colleagues? please call item 1. >> item 1. >> changes to the planning code, uses, signsing building features, floor area ratio, parking and compliance in specified use districts. >> council member olague

>> colleagues, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to be here. today i am respectfully asking the land use committee to split file no. 110548 for the purpose of making a minor change to the planning code in my district, specifically the ordinance that once it's split moves forward if you agree with our request, would amend section 231 of the planning code to awill you for greater size and depth from a corner for limited commercial uses in the rto mission district. currently these uses are allowed to have a depth of 50 feet from the corner and a size of 1200 feet occupied square feet, my apologies. the ordinance that we would like to

see go forward would amend these numbers to 100 feet and 2,500 feet, respectively. the reason that we are here is that this change was actually supposed to be made in an earlier version of the legislation which was actually the main reason that we had been co-sponsors of the original legislation but unbeknowns to us and without consultation with my office at the planning commission, there was a change that was made that actually took this piece out of the original legislation. and so this portion that was supposed to be included was removed from the original legislation and that happened even though not only were we supporting this change but also supervisors president chiu, supervisors olague were actually in agreement with us

and wapted to see this change be made. so i will now hope that you can support our request that you split the file and that you move and there is minutes per person. there is a small buzzer or ding that goes off with 30 seconds to go. >> so we need the microphone on. >> it's not on? >> there we go. this is my second time before this committee. i want to thank you

for considering this new piece of legislation which actually it was a lot of questions why the mission district was left out from the legislation originally. i know it is very complex legislation and it has to be split in different ways, but, you know, they left the mission district out of it and i would like for you to consider this new addition to the legislation so we can move forward with a project that has been pending for about 8 years. in the meantime, some other businesses have grown out of the mission district and we are losing a lot of money at this point, not obl the money but also at the same time we have been 28 years in business, many of the workers, which there are about 40 of them, have made a living out of this establishment. so i urge you in the name of the businesses as well as those people that have been working with us for a long time to move this piece forward so we can go ahead and

start building. thank you very much. >> thank you. any other speakers? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleague, is there a motion to split the legislation? without objection we're spliting it. >> no objection. >> and then miss miller, so we vote separately on both of the items. which one do we vote on first? >> the original legislation. >> so for the original legislation, colleagues, can we move that forward without objection? great. and on the split --. >> mr. chair, the original legislation i believe is being continued and the divided legislation is being recommended. >> so let's rescind -- we didn't vote on the first item, so is there any objection to continuing the first item to the call of the chair? i don't see where -- to the call of the chair. is there any objection

to continuing it? seeing none. now a vote on the split item that's before us. can we move that forward without objection, colleagues? thank you. . >> thank you, colleagues, thank you, mr. chair. >> you're welcome, mr. campos. >> miss miller, item 3. >> item 3 is an item amending the san francisco administrative code by adding section 1.60 to require the mayor's office of housing and the planning department to report to the board of supervisors. >> our president, mr. chiu. >> that has been trailing the trust fund amendment that we have placed on the november ballot. there were a number of policy that is we wanted to legislate in the wake of that particular charter amendment

and this is one of them. should voters approve the trust fund measure when it goes to the ballot, we would like for this piece of legislation to go into effect and this was something that came out of discussions with the mayor's office on housing. given that the trust fund measure is going to be put into place policies that will last for the next 30 years, including a decrease in inclusionary housing requirements by 20 percent, as well as an increase in the inclusionary program from 5 to 10 units, i wanted to make sure the city was regularly evaluating the impact of these policies on affordable housing policies by requiring the planning department to rrt on the policy by reporting to the board of supervisors every 5 years for the 30 years the legislation is in place. this would require the board to take legislative action should it be necessary to achieve our city's affordable housing goals in the

future. we are some helpful changes that we have made and i wanted to give an opportunity to the mayor's office to make some initial comments and i understand they have also one additional change, but mr. olson lee, it's good to have you here. >> thank you very much, olson lee, director of the mayor's office of housing. the mayor's office of housing did have one modification to the modifications suggested by the planning commission, and that is to clarify the valuation of the programs, the housing trust fund, be based on different income categories including those above 120. one of the programs of the housing trust fund is the first responders program, done payment assistance first responders, they are likely to be over 120 percent of median

income and we want to be sure any evaluation captures that part of our program going forward. the income categories suggested by the planning department plus a category of over 120. >> and mr. chair, i should clarify, the changes that the mayor's office and housing have recommended is in the amended version that i just circulated to all of you here and i would ask the committee after public comment to adopt that and hopefully move it forward with recommendation. >> thank you, president chiu. if there are no questions, let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. so, colleagues, can we adopt the amendments without objection? thank you. and on the item itself, can we support this with a positive recommendation without objection is this thank you. thank you, president chiu. miss miller, please call item no. 2. >> item no. 2 is an ordinance

amending the planning code to consolidate requirements for privately owned public space and (inaudible) bulletin for privately owned public open space. >> also sponsored by president chiu. >> thank you, colleagues, for consideration of our items today. as we all know san francisco includes the densist urban neighborhoods outside manhattan and we are always looking for ways to improve livability as well as open space. the legislation you have in front of you is to help ensure that all of our citizens have access to open spaces that are known as popos, privately owned public operate spaces. i know there are -- this is sometimes thought of popos as slang for the police, but it is not that in this instance, these are privately owned public open spaces. popos under our planning code were required under the 19 85 downtown plan.

