that's a pretty big point we'd like to make. of these, the team has already caused the remfl of about 3/4. so if you're keeping up with your math that means that the work of the sign program has resulted among other things in the removal of 588 general advertising signs, mostly illegal. put that in context, it works out to about four signs down for each week that we've been on the job. but turn -- let's turn now to the program's results before the administrative law judge. again, these are cases where the n.o.p. is essentially appealed and i draw your attention to the single license on the chart on the bottom. that orange slice representation represents single case where the department's notice of violation has been overturned. of the remaining 28 cases, the department has either prevailed or the matter resolved without a hearing based on new

information. so here, too, we are very pleased with the program's results. commissioners, i would be remiss in my responsibilities if we didn't talk about legal matters relating to signs. the program has resolved nine separate pieces of litigation while an additional four cases are outstanding. the yellow color on this chart represents legal actions taken against the planning code or other broad policy positions taken by the city. the blue color represents actions initiated against the city with regard to particular signs, particular sign decisions. we believe that we are over the hump here, litigationwise but we're clearly not done yet. so where are our signs? one of our legal wins this year was a settlement agreement. this allows us to share with you certain information about our sign ivetri. a number of years ago the city

was sued by an association of sign companies alleging that our detailed sign inventory was in fact their trade secret. they did manage to convince a judge their position had at least some merit. because of this in years past we've only been able to show you very generalized information about the location of signs. images like this. we of course have a great deal more information but in years past we couldn't show you. that's changed. as of just a few weeks ago, we've been able to disclose a great deal more information based on a settlement agreement we did enter into, and walk over to the computer for a second, i can back out of this, -- point your browser to signmap.ss.planning.org and you

will see the following. okay. we have here an interactive map of every general advertising sign as defined in the planning code located in san francisco. we can zoom in. let's zoom in, if we can, on venice avenue. we're here in city hall and if we want to take a look at one of these signs right here all we have to do is click on it and up pops a photo. this can be done anywhere for any of the general advertising signs in the city.

it is a google map so you can interface with it as you would any kind of conventional consumer google product, i suppose. satellite views and so forth. i would emphasize that this is a sort of a version that is in testing, a beta version, we continue to refine it in terms of the interface and the information available on it. but i would encourage you all to certainly visit signmap.ss .org. >> did you add the coca-cola sign to this? >> as i said, it covers general advertising signs as defined in the planning code. sorry, i couldn't resist.

[laughter] >> let's move on, shall we? talk about the program's financial -- very big picture of that, issues here, commissioners. on the expense side of the house, we are of course spending a good deal of money on attorneys. about a quarter million dollars, a little more than last year spending on staff costs internally. for us this is the cost of doing business. i hate to put it in these terms but our legal folks are sort of a necessary evil. on the revenue side of the house, sign companies do pay an annual fee to maintain their general advertising signs here in the city. this accounts for about half of our income. the other half largely comes from penalties. on this next slide you'll see a great deal of those penalties,

about $7 million are tied up in court right now. i would point out though, that we have collected cash in hand about $600,000 to date over the past three years of the program's activities. the top-level take away without getting into the minutia, we are solvent. annual income and expenses circle around the $550,000 mark. what's next? the inventory has been processed, the team will move into a different phase of the program. drop some excess weight, it will be staffed by a single full-time equivalent moving forward and it will be foaled into the department's broader code enforcement efforts. we are going to continue to maintain the sign inventory and use it as a tool to monitor existing signs and certainly to help us take enforcement action against new complaints.

last year we saw 65 new illegal signs pop up throughout the city. this year we saw 98. we have been effective enforcing against new signs but it's very important of course we continue to be vigilant and take action when appropriate. we have, commissioners, just sort of wrapping up here, we've got to superb staff -- a superb staff. as i said earlier they're here in the front row. i'd like them to stand up so i can embarrass them. john purviss our program program coordinator and christine la morena, kimberly deronde along with elaine forbes with the san francisco, helped frame the program and did much of the heavy lifting in years past and mike wynn has been indispensable in building

