but i am going to assume that the elimination of grandfathered parking lots is moving forward in phase one. we represent priority parking -- that has been taken out? >> it will be phased two. >> thank you. i had no idea. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am with san francisco neighborhood land use and housing. i want to thank supervisor chu for agreeing to the change recommended by the staff that would limit conversions of noncompliance structure to units.

as far as the powers of the za, mr. sanchez, has that changed? scott sanchez: i believe the supervisor identified that as a phase to change. -- pahse two -- phase two change. >> if i could just make a clarifying statement -- i mistakenly called both 4 a and b. we have so far only addressed 4z. we will -- addressed 4a. we will address 4b when we conclude. president fong: is there any other public comment? commissioner miguel: mr. starr,

a greatly appreciated your memo that came last night. in order to view it a little more succinctly, i am going to go through the memo and ask questions in that manner. on the transfer of development rights, i have no problem at all. i like the way it is going. on limited commercial use, you are using a date of january 1, 1960. what is the reason for that particular date? scott sanchez: maybe i can address that. as you know, we have gone through several major re-codes over the year. 1960 was one of those. we did a comprehensive survey, and a card shows use of the

property. we have a good record for non conforming properties from that 1960 date. we have not done as good a job of categorizing since then. in 1960, they put a termination date on all these uses. as we got to the late 1970's, when an lot of these uses were coming up for exploration, we realized we should still allow commercial uses in this residential districts. we came up with this process to allow a continuation of the nonconforming uses. that was really the starting point for it all. we are using that because we have really good records from 1960 on those particular properties. that is not to say it could not be expanded, but we felt that was a reasonable date to start everything. commissioner miguel: i am presuming that any nonconforming use that started in 1970 is

illegal? scott sanchez: any use that would have started and not been conforming in the code at the time would have been illegal. yes. commissioner miguel: i am just trying to get the logic behind the gate. other than that, i am ok with it. i think that is the proper way to go. on parking, i think you are right on. i am pretty much with that. and as far as we're the enforcement fines go, i also think you are right on with that. if you are doing the work, you should get the money. it is very simple. i am paying for the work to be done. as to the rest of the bike parking, again i have no

problems at all. i think you are very much in line. let us get on to awnings. i think you're regulations, as you are stating them, are pretty good. i was wondering if you have any idea, or the supervisor's office has any idea, as to how in the outreach, because of the technicalities of this, was made to basically a handful in san francisco of major awning firms, whether there was any outreach to them. it does not seem to me, in reading it, having awnings on commercial buildings -- if there has not been out reach, as i said, there is a very small

handful of major firms. to me, there should be some kind of outreach. they are the ones affected in the long run. as to the science, we get into section 3 there. signs would be brought into conformance when the operation ceases. that does not tell me anything. i do not know what you mean when the operation ceases. let us say i have a business and i sell it to someone who continues under the same name. has the operations ceased? i have a business, and it is operating as a particular type of merchandise being sold.

as the building owner, at least terminates. another type of merchandise comes in. does that operations cease? still a retail operation. >> i would probably have to defer. the question is whether if the business changes its product line with that sees the operation -- cease the operation? scott sanchez: not necessarily. we would look for a discontinuation entirely. commissioner miguel: i am selling a different merchandise, but it would not see specs -- cease? scott sanchez: changing from one

formula retail use to another would be a change. commissioner miguel: or going to a restaurant? scott sanchez: that would be a change. commissioner miguel: i just wanted some clarity. he said removing signs would be required within 90 days of a person going out of business. who is responsible? scott sanchez: ultimately, responsibility is the property owner. commissioner miguel: it should be made pretty clear, so there is no confusion. as too limited conforming uses, that in general seems pretty much ok. on route signs, we have in san francisco a number of what i call historical, although i think that term is not the one necessarily being used, route signs on buildings, some of which are quite large, some of which are at least 100 feet.

i am trying to understand where the legality remains with these businesses that may have been gone 50 years. the basic science structure is still historically part of that building. -- sign structure is still historically part of the building. >> signs are not part of the use. i would have to consider -- commissioner miguel: i am thinking of the baker hamilton building. >> can you come to the microphone and identify yourself? scott sanchez: could you repeat? >> tom, with livable city. >> are you able to answer this question? >> i was talking to the deputy city attorney. commissioner miguel: you have a

number of roof signs in san francisco that are there that i consider historic. those firms are no longer in business. the signs remain as part of that structure. would they have to be removed? could they be reused with someone else's name on them? how do we handle those? there are some on mission street as well. >> the would not be allowed to use the sign, but there are historic signed permissions in the planning code that would allow retention. we have vintage signs. there are provisions in the planning code that may allow for protection. commissioner miguel: there are some on mission street that are roof signs, quite large. it has changed in recent years. but the structure is still up there. scott sanchez: either any

specific signs that you are thinking of? commissioner miguel: i think the old laughlin brothers sign, and a couple of other furniture stores. scott sanchez: certainly there could be -- commissioner miguel: but not with that wording anymore. scott sanchez: it could be an unfortunate issue if it was not done with appropriate permits. we can look into that. commissioner sugaya: could we continue on the signs for a minute? i have a comment on the signs. could we clarify -- is the definition we are using for signs, does it include billboards or not? when we get into route signs, for example around even square