for every 50 feet of office space, 1 square foot of public open space was required. we have over a dozen such spaces in plazas, roof top gardens, atriums, small parks, mostly in our downtown area and most of them are in my district, district 3. unfortunately, over the years, very few citizens know about the existence of popos because signage requirements have been extremely inadequate. i want to thank spur, john king of the san francisco chronicle as well as the planning department for their strong advocacy to ensure this legislation would help move forward better signage requirements and i also want to thank supervisor wiener for his attention to this topic as well. we have a brief presentation from the planning department and i'd like to invite planning staff to make that presentation. >> good afternoon, chair mar and supervisors, kemia hadadar

from the planning department. i'm going to go over the issues we found out through (inaudible) also our own trips to these spaces. there were multiple issues this legislation is trying to address. one is the size of these plaques. currently the code doesn't regulate the size so that made these signs to be in different sizes so, like, for example in this one we have a small like 6 by 10 inches sign plaque here, it's 55 second street. on 55 mission we have a slightly bigger one with lots of text in there, small font, and then empire park is a large sign with language in both chinese and

english. the second issue was the information that's provided in these signage. currently the code regulates some of the content of the information in these signage and there is some good examples, like this one, the intercontinental hotel, it tells us where the space is because most of these issues are that the spaces are interior, they are accessed through a building rather than being outside so it's going to make it hard for the pedestrian, seated spaces without actually knowing they exist. this is another example that provides some information. it's good but still doesn't address even the current requirements of the code that talks about what features there is, if there's seating, if there's a restroom in the space. so it doesn't talk

about that. then this one, which is not a good example, is just a sign on a glass window and doesn't really provide any information on where the space is. another issue, the location and placement of the sign, for example, on this it's located on the surface on the ground, it's hard to see. this one is 101 second, it's actually a really nice space but this other door from second street doesn't even have a plaque so if someone's on second street they wouldn't know there's a space public here. then this one, the intercontinental hotel, the orient shows where the plaque is and this is really far from the pedestrian walking by. this is kind of, like, inverted in entrance and people won't really see the plaque if they don't know there's a space over there. then last issue is the

clarity, both the material of the plaques and also the contrast between the contents and the back grupbld. as you see, it's really difficult to see this sign that's engraved on a glass window. this one also is like silver color on a white surface, it's hard to see it. so the modifications that planning commission proposed are more regulations in terms of improving the sign and also applying it to existing popos that are not in compliance with existing requirements and then the other changes the planning commission suggested was basically to consolidate the 3 different sections in the code that regulate these plaques to just make it easier to read and easier to understand. so we're going to, the

planning commission has commended regarding size and fonts in a zoning bulletin that has, you know, all the contents. it would have goe logos for the features that's in there, hours, and then this would also be available in a digital format for project sponsors to get and just order the plaque. i have the plaque in the real size here just to see how it looks like. it looks like this as an example. so that's basically all the

modifications is just to make these spaces more visible and easier to find and make the public aware of the existence of these spaces. that concludes my presentation. >> thank you. i just wanted to mention two other things. we had introduced the initial version of this legislation that went to planning and i want to thank the planning staff for proposing some guidelines for existing popos, what we had stated was if there were new requirements, if there's a change of use for an existing popo, then the new requirements we have in this legislation will kick in. if there's existing signage that dosment meet current code requirements, again the new requirements would kick in. there are some very small amendments that i have circulated to you. they are on page 14 of this legislation. i want to thank boma and the

representatives of the building management world for feedback here. it was suggested we not require the email address of owners who were responsible for public access. right now the requirement is for a name, a telephone number and the postal address and we had email address as one of the requirements but i'm happy to suggest that we take that out. and then we were also, it was suggested to us by spur that the description on the informational plaque includes the type of open space, in other words, is it a plaza, is it an atrium, as well as the location of the open space and in cases where the space isn't visible from an open sidewalk, directions how to get to the open space and i think these are all very good changes to the legislation. colleagues, i would ask after public comment if you can adopt this amendment and move this forward with recommendation to the full board. i want to take a moment to thank not just the planning

department but spur had brought this to my attention and again john king who writes for the chronicle has been excellent at pointing out these secret spaces that should be made for public for all of us to enjoy. >> thank you, president chiu. i'm looking at the spur web site and the guide to san francisco popo, secrets of san francisco, but there's a lot of good information from sf fist and spur online. if there are no further questions, let's open this up to the public. anyone like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor wiener. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i just want to thank president chiu for taking leadership on this and addressing something that should have been addressed, frankly, a long time ago. we know that a public spac