that if either the hpc or the commission does not take action within 180 days, it is deemed to be approved. >> that is fine. commissioner sugaya: if we say it is deemed to be not approved, we are back in the same boat. >> i think it is good. commissioner sugaya: 106.6, reluctantly, i think the commission would like to retain that. >> not that -- commissioner borden: not that exactly, but some consideration related to hardship. commissioner sugaya: it will want to not adopt the specific language proposed, but now we would like to have the supervisors discuss or come up with some kind of economic hardship provision -- new lin

>> that is similar to something you often do. you do not have to include specific and rich. -- language. if i may, san francisco and bay area median income are almost exactly the same. i just looked it up on the web, because i was curious. commissioner sugaya: if that is the case, it also could be the case that the hpc, by striking myths, also indicated they were interested in working with the supervisor on some kind of alternate language. i think that if we can say we are not including it also, but that we certainly are interested in seeing some kind of -- commissioner borden: we would like to keep this section and have substitute language come up that makes sense.

>> so your proposal is to keep dealing with out as recommended by hpc? commissioner sugaya: my recommendation is to keep the language out. but there should be some kind of process to include. commissioner borden: i think the best way would be to keep the title of 100 6.6 -- 1006.6. commissioner antonini: are we going to include the time limit on the class 5? commissioner borden: he has not gotten to that. commissioner sugaya: i will get there in a minute. moving on to article 1007e, we add occupants and remove the

rest of the strikeouts. 1111g, we have the same language here, where we are encouraging them. i will accept the strikeout that staff has indicated for 1111g, page 29 of the draft ordinance. we reassert planning commission in 1111.6. my difficulty with 1111.73 is that a request for reclassification shall be void if the supervisors do not act in 180 days.

i do not know if it will happen, but it is conceivable that they just would not take any action, and then it dies. >> this came up yesterday. part of the reason for the recommendation was that legislation dies after a certain time anyway. maybe a city attorney can clarify that, at what point the legislation would die once it is introduced, whether it is the end of the calendar year or the legislative cycle. >> i and the deputy city attorney. it is my understanding that that is the clerks policy, that if legislation is tabled and not brought to a hearing, it does not necessarily die. it just gets closed. i am not sure, after how much time. it may be a year. a supervisor can revive the legislation and bring it back to the table. this would be different than that policy, if they are uncertain language that says it

automatically becomes -- that it actually dies after a certain point. it would have to be revived and have a new introduction. if we could go back briefly to the comments on article 10, it was the comment on section 1006.6 to add language that is either the hpc or planning commission fails to act in 180 days, it is deemed approved, regarding the interpreting standards. but you did not say 180 days from what. as i understand, the procedure for getting the guidelines in front of you would be that staff would develop them, and then bring them for a hearing before the hpc and planning commission. i would recommend it would be something like 180 days from the hearing that you have on it. we need to add some marker. commissioner sugaya: i think

maybe from the initial hearing at which it is considered for a vote. we are going to have lots of information. president miguel: i agree with that. commissioner borden: i think that is good. >> a question -- you said that for 1,006.6g and h -- i was not sure what changes indicated. commissioner borden: we said we would strike the taxpayer, but maintain the number and substitute new language. we want to keep the economic hardship in the title, but we want to have a new section substituted after it is figured out in land use. president miguel: we encourage them to write a section to cover that. >> just to clarify that, this is commission legislation. it will be introduced with a blank section that just has a title in it. commissioner antonini: could i

interject? my thinking with the general language -- something like "study the hardship issue on these, with the goal of making needed restoration's more affordable," language to that regard, which is what the goal is any way. >> i would recommend, maybe, if you are not ready to draft language at this point, that instead of having a section that is just blank, that in your cover letter to the board, that the recommendation that the board study and look into. president miguel: i think that is our intent. >> so strike the entire section? >> you are introducing new legislation. you have to have the language. it is not like the board introducing the language, where you can give them a concept. commissioner sugaya: technically, it was not in there

in the beginning. this is just a proposal by supervisor weiner. it is not in there, except by his action. or not action, but recommendation. >> sorry to jump in again. just to clarify, so everyone is clear -- if supervisor weiner, assuming you vote to pass this without that language included, so there is no hardship exemption, if he were to introduce that as an amendment of land use committee and put it back in, it would not be referred back to you or the hpc, because you already had this opportunity to comment and review it, just so you understand how this process might play out. commissioner sugaya: lastly, we are still on 1111.7a3.

