streets. i think there is a range of what you could do. you could do pedestrian safety treatments at intersections, which could get you some significant safety improvements. that could be a lower cost. you could be talking about something on the order of what was done on valencia's street recently, where the sidewalk was widened, street lighting was added, and there was a pension to the environment. that could be more expensive. that is one or $200 a block. with capital improvements, and that is something we continue to do. where is it important to do your basic safety treatment? where is the money best used to enhance the pedestrian round in a walkability way? we could be of little more nuanced about where that number

comes from. i am going to add one more thing. commissioner borden: to that point, i know we have a grant. moving forward -- i know at 24th and castro you have the sidewalks, the crosswalk that points out that people are across the street. i know the project would be expensive. it would seem to me it would be expensive. how are we looking at those priority areas? are we doing them first and then trying to get funding for some of the bigger picture things? >> it depends on the funding sources that are out there. there is the prop k money. commissioner borden: i was the vice chair of that. >> so you are familiar with that. there was the grant that played for more longer term.

that is the purpose of this project. ha we have the initial capital project in the report that says you could do some of these things. just to use an example, we looked at sixth street between market and howard, which has one of the highest incidences of pedestrian fatalities in the city. i think there are faces you could do to do that, from the signs or improvements, or signal changes to something more substantial that includes sidewalk widening. through the executive directive, we have been managing that.

they can be used in different conditions. commissioner borden: in conjunction with the bicycle plan, can we look at different ways that bicycle lanes have bumpers from pedestrians in a way traffic wines typically are not? are we looking at that? i know walking is different and suckling. >> absolutely. i think the mta has more of what you would call a complete street focus, looking at all the different modes of transportation and designs at any given corner, for whatever the particular needs and uses of that corner are. there are synergies between the bike facilities and pedestrian facilities in many cases. i think mta would look at that. do you want to add anything to that? >> adam i think covered it very well. i would just mention the

pedestrian strategic action plan that we are working on with this task force is going to come up with strategies to identify and find the most promising measures, once we are using now, or potentially new ones from the review of the best practices. commissioner borden: thank you. comissiomer sugaya: so long as you are up there, wouldn't it be -- tell me if i am wrong. can't we take a lot of one-way streets and put them back to two-way streets? would that not how lot? my take on pedestrian safety and this program -- if you look at it from another standpoint, does it discourage the use of an automobile? the faster you have speeds and timing on these one way streets, which i know very well --

couldn't simply taking a lot of these back to to way, reducing the speeds -- it would not cost anything except for some signaling. >> that is one of the measures we would be looking at being implemented or considered at a number of streets. there are some trade-offs, and not just traffic in parts, but even in the safety. while one way can promote higher speeds, which is bad, it can be a that a bit easier for the pedestrians -- it can be a little bit easier for pedestrians to pay attention to the traffic. we need to consider a number of factors. thanks.

commissioner moore: i appreciate what everybody said. it adds a lot to the discussion. i'd like to acknowledge and see this as a semantic design overlay to the best streets plan. it puts even more urgency to it, because we really get a line of discussion which has the collector streets plan as a big idea, but you are focusing on a project that needs to be done. what i am concerned about, like my fellow commissioners, is the huge gap in what is needed for funding and the very obvious and availability -- unavailability of those funds in the city budget. what are interim measures that could help make some of these things happen?

i do believe that as our sidewalks are deteriorating, and even our curbs are getting less safe to step off, but pedestrian safety is not being really tracked properly, because we do not have the money to implement those things which are long overdue. i am wondering if you are able to identify temporary fixes like the one suggested on castro street, and see at least that the citizens are getting something they can tangibly focus on. >> you are probably familiar with the payment to parks program, which is a faster and less expensive way that gives a buy into them. we have built a number of those out and are looking at other places where we could do that sort of idea, for example with a

low-cost corner billed out. that is under design review right now with our agency and with the mta to do that. i did want to bring up that there are a couple of new funding sources that have recently been optioned by the city. there was the roadway bond that passed in december. it has $50 million for streetscape project. that is a significant piece of funding that was not previously there. the was also prop 8 a, -- there was also prop 8a, which goes in part toward pedestrians improvement. president fong: i am excited about this because it is the collection and use and power of data that we are just getting into at this level and a bunch of different levels around the

city. the use of technology and cartography skills, i think, are beautiful. looking at the maps and seeing patterns of how people use our city. we could maybe use more of that data when applying for money federally. it is hard to argue with data experts. i know i am excited about it. but as keep going. next item, please. >> commissioners, you are now on item 15, a case for 259 broad street. >> michael smith, planning department's staff. you have before you to request for a conditional use authorization to modify the conditions of approval placed on the existing residential care facility in motion number 14958

to allow for the construction of a one story brick addition that would add rooms for a caretaker's unit to the existing facility. it would add approximately 1150 square feet to the building and would contain bedrooms, a bath, and a living room. it would not add an independent dwelling unit or increase the facilities overall number of patients. the property is located at 259 broad state -- street between capital and orizaba. the facility operates as the merced facility and provides long-term care for 12 individuals with alzheimer's or other forms of dementia. the sponsor presented a similar project to the commission that was approved in may 2011.

