it would be deleting this subsection -- the lines that read, to meet the city's regional housing needs allocation. to identify any amendments necessary to facilitate adoption of the proposed designation. that would be my amendment on article 10. on article 11, it would be section 11.7, page 17. it would be looking at the section that reads particularly the provision of the leading that section that refers to the city's regional housing needs allocation, the provision of housing to meet the city's

allocation near transit corridors, identify any amendments for a general plan necessary to facilitate adoption of proposed boundary change and evaluate whether the proposed boundary change would conflict with the sustainable community strategy for the bay area. we want to be consistent with how we are planning our land use needs between are generally planning needs and our historic preservation needs. those are my amendments. >> is there a second to that motion? supervisor campos: thank you, mr. terra. -- mr. chair. serving on a regional body, i understand and recognize the importance of making sure that we take into account a regional housing needs and our regional housing obligations.

and fast, we have been working with members of this board of soup -- in fact, we have been working with members of the transportation board on a sustainable community strategy for the region. it is something that we have to pay attention to. the reason i am supporting this amendment is because i do believe we have to be consistent. to the extent that we will take those regional needs into consideration as we are making decisions, it should not only happen in the context of historic preservation, but it should happen in the context of planning positions. the problem i have with this requirement is that i do think that it's it's the balance the other way. -- it tips the balance the other way. i respect the principle that there has been too much attention paid or given to historic preservation, but the response is not to tip the balance the other way. it is to make sure that there is

an even and balanced approach that make sure that historic preservation doesn't get singled out. that is why i am supporting this amendment. if we're going to go down the road of taking into account regional housing needs, we need to do that across the board. supervisor wiener: i speak in opposition to the amendment. this is another one of those amendments that has been gone through a significant amount of process. it makes a lot of sense. we have a housing crisis in san francisco. we have a housing crisis in the bay area. we have very aggressive goals in terms of creating smartly planned housing. regional goals, local goals, and

it is absolutely appropriate to say that when we are considering the creation of the district, and districts, and a lot of different forms, that we have a planning commission consider how these various goals interplay with each other. one goal is not prominent over the other. it does not mean the regional housing goals trump the creation of historic districts. we have to evaluate it in context. this is good government. we have these goals and we should put our money where our mouth is. i do oppose this amendment. supervisor olague: i wanted to mention that i did introduce -- just a couple of weeks ago something called a dashboard. it would force the planning

commission to look at each project and weighted against the goals set around housing policy. that is something that i agree should be done across the board. it should not be limited to -- hpc should not be singled out. what you're asking for here is information emperor during not advocating for a particular end. -- what we are asking for here is information. we are not advocating for a particular end. we do not feel there is enough attention given from the planning department. the planning commission should be looking at individual projects and bring those projects against regional goals and affordable housing and other needs that have been identified in the city. we do have pending legislation

that would force the planning department to look at each project that would come out of their -- against these greater goals. i think it should be something that is applied city-wide, not just to the hpc. supervisor kim: i absolutely agree that we should be consistent, that this consideration of allocation, provision of housing, transit corridors, should be something that the planning commission is required to consider for all of our developments. the answer to that is not to eliminate this provision, but to support it. to support follow up legislation to ensure that this consistency

will be held for other development as well. president chiu: i want to make one comment. i think you are aware that this is an issue that will appear in front of us next week. there is a lot of consensus that the consideration of the washington project was not done within the context of our city's housing needs and our regional housing needs. when it was used as an example for why we should not include in its in the overall context, it seems to me that the logic goes the other way. if we want to make sure we are considering future housing projects, in my mind, the issues suggest that we should not support this amendment.

supervisor campos: thank you. i appreciate the comments from my colleagues and i appreciate the fact that there is consensus that we should treat all land use the same. i do think that -- if you are going to go down the road of having a uniform approach across the board, that does not single out historic preservation, i think the way to do that is to deal with that issue separately and to not do it in the context of historic preservation discussion on. if we really want to make sure there is no disparate treatment, we need to have a holistic approach to the issue of considering goals. if we are going to do that, this is not how we should do it. thank you. supervisor olague: to the amendment, what i would say, when we do get to the discussion

of the dashboard, that could be a place for we could bring in the discussion of historic preservation. i am hoping to, at this time, because it is something that should be applied city-wide to all projects, to consider the amendment. making that discussion of the stock preservation and further analysis -- discussion of historic preservation as part of the dash board discussion. so that they can apply to -- can apply across the board. i am willing to support the amendment today. supervisor kim: i really feel uncomfortable eliminating the provision. so we can vote on it when we vote on the dashboard. i would not support eliminating that. i do think it is incredibly

