Articles 10 & 11

The Latest

Thanks to everyone who testified or submitted letters for the February 2, 2012 Planning Commission hearing on Articles 10 & 11. Because of your support for strong and inclusive historic preservation protections, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted a compromise resolution that echoes the HPC version approved the day before. The collective resolutions finally send Articles 10 & 11 to the Board of Supervisors, marking a major milestone in the three-plus year effort to implement Proposition J. Although many of Supervisor Wiener’s proposals remain, the most controversial amendments were either modified or sent back to the drawing board. Under both the HPC and Planning Commission versions:

• The HPC must consider historic district nominations supported by a majority of property owners, but there is no minimum owner support requirement for the HPC to initiate designation.
• Both owners and renters will be polled by the Planning Department for their views on proposed historic districts.
• All proposed work must comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards or local interpretations thereof.

 
Both commissions endorsed an economic hardship provision in concept, but removed Supervisor Wiener’s proposed language that would have potentially exempted residential projects for households up to 150% area median income. The Planning Commission advised the Board of Supervisors to craft new language with input from the community and other interested parties. Heritage looks forward to working with Supervisor Wiener, the Board of Supervisors and others to develop economic hardship language that reflects best practices in other cities. Of course, we will continue to closely follow the legislation as it works its way through the Land Use Committee and to the full Board for adoption.

Background

With the passage of Proposition J in November 2008, San Franciscans expressed their desire to elevate the role of historic preservation in the city’s planning processes. Approved by 57 percent of voters, the measure calls for a comprehensive overhaul of the city’s preservation program guided by best practices from other large cities across the country. Among other key changes, Proposition J replaced the city’s former nine-member Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board with a seven-member Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), conferring additional authority on the HPC to make recommendations directly to the Board of Supervisors on the designation of landmark buildings and historic districts.

Since Proposition J was approved, however, the task of fully implementing the voters’ intent has proven elusive and often contentious, with initial legislative proposals to update the city’s framework of preservation protections in Articles 10 and 11 of the City Planning Code erupting in controversy. In July 2010, the Planning Department introduced a package of “clean-up” revisions to bring Articles 10 and 11 mostly into conformance with Proposition J.  As the new HPC grappled with these changes, it soon became clear that the proposed “clean-up” fixes could not be enacted without implicating much broader substantive issues and creating internal inconsistencies within the City codes. What was originally envisioned as a quick round of minor tweaks soon became a regular agenda item on the HPC’s calendar as the commission delved deeper and deeper into the inner workings of the city’s preservation review process.

Since July 2010, Heritage has been a regular presence at all HPC meetings, providing testimony and written comments on the proposed changes, offering examples of best practices from other cities, and seeking to build consensus among stakeholders within the preservation, business, and development communities and Planning Department staff.

On September 7, 2011, Supervisor Scott Wiener introduced the first in a series of five memos floating additional amendments to Articles 10 and 11. Heritage’s detailed comment letters in response to Supervisor Wiener’s amendments are provided below. On November 16, 2011, the HPC voted to recommend against adoption of the most controversial amendments.

On Thursday, December 8, the Planning Commission considered a series of amendments to Articles 10 and 11 of the Planning Code submitted by Supervisor Scott Wiener. At the request of staff, the proposed revisions were heard as an informational item only in order to allow time for the Historic Preservation Commission to provide comments on new amendments submitted by Supervisor Scott Wiener. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments during their February 2, 2010 hearing, following the HPC’s review of the amendments on January 18 and February 1, 2012.

Past Letters and Talking Points

–Talking Points for Feb. 2
–Heritage Feb. 2 Comment Letter
–Heritage Dec. 8 Comment Letter
–November 2 Comment Letter
–Heritage Oct. 19 Comment Letter on Wiener’s Proposed Amendments
–Heritage Oct. 5 Comment Letter on Wiener’s Proposed Amendments
–Sup. Wiener’s Proposed Amendments, Oct. 13 Letter
–Sup. Wiener’s Proposed Amendments, Sept. 7 Letter
–Planning Department Memo for Oct. 5 Hearing
–Talking Points for Oct. 5 Hearing

_____________________

To submit comments on this preservation project, complete our online comment form.