Here’s what showed up in the email, below.
Is this like preaching to the converted or something? I mean, why on Earth would we want more historic districts in San Francisco? Aren’t they, and their boosters, part of the problem?
Anyway, here’s the spiel, choose or lose:
“SPEAK UP NOW FOR PRESERVATION IN SAN FRANCISCO!
On Thursday, December 8, the Planning Commission will consider comprehensive revisions to Articles 10 and 11 of the Planning Code recommended by the Historic Preservation Commission, in addition to a series of controversial amendments introduced by Supervisor Scott Wiener.
Attend the Planning Commission hearing:
When: Thursday, December 8, 12:00 p.m. (Agenda Item #9)
Where: City Hall, Commission Chambers, Room 400
Why: To voice concern over Supervisor Wiener’s proposed amendments that would roll back protections for historic resources in San Francisco.
Email the Planning Commission: If you are unable to attend the hearing, please email the Commissioners (with a copy to Desiree Smith at firstname.lastname@example.org):
Christina Olague email@example.com
Ron Miguel firstname.lastname@example.org
Michael J. Antonini Wordweaver21@aol.com
Gwyneth Borden email@example.com
Kathrin Moore firstname.lastname@example.org
Hisashi Sugaya email@example.com
Rodney Fong firstname.lastname@example.org
OPPOSE Supervisor Wiener’s amendments that would impose unique procedural hurdles on the designation of historic districts:
Although only 11 local historic districts have been created in 45 years, Supervisor Wiener would require 66% owner support before community groups can nominate a historic district.
The intent of Proposition J was to update Articles 10 and 11 to reflect best practices nationwide; the 66% owner consent threshold is a relic of the original ordinance adopted in 1967 and is out of step with widely-recognized preservation practice today.
Other procedural hoops proposed by Supervisor Wiener, including a mandatory written vote or survey of all property owners, would make the process more costly and time-consuming.
No other zoning changes in San Francisco are subject to similar owner consent requirements; historic districts should be treated the same as other neighborhood planning initiatives. OPPOSE Supervisor Wiener’s amendment to make compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards optional:
The proposed language would effectively eliminate any minimum standards for the treatment of historic buildings in San Francisco. OPPOSE Supervisor Wiener’s amendment to exempt large classes of projects from historic review altogether, including downtown housing development projects:
The proposed language is a misguided attempt to exempt an entire class of projects from historic review, clearing the path for demolition, insensitive alterations and new construction regardless of the significance of the structure or the surrounding historic district.
For further backgroud and to read Heritage’s past comment letters, go to sfheritage.org”
Tags: 2011, 8, amendments, bay area, california, Christina Olague, City Hall, commission, December 8, district, districts, Gwyneth Borden, heritage, Hisashi Sugaya, historic, Historic Preservation Commission, Kathrin Moore, Michael Antonini, Michael J. Antonini, nimby, Planning, planning commission, Proposition J, Rodney Fong, Ron Miguel, San Francisco, Scott Wiener, SF, sfheritage, sfheritage.org, Supervisor, Supervisor Scott Wiener, vote