can that be made available the next time? >> it is in the record now but i will make sure you have a copy. i would like to address to other issues -- two other issues really quickly. commissioner borden: you have spoken quite a bit about this. if someone asks a question we will talk about this later in months but what i will say in the short term is it is important for you to reach out to the community and speak with them. from an overall design standpoint of the new building, it seems to be moving in a better direction than what we saw the last time but what i would say is we -- need the builders working closely. it is important that we respect the community around.

you will not be involved after this project moved forward and it is critical that the people who are going to be impacted our workforce. i think this neighborhood group has had a track record of being able to work with project sponsors to come to place to have a building or buildings the community can be supportive of. we're just asking that you work in that direction. it is very regrettable that building is in the state is in and partially because there has not been this dialogue. >> we have met with middle polk last year for the year before that in early 2011. our director of administration -- commissioner borden: but not since then? >> called several people and tried to arrange a meeting. it did not call back until after the city attorney -- they did

not call back until after the city attorney called. we were stymied when we tried to do our reach -- outreach. i get someone i -- i get upset when someone comes up here and says we did not try to do outreach. commissioner borden: i -- might suggest you do with a community meeting in the church with the plants were you meet the member -- you invite the neighborhood. >> they have not asked for that. commissioner borden: i am not say that they are. they're people who want to -- there are people in the neighborhood who want to be here. it is problem -- it is important for them. >> we have no problem sending out -- setting up outreach. commissioner borden: to meet in

the church with the plans would be useful. >> thank you. commissioner borden: i do not have anything else. >> the church is not a safe place to me. -- meeet. -- meet. >> i will try to speak my comments, sort of what is in front of us and less to the process and we will have another opportunity to speak to the process and i want to give my direction and put. -- input. my intention is not to create a white elephant, a church that sits vacant. i would like to see something happen. i'm not a huge fan of the current proposed projects for various reasons. i think this church, whether it is arguable -- it is arguable

whether it is salvageable or not. it is an asset to san francisco. that corner speak strongly, i have driven by and watched by many times. it is unique and i make that judgment personally. if it is something that a visitor is willing to take a photograph of, it is something we should respect a little bit. i do not necessarily think this new project gives tribute to the existing church whether it is demolished and recreated as a new structure. that corner right now is very airy. the steeple has some characteristics to it. the current design of the corner is weak. it does not pay any tribute to that corner. the entrance could be much more grand. it is large. i understand the changes that have been made but i do not think that they are significant

enough to find middle ground to what is there now. and what is proposed. it could be smaller in mass whether that is high or more set back. i am sure we could get technical and ask what percentage has been set back. i'm not a huge fan at the moment. commissioner antonini: thank you. a couple of additional things i think are important to get out there for the next hearing. it was -- there was discussion about the environmental impact or the conditional use in particular to the board of supervisors and i have a question for the city attorney. would that be accepted by the board of supervisors? it is like you have to get to first base before you get to second. since there was no certified d.r., could a project sponsor appeal -- eir, schoodic project sponsor appeal independently? >> i will let tom answer this,

he is also a deputy city attorney in our office. >> the answer is yes. it is a separate discretionary decision. the board of supervisors could not have overruled the commission and granted a cu until the environmental review process had been completed. they had an obligation to appeal the denial of the cu within the time set for it. and the board had an obligation to calendar it and had the board

wishes to overturn the commission's denial of the cu, they could have held the appeal and informed the commission they were holding the appeal until the environmental review had been completed. yes, in the denial of the cu without an eir is appealable. they could not have taken action until the environmental review was done. commissioner antonini: the board could hold the cu until the approval process to work? >> yes. commissioner antonini: thank you. i do not know how practical it is, but it is possible. a couple of other things i wanted to mention.

