of the interior standards are. i think there are people more equipped to know those things. when i go looking at the amendments and look at what the hpc has done, i think there is a pretty decent balance of "we are trying to accomplish, starting off with 100 4.1. what has been clarified is the issue that has not been nominated by the city, but by a neighborhood group, is 66%. there is somewhere in the code that has a 66% threshold. doesn't that exist already? >> the existing article does include a requirement of 66% of owners subscribing to an application to designate a historic district. commissioner borden: so what he is suggesting is similar to what already exists? >> it is basically putting back into the code after the proposed

amendments that which was removed during the complete redrafting process undertaken by the hpc. my understanding is that the supervisors supported the changes made yesterday by the hpc, switching it from 66% to a majority. commissioner borden: i think that is fine. i did want to point that out because everyone was wondering where the number came from. it is not random. it was in our code for many years. i want to point that out. in the issue of 100 4.3, going more to the of each issue, i do think it is important that you have this out reach, particularly because it impacts people's properties. people want to propose a business improvement district, it impacts the taxes on their property. being in the historic district impact how, if you were to do in the updates to your property,

that would change. it is important people know. we obviously cannot be sure that everyone is going to know. that is never going to be possible. i think any way that we can garner support -- knowing about this and knowing their feeling is important. i think it is good. i think the statement that the department goal is to obtain half of the property owners is a lofty goal. we can take it out, but i do not think -- is a goal. it does not force it to be 50%. i just think that having goals is always a good thing. if you do not have goals, you do not achieve them. that is something to think about. in terms of 100 6.6, something commissioner sugaya brought up -- if these plan marks are being

looked at by us and the hpc, could there be a still made? maybe you could add language around a shot clock or a deadline. the board of supervisors, when they introduce legislation, there is a 90 day rule by which other bodies have to review legislation, and it has to come back to the board. maybe we could look at something like that, if we were genuinely concerned about the fact that there would be inconsistency with moving forward on this. it is noisy out there. that might be something we could consider as a commission on nine -- on that one. on hardship, this has been something that was brought up and we have seen. nobody is saying that

preservation prevents affordable housing projects. nobody feels that way. but the concern is that sometimes it is onerous to meet the material and other standards that other projects in that same district would support. i am actually supportive of some level. i do not think the wait is written is necessarily the best guide. but we should look at how we do hardship consideration. it is talking about fees, not standards. you would still have to get certificates of appropriateness. it still would have to comply. it would allow the flexibility of being creative to suggest could materials. it is not listening historic preservation. it is uplifting it. -- it is not lessening historic preservation. in my view, maybe this is not the right language. i would hope that whatever we put forward today, we would say

we would like to further explore the economic hardship. it is not an exemption from standards. it allows us to be more creative. i think that 1107, with owners and operators, i think that is important. i know they wanted to strike the language when there is boundary changes. it is not binding. i do not think there is a problem with the board of supervisors taking that into consideration. whatever the rest of us feel about that, we could keep or not. looking at 1111.6, i would keep in their the language about having standards and guidelines

adopted by the hpc and planning commission, talking about conformance to the general plan. i agree with commissioner sugaya. a preservation element would be ideal. obviously, within our housing elements, there are principles to maintaining the same housing stock to preserve it. there is also a proportion of the element that talks about maintaining our unique character and communities. but i do think that looking at a historic element would be great to do. unfortunately, i know you have to have an eir, so that is not going to be in the near future. but i do think the planning commission having a voice in that is important. the final, 111.7, talking about

category five buildings -- like the shot clock issue, i think there has to be a deadline by which a few people have to act. i think if you do not have a deadline, people do not act. i think that is why the board of supervisors shot clock exists. i think we should put a number in this section of the ordinance. the goal is not to make preservation the enemy of progress, but to make it harmonious. anything we can do to force a decision quicker is a good idea. commissioner moore: i am very appreciative of the rapid-fire response from this -- from miss heyward and her team from yesterday to today, coming with something that is succinctly formulated and easy to understand. i am in support of the hpc's

comments amending supervisor weiner's language, yet also finding common ground together with him. in addition, commissioner borden, on the 100.6 g and h, she did say that pending further clarification between the different groups, so i think the additional work is suggested here. i agree that referring to san francisco architectural heritage level of january 26, there are additional challenges and suggestions posed by them. i would be very comfortable seeing that further discussed and implemented. they have a broad list of observations which i support very much. overall, i think this is a great piece of work. i am glad we are coming closer.

i do look forward to supervisors continuing to challenge the issues with each other, and coming on a resolution. president miguel: i am going to go to my comments as quickly as i can. i am very pleased with how the department and the hpc has moved on this. 3.5 years is a long time, but sometimes in san francisco, projects are a short time. recently, it has been sped up, to everyone's great appreciation. there is a remark that it is down to four pages of questions at the moment. that is absolutely amazing to those of us who have been involved from the beginning. 1004.1 down to 50% plus one, i think is pretty simple and should go forward.

