Transcripts For SFGTV Planning Commission 20240713

Can i have a motion and a second, please . Second. Aye. [laughter] Planning Commission regular hearing for thursday, december 19, 2019. I will remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate disruptions of any kind. Please silence cell phones. I would like to take roll at this time. [roll call] we expect commissioner richards to be absent today. First on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance. Items 1a and b at 2028 through 2030 leavenworth street, discretionary review proposed to continuance for january 16. Case 201700515, 1300 columbus avenue is proposed for continuance to january 16. Item 3 at 54 fourth street, conditional use authorization proposed for continuance. Item 4, 2255 judah street conditional use authorization at the time of issuance was proposed for continuance. Item 5, 1100 van ness avenue, allocation revocation is proposed for indefinite cowans. I have no other items for continuance and no speaker cards. Commissioner koppel. Im sorry. Lets take Public Comment. Hi. Leavenworth, i want to make a note that that was one of those fake g mail accounts using my name. Someone set up a fake account using my full name, taking advantage of things i talk about here. And they also half of the staff with it. So i want to make a note of that. Its illegal and i hope it stops. Thank you. Right now we are only taking comment on the matter of continuance. Justin on behalf of project sponsor for 2255 judah. We are working with community aid. They have requested a continuance and we hope you can accommodate moving it to the 30th. Thank you. Any other Public Comment on the continuance calendar . Public comment is closed. Move to continue items 1a, 2, 3, 4 and 5 to the dates specified. Second. Thank you. On that motion to continue items as proposed, [roll call vote] that motion passes unanimously, 60. Continue item 1b. That will place you under your consent calendar. The only matter listed here under it is considered to be routine and may be acted upon by single roll call vote of the commission. There will be no separate discussion of this item unless a member of the staff or public requests. It will be considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. Item 6 case number 2019013953cua at 196 states street. I have no speaker cards. Thank you. Do any members of the public or any commissioners wish to take item 6 all of the consent calendar . With that, Public Comment is closed. Commissioner koppel. Motion to approve item number 6. Second. Thank you. On that motion then to approve item 6 with conditions under your consent calendar, [roll call vote] so moved. That motion passes unanimously, 60. Commission matters item 7, consideration of adoption, draft minutes for the december 5 closed session and december 5 regular hearing. Do we have any Public Comment on the draft minutes . Public comment is closed. Motion to approve the minutes from both closed session and regular session on december 5. Second. Thank you. On that motion to adopt the minutes for december 5, [roll call vote] that motion passes unanimously, 60. Item 8, commission comments and questions. Commissioner. It was on consent, typically housing projects are not. No answer necessary. Second comment is i would like the commission to take a very close look at the package submitted for 196 state street which i consider to be an exceptionally wellput together package. It should raise the bar for how we look at packages. Thats why i ask that each of you pull out the package and look at it. My only comments. Thank you. Commissioner diamond . An inquiry, and i know hes hes not here but i did talk to him about it yesterday and told him i would be raising it today. And that has to do with deciding whether or not the staff can present more information, current information to the commission on the issues of displacement and gentrification. Theres four places where i feel like Additional Information would be really helpful. The first is presentation of the data thats available on the causes and effects and impacts and what you have been seeing. Second is the community, what you are hearing from the Community Activists in the areas undergo the most impact from the issues of displacement and gentrification. The third is some kind of analysis as to how the regulatory system that was put in place a number of years ago to deal with these issues is actually working on not working. And then the fourth is guidance about what changes, if any, might be suggested either to guidelines or regulations or the planning code, if in fact we feel like the goals or the intent is not being accomplished based upon the data and the Community Group input. Im confident that you just communicated that to him directly. Hes unable to be here today but i suspect hes there. But i will communicate that. What we talk about is, at least my hope, and he thought he could do this before he left. Because it feels like to start this with the new director, i would really like to understand where we are on these issues before he moves on it. Thank you, commissioner diamond. So i will just chime in and say that one of the things that we have been working on as a commission was that was outstanding in the park plan, the work plan was methodology around racial impact and Economic Impact. And so the department has done a lot of work in that, but we havent quite attached a methodology for assessing the impact of development, racially and economically. And so some of us have been pushing for that. And thank you for having your voice. Thats something thats been needed. And in fact, we have had this conversation about density and supply and demand and looking after the passage of the housing accountability act. There have been a call about being able to quantify, like have a housing accountability act score. Some of us have also said that along with that, we need some kind of scoring system or methodology for assessing the racial and Economic Impact of development in all communities, but particularly those that are facing gentrification and displacement. So i thank you for saying that. I think that we need something. I want to acknowledge i know a great deal of work has gone on in this area, both by the department and the commission. And i would just like to know where we are so that as we make decisions going forward, i understand the context. Yes. I was going to say. We still dont have what we are looking for. Anyway. Did you want to Say Something . I wanted to chime in and say i was reading about this assassinating in the city of philadelphia to address the issue of the loss of canopy in philadelphia. Apparently theyve lost some a quarter of their tree canopy in the last ten years for various reasons. But they actually did the data analysis, and they put together a plan. And we have had efforts in San Francisco here and there. We did have the Planning Department staff come and talk to us about biodiversity in the city, which is really great. I would really love to know where were at with our canopy in San Francisco and touching back on the issue of communities that are underserved. We do know that the canopy suffers in lowincome communities, and that it has an effect on the heat and generation in those communities and all sorts of other stuff. Run off. But it would be great to have some data on that as well. I noted when we saw that can a yay 24 plan that the ficuses calle24 plan that the ficuses are beautiful. I want to follow up. And thank you for bringing that up. There was an article about environment tallin equity as it relates to San Francisco environmental inequity as it relates to San Francisco. In neighborhoods where theres a three, four Property Line development, theres hardly any tree coverage, and temperatures are rising. There is a real, clearly evident inequity about how planting and tree canopy is applied. That is a recent article about los angeles. You can probably google it. Thank you. Seeing nothing further, we can move onto item or under department matters, item 9, directors announcements. First in response to commissioner moores question about state street, a relatively modest project, no letters or comments received, either in opposition or support. For that reason it was placed on consent. No report from the director himself. But i did want to take just a moment to thank you for your Extraordinary Service today on what hopefully will be the last dual hearing for some time. So thank you for that endofyear gift. No other comments. Item 10, review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals are on break and the Historic Preservation Commission Good afternoon. You are looking very colorful today. This week the committee considered the mayor and supervisor haneys ordinance that would allow certain interim activities at Development Sites that are proposing demolition. You heard this on april 25 of this year and voted to recommend approval with modifications. The proposed modifications were to amend the requirement to increase residential density and require an increase in residential density only if theres an existing residential on the site. And two, to clarify section 5. 