the hpc agreed to clean it up. in 1111.6, the language -- the department has worked closely with the supervisor to draft language regarding local interpretations of the standard, and the hpc made a very similar change in article 11 that they recommended in article 10, which is removed the planning commission from the process. lastly, there were two changes recommended by the hpc on page 40 of the draft ordinance, in 111.1.7 a and b, standards for demolition. the supervisor, would change the time line and make denial of applications for the demolition of category five buildings subject to a finding that the demolition does not substantially damaged the integrity of the preservation district. the hpc first recommended the language be removed, saying that an article 5 building shall be void if within 180 days of such determination the board of supervisors has not read designated the building to a higher category. -- has not re-designated the building to a higher category. finally, the language be removed that notes th

hpc recommended removing that. i suggested keeping it in pure and i agree with this as suggested reducing that to 56% plus one. i am fine with that. finally, there are a couple of unique items relating to article 11 about having -- miss hayward can describe in more detail, the 180 they hold and relating to demolition. i disagree with their desire to strip those out. in somum, i would request the commission consider endorsing my amendment with the one change that reducing the 66% to the 50% plus 1 would be my request to the commission and grateful for your consideration. president miguel: thank you. commissioner antonini: think you for coming to address us. i have a question on your first point, and that is the secretary standards. i want to ask if you are in conjunction or agree with the staff's position on this or feel it needs modification? commissioner wiener: the current language is in which i negotiated, so we are in agreement about the new language, which i have described. apparently the hpc is an agreement w

that means san francisco heritage and the hpc commission. some of the points that i am concerned about is the outreach process. i think in san francisco, where many of the homeowners do not speak english, or may not read proficient fleet -- that is a major problem. also, that affects renters. i think the bar is a little bit too high in that regard. i know in the past there have been many important ordinances and changes with regard to the housing element. there have been demolition controls. people just did not understand and did not get involved. i think the same is going to happen here. thank you. >> i am speaking in support of the amendments proposed by supervisors weiner and olague. the devil is in the details. if you look at the details, but are incredibly modest. everything that was proposed several months ago by supervisor weiner has been watered down, negotiated, and moderated in such a way that there is very clear consensus on most of these items. i want to speak to a few of them where the hpc disagreed with the supervisors. 10.1, i

i wanted to come here to speak in support of hpc's amendments. i moved to the city because i love the historical integrity of the city, and it is really sad to me that we have been losing a lot of the historic night light here, but i really appreciate what supervisor wiener has done. i appreciate the fact that he is setting clear goals and expectations, but i believe that these goals and expectations, which are supposed to inspire confidence -- they actually seem like they are really, really hard, and they do exactly the opposite of that. i just hope that we will take that into consideration. thanks. president miguel: thank you. [reading names] >> afternoon, commissioners. we work on policy advocacy to promote sustainable communities, particularly in san francisco bay area and low-income communities of color. i voted for prop. j. i wanted to approve a historic preservation commission, and i knew very well i was also approving likely the creation of new historic districts. i also wanted to see safeguards for vulnerable communities that, as we crea

it does not exempt them from the review of the hpc, but the fee. and the hpc has some latitude. commissioner sugaya: i am going to try a motion. i might vote against it myself. [laughter] in order to move forward, i think this is kind of a compromise motion. before i say that, i have one comment on 1004.3, and the language there should be some kind of survey or vote for something, with a goal of 50%. with respect to the historic districts, it strikes me as something that is a little strange, because we do not -- maybe we should -- impose the same kind of process when we do area plans and try to implement, or consider implementing, ordinance is based on those plans. i frankly cannot see that there is that much of a difference. i mean, we should have taken a vote in glen park. all through the number of years the plan was taking place, how did the residents feel about it, other than those who were participating in the planning process? i do not even know if there was in the opposition during testimony. but apart from those, it might have been interesting to see how the proposal fai

this would be coming from the hpc. it would have had to have taken an action that goes to the board of supervisors. >> if i may, these actions have to be interpreted by ordinance. in the landmark designation, whether under article 10 or 11. commissioner borden: i want to make them act. >> so you leave it as it is? commissioner antonini: leave it in there. president miguel: is there a second to this motion? commissioner borden: i will second. commissioner antonini: one question. i believe we already have language that allows some flexibility in the secretary's standards as part of the legislation and has been drafted. commissioner sugaya: my understanding, if i might, is the secretary standards are there. but then the department, the commission, and the hpc will enter into the process of creating new guidelines -- president miguel: interpreted guidelines. commissioner antonini: so it is already in there. i think there is a 4-2 vote on that, with a modified language, so that is fine with me. >> may i ask for a brief clar

but i do want to support the hpc recommendations from yesterday as well. thank you very much. >> i am robin leavitt, the no- name person. president miguel: i recognize your address. >> this is a picture of my home. it is a victorian inn hayes valley, built probably in the 1890's. the records were destroyed in 1956. since the building was constructed, probably after the earthquake in 1906, it was subdivided. it is probably initially side by side town home units, divided into four units. the stair going into the upper stair was added. in 1920, a garage was added to it. the house was probably lifted up to do that. this area down below was also modified. the point is that this building is not original to what it was. since this picture was taken shortly after i bought the house in 1995, the front stairs have deteriorated significantly so the have to be replaced. i went to the planning department to discuss replacing the stairs. right now, they do not meet any kind of code. they are too narrow. the handrails are too low. they are way too steep. the landings do

hpc recommended removing that. i suggested keeping it in pure and i agree with this as suggested reducing that to 56% plus one. i am fine with that. finally, there are a couple of unique items relating to article 11 about having -- miss hayward can describe in more detail, the 180 they hold and relating to demolition. i disagree with their desire to strip those out. in som

