the end yourselves this places all uses into one section of the planning code and lists them al bat out of hell the definitions and out dates the old definitions and only those table must the use of controls for the zoning district they provide most of the development information you'll need to know in one easy to read chart the planning commission heard it and voted unanimously with the modification these have been incorporated into the ordinance that's before you this is phase one of the 3 phase process more sexness to come this - and to reference the new set of consolidated use extinctions we want to thank

supervisor wiener for taking on the sponsoring and another person i'd like to thank it judy for the incredible amount of work and tom for the incredible amount of work that concludes any racks i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you mr. sharp and for your work. >> with that opening it up for public comment i have one public comment card tom mcdid you have vindicate. >> from liveable city i'm ahead to see this moving forward it's been a folks have been working on this for a few years i understood this is a long need those tables are a mess and the controls are parolee organized with had we did the neighborhoods it was confusing and i understand this is the third effort at doing this i

wanted to commend aaron and his colleagues people were cynical it is non-sexy it is essential we try to make a code usesable and thank you, supervisor wiener for doing this i'm glad to have a supervisor that likes to clean up messes and this is a big one. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment on item 2 seeing none, public comment is closed. okay. so first i previously described some minor amendments supervisor cohen can we take that without objection okay. the amendments are adapted and to recommend to the

full board we'll take that without objection. that's the full order could i have a motion to excuse supervisor kim we'll take that without objection. she's executed. >> madam clerk call item 3. >> item 3 an ordinance admiting the planning code. >> oh. >> for the code recommendation for the disabilities. >> i'm the author of item 3 this legislation is part of ongoing work around the update to the cities 2014 housing update and it proscribes is process with a person of disability to apply for a reasonable process to eliminate barriers to housing it is important for people to have access to housing we need to make sure that people with mobility challenges or other challenges have the same access to housing as everyone else this

is a microwave active variance your planning code we've learned is thousands of pages long we regulate all the planning code as well as to the building code this legislation makes sure we're providing fair and reasonable process for people with disabilities to make modifications to their homes so they can stay in place while the land use controls are in effect we have a colleague from the platt. >> thank you, supervisor wiener and supervisor cohen i'm from the planning department i'm going to provide a brief overview and recognize that carla is here from the mayor's office on disability and as supervisor wiener said this is a required part of the 2014 housing element the planning

commission approved this on november 20th and the planning staff attended the mayor's office on disability meeting so for the reasonable modification it provide a reasonable modifications to the property to eliminate barriers to their homes those require the residents with the disability to assess their homes and it must further the disability to provide equal opportunity currently a reasonable modification their addressed decide the zoning administrator so the standard barrier and they're not offered a clear process this leads to delays and approvals in developing the program staff and at anytime's within the state of california talked to the mayor's office on disability and reviewed the department readers to understand where the modifications have been made the most common

modifications included did access ramps and elevators given those are the notice commonly talked about process we - additionally those are important for people to access tear homes and don't put a burden on the building as mentioned in the planning code the second process to continue to be reviewed for the exciting variance if you're not requesting elevators or the additional habitable space you'll have to go to the section 3 of the planning code this ordinance meets the needs of the persons with disabilities and this legislation will make the homelands for people with disabilities easier from the planning code regulations the planning commission as well as the mayor's office on disability recommendations approval of this legislation i hope you pass it to say full board we're

vertebral valuable for questions. >> thank you, very much do have to make my racks. >> thank you for the opportunity to speak supervisor wiener and supervisor cohen i want to especially thank you, supervisor wiener for sponsoring this legislation and it's been a wonderful experience working with the planning staff staff and i want to thank the staff as well as the planning commission for moving forward on this our office emts is the city's ada corridor and this year 2015 is actually the 25th anniversary of the finding of the ada it is most appropriate that at this point we should put in place a process to do something the planning department is actually been doing ongoing all along grant the modifications when it can to the planning code but it lacks a clear process four both the staff and members of the public to transmittal understand

and have access to the benefits of that consideration this legislation is important to me pernicious i have worked with the planning department an individual cases to advocate for people who needed to make modifications to their home one of the most recent ones was barbara brendon in her that came forward with lou garters disease and wanted to live in her new year's eve valley home but in order to continue to live there she needed an elevator and under the zoning ordinance she wouldn't have been able to put one in the planning staff was helpful in walking her through the various process what is so efficient about the change to the planning code it will make

the process simpler and clearer and more readily assessable to all thank you, again, for this legislation and we strongly are in support. >> thank you. okay any public comment on item 3 seeing none, public comment is closed. one question i have for planning which i don't know if you'll be able to answer but i'll ask it. >> okay. >> partially rhetoric and partially really the one area that will still require secondary review in terms of the issues is the restoration we've seen a number of just because i know it's true for all my colleagues when their challenges and stuck in the planning department and taking too long