5 to clarify that retail use refers to retail use and service. About half a dozen people spoke in support of the item. Most of the discussion focused on the types of uses allowed as interim activities. Initially it allowed social service or homeless shelter use, any agriculture or beverage processing 1, manufacturing or metal working use permitted either conditionally or principally in a pdr1 district. Any retail or institutional use regardless of use size and any use conditionally permitted in the subject Zoning District. Finally, any and or any office so long as such office space is at least 5,000 gross square feet and equal or greater Square Footage is established for arts activities or Light Manufacturing use. Supervisor peskin made a motion to only include uses that are principally permitted in the district and strike other uses. Supervisor safai questioned whether this was too limiting. There was discussion about keeping the office provision. They invoked the general arts activities in the amended version but the recommended modifications didnt make it into the ordinance. The supervisors did indicate they would continue to discuss this item now that it has been forwarded to the full board and further amendments are likely at the board hearing. At the full board this week, supervisor fewers 100 percent Affordable Housing ordinance passed its second read. The zoning map planning Code Amendment for the flower mart passed their first read. Thats all i have for you today. Thank you. The Historic Preservation commission did meet yesterday. They adopted a recommendation for approval for establishing the American Indian cultural district. They recommended approval for a number of legacy Business Applications and they adopted a resolution endorsing the racial and social equity action plan for the phase 1 that weve already adopted. If there are no questions, we can move onto general Public Comment. At this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. Each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. I just have the one speaker card. I have three minutes, please . You may. Good afternoon. On the eighth of december, i sent you all an email, and it attached to my 2015 email and some pictures. So i want to show you pictures again if i may have the overhead, please. I showed the overhead, hello. Anyway, i showed this to you when i was here last time. I cant remember when that was. No s. F. Gov tv. There it is. I showed this to you. I was talking about the efficient use of space in this as well as the questionable demo calculations. This is the old part of the project and there is the new. Here are examples i showed you in the past. These are all alterations, not demolitions. I think the demo calculations need to be adjusted as i laid out. Here is this here. This is one of my oldies i sent before i had a printer. I had to go to walgreens. You can see that. Now i want to show you a real demolition. This is from the noe valley voice on billy goat hill, redevelopment agency. To me they look the same. And heres another one. This is an actual demolition. It had a mandatory d. R. In 2011. And thats it. Theres nothing built around it. Its the same thing, and the consequences are the same. Because you are going to have expensive housing. So thats it. And heres another copy. I never gave you an official copy of my june 10 letter. I hope you read it. And on a happier note, i really want to thank everybody in the Southwest Quadrant for all their help this year, including the people that got shifted out the beginning of the year. They are in other places now. I want to thank ms. Chan, shes very helpful. And then the people at the front desk, wang, melissa wong, theo chen, they are the frontline people. They deserve credit. Maybe next year we will talk about demo calculations and adjusting them and why. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. Here are wards to the continuance calendar. Just a cleanup item. I advised from our planner the continuance needed to be separately motioned and moved and because it was not, it was all lumped together, that it would have to go on the continuance calendar again for the 23rd. Just to make this more efficient i was hoping this could be cleared up. I just got an email from our planner saying that. So i wanted to clarify that. Thank you. Thank you. Any other general Public Comment . With that, Public Comment is closed. Very good. That will place us under your regular calendar for item 11. 2019022159cwp, japantown special area Design Guidelines adoption of the japantown special area Design Guidelines, this is for your adoption. We have handouts as well. Good afternoon, commissioners. Maya small, Planning Department staff. We are returning today to give you an update on the japantown special area Design Guidelines as well as to recommend their adoption. We were here two weeks ago at an informational in which we gave background into japantown and approaching it through the process and revisions. And just to note, the history of japantown, over 100 years, some of the critical and key, major impacts to the built environment mostly have been from exterior forces, both beginning with post earthquake development as well as japanese internment and return before and during world war ii and after world war ii as well as redevelopment and the many phases of redevelopment. There was an underpinning for a neighborhood that revitalized, continued to revitalize, evolve and grow, and of course there was quite a bit of Community Development that came out of that process in response to redevelopment devastation. It was the formation of the first cultural district in the city, and the Neighborhood Task force has been shaping the future of the neighborhood for many decades. In 2006, 2009, there was a development of the better neighborhood planning process, which was rejected, but so much came from that process. And in 2013, the adoption of the japantown Cultural Heritage and Economic Sustainability strategy was foundational and fundamental in the origin of this guideline process. Within one of the strategies under it was the creation of japantown Design Guidelines and it asked for this process to continue, and it began in that time, originating in actually earlier before the adoption and then developing particularly in 2014 as a process with the community and with the Planning Department staff and was put on hold for the urban design guideline adoption in 2018. It was revised this year. And as a way of making sure that there were more specific ways of addressing unique qualities of the neighborhood, the community and as a way of helping to shape potential new development as well as open space and public space. So in this process, particularly in the last few weeks, the Planning Department staff has participated and attended two Japantown Task force board meetings on november 20 and december 10. In both of the meetings, there were votes by the task force. On the 20th to support the process and on december 10th in support of adopting the Design Guidelines as they had been revised at that point in time. There were two Public Meetings that were general Public Meetings. And many members of the task force worked diligently to make sure the Property Owners, members of the public, Larger Community participation could really occur. So there was a lot of work to have significant attendance at both of those meetings. That was the 21st and december 3. And drafts were published on november 27, revisions on december 6, further revisions on december 10 and from the tenth until your packets on the 12th, there were additional revisions. So there was a lot of more detailed scrutiny, feedback. And we received additional letters of support. So in the handouts we are giving today, there are three letters included. Two letters of support from the Property Owner at post street, also a letter of support and feedback from the japan center west associates after we responded to their request and made many modifications to the guidelines in terms of their specific interest. I wanted to go into milkability with the Design Guidelines because amilkability with the Design Guidelines the japantown is larger than that and also includes parts of the fill mother and then outside of that in the fillmore. So the applicability goes outside of that so we wanted to be specific in showing how this works. The areas in this particular map are shown in the darker maroon. So all projects within the n. C. D. , these area guidelines would apply along with the urban Design Guidelines which currently apply there. Outside of that, the urban Design Guidelines apply inside the r districts for certain projects, either nonresidential uses or residential uses where you have a frontage of 150 feet or longer or more than 25 units. It was meant to capture the design considerations around institutional projects, safe schools, for example, and as well larger Residential Projects where the residential Design Guidelines do not provide a lot of design guidance. So in this case, we defined that the japantown special area Design Guidelines would apply in these other conditions in the r districts within this larger boundary, within the cultural district boundary, but not including the fillmore and upper fillmore n. C. D. We are showing projects in red and those are not specifically different or treated differently than the other ones. They indicate a number of important institutions as defined in the cultural district process. It focuses on inclusivity, flexibility, humancentered design and community building, noting that inclusivity was meant to say these Design Guidelines and for a sense of identity of the neighborhood is really inclusive to those who may not have a japanese or japanese american ancestry and noting that theres quite a diversity of residents within the district. This is meant to include people, not exclude people. The communitybuilding is not just for the neighborhood. There is a sense of community that goes beyond this neighborhood that acts more regionally. There was a recognition of a lot of different kinds of expression within the neighborhood that you could see a layering of history. [please stand by] good afternoon, commissioners im the staff architect. Today i will go through a few of the key guidelines and highlight some of the things that changed since we were here a couple of weeks ago during the informational presentation. Since that time we worked closely with the community and with the japan town task force to really refine and more fully develop the guidelines to make a more Responsive Community really fit in with the character of what is most important. And throughout the process, we intentionally made these less prescriptive than other guidelines so that essentially it gives us the tools as a Planning Department to review the projects but also allows the community to reach out and the sponsor to collaborate with the community very early on in the process. And come to some