i am willing to support 120%. >> let me propose a question. we have a downpayment assistance loan program. it is for people buying property for the very first time. i am not sure what percentage that is. if that is a place for we could draw the line, if it is 120, i am willing to accept it. if it is 100 -- >> we can find that? -- fund that? >> i see no one here who is willing to confirm that. supervisor wiener: thank you. for future reference, since this amendment was not brought to my attention until the motion was made on the floor, we probably

could have confirmed all of that beforehand. not exactly the best way to do legislation. with that said, i do think if we put it at 120 comment that would be -- 120, that would be fine. i cannot imagine a scenario will be will have subsidized housing that is subsidized above 120%. i would feel comfortable if we did it at 120%. that would include the entire moderate income housing. >> 100% right now. until i hear back from the mayor's office, i think that makes a lot of sense. i do not know if there is any prohibition against making any amendments. this is a complex piece of

legislation. i think we have a room -- a lot of room to make an amendment. >> colleagues, as i understand it, this was an amendment to the second one. why don't we put that to the side and discuss amendments 1 and 3? are there any discussions on those two amendments? president chiu: i want to thank all the folks who have worked for many years on this legislation. i want to thank supervisor wiener. given how many changes have happened to this, there was a desire -- i appreciate your willingness to move forward it with the amendments that you have suggested, which i do support. just to -- the question has been asked by one or two of our colleagues, the san francisco heritage yesterday had

circulated a letter to all of us that had raised several issues. i believe these amendments address two of these three issues. one in its entirety around allowing members of the public to it initiate -- request a designation. this amendment totally addresses that issue. the other issue was around the motion of the so-called mandatory written vote. i want to mentioned a couple of things. i do not read it to be a mandatory written a vote. it reads to be a goal that is established in the legislation, a good faith 50% goal. as we have all heard a lot of folks on both sides of this question, we received a letter today from the did that when a to have a harder, stricter mandatory rule for reasons that

they laid out in their letter. that being said, i do think the amendment that we have discussed to take out a category of occupancy that would be required to be part of any vote makes sense, particularly in the c3 district. it makes sense to reach out to property owners as well as residential occupants, but the need for commercial occupancy and reaching out to them was -- i think it is not -- the reason is not as compelling. i support the amendment to take out the need for outreach to that particular class of occupancy. -- occupancy. it was raised by members of the hps as to how we define housing.

i do hope we can find some resolution shortly on this issue of 100% versus 120% ami. the folks that we could be exempting here are the ones who are availing themselves to affordable housing programs. i do support the amendments that have been described. i hope we can move them through. >> we now have an answer to the second amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the answer to the question is that the down payment assistance loan program is available to any san francisco homeowner is 120% of ami. president chiu: thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you.

i would like to actually -- not to get confusing, but to create a different standard for what we would do for property that is subsidized for sale, of to 120%. >> if you are changing things, do you want to withdraw the amendment that you have on the floor? supervisor avalos: i will withdraw my first amendment. >> i will withdraw my amendment and the new amendment would be in that same section, it will read for applications pertaining within historic districts that are receiving a direct financial contribution

from local, state, or federal sources for the purpose of providing subsidized for sale unit to residents earning 120%. all rental housing units for residents earning 100% ami and below. there are two different measurements that we are using. i think it might be consistent with our down payment program. >> colleagues, to the amendment to the amendment. supervisor wiener: i think if we are going to do this, whether they are a renter or property owner, it should be 120% of ami. it is unclear to me why we would do otherwise.

i have a point of information for the maker of the motion. the amendment i indicated about 80% of the units subsidized, that was to avoid the situation where you have a 20-unit project and one unit is subsidized. to make sure that a large majority of the units are subsidized. that is not inconsistent with the amendment that supervisor avalos is making. is he intending to remove that amendment i proposed? or is it in addition to the amendment i propose to? >> in addition. >> anyone else on the amendment to the amendment?

