if you're going to pursue that,l support that that everyone gets notification. i didn't read this amendment asa temporary permit. i read that you will permanentle to legalize on january first wia conversion permit. does that mean no neighborhood notification will go out? >> that was not my understandine amendment. >> colleagues, again, i'm not oe committee, but i support this a, but it raises a question, if weo approve this amendment, there wo neighborhood notification that d in your neighborhood is now goio adult use. >> i don't think that's -- throe chair, that's not what directort had said before. >> said there would be a changef use -- did i mishea miss-hear y?

>> there is notification that cm the office of cannabis. >> i just want to chai clarify. >> -- >> there is a provision in arti6 per myth. first of all, when i temporary t holder, when applications become available, there a duty to ply n that legislation that would reqe people to apply within 30 days t application becoming available. with that said, there is a provn that legislation that does reque community outreach for the administrative permit as well. i know you guys are talking abod use outreach. i want to reiterate there i is n the outreach article 16 to prove outreach to neighbors within 30f the location notification they o

apply. >> this is currently, there woun mcd that would be, you know, mel and put in an application for a, is that a 312 notification? does it go out about a change o? >> no. not with this amendment. >> okay. >> so this is the amendment that supervisor safai and sheehy put. if there is automatic conversio, dispensaries do not have is to r a change of use. they automatically get converteo adult legalization. that is not temporary,s that a t change. >> no, that change is not perma. those operators will still be rd to apply for an article 16 permo become a cannabis retailer whicd be adult use and medical on thee premises in 2018. >> maybe there is -- i have to p reading section 190.

what i'm reading here is an establishment that either holdsd permit to operate a medical cans dispensary as of the date of ths ordinance or submitted by july , which is everyone in the pipeli. everyone in the pipeline submity 20th or got approved before. and received such a permit fromc health should be shall be deemed cannabis retail use. i'm not seeing where they have y or this is temporary. >> supervisor sheehy is dying t. >> sorry. >> that's not the way the police sees it. i know miss wong wants to weigh. >> this is the land use approva. but there is also the operatings

which include notice on the bui, notice to residents. the ability, i believe to appeae permit of appeals. there is an entire process laidt all goes through the office of . the idea was not to du duplicat. people are operating as an m cdy could go through with full notin and right of appeal. >> thank you. that was my confusion. it's that location now expands o include adult cannabis use. okay, but they still have to apr the permit, which will trigger a notification in the neighborhoot have 312 requirement although tl change with an amendment from sr peskin.

there is a -- one more questioni had. okay. i can't find the question in frf me. but i'll just defer to my other colleagues at this point. >> all right. are there any other supervisorso would like to weigh in on this f the journey? so next up -- >> i'm sorry, i do. >> supervisor peskin: superviso. >> supervisor safai: i want to y the point for supervisor tang in particular. the date that is submitted becae supervisor kim said all of the n the pipeline have submitted and complete. nicole, director elliot, we puts date in there because there were that had not had a planning comn

hearing yet and by this particue and not submitted a complete application. i think there are a couple in te pipeline, or a couple waiting bt included in the seven, is that ? >> the july 20th, 2017 date wile everybody in the pipeline. >> are there additional people g for hearings? >> that is why that date is tago the date of application insteade date of land use approvals. because there are some who haved for an article 33 permit who doe a date yet at the planning comm. what it says it they may move fd and seek approvals, if they gete approvals, they're treated juste every other dispensary. >> that is the universe of seven applicants. >> correct, plus the one thats e moved since 2013.

>> shall we move on to supervisr farrell's 202.2 subsection 5 sun b, this is going back -- this ig rid of the orbit concept and reg it with instead of the 300-foots with a 600-foot radius which cos with the orbit concept, i woulde everything to be on the table. i personally prefer the orbit c. i think that was a pretty smarta from planning and planning comm. and i'm trying to think here if- i'm trying to think of going fod backwards, mr. givner, i don't i can include that in both files.

because in the "clean file" we'd probably just keep orbit. i guess we could stick now -- >> you could, you have two opti. one is you could put one versioe orbit version in one file and fl anticluster in the other file. there has already been pub publc comment, an opportunity for pubc comment on the orbit concept toi believe it was in the ordinancet week as well. at least today. so, you don't need to clu need t concept in next week's version e there has been public comment o. >> is it possible for the planng department to show us the orbitn comparison with the map proposes new concept proposed by supervir farrell?

