contemporary high-rises that are 10 or 15 years old. these are these platinum-raided buildings. there are five bills this week in sacramento -- five bills this week in sacramento. they are both dealing with winter protection of various kinds. ed we are establishing the ability of cities to enforce housing law that would require affordable rental housing. the something very important in light of the fact that we're struggling with this issue and near -- any clearer guidance on how we should proceed in the last few months. and there is sitting tenants

from eviction. until recently, someone could be evicted if they pay their rent 24 to 36 hours late. a reasonable time frame does not mean -- this is in the protection of renters. there are a couple of others, but those in particular were worthwhile noting. commissioner miguel: during the week, i have met with some people regarding the presidio, as well as a couple of nonprofits, a senior housing and assisted living, and some of the financial problems they are incurring presently because of hud, medical and medicare. it is starting to hurt them quite badly.

i had the pleasure of seeing the model featured in the paper this morning. it is an excellent model if people get a chance to look at it. it was things in perspective -- it puts things in perspective. as we know, project change as the golan. it seems like an interesting -- as they go on. it seems like an interesting beginning. commissioner sugaya: last night, i had the pleasure of attending a downtown planning meeting, the first of four periods supervisor mirkarimi was there. the format was to go through three or four topical areas and they are broken up into separate groups, and each group got to spend 20 or 30 minutes addressing each topic. they will be compiling those,

that input from last night, and the next meeting in the meeting after that, they will be moving on to three other topics, and the last one will be a summary of all the input they have gathered, and i think -- i do not remember -- they will have forthcoming recommendations for what the plan should have and that will be letter -- and that will be later in the year, i believe. president olague: -- >> thank you. commissioners, we can move forward to the director's report. we have reports from the board of supervisors, board of appeals, and historic preservation commission. >> thank you. i do not have much to report. i was going to give it the same report that commissioner sugaya did on the downtown meeting. we will be looking at what type

of environmental review will be needed for planning. and if the plan does not come forward with major zoning changes, we are hoping we will be able to do something less than any eir, -- less than the eir, but we are waiting. i do not have anything to report this week that i've not reported before. the board of appeals and the full board did not meet this week. >> commissioners, the historic preservation commission did meet. the only item of interest would be the historic resources survey before them before the preservation and -- before them for preservation and possible action. they continued at. -- continued it. i did not bring my notes to tell

you what it was all about. commissioner miguel: if i may interrupt, i was at the meeting. they looked at two or three of the district's proposed, being reconsidered to look at whether some buildings that were not born were noted to be outside the district could be outside the district. most important were the ones on the east side of the lower st.. it asked that those be added to the mission survey, rather than the separate district on their own. >> thank you. the only other item -- that was a public hearing. the item will come back at the next meeting for action. with that, commissioners, that completes my reports. commissioners, we can now move on to item number nine, case number 2011.0118i, 2 harrison

streets. this is an abbreviated master plan. >> thank you, commissioners. in with department staff. i am here to report on the wharton school of business, university of pennsylvania institutional master plan. we are currently leasing approximately 20,000 feet of space and the school is looking to relocate to a facility with 35,000 square feet. the school offers an m.b.a. program for executives who wish to pursue an nba while continuing a career. the second is the executive program that is tailored to meet the needs of a specific firm. the third is the alumni function, where these actions are offered.

supposed secondary institutions have to have an institutional master plan on file with the department. part of the review of the abbreviated i.m.p., planning has the discretion to hold or not hold a hearing on the abbreviated i.m.p. staff concludes that all the necessary requirements are included and recommends that the commission not hold a hearing. commissioners, this concludes my reporting. i am available to answer any questions. president olague: thank you. project sponsor? ok, is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners? >> no action.

president olague: there is no need for an action here. the hearing is closed. >> thank you, commissioners. commissioners, you're now at general public comment. we have a time limit of 15 minutes. at this time, members of the public me address you on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the planning commission, except agenda items which may only be addressed at their place on the calendar. with respect to agenda items, it is your opportunity to address the commission when the item is reached in the meeting. i have no speaker cards. president olague: is there any member of the public who would like to have general public comment? seeing none, the item is closed. >> thank you. we're now on item number 10, our request for a conditional use authorization for 2 harrison

street. >> thank you. in with the planning staff. i am here to request a conditional use authorization to establish for the wharton school of business for the university of pennsylvania in excess of the space permitted for usage. the project is located at 2 her sister. the border sponsor is seeking conditional use authorization, principally permitted for residential use this -- residential uses. the department has received no public comment on this case, either in support or opposition. we believe that this project is desirable for the following reasons. the project will contain a post

secondary education institution in san francisco. it is adequately equipped to handle such a use. the project is an area well served by transit. it meets all the requirements of the planning code and conditional use authorization. this concludes my presentation. i am available for questions. thank you. president olague: project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commissioners periods i just -- good afternoon commissioners. i just want you to know we do not have questions and we are here for the staff report. president olague: thank you. is there any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed.

commissioner borden: my mother is from philadelphia. i have stayed at the towers. i am very familiar with this. i think it is the perfect location downtown for the transit, walking distance to a lot of the core office facilities. with that, a move to approve. -- i move to approve. >> commissioners, on the motion for approval -- [roll call vote] thank you, commissioners. that item passes unanimously. and sooner than i thought. we could have kept to our original time. yes. do you want to take a brief recess? president olague: no.

will take a five-minute recess at this time. >> the commission is taking a five-minute recess. thank you.

