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 be in the if you

fabulous leadership supervisor cohen madam clerk, any other business before this committee? >> there's no further business. >> then we're adjourned everyone >> hi. i am cory with san francisco and we're doing stay safe and we're going to talk about what shelter in place or safe enough to stay in your home means. we're here at the urban

center on mission street in san francisco and joined by carla, the deputy director of spur and one of the persons who pushed this shelter in place and safe enough to stay concept and we want to talk about what it means and why it's important to san francisco. >> as you know the bay area as 63% chance of having a major earthquake and it's serious and going to impact a lot of people and particularly people in san francisco because we live on a major fault so what does this mean for us? part of what it means is that potentially 25% of san francisco's building stock will be uninhibit tabl and

people can't stay in their homes after an earthquake. they may have to go to shelters or leave entirely and we don't want that to happen. >> we want a building stock to encourage them to stay in the homes and encourage them to stay and not relocate to other locations and shelters. >> that's right so that means the housing needs to be safe enough to stay and we have been focused in trying to define what that means and you as a former building official knows better than anybody the code says if an earthquake happens it won't kill you but doesn't necessarily say that can you stay in your home and we set out to define what that might mean and you know because you built this house we're in now and this shows

what it's like to be in a place safe enough to stay. it's not going to be perfect. there maybe cracks in the walls and not have gas or electricity within a while but can you essentially camp out within your unit. what's it going to take to get the housing stock up to this standard? we spent time talking about this and one of the building types we talk about was soft story buildings and the ground floor is vulnerable because there are openings for garages or windows and during the earthquake we saw in the marina they went right over and those are -- >> very vulnerable buildings. >> very and there are a lot of apartment buildings in san that that are like that. >> and time to.

>> >> retrofit the buildings so people can stay in them after the earthquake. >> what do they need? do they need information? do they need incentives? mandates? >> that's a good question. i think it starts with information. people think that new buildings are earthquake proof and don't understand the performance the building will have so we want a transparent of letting people know is my building going to be safe in it after an earthquake? is my building so dangers i should be afraid of being injured? so developing a ranking system for buildings would be very important and i think for some of the larger apartment buildings that are soft story we need a mandatory program to fix the buildings, not over night and not without financial help

or incentive, but a phased program over time that is reasonable so we can fix those buildings, and for the smaller soft story buildings and especially in san francisco and the houses over garages we need information and incentives and coaxing the people along and each of the owners want their house to be safe enough. >> we want the system and not just mandate everybody. >> that's right. >> i hear about people talking about this concept of resiliency. as you're fixing your knowledge you're adding to the city wide resiliency. >> >> what does that mean? >> that's a great question. what spur has done is look at that in terms of recovery and in new orleans with katrina and lost many of the people, hasn't

recovered the building stock. it's not a good situation. i think we can agree and in san we want to rebuild well and quickly after a major disaster so we have defined what that means for our life lines. how do we need the gasolines to perform and water perform after an earthquake and the building stock as well, so we have the goal of 95% of our homes to be ready for shelter in place after a major earthquake, and that way people can stay within the city. we don't lose our work force. we don't lose the people that make san francisco so special. we keep everybody here and that allow us to recover our economy, and everything because it's so interdependent. >> so that is a difficult goal but i think we can achieve it over the long time so thank you very much for hosting us and hosting this great exhibit, and

thank you very much for joining >> we love our parks, but we love... >> and the community who is really the core of it all, came together and said what we need is a place for our teenager to play, not just play grounds for the kids and soccer fields but we need a skate park that will keep the kids home in the neighborhood so they can play where they live. >> the children in the neighborhood and it will be a major boone. and we have generations, the youth generations that will be able to use this park in different places. >> the best park in san francisco right here.

>> creating place where people can be active and lead active, healthy life styles that are going to just stay with them for life. ♪

test. >> call the meeting to order. >> commissioner president katz commissioner adams commissioner brandon commissioner murphy commissioner ho item 2 approval of for the december 16th meeting all in favor, say i. opposed? minors are approved. >> item 3 public comment on executive session. >> any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed item 4 which you have session. >> a motion to move to which you have section all in favor, say i. we'll be