the project was proposing to construct a third floor addition that would add an independent polling unit to the property. in making its decision, the commission found the addition of an independent dwelling unit would greatly increase the development intensity of the site to an extent it would no longer be compatible with the single-family residential neighborhood. the applicant's desire has always been to provide space to the facility for caretakers. the department has not received any comments from the neighborhood on this project. the department is recommending approval of the project with conditions. the additional space would serve as the caretaker's space, which is a normal feature for a residential care facility, and the additional space does not contain a separate kitchen and is well integrated into the facility, making it difficult to convert the space into an illegal dwelling unit, which we

felt addresses your earlier concerns when the project came before you. this concludes my presentation. i am available for question or comment. president fong: project sponsor, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i represent the owner. this project was approved in 2000 as a residential care facility. since then, the owners have always needed a caretaker to be on the residence. for the last 10 years, they have not been able to do that. last year, we did apply to have that facility, but commissioner

moore made salient points which led to its disapproval. those points were taken into consideration. we went back to the department. the basic criticism was that it was too independent. it was meant to be a single family unit, it independently accessible, with a parking space and a kitchen. she thought that would have been an intensification of use. the commissioners unanimously agreed with her. we went back with the planning staff. "we did was we changed most of the things she had commented on. we took out the unit. we established a direct access to the residential care facility

use place. we pulled back the one story addition to make it smaller, from 1600 sq. feet to 1200 square feet. that is necessary. it is a two unit still, with a single bathroom, with direct access to the facility downstairs. as i said, and the existence of a caretaker on this particular facility is a need. it is not a want. there is only one kitchen in this facility. we canvassed the neighborhood to see if there is anyone in opposition, explaining it to the neighbors. there is no opposition.

as you heard planning staff say, they did not receive any comments of opposition to this project. we are here, ready to hear your comments and views. obviously, as the planning staff has said, they are going to put conditions of use on this project. thank you very much. president fong: is there any public comment? commissioner moore: i assume i owe it to push the button first, because the questions the commission raised last may were addressed, those things anchored in the code which speak to an intensification in a residential area. they were not invented by me, but the lead to a closer look at exceptions which could not make. here i am, fully expressing my support for the project, because it does exactly do what it needs to do. it creates a full expression of

a facility, a care facility with a caretaker living in the right setting, with the right access, etc., in this particular building. i am delighted to see you so sensitively respond to the questions raised last year, and fully support it. i want to say we are at a time -- and the president can speak to that, as ken these on administration -- where there are a lot of reinterpretations of the code, and we are debating the directions expressed in the code, trying to guide people to why that are important. i make a motion to approve this project. commissioner antonini: second. >> thank you. the motion on the floor is for approval. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner moore: aye. comissiomer sugaya: aye.

president fong: aye. >> the motion passed unanimously. you are now on item 16. it is for 14 08 california st.. scott sanchez: before we start, i am pleased to introduce michelle stahlhut. she joined us in may and focuses mainly on wireless use. she is initially from indiana, but has lived in chicago and beijing. she received her master's in planning from the university of wisconsin, madison, where she focused on land use improvement and planning. after moving to california, she worked for san jose, working on planning and green building, but left to live in china for two years. she started in september.

i am pleased to introduce michelle. welcome and thank you. >> of the afternoon, commissioners. before you is the conditional use authorization proposed by at&t to install a new wireless telecommunications service facility at 1408 california st.. it proposes a up to nine panel antennas located on the rooftop of a five-story 37-unit apartment building with ground- floor retail. that set back from the edge of the building by 5 feet deep, which makes them invisible from the primary for a son of the building. this is a location preference 6 site, which requires an alternative sites analysis from the applicant. this is included in your packet today. the analysis revealed no public buildings for echolocation --

co-location sites, and other sites were not as attractive because of opera ability or appearance. staff received no public comment, but yesterday afternoon received an e-mail citing concerns about proper public noticing for the project and the cumulative impact of all at&t project in the nob hill. today, i received a phone call from someone with unspecified concerns. staff looked at public notice and determined on the petition was conducted in compliance with city codes and. this complies with the general plan policies and setting guidelines from 1996. the antennas will be minimally