common goals that can be expressed throughout the process. The guidelines are broken down into three main categories as with other guidelines. Consumes of sight design, architecture and public realm. Looking at the first guideline, which is organized new development to support peace pagoda is a visual landmark, this was one feature that was unanimously brought up from the community that was very important to preserve the character and the views of the peace pagoda. We previously provided some information about how that could be preserved, but in followup board meetings and talking to the communities we determined that they had to figure out what views need to be preserved. For example, the fuse from buchanan mall and the plaza, but also approaches from gary boulevard and from webster street as well as the pedestrian passover. We dug a little deeper to determine what elements those are that could allow that, but also not overly burdened developers in doing major setbacks or anything of that nature. And next is architecture. So use transparency, translucency and layering at the groundfloor facade. This touches upon a lot of the japanese Design Elements in japan town which are a little bit different, but there is overlap. You can see some of the elements and in the expression of structure. There is the layering and the screening developments what is not necessarily open to open glass but there is more of a transition between the public and the private realm. So we added a storefront from japan town and while this doesnt demonstrate all of the elements as some of the. Oche and the some of the design concepts, it shows some of the features that are common throughout and you can see theres more of this. Instead of this more rhythmic design of a typical storefront with asters and more expansive glass, here we have a storefront and in this case, it is a restaurant with sliding windows that provide more of the transitional element between the public and private whelm realm. There is more wall service but it is a very intentional and it frames the storefront windows. Additionally, the entries are commonly deeply recessed so the whole process of going into the business is it is almost a journey as one Community Member said. The entries are often off to the side. Theres a sense of discovery in the storefront. And other elements such as handcrafted signage are very important to the community and that is displayed in something that we are continuing in the guidelines. Finally, public realm. Balanced areas for social activity and personal space and public space design. So currently the two main public spaces in japan town are buchanan town and the peace plaza. It works very effectively in a daytoday basis because it has all the entries coming out onto it and it has a wonderful roof of artwork. And then peace plaza, because the mall currently doesnt open up onto it, it is more of a transitional space between the two sides of the mall. That will change obviously with the design that has been developed for the plaza, but the guidelines touch on general subjects about making entries face on to public spaces and really coordinate that to make them very active spaces. Not just during special events but on a daytoday basis. With that, the Department Recommends adoption of the japan town special area Design Guidelines. We are going to continue a Public Outreach process with the community because this was a very abbreviated process but we will continue to try outreach and educational elements. We are trying to plan for a march 2020 outreach. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. We will now take Public Comment on this item. I do have a few speaker cards, but anyone who wants to speak to this item please line up on my left. [calling names] good afternoon. I am chair of the board of directors for the japan town task force and i am here to know that our board on two different occasions made decisions regarding this subject matter. In november we have a landuse Transportation Committee and that Committee Recommended to our full board to participate in an accelerated process of coming up with Design Guidelines for japan town specifically. The board decided to do this accelerated process. We did it with two Community Meetings as your planner indicated. Those meetings were not they did not have a lot of the Property Owners and the Business Owners there mainly because there was not enough time to do the outreach. As you know, outreach takes time and that is why we appreciate the fact that the Planning Department staff will be continuing with us in the community to have more outreach means so the other Business Owners and Property Owners can learn about this because they just dont know the information yet. So i just want you to know that at our december 10th board meeting, which was a special board meeting, we decided to support the Design Guidelines as proposed by the department with the understanding that we will continue in 2020 with more outreach meetings with your staff support. We really do appreciate that. We just want you to be aware of that. Thank you. Thank you. Good to see you. Thank you for your service. Next speaker. Good afternoon, commissioners i am a board member of the japan town task force and i cochair the landuse Transportation Committee. Im here with appreciation today i have had the distinct pleasure of working with planning staff to develop the guidelines on an extremely compressed timeline in the wake of this bill. First of all, i would like to thank jeff jocelyn, oscar hernandez, and him sure im forgetting people, so please forgive any oversight. Just a heroic effort and it was a pure pleasure collaborating with them. We really appreciate it. Second, despite the limited timeline, we were able to host a couple of community discussions. We sent out multiple emails and we personally reached out to many Property Owners in good faith. And none of the responses we received about the actual guidelines for negative. There was grumbling about the timeline and that was about it. And finally, i would just like to note that you already heard earlier and that is a japan town that is a community that has endured trauma at the hands of government first through the forced incarceration and then more recently when redevelopment wiped out what was left of japan town after the war. You can imagine that there is deep mistrust that many still harbour today. When there is collaboration and engagement in the city emphasizes sensitivity in response to the community, as was the case here, i see it as a kind of restorative justice. Just slowly building. I think the commission and the Planning Department for helping to rebuild that trust. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, commissioners [indiscernible] i have been involved in the peace plaza vision plan as the design advisor. I have been working with gtf, recreation and park, d. P. W. Really closely, and as i was born and raised in japan, and also i went to Architecture School in osaka, and i immigrated here. It has been more than a decade and so i provided my culture and provision views point of views to advise the Department Staff for this design guideline and i support this document. Also i have provided i reviewed the documents and i provided my comments. Sorry, also they corrected some of the interpretations of japanese design and the technology i really appreciate the Planning Department. Thank you. Thank you. Any other Public Comment . Come on up. Thank you, commissioners. My name is karen and i have been a member of the Landuse Committee from the time we were working on a different one. Seeing the Design Guidelines come to fruition or at least partially so is really very gratifying and so this is thanks to the planning staff. I can only echo and say this is remarkable. We found out on october 29th that we had until the end of this year, and actually until today to prepare and finalize these documents. And without the excellent and superlative work of the Planning Department staff and incredible efforts by community volunteers, we wouldnt be here today. It was really remarkable. I want you to know there was a really responsive process. We said, okay, if we are going to do this, we have to go out and talk to people. We went to the japan town c. B. D. Which is largely Property Owners we said this is going on. Here are our Community Meetings, here are contact numbers. Please get a hold of us. We really need and want to your input. Most of the folks said okay and we did get some questions, but we kept going and particularly our cochairs. They went doortodoor in the rain to talk with Property Owners and this is how serious we take it. Reciprocating Community Members made time in the holidays on short notice to come to our Community Meetings. To seriously comment and give us question and suggestions and their vision. For that, i think there has been a process of working with this commission and with Historic Preservation and it is really built to a point where we can say there is something we have got to do in involving planning and people dont recoil in horror saying no, not planning. It is more, what do we have to do . So i think that is the attitude that people will be approaching the new year with and that, again, it has been a very intense, but very, very meaningful process for us. Thank you all and thank you to the staff. Thank you. Any other Public Comment on this item . Very briefly i would like my name is robert. Im also on the Landuse Committee. I was involved in the drafting of khs. The Design Guidelines are an important implementation. So putting together this project , i want to echo thanks to planning staff who have been extraordinary, but i want to emphasize that the preparation of these Design Guidelines didnt begin on october 29th. Began six years ago approximately during the process and as the concept of Design Guidelines and the purpose and preserving the look and feel of a place, it was important to the community. And even more specifically, the concept of Design Guidelines is concept based, value based, rather