doesn't matter what the economic circumstances are as you meet these conditions to move forward. would you like to be in a position to annihilate a landmark and there is no structural need or economic need. we need to know, not just what you want to see, but the deliberation is important, what decision making pivot would be because the other notion if a building is in bad shape you get more. that's the kind of decision, are you going to change the decision based on the condition of the building. and you will be the landmarking or not in terms of the office allocation will go to the planning commission. >> commissioner johnck? >> i'm sensitive to supervisors cohen here and i'm in favor of us trying to be helpful here to this broader social goal appreciating what both

richards, commissioner john and wolfram have said about paying attention to our role. i guess you are saying don't right a letter, i was thinking i would be happy to refer to staff to write a general letter about what we've discussed here today and highlighting some of the items and hour we -- how we are going to use them and decide on and definitely we need to continue this discussion in that. but i would be happy to keep the process rolling here and get some good feedback which i think would be helpful to the supervisors. that would be my recommendation to have them send a letter now generally discussing. >> you mean this is going to be the end of this? >> no. >> no. we are going to consider it further.

i'm not offering a motion to establish and ordinance or anything i mean to approve this language so far. i'm just saying, our feedback on this item could be a letter that we continue to discuss how we use it. >> commissioners, if you are willing i think it's beneficial to share your comments at this hearing with the planning commission and they really do value your comments and i think it helps in your deliberations and they are own comments on the matter. so we could draft in the letter something about this commission holding off on the economic discussion until your next hearing. but at least we've given them everything else to discuss and in that way we have a response to share with you when we come back. >> i think we can even address some comments on the economic issue as well. commissioner pearlman? >> it feels like we are

rushing for an arbitrary deadline and there is all this movement and this has to happen and here we have a year moratorium that won't end until july? >> no, for conditional use. >> but it will still come before the planning commission and supervisor cohen is not interested in pinterest and i see all this rush and commissioner john's and wolfram is saying let's get it right instead of just get it done. >> i don't want you to feel rushed to make a decision about whether or not you make approval of the legislation. i think what we would like to see some formal way for you to be able to share your initial feedback with the planning commission which we have scheduled. i know it may feel like a rush, but the process even after the planning

commission is a couple months as well. over in all it's a couple months period. so i don't want you to feel rushed on an approval kegs. i want us to spend some time to get your comments integrated and be able to develop with staff that will actually be usable for you or people sitting in your position. i think it's helpful to have a memorialization and to come back with specific language for an amended ordinance for you to consider for approval at a later date. >> and we'll establish in a letter. >> commissioner hyland? >> we are talking about two different things. one is if we have a potential landmark before us and we are going to support that designation and the information we use in order to make that analysis. i'm not sure in pass how

much to choose to approve a landmark designation. the unintended consequences of that designation can is what we are responding to and this legislation is just saying we are going to limit that unintended consequences. as commissioner's wolfram, we don't know whether this is going to, this is the right appropriate balance and an allowing a loophole not to spin out of control. we are still going to landmark these buildings if the buildings should be landmarked. so whatever legislation or additional information we put into this legislation, i don't think that's going to change that process or that decision. i think we can come back in a week or

two. >> commissioners john's? >> this gets back in a way whether it's proposed whether we would landmark a pristine building. i think the answer to that is if it qualified absolutely yes. in a way, the tail has been wagging the dog here for a while because we got into this because there were economic incentives built into making it in the eyes of some people less painful to have a landmark property. that at least has always been my evaluation of these incentives, but that's a very different question whether or not the property ought to be landmarked and qualifies and i would really like to focus more on that latter question on whether it qualifies and ought to be and let others work out the

sociological desirability of incentives. >> so, if i might, do i hear a motion to continue this item? >> yes. >> a second? >> city clerk: that continuance date would be october 1st? >> well, we are going to continue. i will second we are going to continue. i don't think we should send a letter? >> yes we are sending a letter. >> fine, i will second the motion. >> thank you. we can call roll. >> commissioners there is a motion and second to continue this matter to october 1st, on that motion, commissioner hyland, yes, commissioner johnck, yes, john's, pearlman, wolfram, commissioner hasz.

>> that will place you on your final agendaized item no. 14. your rules and regulations consideration of proposed amendments. so this has been on your agenda several times. you considered it a couple times and had some deliberation and provided you with some direction which has already been incorporated, the city attorneys office has reviewed those modifications and before you for adoption. >> mr. john's? >> thank you. we have spent considerable time and effort on this. i would like to suggest that two items that i think need to be changed and they are in page four. they deal with the situation of how

many votes they need to pass. right now four, i guess 7 b at the top of page 4, says down at the third line, let me see here, a motion of resolution adopted by a majority of all members of commission 4, i would like to change that to simply say that "resolution adopted by a vote of 4 members of the commission" that makes clear that we always need four votes to pass the substantive motion. there had been a concern raised by me what happened if we only had 5 members of the commission who were occupied seats? in other words say, three or

two resigned and/or were not serving and the mayor had not appointed a full commission. i have been adviced by the city attorney that in all cases a substantive motion must be passed by a majority of the commission chairs. whether occupied or not. this would just make clear that substantive matters require four members voting for them. and down in d, which now says a motion of intent occurs when the commission passes a motion by a majority of all members of the commission. i would just change that to read, "a motion of intent occurs when the commission passes a motion

that is contrary to the preliminary recommendations" and that i think is desirable because in b, we will have said that it takes four votes. so that's why i would do that. >> commissioner john's, on that same topic since you are there, if i can just suggest adding the term in subsection b at least four members? >> well you can put in two unnecessary words but i would say four members. >> yeah, at least four. that's clear. >> well you could say four or more. >> okay. four or more. >> by a vote of four members of the commission. it couldn't be more simpler. >> it's actually not public

comment right now. >> we will have public comment in a moment. >> on this matter on the rules and regulation. commissioner johnck? >> i can't believe i think i found something after commissioner john's a gust review of this topic, but i think on page 7, under submittals. i would like to see a photo. it doesn't say anything that part of the submittal should be a photograph. i know we are getting a lot of the cat x's in the mail and some have photos and some not. but, i mean that's another topic. i think there should be a photograph unless i'm missing something in the submittals. >> a clear recent photo. >> yeah. >> certainly under subsection b. >> right. under submittal b.

>> we can certainly add that. >> okay. great. >> seeing no other comments right now, we'll open up public comment regarding rules and regulations. any member of the public wish to talk about rules and regulations, no, we'll close public comment and come back to commission. >> mr. frye and i have been working on a session not of the rules and recognizes, -- regulations that will expand on this section a little bit. we'll give pointers to people for how they can effectively organize and make their presentation and those helpful hints will refer to the appendix that i just wanted to make sure that everybody realized that we

have not approached the folks on getting the presentation. >> do we have a motion? >> i so move that we adopt the rules and regulations with the amendments the people have proposed including yours. >> i second it. >> thank you. >> this you commissioners, on that motion to adopt the new rules and regulations as amended today, commissioner highland, commissioner johnck, commissioner john's, commissioner pearlman, commissioner wolfram. commissioner hasz. thank you, i appreciate you putting closure to this. >> thank you, with that i adjourn this meeting. >> [ meeting is adjourned ]

>> >>