>> unfortunately no, we don't hy to map that because it's site s. where mcds choose to operate. there would be a lot of speculan that. i can ask the mapping expert bu- >> but we have the map for the . >> that's the easy radius to do. >> the orbit option depends on l different factors that are hard. >> so i guess i wanted to checky colleagues to see if you saw th. supervisor tang. >> all right. so why don't we, in the originae keep orbit and supervisors breed tang, if there are no objectionr other colleagues, we'll put thel concept in the duplicated file. >> to be clear for the record, t doesn't imply in any way that iy support this particular --

[laughter] but for the sake of o get this thing through, and disd properly, i will not object at s time. >> supervisor peskin: you have n abundantly transparent and cleat matter. now, the sheehy amendments as fs amended, right? that would be four times, that e the 1200 t 1200 down to a thouse definition of adding child caree state definition, that would bee farrell amendment and that woule new section 190 for the purposef discussion and this in no way cs any member of this panel to votn these things presumably next wet does allow us to tinker with th. can we take those in the duplice without action? >> for clarity, i do not support

including child care centers pei will do this without objection . >> supervisor peskin: for the ps of process. all right, now, let us go to the original file and this should me let -- we'll take the section 10 amendments that we can do. >> to be clear, are we going wie safai 190 amendment or the shee0 amendment? >> they are the exact same. all right, and then we need to o

we've taken the 190s on page 8. we need to on page number -- ans probably going to happen in man, but we'll do it globally, change buffer zone to 600 feet. and of course, this will include language that there is no minims from an existing day care centee don't need to change that. >> through the chair -- >> specifically on page 9 and p1 from a thousand to 600. >> on page 9 at line 22, that bs 600. miss wong, you can find all thes that a thousand needs to be 600. it's also on 10 at line 3. supervisor safai, you were aboup in. >> page 11 at line 12.

>> page 11 at line 12 at page 1e 21, this is as to the orbit as d to the buffer. that goss 600. what deputy city attorney givne. >> you're changing the buffer f0 to a thousand. i'm sorry, from a thousand back0 from this version. that's only in two spots in the ordinance. >> supervisor peskin: and we'reg the orbit from a thousand to 60. >> got it. >> supervisor peskin: okay, nowe do that, colleagues, without ob? so you have the 190, miss wong?

okay then here are other thingsi would like to see in one or bot. and that, as i said, and this wl require a lot of charts, but i o say it on the record so we can s discussion which is all as of rt become c.u. or d.c. >> with appeal to board of apped not the board of supervisors. >> supervisor peskin: i'm happye them d.c. and that would take tn that route. >> i agree with that. >> supervisor peskin: so deputyy attorney givner. >> so, i believe, and tell me is right, this amendment taking alp to mandatory d.c. is something u intend t to do at next week's mg

instead of not at toatd's -- tos meeting. >> supervisor peskin: as long as everything goes well and we cane something to the full board than take public comment and take acn it next week. >> no, you need additional publc comment on changing the "as of o a mandatory d.r. >> supervisor peskin: but if nes meeting is noticed with that, we problem. >> it would mean making the amet today ps. >> well all those p's become d.. >> yes. i did. i guess my concern about this at and many of the moving amendmeny is the challenge of making amenn

ptd flthe fly with this extrem d interwoven amendments. i don't know elsewhere in this e weed we need to amend or whethee would be any other implicationss eveof making sure it's consistet throughout. we can look at it, and discuss e side if you'd like. >> just so we're clear, i'm in . i had said this 10 times duringe hearing, i'd rather do it once t right. when you do a body of policy li, there will be mistakes and we ho tweak it in the future. this is a dynamic piece of legin and we understand that. but i'd like to get it as righte can. >> make supervisor peskin coulde that, do you want it in both fi?