i do not know if i have the votes to change that is devoid to that it be approved. if it could be void in 180 days if the board of supervisors is not active. i would like to reverse it and say it will be improved -- will be approved if within 180 days they did not act. this would be coming from the hpc. it would have had to have taken an action that goes to the board of supervisors. >> if i may, these actions have to be interpreted by ordinance.

in the landmark designation, whether under article 10 or 11. commissioner borden: i want to make them act. >> so you leave it as it is? commissioner antonini: leave it in there. president miguel: is there a second to this motion? commissioner borden: i will second. commissioner antonini: one question. i believe we already have language that allows some flexibility in the secretary's standards as part of the legislation and has been drafted. commissioner sugaya: my understanding, if i might, is the secretary standards are there. but then the department, the

commission, and the hpc will enter into the process of creating new guidelines -- president miguel: interpreted guidelines. commissioner antonini: so it is already in there. i think there is a 4-2 vote on that, with a modified language, so that is fine with me. >> may i ask for a brief clarification? do you want to add a time limit to statements in article 11 that you added to article 10, that if the proposal interpretations have not been approved by both commissions within 180 days, there will be deemed approved? lastly, for the last line, do you want to accept the hpc striking "if it is found the demolition

would significantly damaged the district"? well, i understand the position. this could substantially diminished. on the other hand, when you look at the integrity of a district, when you are creating the district, you have to come up with certain reasons and justification's for why you have a bunch of buildings that might not be historic buildings but the district still is a historic district. i think then that that is kind of a substantial way of looking at that and we are trying to figure out whether substantial

can be defined in a little bit of a different kind of manner. >> i would leave it in. >> i would leave it in, too. >> are you leaving it in? >> we are leaving it in. >> please restate your motion. i am not sure i have this. >> ok, the motion as i understand it is beginning with article 10 is to accept the change suggested by the amendment for 1004.1, changing the language from 66% to a

majority. point number two is in the discussion of the outreach to owners and occupants within potential historic district. you would reinstate the language that supervisor wiener proposed which includes expressing the opinion in writing and identifying the goals tha be paf honors and occupants. >> you did not want the writing in their, did you? >> the next section relates to the local interpretations of the standards and you would reinstate the language proposed by supervisor wiener to include the planning commission and you would include language that

once that process is started, if either commission does not act within 180 days, these are considered approved. >> next, the economic hardships section. you would create these new sections with don't exist. you would strike them first. these are amendments. this does not include sections g and h. you would leave them not included. we would like these new sections

introduced that encourage the board to study and looking at the issue of economic hardship. for article 11, and you would make the same change relating to article 10 which would be to add occupants to the people that have received the documents for the proposed district and you would look at this in writing and retain the goal of 50%. for 1111 g, economic hardship. >> the language is not the same.

>> it appears the deletion of this subsection which was proposed by the supervisor which calls for working in city owned properties. it seems from the way you have crafted your motion that you are striking and in addition to the following problem which is economic hardship. as explained as originally

drafted, this calls for this to consider the operational budget for city agencies in considering their proposals. those have been modified. it must be the mission and operational needs. they voted to strike at language completely. >> that is the last paragraph. >> page 31, this is the very first line. >> i would like to keep it out. >> with recommendation.

>> i think there is a desire to craft language around that. there has to be some sort of consideration. it does not have to be mandatory. >> maybe that is what we do. new language. >> they would be stricken or not included. >> right. >> back to 111107 e, would you like to add a goal to the department? >> this should be consistent.

>> economic hardship is 1111 g, would you recommend strike in the whole section? you are accepting department's recommendations? then 11116, replicated the language of article 10 regarding the global are interpretations of the standards and adding 180 days from the first action hearing. then, you would leave this language and not strike it. in the last line, you would leave in the lines proposed by supervisor wiener as it is proposed and this would diminish the integrity of the

conservation. >> yes. >> thank you. >> on the motion as it has been modified. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. with the was a little. it is this has passed, but the city on this. it will take a 10 minute break. 10 minutes, no more. when we come back, we are considering item 12 on the agenda.

>> this has been going on for three years so thank you. >> we are in 10 minute recess.