our g.i.s. systems and various web applications. i can't say strongly enough, commissioners, this group of folks is the reason for the program's successes. i'd also add that we've certainly enjoyed the excellent services of what does feel like at times the entire city attorney's office. but certainly we owe a great deal of gratitude to the folks in mr. herrera's shop for their great work. so many are others, too many to name at the planning department and elsewhere. my thanks to you, my apologies for taking up so much of your time this morning but i'm here to answer your questions and probably more usefully, the team, the real experts are here to respond to your questions as well. so thank you. >> thank you. let's open it up for public comment. >> my name is feeter per fortune on on the board of san

francisco beautiful, representing that nonprofit. you may or may not know that in 2002 we were instrumental in getting proposition g on the ballot. as recently as 2006-2007 this report was a dream for those of us who think billboards are a visual blight. it would have been a nightmare for the billboard industry. let me explain why. about eight years ago, a little billboard company sued a big there was some startling deposition testimony in that case. one of the former high executives of clear channel was deposed and he admitted when he worked for clear channel he learned that clear channel had scores and scores of illegal billboards throughout the city. when he was asked the question when you learned about these illegal billboards, did you do anything? his answer was, why should i?

he was thumbing his nose at san francisco. that attitude is no longer. it's gone. and it's gone primarily because of the work of dan snyder and the staff in the 2006 litigation. and we're here to applaud them and to praise them and make sure that they get their kudos that they well deserve. thank you. president olague: thank you. is there any additional public comment? >> good morning, commissioners. my name is terry milne, a citizen of vernal heights and i have to tell you earlier this week the question was asked whether or not the arts commission is in charge of historic neighborhood murals of the sort that you may or may not know about in bernl heights

just because they're a pay ordery of an advertising sign makes in them no less a neighborhood mural that's been there for decades. so i don't know the answer whether the arts commission is really responsible, but i just thought i'd bring it to your attention. thank you. president olague: thank you. is there additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore? ms. moore: i'm totally psyched about the thing, i thank the director. i wish we had a strike team and mechanisms for everything else going wrong in the city and we would be just kind of looking great. this is fantastic. i do love the layering of technology, i love the ability that we really put effort and support into this group and the results really are what they need to be and it's finally saying enough is enough. it is great that technology is helping us, i mean as in other parts, other issues in the world, technology has opened a

whole new ability to communicate and really be on target and able to pursue things which need to be changed. what i would like to ask mr. snyder, the whole group, at what time do you generally -- do general signs, general advertising signs are the same as business signs? because in the city there is a very slow and subtle conversion that advertising signs take over whole storefronts and since the stores are empty and they're advertising for other things, they are a different kind of billboard. for example, what comes to mind, again, it never stops, what comes to mind is the corner of powell and coast, the former disney store which now has a sign by c.b., coldwell banker in their advertising for

whatever product, i don't know, besides making the point you could contact them if you want to rent the space. but this is basically advertising not for on site but for off site. it's a very subtle thing. i see this happening because even in other parts of the city, i see signage, something i brought to the department's attention almost two years ago at the corner of california and stockton, i think clear channel has on building signs which are -- which are really general advertising signs. but they sit on a residence. so you don't quite know how they got there in the first place. normally these signs are not on residences, this takes up 35ur of the east facing facade of the building on the corner of california and stockton. as you look closer with this legislation and these tools in place, there are new challenges. i'd love to continue to communicate with you about it. i think ultimately it's really

people talking to each other and saying what does it fit and where does it not fit. i love your financial performance, that is obviously liquid gold to our ears, and again, congratulations to everybody and i hope the director will find other strike teams and other areas where we can do exactly the same team that this group is doing. president olague: commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: a couple of interesting things that commissioner moore brings up. i don't know what our particular situation is with these window signs that are in vacant storefronts now, but there's a couple ways of looking at it and certainly it would be better to have that in my opinion than to have a storefront boarded up and covered with graffiti. part of the price might be we'll allow to you advertise as long as you maintain it and of course maybe a fee, i agree. i think that that might be a

way to do it where part of the responsibility of the property owner or the advertiser, whomever pays it will be to take care of the building and maybe some kind of a fee. it may be something to look into. another interesting dilemma is the coca-cola sign in bernl heights mentioned by commissioner sugaya. you're dealing with something that might be art, i think this particular sign had been covered by asbestos siding until recently and the siding came off and many of these older signs are advertising products that no longer exist and i don't think anybody would have an objection to those probably, but since it's not, you can't buy the product, but if it is a plod that still exists that will be an interesting question. but i think that it will be one we're going to have to ponder. and finally, thank you very much for a wonderful job. you didn't speak about in lieu, it was in our report and i don't know if the public is aware of those signs, i don't know whether if it's worth

