america, wells fargo where all of these sudden these things transform themselves into major bill boards, for lack of a better word. i would ask that we discuss this in a broader context of more formula retail and unusual interpretation of atms and signage, et cetera, just to step back. it's not about saying no, but i think it's about turning how these things work with each other so that they don't overwhelm what we have spent so much time on taming, which is basically signs are to be subordinate to where they are. they're supposed to give you directional and jurisdictional information, but they are not basically the main purpose of why they're there. i'm concerned on this project. we are the gateway site. i'm not against formula retail, but i am not interested in having this intersection be dominated by an overly blue

flickring sign at night where, when you get to this intersection, you will use it as a mark for where you are. that is what i want to avoid. >> commissioner antonini. >> i'm certainly open to suggestion as to toning down the intensity of particular signage with relation to color, although i don't know we necessarily have to be to the point where we're dictating certain colors are not acceptable in certain areas. i would be very happy to see that applied to some commercial and residential areas where some houses are painted color that's that are really eyesores and, you know, unfortunately we can't do much about that and that's even more of an eyesore than a sign that's a little bit too intense a color of blue. but i think this is a good project. as has been pointed out, i'm in favor of putting language in our approval that would allow staff to work with the entity to make sure that the sign is

-- intensity of the colors is not overly disturbing to the area. however, i think this is a no-brainer as far as approval. there is only one other financial institution in the area as been pointed out. and often what happened over the years, industrial areas were under served by banks and some areas that were viewed by the banks as being undesirable, they actually pulled their branches out of many neighborhoods. and this is an under served neighborhood. i'm not even sure if there are a lot of bank branches up on the top of potrero hill. there may be some, but i'm not aware of a lot up there. so, i think it's important that people have the proximity to be able to walk and not get in their cars to do some of their financial needs. so, i think it makes sense, but i'm fine. i see there are a couple other commissioners, but i'm going to make a motion to approve with modifications that staff would work with project sponsor to address concerns voiced about the intensity of the signage. >> i'll second.

>> commissioner sugaya. >> yeah, i'm not quite sure -- i understand the sign issue. i hate those things anyway. but it's not -- it isn't just the color. i think we talked about the intensity. it's also the number that chase seems to be putting up everywhere. i mean, you see some that are on corners there at least three signs, maybe, at least two, maybe three. then they have their atm, and then there's something else in the window. i mean, really. so, i think that -- i don't know the best way to go ahead with commissioner moore's suggestion. i think it's becoming a problem in many neighborhoods in the city. so, it might have to be something put on the department's work program. the other comment i have is that since the plans, drawings we have which i assume what we're approving don't show any signs, does that mean we're not going to have any signs?

>> cory can answer that. as you know, signs are not discretionary. it's not part of your approval. i will say that with respect to the number and size that you point out, it does require a change in legislation to limit the size and number. and i think you're probably right that we need to start thinking about making some code changes. but in this particular instance, the cory or scott can speak to the specifics of what types and how many signs are allowed. >> i think we've heard this before, so, just raising -- >> yeah, there will be signage. it is not known exactly what it will be at this time. it's be in the plans. >> i'd like to keep this dialogue going. i know commissioner moore has chimed in. not to pile on any more, but i think it's really more about signage and maybe more about the lighting and the up lighting and the blew up lighting that has more impact than any one sign possibly could. the architect mentioned to make this, the bank more transparent, i take that by

meaning more glass, more open air. * but as part of the branding strategy chase has, they actually have blue lights and back lit signs inside the stores themselves that illuminate through the transparency of the window out to the street. i'm kind of curious how we go forward, though, as far as putting restrictions. if we were to have staff work with the project sponsor, are we talking about a ceiling, a cap on voltage or wattage, i think per square foot per project? is there a calculable number we can assign to that as far as light travels? >> yeah. to clarify, commissioner antonini's proposed condition said signage. but i think what we couldn't say, you couldn't restrict the size of the sign, but you could restrict -- we could restrict the illumination levels. and i think that's what we'd like to work with them on, is how bright the signs are. we can't say you can't use

