was the public art the ordinance. this is sponsored by mayor lee and board president chiu. it would allow certain projects to pay into a new fund instead of providing the on site are. this was considered on october 27. at that time, you made a number of recommendations that can be summarized around three issues. first, insuring the continued production of permanent monumental art is balanced with this a new possibility of the more ephemeral art that the fund could fund. did it, updating the requirement so it applies to all larger development, not just that within the c3 district. three, injuring the public open spaces are activated with on- site art. since your action, the board president and the mayor's office have conducted further outreach with interested parties and the developers, as you requested. the ordinances been amended a

couple times to address your concerns. the primary outstanding topic is how this should be expanded beyond the c3 district. supervisor chiu introduced amendments that would apply the requirements to projects over 25,000 square feet in the use districts. on the map, there are a number of districts, so i will not describe it. manley, this is c3 in red. they are mainly around the c3 districts. with those amendments, this item was continued one week and will be heard again likely this coming monday. at the full board, they heard an ordinance that would create the balboa park community advisory committee. the cac will provide input in committee oversight for transportation and other public improvements in the area. during the hearing on tuesday, the resolution was emperor -- approved with one amendment. the cac would sunset two years after the first meeting unless the board authorizes the

continuance of the cac. also the board approved supervisor chiu's third resolution, extending the commission's time span for review the two ordinances which are on your calendar for later today. this provides a 30-day extension. the new deadline for action is next friday, march 9. lastly, there were two new ordinance is introduced this week that i wanted to share. and would amend the public works code to modify the permissible distance between mobile food facilities and schools. this is sponsored by supervisors olague and wiener. all this ordinance is not currently scheduled for a specific discussion before this hearing, it will be discussed in the context of a related ordinance on april 10. we have advertised a hearing for you to consider a different ordinance that also applies to mobile food facilities. that one would allow them near certain institutions. we will discuss the other one as the context for the planning

code eminem and lastly, supervisor, and jute introduced an ordinance for small business month. it would provide a fee waiver for certain the saw improvements and would recognize may of this year as small business month. so that ordinance has been scheduled and will be before you in a way that will enable it to be enacted before the month of may. that concludes my report, unless there are any questions. commissioner sugaya: i assume that the supervisors are tracking the state legislation on mobile -- >> yes, supervisor winner was quoted in the paper as being involved in lobbying the state legislature. they said they would respond and make it a proper id for urban cities where there are schools frequently within 1,500 feet of each other. thank you. >> the board of appeals met last

night. there are no appeals the planning-related actions. we have decreased the number of appeals to planning actions. there has been an increase of the bills and other departmental actions. appeals of dpw permits for wireless facilities and public rights of way. also for mobile facilities. appeals of denial of two permits last night. the department denied is based on grounds of food, a provision they have to consider. finally, there is the first appeal of an injured in the commission permanent decision in quite awhile. an appeal of an extended hours permits for 4649 geary, which is the jack n the box. it prints a bleak permits extended our users. the entertainment commission has purview over extended hours. even if there is no entertainment, and the board of the bill ultimately upheld the

commission's decision that required that there be a six- month report back to the entertainment commission so they can consider the effectiveness of the conditions of approval. there were several conditions added by the injured and a commission. one interesting fact that we found out last night, there are 120, approximately, extended our permits in san francisco. about 80% of those are food only. so we offer no entertainment. you mentioned about the late- night eating activities. that is all i have to report on that. >> thank you. the historic preservation commission did not meet this week. >> commissioners, with that, we can move on to your 15-minute general public comment category. at this time, members of the public may address you on items of interest to the public that fall within the subject matter jurisdiction of this commission with the exception of agenda items. agenda items may not be addressed in this category but only when they are reached in the calendar year for this category, each member of the public may address you for to

three minutes each. i have one speaker card at the moment. >> ok, thank you. kathleen howard? >> get afternoon, commissioners, catherine howard, sf ocean edge in golden gate park preservation alliance. i have good news today. the san francisco public utilities commission and the san francisco recreational park department announced this proposed 40,000 square foot recycled water treatment facility has been moved out of golden gate park big and down to the oceanside waste water treatment plant. this would happen if 40,000 square foot 30-foot tall concrete building with a chemical building right next to a children's soccer play area. our volunteers have been working on this for over a year. we have gone into debates.