>> ok, the planning commission is back in session. commissioners, you're now nearing item number 11, the hearing of an ordinance introduced by supervisor campos. supervisor campos: -- >> good afternoon, commissioners. the recommendation is by supervisor campos that allows signs that contribute to the visual identity and historic character of a neighborhood, in addition to the city as double -- a whole. and forge a link, i do not have a video presentation, but i have

something better. supervisor campos is here. currently, signs are permitted if they do not visually obstruct or detract from the city landmark, are not larger or appear to be more visually prominent than any sign that previously existed in is maintained in good condition. the proposed legislation would change these rules by deleting the requirement that the proposed signs be located in the historic signing district, and they would allow the signs to contribute to the identity of the neighborhoods in addition to the city as a whole. the planning department recommends that the planning commission approved the resolution with modifications. these include changing the name from his direct sign to commemorative sign, remove the sentence from the proposed legislation that says the

department meet refer the application for and advising -- for an advisory opinion, and specify that the proposed ordinance, that designation under the section of the planning code does not by itself protected from being obscured or removed from future development projects. the reason for the proposed changes is the department sees a clear distinction between buildings or objects designated as historic under ceqa, and the landmark is given special access under the conditional use process. the department recommends maintaining a clear distinction between the authority of the planning and historic preservation committee. the department anticipates instances where it might be appropriate to relocate

commemorative signs, and it makes sense to put that in the legislation now. also, under sections of the code could be used to justify the halting of other policies in the general plan. the department would like to clarify in the proposed legislation that this designation does not protect a sign from future development. that concludes my presentation. i will turn it over to supervisor campos. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you, commissioners, madam president. thank you up for your flexibility. i was finishing a public safety meeting and i was a quorum, so i could not leave. i do not have much to add, other than to explain why we introduced this legislation. this is a sign you probably have read about.

a number of articles have been read about it -- written about it. the importance is we spoke to many people in our community and it became very clear that this sign, indeed, as a historic character to the neighborhoods, that it has been an important part of the neighborhood for decades. in reviewing the existing law that addresses these issues, and i do want to thank director ram and his staff for their help throughout this process, it became clear the current law does not allow for the kind of case we have before us, were we have a sign that had historic or commemorative volume, but was not in the historic district. so how do you protect a sign that clearly has importance in a community from being removed?

so, the legislation not only tries to address this specific situation that is before us, but also tries to create a mechanism so that there -- if there are similar situations and other parts of the city where the supervisor is faced with this dilemma, we as a city can decide whether or not to provide protection to this kind of a sign. so, that is what this does. i have listened very carefully to the planning department's recommendations. i do not have a problem with the recommendations. as i understand it, at the end of the day, the matter would still have to come through the planning commission, and changing the word "historic" to "commemorative," i do not know if that is important. the important thing is saving

the sign and saving signs in the future. if removal of the sign down the road is a portrait, i am open to that, if ultimately this commission will be the one to review this decision. i am comfortable with the amendments that have been proposed. i want to thank the number of residents, many residents in my district who have taken the time to opine on this matter. some are here today. this, in my view, is legislation that empowers a community to provide to the policymakers on what is important to that community and to recognize the value that something like a sign can have in the life of a neighborhood and the history of a neighborhood. with that, i do not know if you have any questions, commissioners? president olague: [unintelligible] we may have some.

i do not know if you have time? supervisor campos: thank you. thank you for your time. president olague: is there any public comment? >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is terry mills. i am a citizen of bernal heights. supervisor campos summarized the neighborhood sentiment very well. this has been a focus of community interest for months now, and we would like to see it resolved. i think other than the name of -- the name change, we think the proposed modifications are very appropriate. it is like -- this is like some sort of historic mural. it has been living in our neighborhood for many years.

the arts commission would spend all their time trying to save it, but we are in a position where you are going to do it. thank you. president olague: thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner borden: this was also in "the chronicle." for members of the public who did not see the article, there was a sign that was deemed to be advertising, so it was taken down because it had the name and logo of a product. but the sun has historic -- but the sign has historic significance with the length of tenure on that building in this community. it was not in the way. i think this is a great approach for looking at how we deal with that. i do think there was commemoratives importance because there was a distinction that something deemed historic

needs to have, and there are different standards than get involved. i think it is cleaner, if that is not the case, to have that distinction. i move to approve. commissioner miguel: second. president olague: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: i do not know if i am in agreement or not. for some questions. if you change this from historic to commemorative, what criteria are we supposed to use to do that? supervisor campos: i believe it outlines the criteria in the code section. can you read that to me?

>> it depicts the cultural icon, a person, place, or thing with cultural value to the city -- that would be crossed out -- be at least 40 years old, not visually obstructive, and not be larger than the sign that was previously existence. commissioner sugaya: so, this is basically what we had before? >> you are just allowing signs that are important to your city and neighborhood. they do not have to be located within the historic sign district to be covered under this section of the code. and lastly -- commissioner sugaya: and lastly, not lastly -- i think supervisor campos mentioned it if there was going to be removal or something of that nature, that would still

be, that would still come to the commission in some form? >> i do not believe that is in the legislation, but if that is something you wanted to add, you can certainly do that. president olague: sure. >> if someone wanted to take down the sign, i do not think they are required to have conditional used to do that. if you wanted to clarify that -- commissioner sugaya: i don't know. maybe you could work with the supervisor's office to clarify that. >> if the sign is deemed commemorative, there should be other things that follow with that. commissioner sugaya: right. so, if we could add those, that would be great. commissioner borden: i agree with that. commissioner moore: i really do not like the word "commemorative."

it is more about honoring the period or what ever the proper word is, but it is not commemorative. i am not commemorating coca- cola. it is really the role this piece plays as an expression of a particular place and time. is there a better word? >> we had a few names. we thought this was the best one. commissioner moore: would you mention the other words while you are at it? >> i think one was "memorial sign." remembrancer? [laughter] president olague: some of us are ok with commemorative. commissioner moore: supervisor campos, did anyone come up with a snappy