i'd be open to it in both files. when it's ready, that's when wee the public comment, it doesn't necessarily have to be next wee. >> supervisor peskin: that wouln everybody gets noticed pursuanto section 312. we'll let miss wong and mr. givr confer. >> point of cli clarification. i heard what you said about reme "as a of right" in the section. are you saying mandatory d.r. or instituting a d.r. process thats applicable to the public. mandatory would make it appealao the board of appeals having they

to file a d.r. if necessary. >> i think they need to go throh public hearing that need not be triggered. if we put it in for mandatory dt preserves our ability tofort co. if we want it to be affirmativee could back into the position. >> put the bar higher, i get it. >> supervisor peskin: i'll let l confer whether or not that's ri. i want to be in a position we ct if we want to do and it change m mandatory to affirmative. >> are you saying in all the are referencing as of right but cite everything would become mandato? >> supervisor peskin: all the mn legislation as of right. c-2, pdr, that's --

>> okay. so in the areas that they had wn originally as of right, got it. >> it's going to clarify downto, not pdr because we don't allow s retail in pdr and several easten neighbors and south of market d. >> so you'll know, you're requil the applications to go to a plag commission for a hearing. >> maybe affirmative d.r. is tht move. if we start with mandatory d.c.n back down to affirmative d.r. pile' defer to miss elliot. >> i want to redo the division e police code so you can understae

administrative side related to e article 16, it says documents, t the point of application. applicants must submit how the applicants engaged to advise nes of the intent to apply for canns business permit and to solicit n the proposed good neighbor poli. applicant's community strategy t include written notice to neighs within 300 feet of the premisese applicant's intent to open the s at that location, neighbors cane input and shining sheets for mis held. all materials and notices develd distributed to neighbors by the applicants as part of the strate translated into the languages requiredded by the language accs ordinance. >> mr. starr, i believe it's "af right" in pdr as accessory use. >> only as a microbusiness perm.

>> councillors, do you need mor? >> in some of them, for instance pdr district on page 18, are ped with conditions. there are other areas where rets permitted, but cannabis is not d out specifically. just going it take us more timel it down.

>> we are other items onts agen. last one is one i think -- i hos wide support here. affordability. >> portability. >> we're going to be discussing portability at the rules commit. it's in the police code versus . the land use designation once is permitted and you've gone throud the designation is permitted the planning commission and all the appropriate bodies, that cannote removed, it could be considered. the permit to operate the businn be assigned to the business. we can move the business and tht particular space, we could requt space to have to go through thes all over again for a new busine. then we'd ask for what reasons e permitee had to move. was it because of negotiation we

landlord, unfair practices, evir termination, thoan all those ths could be required to be on the o determine whether or not we want particular space to be permitte. we can't remove the land use designation. did i say that correct? >> i know the city attorney hasn that advice in the past. there are other municipalities t expire with the user and do noth the land. there are way does it. i know the city attorney in san francisco says it runs with thed forever unless it's been abandor continuously misused but other municipalities do it. >> our advice on this is if youd to consider a portability provin this ordinance, it would raise s that we'd have to look into ande the entire board on which is goo slow down your process. you're not going to be able to t

today or next week. it will also require referral bo planning after the board adopt - if the board adopts that type of amendment. you could, and we've been workih supervisor safai on an amendmend the article 16 ordinance to proe types of protections along the s that i think many of you are gor and hopefully the committee wils that further tomorrow. >> okay. we can trail with that and see w article 16 of the planning code. >> through the chair and rest oe body, we've been discussing thak and forth both on the police coe side&leus side. as you yo suggested, we're askie possibility of having the design expire at a particular time. we're happy to continue that

conversation. i had one more thing for this. it was -- it was a reduction ven add-to. i wanted supervisor breed to he. this would be more in the spirif compromise city-wide. i think initially when we appros on the ncs conversation, we havt designated in here as a city-wi. but after further discussion wih individuals, it would allow fore opportunity. we're happy to remove that city. so we could ask for that to be introduced next week. it would open up more space ratn take wayer in space. >> we can take out the ncs. >> i would like to do that, butt see deputy city attorney givnerg up again. >> time trying to limit what weo put together in terms of oral amendments, but that is an amenu would make next week and not trr another continuance.