blue, you can't use your logo or your name, of course, but we can work with them to reduce the lighting level so that it's not a garish frankly in the short run. in the longer run, i think it requires some code legislation to put limits. >> i'm supportive of the business and the financial services that chase offers. i wouldn't be opposed to -- i know there is a motion to approve, but i wouldn't be opposed to continuing the item until this can be discussed further about the lighting volume and wattage and intensity of businesses going forward. commissioner moore. >> i would agree with that because if the department is tasked to undertake a study, then any legislation which might go out of it would then be retroactive because the rapid increase in these signs is starting to be annoying, particularly in the areas where you have mixed use and at night the blue light starts to affect people in their units.

there have been no complaints, but what i saw walking down grand street made me greatly concerned that later it will affect people at night because of the [speaker not understood] penetrating. having said that, if such legislation and signage would be retroactive and apply to this project, i could support the project. if not, i have some other questions. >> i'm going to ask the project sponsor maybe to respond to some of the thoughts. thank you for the opportunity. i would like to, again, reiterate that signage is not a part of our present design yet. the designs are still being developed. i want to point out that as we have been working with the planning department especially over the last couple years, on various different sites throughout the city, as particularly sensitive to historic location. you w -- all of the signs done for chase are on a [speaker not understood] basis. we essential look forward to continuing to work with planning department staff to achieve the kinds of effects on

the neighborhood and communities we're in. * certainly >> i'm sure there are certain design standards that he's going to try to meet. commissioner borden. >> i share? concern about the lighting, but i don't think continuing the item -- we're able to deal -- signage is not part of our approval. i think, if i understand it, if they pull the permit for the signs and new legislation were in place, then that -- whatever legislation were in place at the time they pulled the permit would apply. so, i don't know that continuing the item would solve the problem. but second airly, i have a question about whether or not we have any -- if the department of health or anybody has anything in the books about light pollution because light pollution is a problem and some cities have regulatory standard around light pollution levels. i don't know if we have any. >> on the first point, yes, you're correct it would be the law of the day, the law that is in effect when the building permit is submitted for the signs that would govern those signs. in regards to the light

pollution, off the top of my head, i don't have information on any requirements there regarding that concern, sorry. >> it might be something to consider looking at because it's not just [speaker not understood] a lot of different neighborhoods there should be different lighting levels based upon the kind of activity on a particular street. so, that would be something i think we could take up with the board. but at this point from what we have in front of us, you know, we're approving the bank with current plans, internal atms at minimum which is some hopeful reduction of the lighting. when would the signage come -- when would you have -- what is approximate timeline for the signage that you're working on? once we achieve entitlement for the establishment of the bank there, we start to develop our technical designs and the signage package is -- [speaker not understood] with the typical design. we're looking at a couple months, two months. >> given that we're not going to -- if we continue this, there's nothing for us to work on or to even give visa round that. i don't see any reason to do so. >> i would also like to -- i'm

sorry. >> you can't speak, sorry. >> again, i want to make clear, my concern is not with the signs themselves, but the up lighting and the lighting and visual effects that are being applied to the building on california and polk, on geary boulevard, on market street. you know what i'm talking about. commissioner antonini. >> thank you. i think i would like to ask project sponsor to comment on the questions that have been brought up here. you wanted to say something. i just wanted to advise the commission that a continuance might be very, very difficult for us to endure on this particular project having to deal with a development of a lease agreement with the landlord. so, if we can, i guess, look forward to working closely with planning department staff and with the commission if necessary, on the final -- the development of the sign alan design, we'd appreciate it if the project could be approved today and not continued to

later. >> that would be my feeling. thank you, sir. i think that the project is one that we should approve and i think my motion puts enough in it that we have made it very clear that should work with staff to develop signage even though that is not part of our entitlement, but it's been made clear by the motion that, you know, as findings, we want that to happen. and if we were waiting for some sort of legislative action to occur from the board it could be months or years before they'd ever come up with any kind of regulatory methods about the intensity of lighting. so, i think we have to look at this. as commissioner borden pointed out aptly, whatever is in place at the time that this will occur will be what will dictate it. but i think the sponsor sounds very willing to work and try to -- the other thing we could have and it can be part of my motion if it suits the commission, sponsor said about two months before he'd have the six weeks -- i don't know, you gave me a number, something