1004.3, no reason not to include the occupants in their. it is a goal. i agree that it will not be met. but that is no reason not to have the effort and for as much public outreach as to possibly be done. this is a city of activists. it is a city work out which is often criticized. -- is a city where out which is often criticized. -- where outreach is often criticized. it should be in there. there are considered reasons often taken by this commission in a more general manner than the hpc, which deals with

preservation principally as their basic interest. i believe that both commissions should be involved, quite absolutely. on g and h, san francisco sfmi, i guess is the only way to put it, should be the standard, not ami, area median income. it makes a big difference. this is not absolute. the fees are not automatically waived. there is consideration of how this can be done, perhaps in a less expensive manner, to keep the basic concept and allow those projects to go forward, where people may not be able to afford the perhaps better

materials and better methods of handling historic preservation, and yet still keep the basic concept. 1107, i still like the comments regarding as much out reach as possible, an attempt at a written survey, and that the response showed reconsidered by the board of supervisors. it is not an absolute. it is an attempt to get more people involved in the city, and more people involved in preservation matters. 1111, back to the concept of the san francisco rather than the area's standard -- this is something that is going to take the board of supervisors'

deliberations. but in general i think the hardship considerations should be taken into account, without any question. 1111g, i do not think there is a lot of problem with that, as was originally proposed without the strikeovers. the 150% may be in question, and the area at income should be changed to san francisco standards. the same content to both commissions on 1111.6 should be involved that i made on 10, and 1111.7, i do not see a problem with putting the 180 days on there. in fact, i think it should be

on there, without any question. we run into other situations where stopcocks are not imposed , and we have problems with it constantly. i believe in them, and i think they should be followed through. commissioner sugaya: miss heyward, a couple of questions still. on the permit an application fee waivers, there is reference in the first sentence that says "in cases of economic hardships the applicant may be fully or partially exempt from paying fees per section 50e32 of the planning code."

that requires an application to the department, correct? >> the zoning administrator makes a final call as whether the applicant meets the criteria. the process may be under review to further refine and clarify, going forward. commissioner sugaya: in this instance, in both sections, they both reference having to meet those particular standards, this criteria. >> in both articles, the zoning administrator will need to confirm that they met the standards. it does not exempt them from the review of the hpc, but the fee. and the hpc has some latitude. commissioner sugaya: i am going to try a motion. i might vote against it myself.

[laughter] in order to move forward, i think this is kind of a compromise motion. before i say that, i have one comment on 1004.3, and the language there should be some kind of survey or vote for something, with a goal of 50%. with respect to the historic districts, it strikes me as something that is a little strange, because we do not -- maybe we should -- impose the same kind of process when we do area plans and try to implement, or consider implementing, ordinance is based on those plans. i frankly cannot see that there is that much of a difference. i mean, we should have taken a vote in glen park.

all through the number of years the plan was taking place, how did the residents feel about it, other than those who were participating in the planning process? i do not even know if there was in the opposition during testimony. but apart from those, it might have been interesting to see how the proposal faired with the rest of the residents within the plan area. be that as it may, i guess the motion -- i really do not like making a motion on a specific -- anyway, i would like to back up the hpc as much as i can. therefore, let us try this out. people can interrupt, so time in, here. i would like to move forward with this and approve the

resolutions for articles 10 and 11, taking into consideration the following changes that the hpc has made with respect to supervisor weiner's proposed amendments, and that we accept the hpc language that it is the majority, as has been stated a number of times. the supervisor did state he was ok with that. 1004.3, we accept the hpc addition of occupants, or whatever the language should be, to include people who are tenants. i assume that also includes merchants, not just residents. and that we retain the the last sentence, where the department

shall have a goal of obtaining the 50% response. president miguel: you are keeping the strikeover in writing? commissioner sugaya: yes. in 1006.6, that we retain the planning commission and add language 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