than the objective guidelines that s. P. 330 will mandate under certain circumstances. It was also fitted with the community. The values are whatever is important to articulate to the community and to people who seem to do things architecturally within the community. That has all been done in the past and as it has been pointed out, the guidelines have probably been done several years ago they waited on the development of the city urban Design Guidelines in order to piggyback on that structure. I also want to emphasize again that a number Property Owners have responded. , you have their letters in the file. Important people in the community who said this is a good thing for the community to articulate what is important in creating a sense of place for the community. So we should really support the Design Guidelines. I hope that they do this. Thank you. Thank you. Any other Public Comment on this item . Public comment is closed. Commissioner moore . Is wonderful to hear something so positive right before the holidays. Thank you to the community for responding in such a short timeline. We know the pressure. The burden was on you to deliver and thank you to the department for rolling up their sleeves, during two major breaks in the upcoming holidays. It is fantastic. I wish we could do everything quite like it. I definitely completely m. And support and we should move as quickly as possible to support it. Thank you. I couldnt have said it better. This is like the icing on the cake of the year. First i really want to thank the community for your tireless efforts. It sounds like to really engage your fellow Community Members and to be an ally to our Planning Department staff. I want to thank mr. Small and mr. Jocelyn and all of the team members. What i love about this, in addition to feeling like this is a report that actually in San Francisco should read just understand the context and as they are Walking Around the environment is that i think it elevates the conversation about our neighborhood and our community and i think there are things that youve talked about in the reporting of this that i think could be transferred to how we think about planning more broadly. One, i think the coming home to exploring what our values are, both as neighborhoods and as a community to recognizing the complexity and nuance of a city that is living and constantly evolving and changing. Recognizing the need for authenticity as things change and move. Recognizing the need to really weave together the past and only history of trauma, histories of perseverance and resistance, and weave that into the presence of an opportunity to really have new collaborations and new expressions of those values that happen, with also an eye towards the future and what our communities are evolving into. That is a high bar and i think that this document and the work that has been done invites us into a conversation about japan town, but also a conversation about our city and how we move forward together. I also really appreciate that this is a living and breathing document and really jumping off point for anyone who is looking at it and wants to do development with community to engage community and the authentic expressions of what those things are. And then at the same time, i think continuing to engage community and have this be the foundation for our building and evolving relationships is one city family. Huge appreciation. I moved to adopt. Second. Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to adopt the japan town special area Design Guidelines. [roll call] so moved. That motion passes unanimously 6 0. Item 12, 1500 Mission Street, informational presentation. Good afternoon, commissioners im with Department Staff. Before you today is an informational item to review a condition of approval for a project at 1500 Mission Street and i will provide you a brief overview of the project approval and the planning code requirement for public art. And then the in the project sponsor will provide an overview of the proposed artwork. The 1500 Mission Street project was approved by the commission back in 2017 for a project involving new construction of a 39 story mixed use residential tower. The tower, which is approximately 396 feet in height will contain ground floor commercial uses as well as 550 dwelling units, including approximately 100 below belowmarket rate units. The building will occupy its entire project sights directly adjacent to the new Office Building that i am sure you have all seen down on the corner. It has two visible facades facing Mission Street and south van ness avenue. The project is anticipating receiving is temporary certificate in march of 2020. The project would work be required as a condition approval with a public art component valued at an amount equal to 1 of the hard Construction Costs for the project. The sponsor has commissioned a berlinbased artist and a San Franciscobased artist to develop this proposal. Generally the public art is a 1l sculpture integrated into the Mission Street facade of the building and the public art by Catherine Waggoner are 5 feet wide, 8 feet high, aluminum panels, integrated into the south van ness sidewalk, which are both publicly accessible, this leading to the section 429 for accessibility and disability the projects conditions of approval require the final art concept and locations be submitted for review by the planning director in consultation with the Planning Commission. The project sponsor is reporting today to the commission on the design of the art concept and welcomes any comments the commissioner the public may have and this concludes my presentation. I will now turn it over to the project sponsor. Thank you. Thank you. Project sponsor please. High, everyone. My name is jessica and i am the owner of Jessica Silverman gallery in the tenderloin and a former arts commissioner of nine years. I also the Art Consultant to the related projects on mission and van ness. So i will just give you a little background on the two artists. Shannon finley is a berlinbased artist originally from canada. She is an artist that i have had personal experience working with for over 10 years. This is a really exciting opportunity for him and for San Francisco, i believe. This will actually be his first public artwork in the states. It is currently being fabricated in berlin with a fabricator who has done a lot of projects with artists who have had works at the met museum in new york and other large institutions. Here is an image that is similar to but not nearly as tall as the one we are producing. Shannon finley has committed to the sciencefiction of abstraction. Standing by the front doors of the building between the glass facade and the green wall, this 15foot sculpture will suggest the polygon icons of trees or crystals found in early videogames. That is part of his inspiration and influence. Made of stainless steel, the work will be powder coated in a matte black. The statuesque piece is striking , but meditative, rewarding daily engagement from inside and especially outside of the building. The related team has also come up with a really wonderful lighting plan, which you can see here on the screen for the artwork. During the day and night the piece will be be adequately lit and super dynamic. So that is shannon finleys sculpture. And the second artwork that we are commissioning is with Catherine Waggoner. I just want to note that she is also producing a project for the center that is coming up soon for the subway station downtown and Catherine Waggoner work her work often involves Extensive Research and in this instance, the artist noticed bay area wind patterns and caught the eggs resulting data into eight aluminum panels. These panels align the venomous side with 1550 mission. The functional sculptures have arrow shaped holes which you can see on the screen and rectangular notches. These will be rounded, which i dont know if you can actually see on the screen there. These sculptures will help mitigate the wind and add poetry to the urban landscape. I wanted to bring you a sample of the paint color because it is very hard to see here, but that was not ready for me today. It will have two different color components in the interior. It will have color and then the outside they will be very dynamic as you walk past them. Catherine waggoner has over 30 years of art experience and has been observing environment is a metaphor for how we construct our cultural identities for many decades. She is a professor of studio arts at the college and has received many awards, most recently including the rome prize and a guggenheim fellowship. So very exciting. Weve two different artists. One younger than the other so we tried to have her dont have a dynamic dialogue between the two we feel very excited about it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any members of the public who would like to comment on this item . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Commissioners . Commissioner moore . I am glad that through the introduction of new buildings, that means we are seeing artwork in this part of town. I think the size of the buildings, together with the size of these particular pieces are a very good complement and i do look forward to seeing them. Could you tell me as to whether or not the perforation of the work allows sound to be picked up once the air moves through it these areas are quite wind intensive and whenever you put a small hole into a surface, there may be potentially a sound. Can you comment on that . That is something we can review. I would be interested in that thank you. Seeing nothing further, we can move on to item 13. 1369 sanchez street. This is a conditional use authorization. On october 24th, 2019, after hearing and closing Public Comment, a motion to approve with conditions failed 22. It was continued to today by vote of 40. Commissioner johnson and commissioner diamond, in order for you to participate, you need to acknowledge you have we read the previous hearing and materials. I have. I have. