with this architecture. on a purely subjective basis, i am not feeling comfortable with the design completely in this neighborhood. i do want to thank the developer and the architect for working with staff and the developer working with the neighborhood. and through supervisor kim and the school district. and being amenable to their concerns of moving the entryway to south van ness. i want to thank you for that. commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i am

i know the hpc even,