in addition, we have met with the puc, who have been very open and a collaborative in this process. we take in data. we took nine photographs and alternative sites. we had a lot of really great meetings. we're very pleased with the color to the for that has gone into this decision. we also believe that the sfpuc has recognized the value of golden gate park and the importance of protecting it from other development. we join together to express our appreciation to the sfpuc for this decision. in addition, this change out of this area means that this area, which is now construction yard, can be cleaned up, and we're looking forward to seeing the area cleaned up and renovated and mated to meadows, maybe another practice build, picnic tables, sending to complement the newly renovated murphy windmill and the house in golden gate park. we hope this will work with what we hope will be a natural gas

playing field with no lights at the beach chalet site. we feel this is perfect to complement of the golden gate park master plan and the national historic site. once again, we're very happy with this change and the process that involved it. we have some information. thank you. commissioner fong: linda chapman? >> linda chapman from of hill -- knob hill. i am concerned about the of all is said and entertainment issues that i have spoken about before. printed clearly, these luggage at between what you intend and what you think is lawful and other laws. let me mention, for example, the masonic.

a lot of discussion and thought was given to the exterior buses and whether they can park their performer's buses or vans, and it was approved that they will not be running their motors. ok, but the police code says that house and vehicles, which is what those are, cannot park on san francisco's streets anywhere in the city after 10:00 p.m. so, fancy this, b.b. king appears in court on the misdemeanor case of illegal camping on knob hill. i called central station two years ago, and i have been calling this to everybody's attention as an example of how ludacris we can be. is it, can you go and do it even if people are not complaining. the dorman, i guess, have not been calling down there, even though i suggested.

no, no, we're busy. but if somebody complains, we will do it. but then, b.b. king says this is not fair because i was told to park here. the planning commission passed this in 2010 and 2012. you know. we need to be concerned about these things. you do not always get the complete picture from staff. i have certainly lead to staff know about this. and on the pulp street cases, which i will have to keep talking to you about, i guess. pourhouse -- perhaps you have read sending i sent in already. i do not know. i am tried to have a complaint process. for a 2 a.m. bar, an actual bar, a senior housing center. several years ago, i think there was only one commissioner here at the time, they passed a retail liquor store there and specifically city cannot operate as a bar, but they can have

winetasting in there. as a result, there was a zoning administrator interpretation that said that is treated as a bar, obviously for analysis. they do not want to just have retail stores where people are pouring into a serving and you have not considered the bar aspect. [bell rings] the resolution says the business will be operated as a retail wine store with a wine tasting bar, and he said the winetasting room and not solely as a wine tasting bar. but when he applied to abc just before that, he did not check that he wanted a liquor store. it is on here. he checked he wanted a bar and wrote that in. of course, now he's trying to legalize it to be a bar. [bell rings] it has been operating illegally since 2005. commissioner fong: thank you. >> if no other members would like to address you, we can move

forward to the regular calendar. commissioners, item number 4a and b. 2011.0532t, building futures, floor area ratio, parking, and compliance in specified use districts. 4b, 2011.0533z, his on the mac -- the zoning map amendments, washington-broadway special u.s. district 1, water for a special use district two and three, special districts for site elimination and special districts foreseen extremists. >> thank you very much. good afternoon, president, vice- president. congratulations to both of you into the commissioners. i am from supervisor david i.g.'s office. good to see all of you again.

invite -- yasser from supervisor chiu's office. good to see you again. >> indulge me, because commissioner wu was not here for prior hearings, i need her to stay for the record that she is prepared to participate because she has reviewed the past material. commissioner wu: yes, i have. >> thank you, secretary. before the meeting today, based on the staff memo from last night updating the recommendation for today, i prepared a very quick cheat sheet that has broken out what i am calling phase one that staff is recommending for approval today with modifications. phase two, the remaining sections of the ordinance that are not part of a phase one end of that will not be part of separate legislation. i think this might make the discussion a little easier. i have copies for the commission and for the public.