>> that happens quite frequently in the context of a subdivision map. sometimes they are denied at the staff level. they are appealed if the board wanted to reverse the denial of the subdivision map. they would have to wait. the and our mental process. -- environmental process. commissioner antonini: i understand. it is wise to have an outreach meeting. this has to be inclusive of as many people as possible who live in the general vicinity. the neighborhood organization, they speak for themselves and it is important that we get as broad a net cast as possible

with people who live in the area and their feelings about the project and the form is taking. i think that is an important thing. also, i would have a question again maybe for the city attorney as regarding the time of tousing -- your choosing how to comply with the ordinance. does that have to be in lieu or be on site? >> i do not have the code right in front of me. it is at the discretion of the project sponsor under the current code. they can choose which they will take after you issue your approval. scott sanchez may be able to give the exact timing. >> i believe they can change at any time until the permit is

issued. we will clarify and have that information available at the hearing on june 28. commissioner antonini: thank you. a couple of other things. i agree with commissioner wu in saying the broader context in the renderings to give context to the rest of the neighborhood. also i think there are some details on the unit. how many two bedrooms or one bedrooms. there are a few large units. it is always good to have -- talk about that. those are my main comments at this point and i look forward to the hearing in a couple of weeks. commissioner sugaya: isn't there -- staff, is'n't there a pacific avenue group?

we had input from an organized group. >> there is a group called pacific ave neighborhood association. i do not recall their level of input. they are eager -- -are a group. they aren ot -- they're not close enough to have a particular interest. commissioner sugaya: i was trying to think of who else could be involved. between now and the 20th. president fong: any further questions or comments? >> i assume that concludes the hearing on this item. thank you. commissioners, you are now at general public comment that has

a duration of 15 minutes. members of the public may address you on items of interest to the public. with the exception of agenda items that may not be addressed during this category. each member may address to up to three minutes each. the category has a 15-minute time limit. i do not have any speaker cards. president fong: is there any general public comment? >> i wanted to speak about ceqa a little bit. ceqa has a requirement that you consider among other things that no project alternative -- i can understand like with an eir that we were told the art is not going to look at every alternative in detail. it will mention it in little bit. wynns -- a little bit.

they will analyze what is brought before them other than what some developer might do who is not there yet. when you make a decision under ceqa you can decide between this alternative or the new project alternative. we will wait until we see a better project come along that might comply with ceqa. as opposed to just saying maybe we will have to take the one that is -- that we have. there is a possible other alternative which could save the building here as far as we know. there is a certain amount of analysis done come -- analysis done, not by you will. we had an architect and

developer. they found a large number of units could be built here large enough to make it feasible. if it was nonprofit, you did not have to worry about bank financing and whether buyers would buy it and buy it without parking. they believed although this is not certain they could -- if they only build for stories, they could put over 30 units and use the architecturally significant element in a different way than what has been analyzed here. the bill to six stories, they could build quite a lot more units. -- if they built six stories, they could build quite a lot more units. i would like you to think about the new project alternative when the time comes. they attempted to meet with the actual owner of the building or

contact them. the owner did not wish to deal with them at that time which is ok. therefore, they could only go so far. they could not go out and pay engineers to do that. >> just to be clear. general public comment should not be on an item that is on the calendar. as you started off speaking about ceqa, that was fine but when you related it to the project that became inappropriate. >>president fong: is there any other general public comment on items not on the calendar? general public comment is closed. >> thank you. we can move on to the regular calendar which begins with item 8. the amendment for requirements on privately owned open spaces signage. >> good afternoon.

the ordinance before you is proposed by supervisor david chiu. it would make changes to signage for publicly accessible open spaces. >> thank you and good afternoon. i am the legislative aide to president david chiu who sponsored this legislation. i want to thank the folks who have been working on privately- owned open spaces. this is one of the things we have been looking at since david

came into office a few years ago and decided to move on it this year. in the urban neighborhoods outside manhattan, we are looking for ways to improve visibility. we did do this request to draft this legislation earlier this year. as you know, these are required under the 1985 downtown plan. there are a number of such spaces in the c3. david has talked to me and others about some of the ones he enjoyed when he used to work downtown as well. we want to make sure that these are known and i think that is what it comes down to. that people know they are there when they are open and their public. that is what it comes down to.