>> for the record. mr. givner, we don't mind contid continuing until we get it righ. i know there are some members oe board who feel that we should r, but i want to make sure that wee legislation when we do these am. how do they layer on top of oner and what is the ultimate end ret we're getting as a result of mal the changes. i really -- i mean i'm okay as s you don't mind. this is what i'm here to do. i hope we can get those amendmee and we don't mind -- i don't the should be in such a hurry to tre a meeting next week to discuss . in fact, supervisor tang mentiod something to me and you too mr., if we're going do a committee oe whole, we should look at hearinf eye teams both in rules and lane

together. supervisor tang suggested a jois and land use meeting. but like i said, that is prettyl the members of the board of sups because we know other members nn those committees will be sittinn this. i understand that the committeea whole will also require the pubc comment necessary to meet the requirements then if necessary,d send these things back to commie based on discussions of the entd and if additional public commens triggered as a result of the ams and other things done on that lr scale, we're open to that as we. so we know this is going to taka lot of time because there is wot the city attorney's office has o make sure it's legal and makes d we can do it. i'm open to that and i'm not in. i just want to get it done righ.

>> supervisor kim. >> i found what i wanted to stae earlier. if we move from a thousand to 6t tie school, i would like to putn amendment that states that eithe office of cannabis or planning department would have to let aps know to apply between 600 and ad feet that businesses have been y the federal government in the po they're aware they're in a graye that they can be permitted by ty but at risk of being shut down e federal government. everyone putting in their own ms aware that is a possibility. two, i do think we should exploa

complete cap per district at a h number. city attorney, jon givner, i'llk with you on that. finally, this is my actual ques. this is a question to the officf cannabis, i realize in the pipet you gave of the current operaton those at various stages of the permitting process, what is mism the sheet is actually the mcds , or at least i could not find the list. the numbers might be higher thae ones that we're listing. >> supervisor, i believe you're referencing those untold numberi think we had it around -- actuai don't have a specific number ofs closed through -- mcds closed th federal enforcement. you're pointing at the retailerd

for article 16 permits are resto a certain pool of applicants, te being one existing mcds being a, equity applicants and imp incubg forward. i requested from the departmentf public health the number of thoe shutdown, i have not received tt number from the department of pc health. >> why is it that we don't havet number? >> it wasn't a number we were tg in the sense of why someone stod doing the business when they lor lease. >> could you state your name. >> i'm from the department of h. we didn't track over the years y people lost their least, or wenf business. we could work with historical ke of people, but we didn't track . >> can i follow up, a quick folp

question. were we notified when a club waa establishment was shut down by e federal government? were we made aware or notified? >> what the federal government g was the threat to the landlord o us. >> but the city was never conta. >> not to my knowledge. i can go back. currently the inspector that iss is not the ones who have gone fe city already. so their knowledge is no longers because they're no longer workih us in the city. >> so, okay, so do we have a lif everyone that we've -- at some t permitted but no longer in busi? >> we can probably find that li. i'll talk to doug tomorrow. >> do those locations have a lae approval for medical cannabis dispensary? >> that's a good question.