mentioning or not but it was part of our scuggeds during the time we first moved into this field. in lieu signs. >> commissioner antonini, you point out there is a glaring omission on my part. in lieu signs were certainly something we spent a great deal of time on. in lieu applications were made available in i want to say the period of time ending about october of 2003, or until that time sign companies were afforded the opportunity for particular signs for which no permit could be located to submit documenting information to evidence that the sign was in fact likely legally authorized. the commission at the time adopted a series of criteria for us to use in judging the granting or what have you of those applications. if i can have the overhead for just a second -- right here,

pie chart representing the 321 separate applications we had for in lieu signs in the city. the majority of these about 61% were disapproved. this is to say that signs for which no application -- i'm sorry no permit could be located were more often than not found to be illegal and required to be removed. there were 39% of the 321 applications submitted that were found to be legal and my apologies for not bringing that up earlier in the presentation. >> thank you. president olague: commissioner miguel. commissioner miguel: i greatly commend you and your team on the work echoing san francisco beautiful in that regard. but i think it's also an example not only of department

enforcement but the concept where people complain in san francisco and some maybe rightly so, about fines and fees. this is a situation where you have proven without a doubt that the proper application of fines and fees to cover costs are exactly in line. and that's what government should do. and to me, this is a perfect example of that. president olague: commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: a couple questions. first, on the new illegal signs, can you describe how you find new illegal signs? i mean i assume some may be citizens that call in, but maybe you could describe to us.

>> i'm the department staff. typically we receive complaints via email or phone from the public. also during our field visits we sometimes come across these signs and just by working with the signs every day know that they weren't there previously. but the majority of our complaints come in via email or phone. commissioner sugaya: thank you. a second question. a lot of places around downtown they have -- there are businesses that have these sidewalk boards or blade signs or whatever they're called, sandwich boards. are those considered to be general advertising and are those regulated through this program or are they part of the d.p.w. or sidewalk and mapping or whatever? >> commissioner, the -- commissioner sugaya: or are there no rules? >> there are rules. the signs you're referring to,

a-frames or sandwich boards are usually placed on the sidewalk typically nearby but not always a particular establishment. they are subject to the regulations of the department of public works and the police department. we don't have jurisdiction on the sidewalk. i would say the police code does prohibit categorically those types of signs. commissioner sugaya: thank you. this is really good work, you guys. president olague: i want to thank staff for all the work and also san francisco beautiful for being so vigilant on this matter so many years. as you mentioned earlier you kind of got us to where we were within the department. i wanted to make mention of that. mr. sanchez -- >> i wanted to briefly but sincerely express my deepest gratitude to all the gasp staff and i think this is such a tremendous achievement for all the department, lasting benefits for the city and i

know it has not been easy, there have been many sophisticated legal challenges as mr. snyder noted, but you guys have used technology tremendously to improve the efficiency and you've been also very fair and equitable in your enforcement and very efficient in your enforcement. thank you very much. president olague: that concludes this informational presentation and the commission can move on to item two on the calendar. commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: yes, i'd like to make public that the company i work for did historic resource evaluation work for the environmental impact report. pardon me? for glen park. i think i remember in past

meetings where there have been informational sessions about the plan itself where the e.i.r. hasn't been either advertised or isn't directly -- well, i suppose we could talk about it, but i believe i've sat in on informational items on area plans before when we've worked on the e.i.r. part. in the past, when we've had joint -- not joint meetings but when the e.i.r. and the plan has all been scheduled together, i've recused myself on the e.i.r. votes but have been able to come back to vote on the community plan itself. and i feel in this case that as an informational item i can stay and participate. president olague: thank you. and with that, i'll actually call the item to the record. it's item two, case 20005 .1004, the glen park community