>> if you add a different subsection, it is contradictory, from what i can tell. >> i would like to get a copy of supervisor kim wiener's amendment. >> it will read, for applications pertaining to

residential projects within historic districts that are receiving a direct financial contribution or funding from local, state, or federal sources for the purpose of providing a subsidized for sale housing unit upto residents earning one underproduce% -- but under 20% of -- 120% ami and below. at least 80% of the units are subsidized. that last phrase is the amendment. it is basically -- it is qualifying what types of ami we will be utilizing for property owners versus property renters. supervisor wiener: in its

current form, i will be opposing this. if the maker work to make it 120% across the board, i would support it. there are a lot of people in this city who will not qualify, they cannot buy a home. even with a downpayment assistance, they still may not be able to buy a home. they have to rent. although there are -- although it is not common to have -- the higher you get on the ami scale, it is not impossible. i do not see what the downside is of having its 120% across the board. in fact, i think it sends a strong message that this board of supervisors is committed to supporting our moderate-income residents, and that is not just lip service.

supervisor chu: i want to support supervisor wiener and his comments. we do not want to have a situation where a building is not technically -- but would be able to take advantage of the exemption. if this board of supervisors valued the idea of supporting affordable housing, i think it makes a lot of sense if the amendment is 120%. the whole idea is to say, there is a situation where we may want to exempt an individual or a business or property. this is a situation where affordable housing is being provided. whether that is 100% or 120%, i still think it is valuable. i would hope that the the second amendment -- the commander of

the second amendment would consider 120%. supervisor avalos: i will propose something more radical. i think we have a very large complex piece of legislation and we could spend all afternoon quibbling on a lot of different pieces. or perhaps we could send the item back to committee and do some homework. >> is that a motion to refer the item back to committee? does that take precedence? colleagues? on the motion to refer to committee -- supervisor wiener: i will be opposing this motion.

this legislation has been in the works for years. -- today is the 27 hearing. there has been all the time in the world to participate in this process. this provision has not been a secret, it has been discussed many times. with the amendment that i offered at the beginning, i think, i think we should just move forward. there is no reason to send this back to committee. supervisor campos: thank you very much, mr. scherer. i want to thank the proponents of this legislation. i know a lot of work went into it. i am cognizant of the fact that many discussions have been had. that said, at the end of the day, the question is whether or not to in the context of this discussion we're having right

now, whether or not we are at a point or all of the questions have been addressed. i that -- i feel we could benefit from additional discussion. i am one of those who believes that we need to have a balanced approach on this issue. with any issue, there is always the fear and possibility that you end up on one extreme. the question i have is whether or not what we have before us and it's the balance the other way. that is the concern that i have. i think having that additional discussion and to make sure we get this right, and the reality is there are differences of opinions on many of these issues. i appreciate all the work that has been done, and i am very appreciative that supervisor wiener has taken into account a

lot of feedback and responded to that feedback. i think we can benefit from additional time to make sure that whatever we do, that we get it as right as we can. that is why i am supporting this motion. i want to recognize all the work that my colleagues have done. thank you. supervisor olague: i think this has been out there -- 2008? there has been a discussion on article 10 and 11 for over three years. the legislation has evolved over the years. where we are now was arrived at through 25 hearings at the historic preservation commission. two hearings at the planning commission.

extensive public input t. at the end of the day, i think where most people wanted this to end up at was a place for consideration was given to those to institutions -- constituents or to those parties of interest who have not always benefited from the historic preservation tool. there were definitely people from broad areas of interest from the development community, all the way to people who have worked in communities of color, and low income communities, who have suffered some challenges as a result of the implementation

of historic districts in the areas where they live. i think we are finally at a place where there is some balance in the discussion. i believe that the end of the day, the historic preservation commission and heritage only had 10 points of disagreement. we never got to replace of 100% agreement. the last letter i read from heritage, there were three points of contention. i think many of the points of contention have been discussed and resolved. today, we are having productive discussions about these few amendments that should be considered given the input we have received starting monday of this week. i think a lot of times, it got into this -- it seems to me that the discussion we could

have here today would be sufficient to get to a place of resolution. it is a pretty balanced place. if people see a lot of the areas of compromise over the past 3.5 years, and how the law works as it related to historic preservation to where we are today, and what is being proposed, most people find that a lot of compromises were made. the issue of this drug preservation has been greatly strengthened as a result of -- the issue of historic preservation has been greatly strengthened. articles 10 and 11 strengthen some of the rules. there has been a lot of misinformation. i have received e-mails saying