>> i don't know how long the apf land -- was it three years? >> for abandonment? >> 18 months for abandonment. >> and we've kept track of whice permits that we approved? where there was abandonment? how would wree know? we don't visit them. >> no we don't. no one tells us when they close. we have to do research and findn that closed down. we have some some sort of proofe business was opened within 18 m. >> and that determine natio dete the board of appeals. >> at some -- i'm prize surprist know which businesses were shou. we don't know if the land use al expired for those businesses ei. it's likely they did, but we dow

for sure. i feel like there is a lot of information we still need to ge. i just want to know we can probt that information. but i want to support the dispes that went through the proper prd shut down in their sterch for ar location. is this is my final comment. in response to the public commee heard around equity am wants. while it's true, i want to be tl about restrictions that we put d locations in terms of how it mat equity ahe can -- equity am app. the most important you can do it women and people of color and th v convictions on your ownershiph equity members of your business. that will do more to diverse i e

industry. the one comment i'll make abouts industry is it doesn't look dift from the top echelons of indust. and your employees are very div. when you look at the ownership s industry, i don't -- i haven't a woman owner. i'm not saying they don't exist. i haven't met many people of co. when i'm looking at the list of applicant names which are not necessarily the owners, i see vw women or spanish surname and thh an asian surname. this industry has a lot of work. it's great to see you make suree don't restrict locations to thet that equity applicants can't fia location in the city. i urge you to do your part by mg these people equity owners in yr businesses. that will do a ton in terms of increasing access to, i think, s

going to be a very prosperous iy here in san francisco. i hope that the owners do theird not just talk the talk about whe board can do for equity but whan do for equity. that is my final comment. >> supervisor safai. >> a question to deputy city aty givner, but i say what specifice want to delete now? or talk about it and submit it ? >> on the -- >> in terms of ncs. >> i would suggest we understanr proposal. >> could i say it now and we cat as a formal destruction on mond. essentially it's on page 28 lin2 through 25 and page 29 line 1 th 13. we'd essentially delete that wha

and remove that as a none permid zoning restriction. >> or changing those to c.u.s rr than removing them all together? >> yeah. but they would be taken out of s section and put into another sen because of the way the section s the following are not allowed. however the city attorney solve. >> we'll work it out for the net meeting, whenever it is schedul. >> but the spirit of it was tho, removing the restriction and thr district 2 and allowing it to b. for that particular area. >> understood and we'll prepareo you can circulate it at the next

meeting. in terms of the mandatory -- cie mandatory d.r. proposal, it's pg more complicated to nail down. we need to confer with planningo figure out exactly where each oe districts will be. this is the proposal for supervr peskin. we're looking at it now. the mandatory d.c. is turning oe more complicated to nail down. we need to talk to planning andt figured out. >> and if it was affirmative d.h notice, would that make it as complicated or less complicated? in other words, it's stowbt notd people can choose to avail themf discretionary view or not. >> if i understand correctly, ye

asking whether we can change whe cannabis retail is currently ped to -- the d.r. would be availaba principally permitted location,t there wouldn't be specifically e of provision, if i'm correct. if you would like to have a parr notice, period, mr. starr my understanding is if you'd aid lo have a particular notice periodu would need to have some mechanir that like a mandatory d.r. sow t have an over the counter approvs what you're seeking to avoid. >> it would be a section 312 su- subsection d where everyone gets notice. if if the department doesn't hem you, you're good to go otherwisy

can final for d.r. that is the other one that super safai was recommending. >> that would apply in other are 312 notification would apply but necessarily in every district we began bus retail is currently "" >> right now in the c-2, nobodyd get notice at all. >> they'd get notice from the of cannabis but not notice from pl. >> so we'd being extending the e of notice to additional areas ir to create what you're raising. >> it's not what i originally r, but i'm trying to in the spiritl of the collaboration and comprot we've witnessed here this afterd evening, asked whether or not td be easier for you to prepare soe

can attempt, all be it, we'll tr time and get it right, to get it next monday. >> no, actually i don't necessay think that would be any easier,e to find the same zoning districd amend tall controls. i'm not sure it would make diffn the terms of the time it would o make the amendments. >> from starr? >> i think you want to subject w cannabis retailer to 312 notifin regardless of the zoning distrit they're in? >> in the "as of right" areas. >> right. so yes. as long as -- so the establishmf the cannabis retailer requires 2 notification. right now, the version -- the lt version i looked at, it did appe conversion and to the change ofe commercial neighborhood distric.