-- eden square, there are a number of signs that i consider to be billboards. i do not know if that is a different kind of sign. scott sanchez: there are different definitions for a business sign and a general advertising sign. under prop g, no new general advertising signs are allowed. you are allowed relocation, but it has to make the code. the general advertising sign in the past has been allowed as a roof sign, but would not be allowed under the code, a new roof sign. i do not think he would be able to do it as a relocation. commissioner sugaya: when we are saying route signs will be permitted according to certain criteria -- now we are saying they will not be prohibited.

does that extend to the kind of billboard we are talking about? >> the roof signs are a type of building sign. there is a section of the code that lays it out. the general advertising sign is something else. once this happens, i assume -- commissioner sugaya: once this happens, i assume all those roof signs would become nonconforming uses? >> would become legal nonconforming structures. commissioner sugaya: would they then be subject to number 2, which is when the business ceases, the sun goes away? >> you are referring to the general advertising signs? commissioner sugaya: business signs. a root sign that is a business

sign would become nonconforming. -- roof sign that is a business sign would become nonconforming. >> it would be removed, unless it was a historic signing and the commission granted a conditional use. vice president wu: i have a question about signs downtown office buildings, which have the name of a business on the side of them. is that a different type of sign? that are usually at the top of the building. of those considerable signs -- are those considered wall signs? roof signs? scott sanchez: there are few of those. those include the bank signs approved over the counter in error by our apartment. at appeal, the board upheld our decision that they were installed in error and would be removed. those are considered wall signs.

commissioner borden: there are buildings with signs in the downtown corridor. scott sanchez: a provision allows for a few of those signs, put in in the late 90's, which allows some of those signs to be replaced. they are not fully nonconforming. it is a little complicated. generally, a department policy is that these add to visual clutter, and the director can speak to it further. it is not something we want to continue on. commissioner borden: it sounds like the ones that exist would be legal nonconforming. scott sanchez: they would not be able to change coffee to a new business line. -- copy to a new business line. would it be easier if we --

president fong: would it be easier if we went through this by topic? otherwise, we are going to ping pong back and forth. commissioner moore: i think it is easier. i fully agree with you. sings -- signs, what is missing are some visual examples. our visual landmarks are partially tied into designs, including the palace, a hotel, where we work downtown. signs help us know where we are. to understand what we really mean, in terms of signs nc-3, it would be great to have a visual catalog of what is affected by your ordinance and what is not. it would help determine whether or not heights are permitted by 160 or 40 feet. that would address two points i

wrote down relative to signs. i wrote down questions, because in this particular section of your legislation, i have a few on the rc signs. i was a little confused as you were saying in your summary that we trend to the legislation -- did i miss something here? you were saying currently regulated signs in nc districts, the way it would be, the basis is to rationalize changes that make it inconsistent. which means rc signage will be regulated by what is in nc district. >> that is correct. commissioner moore: that is

interesting to me. i have rarely seen signs in rc, so i thought that would be more restrictive. i would think that would be what governs. scott sanchez: in the rc-4 districts, and commercial uses are allowed in the nc-3 zoning district. we thought it was appropriate to have those senate requirements apply as well. that is what we are getting at with rationalizing those patrols. commissioner moore: there are signs in residential that have been advertising the sales of homes in many spaces, advertising building maintenance on signs which were never really

approved. there are a bunch of nuisance signs in residential districts, particularly higher density districts. there is hardly any way to enforce them. scott sanchez: those that you mentioned about "for lease" and building maintenance are typically exempt any way. they would be allowed in all zoning districts throughout the city. that is not unique to residential districts. that is generally city-wide. as i understand it, you would like some better visualization of what the difference would be between the current signed controls and the proposed sign controls. commissioner moore: i made that comment with respect to nc-3 signed edge, but it would be helpful in general to have do's and don'ts in a visual form.

a visual example would be helpful for the layperson. scott sanchez: we have some summaries that john purpose has developed recently. unfortunately, i do not have any of them with me right now. commissioner moore: moving along, the son with a gas station, identifying, called signs, are freestanding sides would announce to a driver were the gas station will remain. those will remain. that is what you are saying. at a number of our scenic streets, that is fine, particularly with the expanded staff recommendations to more clearly define special use. i fully support that. this is going to be funny. i am going to ask you what you mean by "signs of normal life."