for whatever reason we see them coming through our office it is by far and away it's not close call in the top source of of the things getting stuck and becoming dramatically more expensive has to do with historic preservation review it's highly frustrating to the members of the public and to me and i everything to people in the planning department i want to make sure of course everything has to think thoroughly reviewed when a reasonable accomodation is being requested but what confidence level in a situation where someone who like the historic preservation commission that touches everything most building are over 75 years what confidence lastly of level when people are requesting accomodation to live or stay in

their home and have access it's not going to get stuck for various percent and we won't see a cost elevation. >> i don't know if i can answer our entire question by the way we're planning with the mayor's office on disability to create a form that identifies the modifications and i'm working closely with our historic planners to make that form very clear to be identified as a historic property and having training with all departmental staff that staff the counter so our i don't know if that helps to answer the question. >> i guess i was just asking two examples including the redemption of delores park but the public and private we've seen dramatic

delays for things getting stuck with dramatic cost escalation like rec and park they're not spending the money on the park because of the delay a lot of homeowners he imagine with people with disabilities they carton afford the delays i want to stress this think an important issue many making sure that people are able to navigate that process quickly so supervisor cowen if i could have a motion to forward item 3 to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> so moved. >> we'll take that without objection. that will be the order thank you madam clerk call item 5.

>> item open is an ordinance amending the planning code for the zoning for awning canopies and marquis. >> this is an ordinance i authored and i don't know they all happy to conversion on today i guess this legislation for the first time in a long time updates the city's sign controls regulation is important to keep our residential neighborhoods and corridor aesthetically free of visual bright legislation was supported unanimously by the planning department and the small business commission i want to thank our assemblyman david chiu for his work on this legislation before he left to go to sacramento generally for existing businesses this legislation will not change the controls but for locations that closed down for 6 months between attendants the signs for that

business including the awnings when the something like that, etc. need to be you i didn't want to be in conformity with the controls that helps to insure that awning are clean and safe and our corridors are not clustered and windows to the street are not unnecessarily obtaining occurred this makes sure the billboard companies are not mass raiding as signs there were billboard companies one in particular that were exploiting a will that in the planning code to say they were a business sign but really be a billboard the voters amazing over and over again not to allow new blldz in san francisco we were able to close that billboard through the interim controls we're making permanence i want to offer one

amendment to this piece of legislation made by the planning commission to amend the planning controls to allow for business signage to be more higher than 50 feet of grade i believe it will be unstriking page 16 line 12 and 13 if i'm not mistaken let me know if i miss stated that we'll fact that amendment up after public comment and aaron starr will provide the perceiving briefing. >> aaron starr the manager of legislative affairs it consolidates dings and modifies it the definition the business signs be removed when the business cease operation and

prohibits the general signage and places more restrictions around union square and other neighborhood you commercial district this ordinance was originally part of the larger northeast legislation that was introduced by supervisor chiu in 2011 that is the last piece of legislation to be considered by the board because of the ordinance ordinance sighed size it was heard the signs were continued in phase one at the march first hearing the commission voted 7 to zero with the northeast ordinance and the two modifications exclude the amendment that supervisor wiener just talked about and thelogically the sign from one hundred to 60 feet and consider expanding the property legislation so changing the copy color or logo on the sign we

brought into code compliance not in this ordinance but it wasn't part of it to begin with anyway and that concludes my racks i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you very much mr. star we'll on item i on to public comment we have one public comment card tom. >> good afternoon, supervisors tom executive director of liveable city we're very much in support of this ordinance and helped to work on it for 4 years it's been moving forward i said to speak to the amendment and say i'm omitted to the amendment amendment will allow business items up to one hundred feet in height when they were done in the late 60s it was up to 60

feet that's a 6 foot high on the wide it street district in the rest of c-3 it can be up to one hundred feet in height for a sign is unnecessary all the rules and generally speaking the policies of the planning department for the last few decades have been about dignifying the pedestrian street scale and bringing our pedestrian level no something like that needs to be one hundred feet high 2, 3, 4 any of the districts those are dominant and dominate the architecture and less light because they'll wish expending up to downtown it is mixed use and more so as we've added more and more folks

and there will be more bright from the increase of signs keeping the - the other thing that's confusing we got an e-mail on the sign height and an indication of the department they thought 60 feet was a good height i don't know where this is coming from it shouldn't be done i don't want to also in the market street sign district we've struck out the height sign there and the 60 sheet in the upper market ice that raise it - >> to the planning department in terms of i don't think there are buildings that are one hundred feet tall but can you comment on the last comment. >> i'm not sure what the e-mail was but i know that we've heard

concerns from developers downtown they want signs on top of they're building this is one thousand feet to people that don't want people with signs 0 above 10 feet so the exit one hundred foot is a good balance between the popular opts and this was heard at the time the commission recommended that you keep the one hundred feet in the ordinance and since then a - you know public discourse and conversation on that so we're a little bit redundant to see that go down to 60 feet. >> in terms of the comments that tom made perhaps when this comes down to the board could i get perhaps a response.