>> why don't we take this off ls not ready for prime time, to be continued. why don't we take both files asd and continue them one week and supervisor president breed and k forward to working with the may, cosponsor sheehy and the officef cannabis by and through nicole . all right. that concludes this -- >> what about the 20th or doinga committee of the whole? >> why don't we continue this ie week. if we choose to send it to a coe of the whole, we can do that. we could do it out of a meetinge 13th and send it to the committa whole with additional notices wd figure out. or if week' lucky we can get itt between now and next monday. >> all right.

that was fun. see, that's what happens when ye to work one day and the chairpen doesn't show up. can we take a like, 10 minute -e minute break, supervisors? five-minute break in

>> supervisor kim?in >> thank you so much. members of the land use committee, this item has been before the land use twice, as an interim zoning control, first in november, 2015. and then was renewed just this past summer. this legislation makes permanent the interim zoning controls for science and the area between folsom and 2nd street. this interim control was put into place, acknowledging that this is a commercially intense neighbourhood, but we've made it mixed use, one that includes residential and office and others and that we're building a brand-new park as well adds other areas.

and it would regulate the height and the size and that any of the illuminated signs would have to have the capacity to be dimmed and that the lights would be turned off between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. to reduce light pollution and the sleep and rest for the neighbours in the area. i do have two, potentially three amendments to make to this ordinance. and the first is to accept the planning commission's proposed modification as follows, page 4, lines 13-15, acting that parks be clarified. staff recommending amending by adding the following language, a new sign that is within 200 feet of an existing park under the jurisdiction of the san francisco recreation and park commission or any other public agency where a planned park is one that the san francisco recreation park commission or any other public agency has

identified as a park or public planning process and identified in the district plan or within 200 feet. the second, just a question from one of the business owners, that it should be painted or unpainted. so this would allow office building owners to put up metal letters that are painted or unpainted. the time amendment -- i'm not sure i'm going to put this in. there was some question about facade abutting and what it means. does that language need to be clarified, mr. sanchez? >> diego sanchez, planning

staff. currently a building that is correctly abutting city park, three of the four facades, assuming three of the facades would be visible would be subject to these controls. i don't know if the intent is to capture what is abutting or the two other facades as well. from what i understand, this amendment to address to only capture one of the three facades. >> hold on. i'm sorry. >> diego, mr. sanchez, could you please repeat that slowly and maybe -- do you have a visual representation that we could look at? >> i can clarify. the way that the ordinance currently is written -- >> the interim measure or -- >> no. the permanent controls putting

forth that replicate or duplicate the controls is that for any buildings that abutt a city park shall have signs with these regulations. however, a question had come up from the zoning administrator, only today, by the way, because this item went through the planning commission, so i was surprised that it did not come up when it was heard at the planning commission, but whether the side of the building that doesn't directly face the park but is visible from the park would be included, is that correct, mr. sanchez. >> that's correct. if you give me the overhead, i can provide that image. >> if you are standing where that x is, and this is city park, this facade here is subject to the enhanced controls

the question is whether this facade would be subject to enhanced controls or if you are standing here, this one as well. zoning administrators interpreting the language as proposed that went before the planning commission to include this facade, this facade and this facade. >> mr. sanchez, can you tell us exactly what we're looking at? >> yes. this here is city park and this is a hypothetical building above city park. >> so the issue is -- so this is the -- that's what happens when you touch these screens. all right. so the southern portion of the graphic is what the zoning

administrator believes is subject to this legislation and the question is whether or not -- can you just put that down? my screen went bad -- whatever that would be, eastern or western facades that can be viewed from other sides of the park is subject to the legislation or not, is that the question? >> the way the zoning administrator interprets how the language is proposed interprets that facades one, two and three are subject to the enhanced sign controls. if that's not the intent of the proposed controls, and i do believe there is some language floating around that would modify that language so that only facade number one would be subject to the enhanced controls. >> got it. and so you definitely don't want

add ver -- advertising above that park. if you look at that building that is rounded at the corners, you do not want it on the -- what i will call, southeastern and southwestern corners, because it's rounded and directly an imposition on the park and i don't want advertising in the park. so is there a way it ref i'm this so if there is that kind of advertising that is north of the rounded corners, you can have it, but if it's south of the rounded corners, you cannot have it? >> this is not the only building that will abutt the park. there are several other buildings. you cannot make it too specific. >> he said it was an imaginary building. >> i think you are using this as an example.