support -- important. cops we will vote on the amendment. -- >> we will vote on the amendment. 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. >> the amendment fails. superisor mar: let me try to do my best to be as brief as i can. i am proposing an amendment that will make sure that the

planning commission and hpc share the responsibility of creating interpretations of standards. hpc currently looks at, it is a 25-year process. it allows them to evaluate federal standards and to make a local interpretation. my amendment would make sure that the planning commission should not have the ability to veto these local interpretations. before you is this simple amendment that i have provided to article 10, starting on page 29. there is a second part of it, too, that insures that these local standards can look at the district by district so that the hpc can work with the unique

characteristics of our district. i think this is important in protecting the spirit of prop j and making sure there is a balance of what the planning commission does. i think this is a wise amendment that makes land use planning shared between the planning commission and hpc. i urge your support for this amendment. supervisor campos: no. supervisor wiener: i will be voting against this amendment. to be clear, what this provision provides is that it requires the city to have -- to

have to compile its local interpretations. secretary of interior standards are broad national standards that are in a number of respects very suburban oriented, not always focused on an urban setting. and so this legislation would require us to have our local interpretations compiled in one place, which will help the process and allow us to tailor our interpretations 2 san francisco's needs. i will say, for example, this amendment strips that out entirely. it does another thing, but i am proposing is both the planning commission and the historic preservation commission would have to adopt local

interpretations. that makes a lot of sense because these interpretations will have broad landy's ramifications -- land use ramifications. the standards are applied in a lot of different contexts, not just in districts. to have a situation where these projects will have to go to the hpc anyway, to say that they would -- with nobody in from the planning commission could write their own interpretations. it makes no sense to me. the planning commission is the body that is charged with taking into account all of the policy goals of this city. the hpc is focused on historic preservation. with all respect to the maker of the motion, this is a very problematic amended that. it would undermine the very

important goal of this legislation. i will be voting against it. superisor mar: no. 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. >> the amendment fails. supervisor campos: thank you very much. i want to say that it has been a very interesting discussion. i do have one final amendment that i was like to introduce.

this specific amendment, you should have gotten a copy of a document. it deals with the question of whether or not there should be a survey before there is a designation of historic district. let me say that i will be the first one to admit that having as much public input as possible is a good thing. again, for me, this is about consistency. it is not something that is required in any kind of zoning decision that is made where you are requiring that you do a vote for a survey of property owners before a decision is made. again, my spurs active -- my perspective from the get go has been to make sure we have a balanced approach when it comes to historic preservation. making sure that the scales are

not tipped for or against. from my perspective, requiring or possibly requiring a vote or a survey, to me, adding that specific requirement with respect to historic preservation, but not having yet with respect to other land use decisions, is a problem. i know that supervisor wiener has indicated that it is different versus other zoning decisions. perhaps there may be a matter of degree or there are some differences. if we're going down the road of requiring a survey or a vote, we need to be consistent across the board. the second point is that i do have a concern about the specific cost that will be involved. what exactly are we talking about? it seems like an unfunded

mandate, which is why the language that i have introduced, and i make a motion to amend section 1004.3 of article 10 simply requires that there be extensive public input. it tries to achieve the same objective of hearing from the people that will be affected by that decision. it takes away the specific requirements that a vote or a survey take place. the fact is that we in this body and others do public input all the time without requiring a survey, without requiring a vote, and i think that we should follow the language of this amendment. the last thing i would say is this, i understand some of the folks that have proposed this change have expressed concerns

about making sure that we protect the voices of diverse communities when it comes to a designation of historic districts. i wholeheartedly agree that we need to make sure that those voices are heard. from my perspective, we have processes in place that already insure that those voices are taken into consideration. we have to provide some context for what we are talking about. i do not believe that we have a situation where the rules around historic preservation are such that you have so many areas in san francisco that have been designated historic districts where they should not have. we have to remind people that in the last 45 years, which had 11 historic districts. it was nine years ago that the last district was not -- designated, back in 2003. what this tells me is that there