like that, if we want to have a look back not another -- the approval is done. but if you wanted a presentation before the commission at that time so we could just see that, we do that sometimes. it suits the seconder, that could be part of my motion. >> [inaudible] informational presentation and maybe talk about the bold issue, in particular the up lighting of sign. >> we kind of see what the signage is going to look like and we'd have an idea what kind of lighting would be there. as much as it could be done via what we receive in materials. and i think that would be -- would satisfy some of the concerns i've heard today. >> the issue of the lighting of the sign, not the signs itself. >> yeah, [multiple voices] >> the lighting of the building is my concern, not just the sign. sugaya. mci.

commissioner sugaya. >> that's not my concern. in the neighborhood, [speaker not understood]. the number of signs -- we have an opportunity, we're talking about the department's budget later on in this session and we may want to suggest the department include some line item in there to work on this issue in a more serious vein so that we actually can address the sign issue in an overall comprehensive kind of manner. and it wouldn't be just lighting. it would be the number, the size, et cetera, et cetera. that said, i think that, you know, we don't seem to have similar issues with some other companies who seem to realize that being more subtle and, you know, blending in with the financial district and downtown and other neighborhoods seems to be the way to go and not be this blairing kind of corporate brand that chase seems to want to foist upon us.

* blaring >> walgreens is not a good example, but they do have a fairly nice treatment. * is it montgomery and california? somewhere downtown where it's very discrete. and i think they do have two signs, but they're not bigger than about two by two or something. and there are other examples like that that i think are fine and doesn't prompt me to trigger this request that staff start looking into this. it's, it's this particular company i think has been hoist up here that has now triggered the most concern. so, i think that maybe later on we can address that. and i know that lighting is a concern, but i also would urge the staff and the project sponsor to look at reducing the number of signs. and the last question you have is on the plans there are no

atm signs ; is that correct? >> we have one a toshibation m vestibule off rhode island street. inside the building lobby itself we have three stand freestanding atms. no atm's penetrating the exterior wall. >> thank you. >> commissioner hillis. * >> i'm okay with the use, but share some of the concerns. the building seems to be more billboards for the bank than they actually are buildings. so, just a question. can we bifurcate this notion of coming, bringing them back i think is good. i'd like to have a little more teeth. can we bring back the exterior improvements as an item for us to improve, i mean the more detail drawings that would include -- >> my understanding, commissioner, they're not doing [speaker not understood] to the interior and there are no discretion on the signs themselves. >> the vestibules where the atms are are open and the atms

emit that hue, the whole thing seems to be more of a bill board. >> the sign designs would come back to you as an informational item, but you wouldn't be able to act on it except to make comments on it. >> i think we could act -- the interior building improvements which would include an atm lobby? they're not really shown how they're lit. you know, if there's design elements like a light across the building, it tends to be -- >> that's the thing i would like to suggest that we work with them on, is the lighting that's applied to the sign versus lighting that's applied to the rest of the building. i mean, i think there's -- my sense is there is a distinction there. i don't know exactly how it works on their plans, but that's -- that was what i was hoping to work with them on. but there's no -- if it's applied to the sign itself, except for the illumination levels, i don't think there's a whole lot of discretion that we have. >> okay.

i think the lighting for the sign is one thing, but the overall lighting plan [speaker not understood] that seems to be related to the signage. >> it's a question of of whether the commission could put a condition on saying that lighting that is not part of the signage would be reduced or eliminated entirely. i don't know if that's a possibility or not. i mean, i think you could put a condition that the building signage not related to lighting is not provided as part of this cu. >> okay. >> commissioner moore. >> director lam, it doesn't seem this commission has any reasonable tools for push back. we cannot speed up legislation nor can we decide over signs and indirectly we can decide -- do not have jurisdiction over lighting either.