>> it i am. >> there are other buildings that abutt the park where one wall is clearly, directly facing the park, but there are other walls that may be viewable from the park because of just -- this is the most obvious. my preference, of course, is that it's not viewable from the park because the original intent of this ordinance was as stated to prevent advertising in the park, which is what happens when you put your office name on your building. is there a way to stay visible or just to say buildings abutting the park are under this regulation? and i assume under the zoning administrator's interpretation, the side facing north would not be included. >> that side would not be included. >> ok. why don't we open this up to

public comment. this is supervisor kim's legislation. i totally agree with the -- or any other public agency language and painted or unpainted and as to the issue discussed. if there's any public comment on this matter, please come forward. >> good evening. thank you. i know it's been a long afternoon. jodi knight, attorney, we've been working on this the last several days to try to get clarification on the legislation. one of the issues is that there was a staff report that went to the planning commission from planning staff, which stated that the legislation only applied to facades that were abutting and directly adjacent to the park. that is what was considered by the planning commission and what is in your packet here today.

but then it's being interpreted contrary to the staff report. and so this issue came up. we've been discussing with staff. and discussing with supervisor kim's office, trying to provide some clarity in the language of legislation and so what i'm here to ask for today is continuance so we can get this legislation worked out and figure out -- i think at this point everybody agrees there is uncertainty in this legislation and it will go into the planning code, which we don't want. so i think a short continuance for us to work out this language would be the best way it work out this issue. >> and counsellor, you have identified you are counsel, but failed to identify your client. >> i represent sales force and there are a number of other businesses that are interested and clients interested in the area. >> ok. is there any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is

closed. obviously -- first of all, let me just say, after having a long conversation about balkanization and what is a citywide matter and what is a district matter, let me just say, this is not a district matter. this is a citywide matter. and the reason i say that is because supervisors kim and i within the boundaries of our district share the downtown and the downtown as far as i'm concerned is an area of citywide significance and importance. and for those of you who watch the board of supervisors and transportation authority commission and understand the billions being spent on the transbay terminal and his park, it's not a parochial district matter. so i think the fundamental, underlying desire to protect a

new park from in-your-faced a ver -- face advertising is right. the issue, which is obviously, something that one can appeal to the board of appeals and it doesn't sound like that has been adjudicated. i'm 100%, as they say, down with not having in-your-face advertising in the park. so let's read this language. if the new business sign is not located on a building facade where the facade directly abutts or has a pedestrian connection. i don't think the issue is about abutting, but i think it's about visibility from the park. having said that, supervisor kim, what is your will? >> i think -- i was a little -- i understand the planning

commission wants to clarify the language. my clarification, i think, is clear in the ordinance, which is any sign visible to the park. i'm rereading the ordinance, i think it's reclear. illuminated signs or other signs visible from a public park or privately owned popo. what i would say is for us to be on the record that the intent of the ordinance is to impact any sign that is visible from the park. so does that need to be clarified in any way or is that the interpretation of the zoning administrator? >> that's the current interpretation of the zoning administrator. if you can see the sign on either facade, either of the three facade, it's subject to the enhanced sign controls that are before us right now. >> so i'm reading page 4, lines

16, a new business sign defined 602, within 200 feet of the city park and visible from the city park, shall be personal -- permitted if it meets the following requirements. i don't see a need to continue this item. i think everyone was notified. being that the language is clear, i will move forward with the first two amendments that i have stated on the record. so i would like to make a motion to amend for the first two amendments that i stated. >> a motion by supervisor kim as to the inclusion of other public agencies and to the language at page 4, line 20, painted or unpainted, and i'm reading this lange