Yesterday the Land Use Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors heard four hours of testimony in regards to "the impact of historic preservation on other city policies." Supervisor Wiener is fascinated with the topic and apparently thinks he can come up with a better process than the one that has been developed over the last 75 years. This was my public comment:
I believe that historic preservation impacts other city policies by strengthening them. The process of historic preservation leads to informed decisions.
For example the Palace of Fine Arts Restoration project began with an historic preservation report. That report provided factual information about the history and existing condition of the structure. The report was used to make decisions concerning open space, animal and plant life, seismic and pedestrian safety and accessibility. It was used to acquire funds from private donors and ultimately it led to the return of revenues as a popular wedding venue.
Historic preservation strengthens other city policies but where it lies in the balance will always change depending on the project. The Board of Supervisors must redetermine that balance of policies for every project based on the knowledge provided by your local preservation professional.