that somehow the ordinance you're proposing today removes rent-controlled housing from san francisco housing market, which is a complete distortion of facts. in fact, there are ways in the future with historic preservation will be used in a different matter. that would be to preserve some of these rent-controlled housing, to increase diversity in neighborhoods, and all the above. i do not see there is anything that prohibits historic preservation has been used as a tool. i believe historic preservation revolves around the physical and architectural integrity of certain sites. now we are getting into the issue of cultural heritage, but that is uncharted territory that we will lead to another series

of discussions. that is a separate discussion, but i think we're at a pretty good place today. i am ready to move on this and i am ready to continue to discuss the amendments being proposed.com -- proposed. superisor mar: i want to speak in favor of the motion. or even an additional motion to continue this for a week. i do feel that i am supportive of the balancing approach. i do think the flood of different calls and e-mails and letters, some with information -- misinformation, some concerns about the weakening of prop j, is worthy of more time to consider this. i was a dissenting votes in the land use committee a week and a half ago. not because i am not supportive of the great work involving so

many of the stakeholders, but i feel like this needs more time. many amendments have come through in the past couple of weeks, and even today, that i would feel more comfortable to have a little bit more time to consider days. but i appreciate the bird that has been done. i would be supportive of the motion to send back to committee. i would prefer to continue for a week or so. >> are you making that motion? superisor mar: i will vote up or down on the motion that is on the table. supervisor campos: i think it is something that underlines many of the comments that people are making. i will be the first one to say that historic preservation has to be balanced. i also think that we have to be very clear about what we are talking about.

some of the examples in terms of the projects, the issues were not so much the designation of the historic district. if that is the problem, i do not know that the items that we have before that address the issue. i think we have to be very careful about not confusing where the problem lies. that is why having a more robust discussion about what the substance really is will be helpful. >> solely to the motion to continue? or to refer back to committee? supervisor olague: i do not support the motion to refer back to committee. we spent two or three hours on this. it was 25 hearings. 3.5 years of vetting.

there will be amendments that i am open to. again, a lot -- there was a lot of misinformation out there that somehow the intention of some of this legislation was to make french control weaker. i cannot even big -- to make rent control weaker. i cannot even begin to tell you some of the misguided information that i have been receiving about this at legislation. at the end of the day, many of the amendment came from individuals and organizations whose only goal was to make sure that there was some protections in place for low income communities. i believe the integrity of prop j is still very present in the

legislation. i believe it does empower the process are around historic preservation greatly in the city. i do not think this is contrary to prop j. i am ready to move ahead with this today. >> madam clerk? superisor mar: aye. supervisor olague: no. supervisor wiener: no. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: no. supervisor chu: no. supervisor cohen: no. supervisor elsbernd: no. supervisor farrell: no. supervisor kim: no.

>> motion to refer back to committee fails. we are back to the amendment to the amendment. anyone else on that motion? superisor mar: aye. supervisor olague: aye. supervisor wiener: no. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: no. supervisor cohen: no. supervisor elsbernd: no. supervisor farrell: no. supervisor kim: aye. >> that amendment passes. on the remainder of the three amendments, any comments? supervisor avalos: can we restage each of the amendments?

-- restate each of the amendments? supervisor wiener: the first -- the first amendment is to make clear what is already clear, but to clarify in writing that any person can request that hpc creates a district. the other one is for article 11 only. to restrict for the voting -- to restrict the voting to property owners and residential tenants, but not commercial tenants. supervisor kim: this is on amendment number 3. i just had a question for the planning department. my only concern on amendment 3 is the cost of this participation.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. based on our calculations of administrative costs and postage, all of the notification would be through certified mail. we can only speculate, depending on the size of the proposed district, what those costs would be. our general assumption of an area where there be 1000 owners and documents, the cost of conducting this survey would probably be around $23,000. that includes department analysis and reporting to the board of supervisors the outcome of that survey. supervisor wiener: just a clarification, the amendment, number 3, restricts or reduces

the amount of mailing. it exempts out commercial tenants. it reduces the cost. you used 1000 as a number, right? for example, there is one potential district moving forward. how many owners and occupancy approximately? >> we are estimating about 130 households. because it is a much smaller area, they're certified mail and analysis of the survey, it would be anywhere from 4500 to $6,000. supervisor wiener: the total cost for creating that district? >> staff has spent approximately 500 hours on the project. it was funded