>> the commission does have jurisdiction over illumination. on the sign section 604 is clear saying an application for permit for a sign conforms to the provisions this code shall be approved by the department of planning without modification for this approval by the department of raja or the planning commission pursuant to the authority vested in them by section 26 part 3 of the san francisco municipal code, which is the dr authority and this is the only place in the planning code where it actually mentions that dr authority. so, there is some flexibility when it comes to historic properties. if you're article 10 or article 11, there is some discretion. we have certificate of appropriateness for signs. that is some discretion there. but where this building is located, we don't have the ability to have discretion on the signs. but we do have some ability to have discretion on illumination in general. i would suggest if the commission does want to address this, that it gives the department the ability to work with the project sponsor because there are other requirements in the building

code, for example, for illumination for safety concerns. so, we wouldn't want to say the building has to be completely dark if that would be in conflict with the building code requirement for exiting illumination. but if you would direct the sponsor to work with the -- sponsor works with the department to devise some solution for illumination, that i think is an option that you could put forward. >> i am prepared to do that. it still doesn't quite get to the core, but i think [inaudible]. >> let me ask project sponsor something. have you worked on -- you do other locations outside the bay area. in any of your experience or knowledge, has there been a request to chase to lower the light volume on some of the individual locations? i think that generally all jurisdictions that we work with have zone limitations that affect the kind of size we use

and illumination levels. we develop very specific signage packages and [speaker not understood] per the permit. they go beyond the exterior method signs we have on the building, but also talk about internal, not atm machines are included in the signage packages. the information is there for review. i'm saddened a little bit to hear such an objection to our sign quality. it is our intention to work with the community to produce signage packages. and esthetics for the bank itself, which blend in and are nice in the neighborhood. we provide a service and we want our banks to be appreciated in the community. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah, i think zoning administrator sanchez made a good point, and that is that to restrict lighting entirely or to try to prohibit it goes against what we're trying to accomplish. a well lit building, tastefully

lit, provides security in the area. there's less apt to be crime or homeless encamp there or something if a building provides good illumination. you may think the color is too intense, but i think that the lighting is a good thing at night, particularly in the middle of the night. i think my measure was crafted carefully enough and if i need to revise the motion, i certainly will. we're coming back for a look see in a month and a half or whatever period of time is acceptable to project sponsor, approving it today on my motion. but a look back at what has been done and working with staff. and i think while we may not have the power at that time to deny our approval we make today, it certainly would send a message for the future if it isn't acceptable, we would have a clear ability to move forward in the future with what we do desire when we look at that result. and my expectation would be

working with staff, hearing what we did today, and i think project architect realizes what we're trying to gain. i think we'll get a very desirable result out of this. >> would the commission like, then, an informational presentation on the lighting and signage program or would a memo and plan suffice? >> i think we should have it part of our hearing so we actually see the plans back here with as much description as we can as to what the lighting has ended up being formulated. >> we'll just have it on the agenda. >> have an agenda item. it's not an action item. it's just an agenda item which will be informational. if that suits -- >> we could do that, but i still don't think we're going to have the tools to really enforce anything. >> no, at that point we won't have tools. we are enforcing this particular -- we are approving this. we are clearly setting guidelines as to what we're looking for.

and if that comes back and it doesn't suit our approval, we can't deny the cu we're passing today. but it certainly would set a precedent or set an ability in the future to be more restrictive and would send a message to chase and others that the changes that were made with staff were not acceptable. so, i don't know that we have to -- i think this is getting to be a little bit overdone on this. i understand the problem with the lights, but i think it's getting a little excessive. i mean, i think we need to approve this and let them go ahead with their establishment of a financial institution. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, a question for mr. sanchez. when you were referencing the section on the signs and you referred that -- i mean, that section then referred to the administrative code on discretionary review, can you explain what that relationship or what that implies or why it's set up that way? >> so, when we're working on the dr, i think you're familiar