>> on the i'm sorry repeat. >> on the reference inform upper market. >> it's a little bit i think the tallest building is 85 feet. >> (inaudible) it's the market street sign on octavia boulevard (inaudible). >> it seems struck out. >> okay. great thank you very much and thank you okay is there any additional public comment on item 5 seeing none, public comment is closed. so in terms of the one hundred feet versus the 60 feet frankly i don't have a strong opinion one way or the other the planning commission recommended not taken one hundred feet and mr. star elaborated on that i'm going to oppose the amendment and to the full board colleagues

are interested in changing that concluding the supervisors that represent e 3 something we can take up at the phone number but today i'll recommend he put the amendment in so the amendment as i described before public comment can we take that without objection? the amendment is adapt can i have a motion to recommend this to the full board without objection >> 1:30 we'll take that without objection. that's the order. >> madam clerk call item 6. >> item 67 angle ordinance amending the platt for the landmarked building. >> and supervisor cohen is the author of item 6. >> thank you very much colleagues this changes the planning code to limit the amount of says that a building is allowed to convert once it's

designated a historic landmark the board of supervisors amazing passes interim controls i put 230rg9 to establish is a element of the conversions of pdr to office spates in historic building last year the controversy of labor its 2 henry adams brought this to my taken into consideration attention in this case, the project sponsor tried to convert a two-story building and during this the process of the proposal i've asked the planning department to take a comprehensive look at the buildings in the ear and as a result, the planning department said there's 14 other buildings in the pdr one v and pdr one g as in girl distinct that is disbelieve for the landmark designation now prior to the

interim controls those were allowed to convert one hundred percent of the space into office eir revenue if their displaying tenants this costs one million expedite of space and the interim controls we passed last year limits the space that the historic will be able to convert by establishing new floor controls i have a number of proposed amendments that codify the various u various changes and represents we've developed larger in concussion with the historic preservation commission and those excludes there's 3 of them first ring with the harmonies of liberty; the conditional use authorization for the conversion and second requiring a historic structures report be submitted to the historic preservation

commission detailing the specific the physical interventions needed and their stemmed cost and feinstein amendments requiring the planning commission to consider the historic structures report the economic need for the building and the compatibility of office space with pdr tenants and any other impacts on the neighborhoods or is location plans for the tenants i know that's a mouth full i believe that we have sorry steve with the planning department to say a few words about this item why don't you come up steve. >> steve with the planning department just to reflect on that the hearings with the historic preservation commission we had two and during the hearings we really no concern or fight over the jest of the policy that is reich the

conversion of pdr space in those landmark buildings that was full support only raise by the ar c how do they know the buildings are they need so much office space to support the 2 henry adams this is a building that's in excellent condition why put a building there the purpose of the location to prove the historic nature so we proposed to the planning department with the supervisor cohen and staff a bunch of amendments which were read and the hpc voted to support the amendments so they'll have a change both commissions and hpc for it's historic landmark and the conditional use process to insure that the hpcs concerns were heard and the office was

meeting other economic criteria. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we're ready for public comment. >> yes. we're ready for public comment. >> any public comment on item 6 seeing none, public comment is closed. >> supervisor cohen. >> i have a few closing remarks thank you to you and your department staff i believe the legislation does a good job of striking a balance of allowing office support and the maintenance of those historic buildings without displacing tenants or cannibalizing the wblgz we need to maintain some of the incentives that the property think owned have to allow them to have office space in special circumstances we can't lieu the can onlytion of truly value and could have at

the time space so you've heard this is this is essential to our blue-collar jobs and not adding this in his own the work we've done to support the businesses in this city i move we adapt those because their substantive we need to put this off one week. >> we'll take the amendments with a positive recommendation and what date and february 2nd. >> no, i thought oh, watt wait. >> it's february 2nd not the 9th and okay. so the motion so continue item of one week to february 2nd without objection

the item is continued. >> madam clerk call our final item 7. >> the ordinance rezoning a partial on portland avenue. >> and supervisor campos is the author of item 7 and we'll call up aaron starr from the planning department. >> me didn't this rezones 16 hundred cortland the commercial manufacturing to pdr one g this is the last property to be zoned the article 2 you've voted on that talks about the planning code this was supposed to be part of superintendant maxwell home improvement introduced in 2010 to the clerical error it was left off the zoning it was heard on december 4th they've

voted unanimously to recommend approval. >> thank you very much is there any public comment on item 7. >> seeing none, public comment is closed can i have a motion to forward 24 is to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> making a lot of motions. >> yes so moved. >> we'll take that without objection. that will be the order and before we adjourn today, i just want to note that this will be my final meeting as chair of the land use committee i've had the honor of chairing this committee for two years now and severed on it for 4 years in the running and for 3 of the four years i've that the pleasure of serving with my colleague supervisor cohen that will be stepping into the chairmanship next monday meeting and look forward to work together with the 3 members of the me those will not change and supervisor jane kim will remain under and we'll