we are glad the hpc and architectural heritage have. please protect the park and do not adopt supervisor wiener's amendments. president miguel: thank you. [reading names] >> good afternoon. first, i would like to comment on the gentleman who -- president miguel: your name? >> mike boyd. i am not connected with any organization. the gentleman who referred to 200 trucks and then 400 trucks -- i used to drive a 10-wheel dump truck and trailer -- president miguel: that is not on the subject, is it? >> ok. i worked at new college california school of law. we inherited a building under a surplus building federal grant act. it had been owned and operated by the city and county of san francisco. they pretty much trash it. i was the superintendent. we spent a year bringing it up to code without any money. we later ended up selling the air rights to the building next door so that we could have funding to continue to develop the building. i believe it is a historic building. we bought a hotel on fillmore, also a historic building. reconstructing t

my feeling is hpc and planning department are not even using a stick right now. it is a club in people over the head. -- club, beating people over the head. most of what has been done and defined the character of the city would not be allowed under the current interpretation. i would hope that the local standards we develop could be more flexible and support individuals, and put some teeth into protection against unscrupulous developers. with that, i support very heartily supervisor wiener's amendment, and hoped to adopt it. thank you very much. president miguel: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am an architectural historian. i have been active in historic preservation for a long time now. for the last 10 years in san francisco, i have been active on certain boards. i oppose supervisor weiner's amendments and support the position put forth by san francisco heritage and the hpc. in general, i would favor a robust historic preservation program for the city of san francisco. i recognize there are frustrations around historic preservation processes. i a

please forward the hpc's provisions. and let's move on. >> i have renovated a number of buildings in san francisco. i also range the monthly meeting places for the victoria alliance where we meet every month in a different architecturally interesting space. one thing that i think is fairly obvious to everybody is that definitions of what is attractive in terms of architecture do change. hates victorian. i happen to like victorians very much, and i would say that most of my friends who have renovated victorians -- my friends and myself being over the age of 50 -- when we work on our buildings, we wanted to do the right thing. we wanted to make sure that what we were doing was appropriate for the building. what i'm saying these days is with people who are "renovating" buildings is it is not necessarily -- they are not necessarily being done by people who have a love for the building they are doing. if you look at the glossy real- estate magazines or go to open houses, you see buildings that are described as being victorian

the hpc voted to continue the item until its march 21 hearing.ued to allow the property owner and the authorç of the designation rept time to addressçççó hpc at its hearing yesterday requested informational hearings on the city's pdr program in anticipation of the transit district area plan coming before the body, and also on the sock story retrofit program. that concludes my report unless there are any questions. commissioner sugaya: yes, just to clarify, i think the proposed use for the new mission theater is as a multiplex theater. is that right? >> that is correct. commissioner sugaya: so it will remain basically in its sinews? >> the proposed projectç is foa single screen theater with a full-service restaurant. the variants within the environmental document raises the screens to a five-screen theater, but it is only a very it currently under study. it is not the proposed project. commissioner sugaya: ok, thank you. ç>> thank you. commissioners, with that, we can move forward on your calendar to general public comment. members of the pub

lastly, for the last line, do you want to accept the hpc striking "if it is found the demolition would significantly damaged the district"? well, i understand the position. this could substantially diminished. on the other hand, when you look at the integrity of a district, when you are creating the district, you have to come up with certain reasons and justification's for why you have a bunch of buildings that might not be historic buildings but the district still is a historic district. i think then that that is kind of a substantial way of looking at that and we are trying to figure out whether substantial can be defined in a little bit of a different kind of manner. >> i would leave it in. >> i would leave it in, too. >> are you leaving it in? >> we are leaving it in. >> please restate your motion. i am not sure i have this. >> ok, the motion as i understand it is beginning with article 10 is to accept the change suggested by the amendment for 1004.1, changing the language from 66% to a majority. point number two is in the discussion of the outreach to owners and occupants within p

to cook the commission might be interested in the project that that eache hpc approved yesterd they approved the restoration of the building and reuse as an office building. you will see that as well. they will insert a mezzanine floor and converted to offices. very interesting project that you will be seeing in a few weeks i think. >> that concludes those reports. commissioners, you are now at the 15 minute general public comment category. the public may at trust you on items that fall within the subject matter jurisdiction. with the exception of the agenda items, they may not be addressed during the category, but only at the time they are reached on calendar. it is important to remember this category has a 15-minute time limit, and there are a number of speakers. and >commissioner moore: thank -- president miguel: thank you. chilinda chapman and brad hall. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name mashoshona mgrew. i wanted to present this information regarding the proposed soccer field. it that could be given to the commission? thank you. i worked for the rec and park for 37 years. i was

it's this mixture that they -- >> and you're employing if we don't extend the hpc that home market mission that we've agreed in a bipartisan way is crucial? >> well, it's who goes through -- it goes through how do you get a market draw, how do you help bring slightly lower cost financing, all those things. you talk to any supplier of wind. they would rather set up a supply chain in the country where the things are being installed. this is heavy stuff and so in the solar world, it's more like a commodity that can be shipped worldwide. but it's going to be heavily influenced. as i noted before, wind technology is getting very, very close to price parity with new gas. let me be careful. new gas is considered, you know, if you average over the next 10 or 20 years this is what it's projecting. solar has dropped by more than 75%, the solar modules have dropped by more than 75% in the last three years. everybody anticipates another 50% drop in next five to eight years. so solar is competitive with any form of new energy. so we need to spur this market because this could be -- this is clean energy