i do not have any definition for that. i am sorry to sound silly, but it does not mean much. there is graphic relevance in terms of temporary graphics. there are different materials aging in different forms. all the metal signs age much better than the latest plastic paste-on signs. there is structural performance. do you mean all three? i think this has to be expressed a little more concisely for people to be able to get their teeth into it. >> that term is actually in the code now. it is pulled from there. i am not sure if there is an explicit definition. my understanding is it has to do with the material of the sign and when the sign has reached the end of its useful life. scott sanchez: when it officially needs replacement, just because of age in deterioration it needs

replacement, would be the natural life of the sign. commissioner moore: however, when a sign moves into the vintage category, you would require restoration? scott sanchez: it is something that could be sought under the vintage line provisions, if a qualified. they could seek that, perhaps. commissioner moore: i am just saying there is an element of vagueness. it could be spelled out. that is all of my comments. commissioner borden: i just wanted to go back to this. in the c district, all signs would be limited 40 feet in height. obviously, that makes sense for a lower rise building. when you are talking about high- rises, many of which are over 100 feet in height, some already have signs. a lot of them have assigned as

the building them. fidelity has a big fidelity sign on their building. is that the building name or a business line? scott sanchez: the name of the business on the building would be a business sign. there are some signs downtown that are clearly above 100 feet. those are grandfathered in, particularly under the planning code. when you change the business son, you need to comply with current code. but there was something in the 90's that allowed a few signs. the u.s. bank sign is one that is legal. they were able to change to washington mutual. other way around. under the proposal, it would lower it down to 40 feet. commissioner borden: i guess my point is it would not make sense for a building that is 150 feet to have a sign at 40 feet.

>> the current code limits it at 100 feet, no matter what size the building is. there are a few exceptions. but mostly, if it is above 100 feet, it is not conforming. commissioner borden: i would say that otherwise all the other signage should have no problem. i know that at some other point we should have a conversation about this. i know for a lot of the technology companies, they like having signage on their building to call out who they are. think about whether that makes sense, does not make sense in the context of all the policies we are trying to promote. i am not saying i am for it, but we need to have a conversation about it at some point. commissioner antonini: i

appreciate the efforts in this regard to try to define improved silage -- signage. it is always hard to legislate aesthetics. i know of some very small signs that are very ugly and some bigger signs that can be attractive. that being said, i think most of this sounds fine. i think that wherever we can allow some flexibility in the legislation, i think it helps us a little bit to have some discretion. as far as roof signs are concerned, i am not sure i would be entirely in favor of banning them. there may be issues where they may be appropriate again. the instance has been brought up a polar buildings. they might be appropriate. it just sort of depends,

perhaps. in some instances, the could be improved by cu. if there is a compelling reason for it to be there, it is a process that could go through. it is not in this legislation, but the signs on the sides of buildings in the downtown area, such as the union bank and i think u.s. bank, either on the top or the side -- there are quite a few on some of the taller buildings. in terms of the height allowable, i agree with staff that a limit of 100 feet instead of making it smaller is probably the preferable way to do it. the idea of not allowing any signs on the tops of gas stations, i think is a good idea. we do not have gas stations by

freeways that people are wishing by at 70 mph and have to know long ahead of time they will need to slow up for the gas station. i am not sure we need to have signs that are quite as large around gas stations. i would encourage this legislation to be done in a way that does still allow some discretion on placement of signs and various things regarding the signs. in general, i think i agree with what is proposed here. vice president wu: i have a very specific question about awnings and about plastic awnings. looking at supervisor chu's chart from the last time this was in front of the commission, they asked to prohibit plastic awnings.

is that consistent with the staff recommendation? quickstep is fine with that recommendation. it was not included, but we do not have an issue if that is the with the supervisor wants to do it. -- >> staff is fine with that recommendation. commissioner moore: -- commissioner miguel: a question arose regarding the end of life of the sign. what i would like to be sure of is that -- i think the term maintenance got thrown in there. what that actually means -- i am thinking of neighborhood commercial districts in particular in this regard. signs have by wires that hold them up. -- guy wires that hold them up. is that maintenance, where there is a metal frame that has a plastic insert inside the metal frame?

a change of modernization of that plastic inserts, i do not know whether that is considered maintenance to change the sign, or whether it has to come down. scott sanchez: a change of copy, if a business is keeping the same name, but changing their logo, that would be subject to current code requirements. commissioner miguel: with the same name and a change in design? scott sanchez: yes. commissioner miguel: even a change in font? you keep 75 year-old copy or change your sign? scott sanchez: yes. commissioner miguel: truthfully, i think that is pushing it. i think that is really pushing the envelope very, very much. if you change the name, if you change the business, as i discussed before, that is one thing. but just changing the modernization, perhaps