with 1954 memo from the office of the city attorney. >> um-hm. >> and that cited the discretionary authority that all bodies have in the city and county of san francisco and that is in the admin code. that is where this commission derives its discretionary review authority powers. so, when you hear a dr and a building permit application you're relying on that section. it's the same section that the board of appeals relies upon when they are hearing a building permit as well. so, that's saying that you do not have the ability to exercise discretion, that you are authorized -- otherwise authorized. obviously that comes around because of concerns with first amendment issues and that's why it was added. i think it was added in the '60s, i believe. >> okay, thank you. >> that's article 6 was added to the planning code. >> so, if we were to, then -- would that particular section then also have to be amended? let's say if this were legislation moving forward that actually controlled signs to

more -- extensive degree than we have now? >> for example, in this zoning district i believe you're allowed to have directly, indirectly illuminated wall signs of certain size. so, certainly this commission and the board of supervisors can adopt signage controls that are uniform and that reduce the size of the sign that may be allowed in that district. and do that fairly routinely, where there will be legislative matters brought before you where you establish sign controls. so, you still have the ability to establish sign controls. it's just the discretion which is the concern. and, so, obviously probably something the city attorney's office should be involved in as well because it is dealing with first amendment issues. >> i don't have a problem with logos and what they say and stuff. it's like size, maybe not even color, but the size is a concern to me and the number. and it seems like a lot of other communities have more extensive sign controls than we do, to the point where

something like chase signs wouldn't be allowed in the current way that they're designed. we're not saying the community would restrict them from having a sign with the logo and the name and all that stuff, but -- >> the size of the sign, something that they could -- we could amend the planning code to address, size and number of signs. >> the quantitative measures we can put in the code, size, numbers, that sort of thing. >> commissioner borden. >> i just want to make sure. i think what we're saying, though, the concern about the illumination of the actual atms are inside of the building. in the plans we have here, it looks like that's the closed off atm room, or the actual atms and their signage from the street. it looks like a little room with merchandise. >> yes. >> is it actually the atms you can see from the outside or in a room? that would help a lot. off of rhode island frontage we have a vestibule. the square box has an atm mounted in the wall. oftentimes in the past we have

had blue illumination halos around the perimeter of the atm and discrete sign on the machine. in previous locations or previous iterations we've actually put these machines in the exterior walls of the building so they're actually facing the sidewalk. in this condition what we've done working with planning department staff over the last year is go increasingly to secure vestibule for 24-hour access because it is actually a lot less i think imposing upon the pedestrian street itself. the tree boxes which were in the middle of the bank lobby, freestanding atms, you might have seem them at first and powell location. they do not have signage above them. they're just machines alone. >> so, the atm room itself, i see there's the freestanding ones, a flat screen like the ones you have downtown on -- powell. >> the atm room that has the merchandise in the wall, it says merchandise on the one side facing the street. is that actually a closed in

room so the atms wouldn't be visible from the street? i'm sorry, is this at the top of the page? i want to make sure i'm talking about the same room you're talking about. >> there is a room here that says atm room. maybe you mean the service room. it's next to the vestibule? yeah, the atm room is a secure room that holds the body of the box of the wall mounted atm so it's completely enclosed from the street. >> but the atms that people access for people is inside or outside the room? outside. the use of the atm is done in the vestibule itself. >> but it faces kind of sideways, not toward the street? exactly. >> okay. it sounds like it helps at least with the signage not facing the street. and i think you're hearing that people don't want the signage necessarily of the atm [speaker not understood]. >> yes, i understand there is concern about the number of signs we put on the buildings. the amount of blue illumination. i will certainly take that strongly into account when we

design the signage package of the building. * >> commissioner antonini. >> yes, mr. sanchez, i think i've seen that decision from '54 many times, justification for discretionary review. it goes on to say it is a very sensitive discretion that has to be used with extreme caution, restraint. but in any case, the much larger issue in regards to the sign and color issue is design in general. you go to a lot of places in some communities, even other fairly large cities, and the formula retail establishment, banks and others, are very tastefully done in the same design as the neighborhoods that they're in. let's say the entire either new development or existing development is a craftsman style. you will see the safeway and even the chevron stations not, you know, they can be done tastefully, not false historicism, but the pitch of the