are a lot of hurdles already in place, a lot of requirements that need to be followed. to me, adding this extra layer where we do not do that in other contexts, it is not the right way if we're going to have a balanced approach. i make that motion to amend section 1004.3 of article 10. >> motion to amend has been made. supervisor wiener: i will be opposing this amendment. this amendment makes a lot of sense, and i know everyone received -- i know everyone received a letter from -- the letter describing in detail why it is so important to have

community buy in, or to ask people what they think. it is very different than zoning. the historic district is different. it imposes a significant change to a person's ability to make changes to their property. in a way that the vast majority of zoning does not. as i mentioned, this proposed district, we have been going through a long process of this. there are a lot of different opinions about districts, about whether they should proceed. it makes perfect sense to survey people. i just ask them what they think. the board does not have to accept the results, but it is information. i do not to harm in doing this.

it is a significant benefit. there are only 11 historic districts now, but when you look at the map of all the potential districts that could be coming up in the coming years, there are a lot of them. that is why this is important. in terms of this being an unfunded mandate, in the context of -- is a very significant cost. this is a small cost in the context of that a very large cost to create the district. if you want to talk about unfunded mandates, go through all of article 10 and 11. there are all sorts of procedural obligations that requires staff time and other time. you could call that undefended -- unfunded mandates, too. i will be voting against this. supervisor olague: to the amendment, there is a part of me that as a little bit torn on

this one. understanding of the motivation behind this recommendation, i do hear what supervisor campos is saying about requiring -- about promoting some type of consistency and how these efforts are moved forward. i do feel a little bit torn at this time. i do want to make mention of the fact that this was brought to us -- contrary to the misinformation that was put out there, it was being driven by different things, this is very much about concerns -- i will

just read a little bit of this letter. just for the public said so they understand or some of this was coming from. regarding the importance that low-income property owner should have a vote. with protections to ensure they are not squeezed out by new historic rules and regulations and procedures, having mitigated claims in historic districts in pasadena, i have seen the need for community in e historic preservation process. these claims involved homeowners who ended up in historic districts against their wishes and were squeezed out by complaints from neighbors that created the district or that bought into the neighborhood. specifically, most were retirees and homeowners and african-

american and latino neighborhoods who were cited by the city of pasadena for violations, their front yard or window replacements. this devastated communities of color in pasadena. lacking the financial means to make historic of grit, many were forced to sell their home were seeking to decertify the historic district in which they found themselves residing. for these reasons, we believe the community survey and economic hardship provisions are for thinking tools to protect interests of homeowners or tenants to end up in a historic district against their wishes and like them -- means to pay expenses. there are some protections around giving information to people who reside in those districts currently and there should be a continued push in

the planning department to make sure they do appropriate our rights not just when it comes to the issue of historic preservation, but to many issues that deal with development. i feel torn on this one but what did members of the public to know where this was coming from. it was coming from a really good place. from people who saw firsthand some of the negative impact or challenges that some communities faced as a result of some historic preservation policies. i do hear what supervisor campos is saying in regards to wanting to be consistent in how we apply planning processes in the city. supervisor campos: thank you for reading an excerpt from the letter. -- supervisor chu: it makes me

nervous when we began conversations about what communities of color need or what is in the best interest especially when you realize and i am speaking to you as a member that has sat on the land use testimony -- committee. when you listen to testimony, not necessarily articulating from the point of caring for showing consideration to communities of color. the believe it is the opposite. it makes it easier. i believe these amendments are proposed strengthen the role of the public eye in determining the creation of a new historic district that is appropriate. the requirement for a written vote or survey of both property owners and occupancy is one of the many outreach methods and

opportunities for public input in the process to designate a historic landmark or create a historic district. as a decisionmaker i feel that this is incredibly valuable in ensuring we hear from those directly impacted by the creation of a new historic district. i do not believe that this step is unnecessary or burdensome. also, in favor and support of the economic hardship provisions like supervisor olague detailed in a letter about the american -- african american community in pasadena, it is incredibly burdensome financial aid to meet the standard, the threshold to live and to own and occupy a home that has been designated in a historic district. the economic hardship ensure that low-income homeowners have

protection if they cannot afford improvements. we need to also consider the african-american out migration. what we're talking about ami, often times the conversation is focused on low-income and rockleigh in the black sleek african-american middle class that is the first to leave -- and neglects the african- american middle class that is the first to leave. i will be supporting this. thank you. supervisor campos: i have a procedural question. my amendment for four -- referred to article 10. should be article 10 and 11 and there is additional language i have circulated. i was wondering