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners im with Planning Department staff. Before i begin my brief presentation i want to acknowledge that the printed versions of the plans that were included in your packet may have been a little obscured, so i have clean versions if anybody would like a copy of those. The item before you today was a request for a conditional use authorization to document and legalize a tantamount to demolition of an existing threestory, two unit building at 1359 to 1371 sanchez street. The project, which received original approval in 2017 includes a remodel and expansion of the two existing units modifications to a groundfloor garage and a roof deck. This application is intended to legalize additional demolition that took place during construction. The project has not changed since the original approval in terms of design, size, or features. The item was first heard on october 24th and at that hearing, a motion to approve the project with conditions failed and the item was continued until today. No project modifications were recommended to be explored during the continuance in the project has remained the same. Just to provide a little bit of background about the project, it was originally filed and reviewed in 2015. During the neighborhood notification period, a discretionary review application was filed. The discretionary review case was heard on april 20th, 2017 and was continued to june 1st to allow time for the project sponsor to revise the project based on comments provided by the commission at that time. At the june 21st at the june 1st, 2017 hearing, the Commission Adopted findings to take discretionary review and approve the project with modifications. As previously stated during construction, additional demolition work occurred that because the project to exceed the demolition threshold outlined in section 317 of the planning code. The areas where demolition thresholds were exceeded were as followed. First, additional areas of the existing rear walls were removed such that the area of vertical elements demolished exceeded the 50 threshold by approximately 15 . Areas of the existing floor were removed and replaced such that the area of horizontal elements demolished exceeded the 50 threshold by 14 . The Department Recommends approval with conditions of the project and the project will wrote maintain two units in larger configurations. No additional changes are proposed to this project. This concludes my presentation and im available for questions and the project sponsor and architect are here to answer any questions you may have as well. Since you have rejoined us, in order to participate in the hearing, you have to acknowledge you have read the previous hearings. Yes. Do we have a presentation from the project sponsor . Or have you done everything . They are available for questions. Okay. Sounds good. Do we have any Public Comment on this item . I have one speaker card, with anyone who wants to speak on this can come forward. Can i have the overhead, please . This is the second hearing, commission president. How much time . How about two minutes. Ill need less, actually. The Property Owner built a law and was caught. 80 of the building was demolished. The Planning Department issued a notice of enforcement and d. B. I. Suspended the Building Permits. The Planning Commissions policy for bad actors who illegally does demolished housing is to require reconstruction of the existing units. In this case, 21,000 square feet units. In addition to restoring the 1,000 square feet units, the Property Owner should be required to add a groundfloor a. D. U. The net result would be units of needed Affordable Housing. Approving the project as proposed would be rewarding bad behavior with no increase in Affordable Housing. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. I will take the rest of his time i want to show you the sheets that were the demo counts for different plans. If i may have the overhead, please. Here is the first original sheet for the demo account. From the june 1st, 2017 hearing. Here is the upper unit and it was labelled with three bedrooms that is the flat. Okay. Here is actually, that plan was dated january 2017 before the hearing. Here is one dated may 1st 2017 and it has been changed. Two bedrooms and a green room that is called a study, i think. It could have been used as a bedroom. Everyone knows they are used as bedrooms. Here is the plan with the demo calculations. Same thing. Two bedrooms and a little extra room. Here is the one that i got when i got the plan. This is dated september 9th, 2019. The two bedrooms. So the greenroom is labelled the study. Here is the plan for the upper unit as proposed. These are existing with the demo calculations. You saw the projects change. Here is the plan for that unit today and you can see that here it is here. There is the bedroom and that is the unit. It is like half the unit is the bedroom. So my point is, go back to where it was originally. Two units with the potential for three bedrooms and it. Here is the project here. You cant really see it in the photo. It has been like that for almost three years. The shifting of the floor. I guess i would say, if you want to do the a. D. U. , i dont know. That becomes problematic because if they are condos, which imagine they will be, who gets the a. D. U. . How do you get it to the market . Is not a bad idea. As you see from the original plan, you could go right in there. But that is up to you. You should have three bedrooms on each flat. Thank you. Thank you. Any other Public Comment on this item . Commissioners, my name is kevin. I would like to bring to the commissions attention that this other projects were all they provided more housing. 1369 sanchez street should be required to do the same. The a. D. U. Should be added at the garage level to build three units as requested, not only by Public Comment and by some of the neighbors, but also by the Planning Commission back in 2017 back in 2017 there were two options presented to the project sponsor. Either go for two units, but maintain the upper unit as a single story and the lower unit as two units, thereby taking away the au pair opportunity for the flats, or add a third unit. That has always been on the table for project sponsor. If the project sponsor is not required to increase density in any way, the project would have the same entitlements prior to demolition as if nothing happens that would not be fair. The Planning Commission should treat all projects with these kinds of violations the same. If there is a deviation from this planet commission, they should explain why. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other Public Comment on this item . Okay. Public comment is closed. Commission a couple . I dont know where the other commissioners are sitting but i would be in support of this project with the a. D. U. Commissioner moore . I would agree with the statement because the increase in the unit and adding roof deck to the upper unit is a little bit whatever. I would agree with us asking for the addition of an a. D. U. Reflects the 2017 comments on the comments on the project. This is a message that we pretty consistently tell everybody. Commissioner fung . There are standards for drawings, arent there . Yes, we do have plan guidelines. Whose responsibility is it to make sure that the drawings are readable . We do double check and triple check before we publish packets, but there are occasional situations where sometimes the way plans get printed is kind of not exactly what we are im not try to criticize, but this is the second one, the second week. They are all blacked out. If i may chime in, this is actually neck this is correct. This is a second time with this particular architect. I dont know if it is his printing that is prestigious or not. Nothing against him, but maybe it is his style. Also we are not always getting the paper drawings before they go out to the commission because we send out for reproduction, but we will definitely be on point in this in the future. Thank you. Back to the case itself, staffs analysis in terms of this project, if it hadnt been for excessive demolition, would there have been an approval . Would it have been approvable if it had come in as a new project . Yes, i believe so. It would have been under the demolition threshold. It would have provided for larger sized units while maintaining two units within the building. Im sorry, can i press you further . You said if this were to come in today it would have been approvable because it is under the demolition threshold, but i heard you say in your presentation that it was 15 over the demolition threshold on the vertical and 40 over the demolition threshold im sorry. I guess i misunderstood the question. My apologies. If you would have come in today as with the updated demolition calculations, i think it generally i think generally we would have the department would have been in support of a project that provided an additional benefit because they were exceeding the demolition threshold, but i dont think outright. Initially this project did meet was within the threshold for demolition. It currently was during construction and went beyond that realm. Youre saying that originally as they stated the project it would have been approvable, but the fact is they did not follow it. That is the point, right . Commissioner diamond . I could not hear what you said. Could you repeat it . The initial project as submitted match the threshold to qualify dozier did not it was within the threshold under the demolition calculations during construction. It went beyond that scope which is not unusual unfortunately, and in that instance, that is why we are back before the commission through the conditional use authorization because it has morphed into a demolition. Let me rephrase it so we are all clear. Had they submitted initially what they actually did, would that have been approvable . I am having what they submitted initially. No. If what they submitted initially had been what they actually did that would not be submitted