first, i want to thank the commission again for all the time that all of the have been spending on this ordinance over the last, especially the last five or six months. it is a big ordinance with a lot of ideas around the principles that we have all supported through the general plan. other pluses -- other policies like the transit-first policy, i wanted to thank planning staff who have worked closely with our office on this legislation. in particular to commissioners who reached out in the last few weeks on particular issues as we work through those specific speed up what i would like to do before we go through the recommendations is go through these three sections just to be clear. my understanding is that we will go through what is being recommended today for commercial -- commission approval with modification. my request would be that we

consider the items that are under phase two. these headings are essentially from the staff report, the bulk of which was done for the december 15 meeting. if there are any particular issues in these, i would love to hear about th before the next consideration. and then, as we speak, we're working with the city attorney on drafting separate legislation. there is one that is added to the ones that have been mentioned and committed to before in the table in the last meeting. those are the issues related to the water for an advisory committee and other port changes. i have heard from stakeholders to elect a see a robust prices around that legislation, and we are happy to do that. there are really three buckets. the two phases of the body of the legislation and three additional pieces of legislation that are being drafted. i think i would like to turn it over to mr. starr to guard the

specifics of the first phase. i am available for any questions that the commissioners have. thank you. >> before i get started, anyone need a copy of the memo that was sent last night? for members of the public, there are some up here. i wrote on my sheet but neglected to put it on the paper. supervisor olague added herself to the ordinance as a co- sponsor, and we will be working with her as we separate the eight additional pieces of legislation and duty outreach on all of those issues. i wanted to let the commission know that. i am going to start by just going over the various motions that were attempted at the last

hearing, to catch us up to speed on where we have been and hopefully where we are going. the first motion was made by commissioner antonini to continue the item for three weeks so there could be more time to review the item. the intention was to have a more digestible person -- a version back to the commission, but the mission failed 2-4, primarily because it did not vote on it, you would have had no recommendation to the board because your time was expired the next day. a substitute motion was made by commissioner sugaya, it is in the legislation to the board of supervisors with no recommendation and state that they would like the items severed from the legislation to come back to the commission for further hearings. that motion failed to get a second also died. another version was made by commissioner antonini, just send the recommendation to the board that the legislation was to not be approved. but for the modified legislation to come back from the board.

that was a tied vote, 3-3. then commissioner borden started to make a motion to of all steps recommendation but at this ever pieces come back for review, but she withdrew this motion once supervisor chiu's office said that they're willing to extended for three more weeks. at which point, commissioner borden made to your original motion again, but there was some clarification to it, and that was that the three-week continuance so the supervisor's office to work with individual commissioners on issues. the intent was to ensure that the continuance had targeted discussion on issues that the next hearing. president miguel at the time encouraged fellow commissioners to communicate with staff.

but step of the supervisor's office to ensure the staff knew the commissioners wanted to discuss at the next hearing. this past monday at the commissioner meeting with the director, president fong requested as that identified five issues in the legislation, pull those out and identify them in a separate memo. so i will ask for little direction from you now. i can go into each one in depth or i can go over them broadly. if there is a particular way you like me to proceed? commissioner fong: do you want to read them quickly? if you do not mind, quickly go over the five that we're talking about. >> all right, i will try to go over them quickly. the first one is what i define

as clerical and minor modifications. about 120 of these, as little as striking a word or correcting incorrect references. they are minor and intended to make the cut a more usable document -- make the code in reusable document. the clerical modifications include spelling errors, remitting redundant language, revising department names, adding titles are heading, correcting tense, updating references, or sections that were missed in previous code changes, and updating language. minor modifications are changes that are slightly more extensive, but it did not substantially change the code for into into this action. they include consolidating, such as the canopy and awning

controls and to one section. the historic marquee controls. consolidating uses in articles two and aids. simplifying definitions so they read more clearly. and changing outdated references. as an example of the outdated reference, currently there is a reference to therc1 district of commercial uses that can have in a landmark building. we do not have hot rc1 districts anymore, so that was changed to nc1. the next item we identified, there seems to be broad consensus, the tdr program to this was heard by the historic preservation commission. there is not universal agreement on this, but there seems to be broad consensus that this is a good idea. the basic change would remove restrictions that tdr's kanawha be transferred within bec3 districts.