planning presentation. >> good morning, commissioners. i'm the plan manager for the glen park community plan. and i'm joined by john billet and we are the john and john show for glen park. here for you this morning and we're very excited to be here and present to some of the work we've been doing with the community over the last year and a half. as you're probably aware this project goes a little farther back. so if i could have the overhead. so just an agenda for what we'll be talking about today i want to give you guys some history and context into the planning work and the neighborhood itself. then we'll present a little overview of the plan package which are the materials you would have received last week in your packet. talk about the community process that has been underway and the work there and then our next steps and what's going to be coming up through the end of this year. so in 2003 the city received a grant to do a preliminary kind

of community planning assessment for glen park. and what this was, was a series of intensive things that took park at the glen park elementary school for a week, very focused work that happened. and what that planning process did was identify some different concepts and visions for the neighborhood. these were in the areas of open space, a lot of transportation improvements and some concepts for potential development. it didn't propose any zoning or check on the feasibility of the projects within that draft plan but it presented these ideas. so that plan was endorsed by the planning commission. i think commissioner antonini he you were on the commission at that time in 2004. so the plan did sit on the shelf for a little while until we could get some funding to carry forward the environmental review process and to do some of the transportation feasibility work to see if some of the ideas were feasible to move forward. so in 2009 with our partners at the san francisco municipal

transportation agency we relaunched the glen park community planning process and we had an open house in glen park at the elementary school in april, and we've been out there probably the last year and a half having a number of different community meetings, workshops, and working closely with the neighborhood association and other groups. and in the fall we released the draft -- working draft of the glen park community plan, the first new draft since the 2003. and i have extra copies. it's within your packet but if anyone would like one, i can have -- i have those. so in 2011 we're really looking forward to refining this draft we put together and having a number of community meetings to prioritize different transportation projects and we're looking forward to the e.i.r. coming out and moving towards adoption in the fall. so just a little bit about the plan area. this is a much smaller plan than i think some of the areas that you guys have been dealing

with. this is not the eastern neighborhoods, this is a 12-block area basically and it's kind of a portion of glen park. it features the bart station and the neighborhood commercial area as the core part of our planning area and it does include some of the residential areas, kind of climbing towards glen canyon park but this is a small area that's kind of nestled between san jose avenue to the east and glen canyon park to the west. so over our work there and through the 2003 plan we've been working with the community to really identify what is special about the neighborhood and what should be protected and what the issues are and then what the plan should say about all these things. so the first thing is really that glen parkers see themselves as a village in a larker city. maybe you guys are familiar with this but they refer to their neighborhood commercial district on diamond as a

village and it definitely has some village characteristics. there are a number of local restaurants and shops and cafes, a pizza, popular restaurants and is the heart of the neighborhood, socialization space. you can see people outside, walking and meeting. and there is tremendous synergy with the bart station and pedestrians coming through there. it is a walkable, vibrant village area. glen park is also another characteristic of glen park it's not a high rise urban neighborhood, not even mid rise urban fabed. a few buildings extend above three stories in the neighborhood. a lot of these buildings are single family homes that wind into the canyon so it gives the neighborhood a real human scale and intimacy that people appreciate. and one of the greatest resources of living near glen park is the proximity to glen canyon park which is 60 acres of -- 60 plus acres of urban

wilderness, hiking trails, an a tremendous canyon like a little yosemite. you can see coyotes, owls there and people in glen park have access to this great resource. it also features one of the last free-flowing creeks in san francisco which which runs freely in the canyon but is calverted through the sewer system in the neighborhood. this was once the largest body of water in san francisco and providing up to 80% of the drinking water at the time. and glen park is also a real commuter's dreamland. it has the bart station that can get you almost anywhere in the bay area by transit. there is a muni bus and rail service, and convenient freeway access to 280. and also just want to mention that something that we've encountered is this real strong sense of pride and love of the community that we've experienced being out there. and concerns wanting to protect

what's special about the neighborhood and we've had numbers of people coming out to our meetings and sometimes 70 to 80 people it seems coming out to meetings which a really strong interest in what's going on there and any future change. just to give a little background and how the neighborhood evolved, before urban development like most of san francisco this was a big rancho area. so it was used for cattle grazing, once called little switzerland because of the preponderance of dairies and farms. and really it started to develop mostly and get urbanized with the introduction of the first streetcar line in the city, first electric streetcar line in the city that was around 1900 that was able of course enabled more real estate development there. and 1906 earthquake also brought a number of refugees who kind of settled in this area. so by 1948 these are -- we have interesting aerial photos we need to take a look at. by