double. With that would not be permissible. They went too far and that is why we are here in front of you now. Thank you. Why is he recommendation you recommendation to approve with conditions . Because the overall project hasnt changed. We are so maintaining two units, but if we would like to take another look at that we can. The commission has the authorization to approve it through the process. That is what this is here for to allow the demolition of the structure because it is either increasing the size of family size units, adding additional unit, which those are the rationale on the reasons that the commission can have approved demolitions on structures and singlefamily homes because the increase in density or size. Okay. Commissioner moore . It has to be necessary and desirable and since by our definition desirable is densification, and since necessary still does not really fully address larger family size units because the previous units were sufficient for multifamily use, i believe that the discretion of the commission as to not find it necessary, desirable and a different configuration. That is what is in front of us. Okay. I will chime in. I also support having an a. D. U. In this. I dont think the whole demolition of a total family unit to make for larger, more beautiful, more expensive units is what i would want to approve. I think that this commission, for the past three years that i have been on it, has been consistent with that is a policy in fact, i did ask two or three months ago that we formally codified that policy and i was told by the director that we would and we still havent done it, but i am requesting that again. That we put it on paper. Especially when stuff like this we dont get a d. R. , but we get another way or before. That we are consistent with the policy. I think we have all been pretty much on the same page about that i would entertain a motion if somebody wants to make it. I will make a motion to approve the project with the addition of an a. D. U. Second . Commissioner moore . Would you mind asking for a continuance so that we can see and then approve . I would prefer that if we make an amendment to the motion. That would be a continuance to add an a. D. U. And come back. It does not take very long. And with plans that are legible, is what i heard. [laughter] can i chime in on the legibility . I believe the architect is using a screening pattern, which has a lot of rejections. These are large drawing large drawings. Theres not enough transparency in this and then they will go black. I think we just have to ask him for a different technique to use commissioner diamond . I would support the motion for continuance in this particular case. And normally i wouldnt, but given the plans were illegible, we had what was asked to review them, i dont feel that is appropriate. Secondly, we are asking them to redesign the bottom floor so it is hard to know what we are approving if we dont actually see the design. And that limited circumstance, i feel the continuance is appropriate. Okay. Do you have a timeframe on when we could continue it . You are closed through january 30th. We can do february. February . Yeah,. February 6th then, very good, commissioners. I didnt hear a second. I thought commissioner moore did . I made the motion and it was seconded. Second. [laughter] very good. Thank you. There is a motion that has been seconded to continue this matter to february 6th with the direction from the commission to add an a. D. U. On that motion. [roll call] so moved. That motion passes unanimously 6 0. That will place is on item 14. Thirtyseven saturn street, conditional use authorization. Good afternoon. Jeff warren, Planning Department staff. Presenting a request for conditional use authorization. The properties on the south side of saturn street within the Corona Heights neighborhood. The subject property is 25 feet wide and 87 and a half feet deep the lot totals 2,187 square feet and is located in r. H. Two Zoning District and height and bulk district. The sight is developed with a two story over crawlspace singlefamily residential cottage. Surrounding neighborhoods of Corona Heights gives us a very steep slope both of individual lots and laterally along the streets. The neighborhood developed over many decades and generally any mixture of architectural styles and many buildings have undergone alterations since their respective construction dates. The subject block in suits of the mixture of two and threestory family homes. On downward sloping lots on the south side of saturn street. The north side of saturn street slopes steeply up and is undeveloped in the vicinity of the subject property. It is developed with a two story family residence and adjacent property to the west. The project proposes to construct a vertical and horizontal extension. The existing structure will remain and will be lifted 4 feet and 8 inches in height and relocated 3 feet towards the rear of the lot. A onestory addition will be added to the top and a two story tall two story over basement addition will be constructed. In total, the structure is 2,948 gross square feet that includes a 365 squarefoot square foot one vehicle garage at the ground floor. There is a request for conditional use authorization for the requirements of the Corona Heights large resident special use district. For development that results in a less than 47 rear yard. The project his code compliant and is permitted to extend beyond the 45 rear yard line through the rear yard reduction allowed by planning code section 134 c. The code allows the yard line to be reduced to that of the average of the adjacent neighbors. This project went through the departments Historical Resource evaluation review and Planning Department preservation staff determines the building is individually eligible for lifting in the california register under criterion three and an outstanding example of an italian cottage. Staff finds the project at 37 saturn street will not cause a significant adverse impact to the Historic Resource. Such that the significance of the resource would be material impaired. While the building will be moved back 3 feet and raised 4 feet, it will remain on the original lot on which it was developed and will remain an overall low height to the adjacent buildings and in relation to the street. The parameters set up on the project in regards to protecting and maintaining the Historic Resource status of the structure has design implications on the sponsors intended program of the project. We propose to introduce a new curb cut and a garage at the ground floor of the existing structure. As a result of the limited raising of the building, the difference in the elevation of the basement floor of the proposed structure and the existing sidewalk would result in the introduction of a dissenting driveway that leads to a compressed garage door. Theres also a 6foot 6inch clearance at the location of the front of the building wall of the first floor. The departments Residential Design Team reviewed the project and recommended removing the garage and driveway. And the curb cut of the project with concerns over the practicality and feasibility of the vehicle manoeuvrability with the design. The garages preferred location is not consistent with the residential goods Design Guidelines. The project sponsor provided sufficient section drawings with an analysis of the driveway slope and a proposed Building Height clearance in regards to typical vehicle manoeuvrability. Demonstrating how the garage could be accessed within the departments parameters while minimizing the sidewalk warping to avoid potential conflicts with pedestrians. There was an increased level of concerns of Pedestrian Safety due to the narrowness of the existing sidewalk and as well as a lack of a sidewalk on the north side of the street due to the topography. That is a correction i would like to make on a case report in which i state that no letters of correspondence have been received. I received 26 letters in support of this project that have been provided to me or to the department by the project sponsor. These are available online. The project was continued from november 21st without being heard to allow the sponsor additional time to meet with and resolve design concerns with the adjacent neighbor to the west at 41st saturn street. The department is recommending approval of the project with conditions because the project is on balance, consistent with the Corona Heights large resident area and the objective and policy of the general plan. [please stand by] thank you. Do we have project sponsor presentation . Good afternoon, commissioners. Thanks for your patience. My name is mark thomas. Im the project architect for 37 saturn street. We are here today to request your authorization to construct horizontal addition that extends beyond the 45 percent rear yard setback line because of Development Limitations imposed on this property, due to its historic front facade. We spent several months working with planning staff and the Environmental Team to design a project that fits into the neighborhood, complies with ceqa standards and hopefully provides us with your authorization today to proceed with the plans before you. Remodeling a home with a historic facade has its challenges. And its opportunities. But first the challenges. Number one, we cant infill at the front of the building to add floor area because that would alter the historic character of the facade. Second, adding the full story on top of the house was restricted by sight lines and setbacks so as not to significantly impact the appearance of the front of the building. And third, because of the lowell vacation of the existing building, the the low elevation of the existing building, the living space at the front of the house is nonexistent. And raising the building to insert a full story under the existing house changes the character, the scale of the building, so adding another full floor at the lower level of the front of the house was not an option. All these items illustrate Development Opportunities