this would open that up so that tdr's can be transferred throughout the c3 district bidder for limited commercial uses, is fairly broad consensus on this, mainly because the department is often overturned at the board, denying a lcu the ones to be reinstated. we say, no, and the appeal that to the board, and we often get overturned on the belief -- we feel that allowing that to the conditional use process provides a much more transparent and direct way for property owners to go through that process. with bike parking, four different items under that. the first one is pretty easyb prettyike -- the first one is easy. bike parking is currently included in estimations for

clothes for its area. this received penalty and could encourage more bike parking to be put into buildings. the second one, for some reason that the zoning administrator invoices -- in forces bike parking regulations. it would change the code to have bike parking be enforced as we normally and force a bike parking. it would be the same as in the other planning code violation. the one recommendation that we're asking for in this is that since it is our department doing the work in forcing our code, we think that any money collected she got to us and not the mta's bicycle program. the third one, bicycle parking, is required when you construct a new commercial building or when the commercial building is in large and has construction costs of at least $1 million. the change would require bicycle parking when the building

undergoes a major change of use, in the u.s. involving half or more of the buildings square footage or to a dozen or more square feet. we believe this helps ensure that bike commuters have a safe and secure place to park their bikes when they get to work. the final bike parking one is requiring bike parking for hotels. currently they are required for retail buildings in this would change the code to require by parking's at hotels. people that work at hotels could also ride the bike to work. maybe someone in the city would want to bring their bite as well. the next section is probably the largest one. signs, awnings, and canopies. the first item -- it just

modifies the awning controls, so that they would not be able to extend from the bottom of a projecting or upper story window or cover horizontal molding. we're columns defined the storefront, it may not cover those. this is modeled after the awning controls which better articulate house an awning should relate, as restrictive, but they're much more thought out than current controls. the second item under signs. the city currently of non- conforming use science -- signs to exist to the end of their normal life. a sign can stay at their

indefinitely until is to be taken down for structural reasons. the proposed legislation would be if this section of the department and for some is outdated, nonconforming signs and have them removed within 90 days of the business going out of business. limited conforming uses are regulated by signs in our district. it would regulate signs under controls similar to the nc1 zoning districts. it would manalich for a district that has a similar intensity and type of use. the fourth one, currently worth signs a are committed in certain districts as long as they can perform -- conform to certain criteria. roof sons and now be prohibited in c3 districts.

the fifth item, the signs are allowed to be up to 100 feet in the c3 district and 40 feet in other c and m districts. the legislation proposed would limit this to 40. some think this is excessive given the height and scale of downtown. we would recommend it remained at 100 feet for how it is now, or at a minimum, 60 feet. signs in rc districts are regulated under section 606, which also regulates signs pine residential districts. the legislation would change this so that signs in rc districts, some of the most dense neighborhoods, tenderloin and van ness, would be regulated under section 601, which regulates signs in nc districts.

taking the mixed views nature of the rc districts. signs for gas stations. they're allowed to project 10 feet above the roof line on the buildings. as far as i know, this is the only use that allows that. so the legislation would take that provision now. they would still be allowed to be freestanding sciencigns that project. number 8, the embarcadero -- the legislation would include the embarcadero in the scene extreme special sign district. this prohibits general advertising signs to be placed on the embarcadero. the city does not allow new ones, but you can transfer one from a different part of the city to another part where it is permitted. this would prohibit that from happening. it also limits signs to 200

scurvy. in general, the department sort -- supports this provision in. this might have an ax to the america's cup or another event that was to place signs on the embarcadero. we can perhaps get an exception for temporary signs. that is all of them. i would be happy to answer questions. commissioner fong: thank you. is there any public comment? ok. >> i do have one card. commissioner fong: thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is caroline. it is here on behalf of priority parking. i have not had a chance to look i have not had a chance to look at the list prepared by