visible from the public right of way and the site is determined to be the best in this area. president fong: thank you. project sponsor? >> project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am with the external affairs team in san francisco. i am here with the game erikson from hammond -- with dane erics son from hammond. his analysis is in your packet. i am also with the representative of the press coordinators. we are seeking a permit to install nine new directional antennas on the california street property. the equipment cabinets would be located outside the public view in an internal storage room in

the basement. the property is occupied by a five story mixed use structure in a commercial district in the center of our defined search area. under the city guidelines, the site is location preference six. as outlined, at&t conducted an alternative analysis. nine sites were evaluated. they were all preference six locations. the site is necessary for at&t to close the coverage service gap in the wireless network, as explained in detail in materials provided to you as part of our application. the gap is caused in part by significant demand for mobile data usage, which is increasing lately. i would like to thank the planning department's staff for their hard work and support in

helping to select and design this location. we ask for your support as we try to upgrade our network to meet demand within san francisco. i am happy to answer any questions you might have. president fong: public comment, i have to speaker cards. the first is: sloan -- colin sloane. >> i am here representing two brothers who own a hardware store at 1414 california st.. they were unable to close shop to counter this proposal. their concern is cancer exposure. they have supplied me material i will pass into the record. primarily, they feel that if this goes through, they are moving out. they have been there for almost 10 years. i am a patron and have been friends with them. i feel like they really mean what they say.

the other issue is i live up the hill, about a block away. i am that i level with where this tower will be. apparently -- i am at eye level with where this tower will be. i am on the top floor of a building that is the block up from the corner of hide and california -- hyde and california. i am going to be exposed to the maximum exposure of collector and an epic radiation. thank you. president fong: linda chapman. >> linda chapman. i just discovered this yesterday by chance on the calendar when i was looking at the public, and i came in on. i did get notified of one near me, and there was a little meeting. i and others went there. this one, i heard nothing about.

i heard it second hand at a meeting about another in our area and one down on broadway. then i heard somebody had posted a this is about another over on bush street, -- notices about another over on bush street. i do not know how many of these have come before you from our area, but i am concerned. i heard the board of supervisors appeal from a different district. they raised the issue of whether there really is a coverage gap. in our neighborhood, that is not going to happen. we had a hearing on historic preservation and how difficult it would be in our neighborhood to mount a conditional use appeal generally. most of these are multifamily buildings, rented. the people who own them do not live there. and the renters do not receive notification. they do not get a chance unless supervisors do it.

if it were the site across the street, you would have some francis hospital involved. there are huge lot smacking of a large part of it. in this area, the conditional use area is probably one building. but that was the hospital garage, which as far as i can see in this diagram, would be in the area. is that considered, as opposed to the residential building? some people in our area have raised health concerns. i would say also visual concerns like the one just raised. this document says they may be up to 8 feet tall. and remember in our neighborhood getting a visual display of the buildings, being told, "look at these little protuberances, just like venice. you would pay a lot of money to

see these little venice." i do not know that these will be as attractive, nor will they be all over our neighborhood. people are not getting notice. i am not saying they are not doing legal notice. but when it is a utility type thing, muni for example, they do not just send notices to the property owners within 300 feet. i think that something like this, it probably needs to be. you do not find out about the ones that are more than a block away. you cannot run to seven are eight different hearings. was it considered? this was priority six. was the other side even consider? -- considered?

scott sanchez: i once again want to raise the proposed condition of approval to the commission. should you approve it, i can again read into the record the proposed conditions, if madam secretary thinks that would be appropriate. she is nodding yes. i will read that into the record. the use is authorized as long as an independent evaluator selected by the planning department determines the information and conclusion submitted by the provider in support for this request are accurate. the wireless service provider shall fully cooperate with the value greater and provide any and all data requested to allow the evaluator to verify the data and conclusions about service coverage and capacity are accurate. the service provider can bear all costs of such evaluation. the independent evaluator, upon request by the provider, shall

keep the submitted data confidential, with an agreement acceptable to the provider. the independent evaluator should be a professional engineer licensed by the state of california. president fong: thank you. my apologies. is there additional public comment on this item? >> can i follow up? president fong: we are allowed one speaking opportunity each. thank you. is there an additional public comment on this item? scott sanchez: it may be helpful to say that for notification there is a poster on the subject property. there is a posting requirement on the subject property. >> [inaudible] commissioner borden: you are out of line. thank you. commissioner moore: given that there is this a positive idea to broaden the discussion, i agree that all products of a similar

kind would indeed take the condition as another way for checks and balances. i think at that time i was suggesting that would apply to everything. the second i would suggest is have alternative sites been considered? president fong: is that a specific question? commissioner moore: that is for at&t. was the garage considered? what was the thinking? >> i think i mentioned we had nine alternative sites. they were all preference six locations. commissioner moore: thank you. comissiomer sugaya: i am going to make a motion to approve the conditional use. commissioner antonini: second. having personally experienced dropca