i do not need to go into more detail. at the outset, wewe appreciate staff work on the spread we did work with staff before we introduce legislation and we appreciate that help and since introduction, we have been working with planning staff and the city attorney on changes along the lines of what are suggested and i am happy to go into more detail after planning staff presents this if necessary. thank you for your time. president fong: thank you. >> thank you. today, my presentation, i will first briefly explained the background and i will discuss the problems of existing signage and code provision. lastly, i will provide a summary of supervisor's proposed legislation and staff modifications. a little bit of background.

privately owned publicly accessible open spaces are provided and maintained by private developers. they can take many forms including atriums, small parks, and snippets. most have been created in downtown office district as a requirement of the downtown area plan in 1985. prior to 1985, developers provided them under three general circumstances. voluntarily, in exchange for density bonus, or as a condition of approval. the first system occur carmen was created to provide publicly accessible [unintelligible] in c3 district. project sponsors were given the option to provide popo's to

satisfy requirements for open spaces. therefore there are three sections in the code that discuss popo's. the new requirements in 1358 and 13 5.3. all three sections require them to install informational plaques and provide regulations on the plaques. in 2007, spur published report. the major findings was that popo signage was insufficient and deficient. the purpose is to provide a place to rest and refresh. with a lack of proper signage, the users are not well informed of the existence of such bases. in order to assist this problem,

we focus on providing signage requirements for popo's. if we can see the presentation. first, size. 13 does not regulate the size of the inflammation -- information plaque. sites this is it at random noticed a wide range of black sizes -- sites visited at random noticed a wide range of plaque sizes. there is 6 inches by 10 inches. the next is 555 mission. it has a slightly larger plaque, but it is taxed heavily in a small font. the next is larger and includes

chinese text. the next is information provided. this picture shows the sign for the intercontinental hotel at howard. this specifies where to find the face -- space. it is on the fourth floor. i necessary information is included. public access and operational hours. -- unnecessary information is included. the last example for the content is this black -- plaque. the third issue is location

and placement. some of them are placed in the ground. this one is the howard entrance, it does not have any signage. the last one is the intercontinental hotel. this is on the farthest wall from the sidewalk. people on the sidewalk would not be able to see it. the last issue is clarity in terms of sign material and contrasting lettering and background. this is the example. they engraved the logo on glass and it is hard to find and read. the next is the example here.

the font on the white background wall and it is hard to read and notice. staff finds most of these existing plaques do not comply with existing requirements. if you go to the overhead. can we switch to the overhead? this is existing guidelines the department provides. this is not codified in the code. one part that is not -- i did not see any of the plaques with features and the open spaces

were not identified. the existing guidelines, and none of them followed the guidelines that the lago needs to -- logo needs to be half the size of the plaque and it needs to be vertical. none of them follow these guidelines. it is clear that the supervision -- that the legislation is needed. justin explained the ordinance before you would amend the code to be -- include more specific requirements. the supervisor would increase -- legislation would increase consistency in signage across districts so all cited to me it's the same standards. these changes are needed and

important. we have been working with the supervisor's office to provide additional clarity. now i will talk about our proposed modifications which are -- we can categorized into three main categories. first, modifications for sign improvement. and we are proposing to fix signage at existing popos that are non-compliant. and modifications to consolidation of the code. staff recommends to move all the details and graphics to a new zoning bulletin. we propose to have this new bulletin, no. 8, that would include all the details, requirements for

graphics for the signage. this would keep the code language clean and concise and at the same time, it would allow [unintelligible] of the plan design. this is not up for a decision today. it is still in progress. i included it to show how much detail we are going through. in our recommendation. i am providing -- staff recommendation just for easy review. items a, b, and c are about improvements. the existing legislation requires 24 by 24 size.

we are proposing to create a tool kit and make it available for project sponsors and property managers to use this and this will use -- make the plaques consistent. we're making small little changes to location for maximum visibility. [unintelligible] and we are supporting the proposals regarding the placement with an eye level range. for item e, we are recommending to apply these new requirements

to some existing popos. some are not in compliance with existing requirements, they should meet the standards laid out today. in a collaborative effort, we are creating an accurate and comprehensive [unintelligible] of popos during the course of the summer and that will help us to find out which ones are not in compliance. we are applying to popos that were built after the 1985 downtown plan. we are recommending to ni