that are available to some of the other buildings on the street, especially the two neighboring buildings, but they are not a viable option for this project. There are, however, some opportunities to add space. Working with staff and our neighbors, we were able to accomplish several things. First, we were allowed to lift the building about four feet and eight inches to return it to its historic position above grade, and that allowed us to add usable portion under the house. Second, we added a partial vertical addition toward the rear of the house. This allowed us to add a bedroom that didnt conflict with the sight lines from the street and ceqa standards. The additions held back about 1g facade and extends to the 45 percent building line at the rear, which also aligns with the we reallily neighbors rear facade to maintain their privacy. Third, we added floor area at the lower floors of the existing house by extending the rear facade about 3 9 horizontally to meet the average of the two adjacent buildings. We incorporated a twostory, 12foot deep by 15foot wide addition to provide two bedrooms at the lowest floor levels of the buildings that provides direct access to open space at the rear yard. This addition sits below the occupied levels of both adjacent properties and is required to be held back 5 from each Property Line to provide minimal impact to each neighbor. In addition to working with their adjacent neighbors, lauren and eric have also reached out to their other neighbors along saturn street in order to achieve a project that is supported by the neighborhood at large. The bottom line, we are here to ask your authorization to proceed with these rear additions that exceed the 45 percent rear yard line requirement, because of the limited Development Opportunities at the front of the building for this project. With that, i would like to leave the remaining time for lauren and eric to introduce themselves and talk about their neighborhood outreach. Thank you, mark. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is lauren. Im here with my husband, eric mendez, as the project sponsors for 37 saturn. Our home has been part of my family since i was a child and now we continue, want to continue having it be part of our family, not only for our two and a halfyearold daughter but also for the identical twins that are arriving in february. We spent over the last year and a half designing a home that would suit our expanding family needs while respecting the city, our neighborhood and neighbors. And we have worked diligently with our architect and the planning staff to understand and meet all guidelines and requirements that are applied to our home. We have also involved and worked with our immediate neighbors on both sides of our home to achieve the design. Thank you. Your time is up. Oh, it is . Yes. Thank you. Thank you so much. We will now take Public Comment on this item. Anyone who wants to provide Public Comment can do so now. I think this one looks very nice compared to what ive seen. The one comment i will make, though, is theres always this issue with the rear yards, the loss of canopy and the lass of i dont know if its happening here, but i didnt get to mention it earlier and its something to consider with the canopy, but this project seems sensitive, and i wish there were more like that. Thank you. Thank you. Any other Public Comment on this item . Okay. Public comment is closed. I guess i will start. I have a lot of questions about this. And it may be my lack of knowledge about Historic Preservation, but it would be you or whoever. So im wondering why are we not raising this house more . It seems that that would solve a lot of the problems. Sure. So the department identified this as an individuallyeligible resource for its architecture. As part of the review process under ceqa reversed the determination and looked at the project. So when looking at the project, we do consider the idea of raising buildings. But we want the raising of the building to be as minimal as possible so it still maintains its relationship to the street, to the adjacent properties. Historically, this specific property sat lower than the street level. We have a number that show that relationship to the street. And while the street has come down a little bit, it still always maintained the low profile with regard to the street. So allowing them to raise the building around 4 feet, still kind of maintains that low presence, that low historical presence with regard to the street. And it is a height we determined would not cause a Significant Impact to an individual resource. So let me get this straight. So the street it was originally built below the street grade . Its not that the street was raised . Correct. Correct. I see. And so because the way i see it in the renderings now, a lot of the horizontal elements would still would be below the ones for the houses next door, which are significantly more modern. So thats what you are saying you want to keep . Correct. Its not its looking at the house, the building maintaining kind of a low its low setting. Okay. Im not sure i would buy that. But, again, its my ignorance so i will let other commissioners decide. On the whole, i like this project. I have some questions about the feasibility about whether a car can turn into a narrow driveway that then goes so steeply below. But on the whole, it does what i think its a good reuse of a historic use, while preserving it and allowing for an expanding family. Commissioner moore. I have a question about this. Is there one right now . Are we adding a second one . The rendering showed two. There was a rendering. By the way the architect showed a front view with both adjoining properties. And there seems to be a cut that is over the front of the building. The two the house as it exists today has a curb cut over to the west side. And its about 7. 5 feet wide. That curb cut we are planning to remove it and install a new codeconforming curb cut adjacent to the easterly neighbors curb cut. Thank you for clarifying that. The question, obviously, i have is at some time in the past there was a bulletin that individually buildings could only be raised by 3 feet but that may not about what the City Department uses. The issue is the insertion of a garage. My question to the architect is in your section drawing, this is just curiosity, drawing ac. 2, you were indicating a height of structure as 6 inches. Im sorry, 6 inches for the height of . For the height of structure from which you were calculating the clearance for the car to get in. And staff asked the question does this particular 3 and 12 slope with a 6inch height of structure indicated really work . Its just an informational question i have for myself for this type of construction at this time. Got you. Three things. The sixinch high header over the garage door is nonstructural. Thats item number one. Item number two, well use a type of garage door that doesnt require the typical 12inch to 15inch clearance for the mechanism to work. Theres a type of garage door track that can slide right up on to the ceiling. So well use that as well. And then number three, weve chosen to do a 6 8 at all garage door rather than a 7 at all garage door just to make the slope as gentle as possible into the garage. And weve had detailed discussions about this with the contractors, homeowners. And ive done this before on a couple of other Historic Houses weve done. One most recently at 55 homestead street. And it works. And it works well for a variety of vehicle types. Thank you for your answer. Ill let other people comment on this. Commissioner fung can continue on that question. The question i have to ask is i understand your growing family, one becomes three children in a short time. We still have the issue of a significant enlargement of a home from 1500 square feet to 2900 square feet, including a garage in an rh2. Is that hanging in the room as a question . And why particular circumstances are to be considered and be sensitive to, i still need to ask the question, because the garage itself creates a slightly different building volume than with what we would have under different circumstances. Commissioner fung. I have no further questions. Im prepared to act on the approval. Is that a motion . Thats a motion. Second. Theres nothing further, theres a motion to approve this matter with conditions. On that motion, [roll call vote] so moved. That motion passes unanimously 60. That will place us on item 15 for case number 2017000140cua, 2299 Market Street, conditional use authorization. Good afternoon, commissioners. Planning Department Staff. The project before you at 2299 Market Street is to legalize an existing formula retail use doing business at dermalogica, also known as skin on market with an approximately 339 square foot retail space at the ground floor of an existing mixed use building on noe and 16th street. The department received two letters of support by the castro merchants. One letter included in your packet. Im passing an updated letter from the castro merchants society. The Planning Department supports legalization of the formula retail use. However, the Department Seeks action regarding the size and placement of the formula retail sign. The existing unauthorized sign requires a Building Permit application for legalization. The Planning Department does not support the legalization of the existing unpermitted formula retail sign. Signs must comply with the requirements of article 6 and of the planning code and the formula retail sign guidelines. In the review of the unpermitted sign based on the performancebased Design Guidelines, the Department Found the sign inappropriate as it is not aesthetically compatible with the neighborhood. Signs are to be scaled and placed permanently for pedestrian legibility and secondary to vehicular visibility. Signs should not extend beyond the width of the storefront opening. The Department Recommends the following conditions to modify the sign design, reduce the size to be no larger than the width of the entrance, 6 6. The design between the door framing and the window framing and the front door. The project is exempt from ceqa as a class 1 exemption. This concludes my presentation. Im available for questions. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have a project sponsor . Hi. Im a little nervous. This is the first time ive done this. Im the owner of skin on market. It is a 340 square foot retail space. The name of the store is skin on market. We are not doing business as dermalogica. When we moved into the space, we had no signage. We got a permit for the wording skin on market, then we got a quote, the company was helping us expedite the permits and those things. It came out so expensive we couldnt afford the sign. So by the time we got the money to make the sign, it was expiring. So went to the building department, renewed the permit, showed them that we were not, even though our company is skin on market, we were putting the name dermalogica on the wall because the brand is really popular. We carry the brand in our store, similar to a Grocery Store that would put a sign up that says cocacola. Thats why we chose to use dermalogica. We got permission from the residents and from our neighboring businesses and also we sublet from the bank of the west. When i went into the department to renew it, i stated i was renewing the permit, i finally had the money for the sign. They said we dont care, i told them i was changing it to dermalogica, showed them the plans. The words were we dont care what it is, as long as its in the frame, not stating any sizes. The sign was going to be cheaper because it was going from two colors to one color. The first time the inspector came out, he had the plans in front of him. The installer wasnt finished so they said everything looks good but now you have to submit paperwork. The installer didnt submit the paperwork. The inspector came out, approved the signs. We had some things sent back in. They came back out, signed off on everything in the building department. We were finally good to go. The moment that sign went up, it triggered us to be formula retail. We had no idea the sign was going to be triggered in this area. We do wear all black, we carry the posters. About 85 percent of the products is dermalogica. It does really well for us. Its a good price point. We need to sell a lot of retail. We also provide services. So the sign going up triggered the formula retail use. So we appreciate the Planning Department saying that we could move forward and be formula retail. Were asking to please allow us to keep the sign. Replacing it would be taking 3 inches off the top and bottom and 3 inches off of each side and 12 inches off the top and bottom. I included pictures in my packet on page 3 of what it looks like now. We needed that sign to get people to see us. Its a five point stop. We have bad walkin traffic. The castro has a lot of empty space right now. So that sign brought traffic in for people that recognized the brand and wanted to come in. What the Planning Department is suggesting we move to is such a small difference, you can see the picture moving on the other pages. The initial permit was skin on market. Thats our company name. Then it says what we are. It shows another page of what the Planning Department would like it to look like like. It would leave marks on that. So to change the sign could cost us, a tiny store thats trying to self sustain. It would cost us between 8,000 and 10,000. That is four times our renton that space. And its not causing any hazards. It looks good. As you can see from the street view, that sign was permitted. And it was approved. The moment we become formula retail, it is not going to be an approval formula retail sign. So thats where the desperate is. We followed all the rules and did everything we were supposed to do, putting it up there because its a brand name is what threw us into conditions. So we are hoping you allow us to keep the sign. Thank you. Youre welcome. Thank you. Do we have any Public Comment on this item . Good afternoon. My name is jefferson. I work for ritual coffee. We are next door. Theres one business in between us and them. And i wanted to vouch for her as a good neighbor, a good member of the community. Im also on the board of the merchants association. We feel very passionately about the appropriate location of formula retail. Some of you will remember, and i feel like this is not in the spirit of the law is this is not really formula retail. So i hope that we will support this tiny small business, this city, i hope will do as much as they can to support this small business. Thank you. Any other Public Comment on this item . Public comment is closed. Commissioner fung. Question for staff. This application for formula retail applies only to this store or is applied to the location . So it is to this specific store. So the conditional use will be on the location, so if a new formula retail would come in, they would have to do a new application. They would . Yes. Is that correct . No, its not correct . Sorry about that. Its an intensification of the formula retail use, but then it would be subject to amending or getting another condition. A larger space, maybe. If they leave and somebody else comes in, it would be a formula retail within that same they want to leave and correct me if im wrong. If another skin product were to come in with the same dimensions, it would be permissible, yes. Is there ability to restrict . My question is is there ability to restrict the formula retail use only to the applicant . Not that im aware of. Did you want to Say Something, ms. Stacey . Kate stacey in the city attorneys office. The planning code carefully crafted what types of changes to a formula retail would require a new conditional use permit. The commission needs to make a decision based on the use and not the user. And courts have been very careful to examine how a particular approval happens. So for formula retail, i cant remember all of the criteria, but if theres an intensification or an expansion of the use or another way that the change of use is defined is if it sort of is a bigger formula retail, so if there were substantially more out lets of the particular formula retail. So there are very specific criteria within the planning code. But the courts have been clear in instructing cities and counties that the Land Use Decision really needs to be about the use and not the user. Understood. So if the c. U. Is denied, then she will have to move or discontinue that particular product that made it formula retail . Ill let staff comment on that. But if the conditional use permit is required for the use, if the commission denies it, then a formula retail use couldnt exist at that sight. Formula retail use couldnt exist at that sight. Mr. Washington . Thats correct. If they choose not to approve, they would lose fair ability to have formula retail use at that location. Commissioner diamond. Question for staff. If we were to approve this sign, is it sets some precedent . Are there exceptions which we would allow them to go forward without tying ourselves to future cases that come in front of us . Did you want to answer, mr. Washington . Ill answer that. It wont necessarily set a precedent. I think in this particular instance, the dimensions are based on the aesthetics of the area, the location in that doorway entrance into the storefront and this particular design. But it wouldnt necessarily result in a precedent that future tenants in this building would be able to come in. Or anywhere else . Or anywhere else. Commissioner johnson. Im looking for clarification from staff. Because ive heard a couple of things about this business operators relationship to a formula retail entity. So what i heard was that the operator itself is not formula retail, but itself it sells 75 percent of its products come from a retailer that happens to be formula retail. And yet what is in front of us is a formula retail approval. And so can you just clarify when is it when an entity has a relationship with formula retail versus retail and having made this determination . I suggest looking at the formula retail use affidavit on the last page. On number four theres a standardization of features in which the applicant themselves have checked off some of the features as well as response to approval. So they are claiming only the signage and facade were the two issues. But i believe that theres not enough of an inlay of merchandise, the decorum is very much a dermalogica in theme of almost like a franchise. But as far as getting into the particulars of their Business Plan and how they interact with dermalogica or the way they work with them is not how we look or will determine whether or not something is a formula retail use. Thank you. Commissioner moore. I would like to express my frustration why we are interested in supporting small businesses, not a doubt about it, including small formula retail of this kind. I have a very hard time going up against the departments recommendation of what they are tasked to enforce and say, hey, this doesnt matter. I have a hard time with that, as much as i would like to just say, okay, it doesnt matter. Ultimately, we are putting them on the spot, because anybody could come along and say why arent you enforcing it here . Its creating a double standard. And what we consider being approveable or supportable versus what the real tasks are. I wish it could disappear for a while. And since dermalogica is a destination anyway, anybody who wants to use a product knows how to find it, they go onto google and here it is, i do not want to put the department in this awful position having us go up against of what they are going to enforce and tell everybody. And im not quite sure about the sequence of when the sign was permitted and then it wasnt. But i have a hard time going up against the departments tasks here. Commissioner koppel. As i mentioned a hearing or two ago how concerned i am about ground floor retail. I mentioned the church and market safeway, formula retail tenants vacant on the ground floor with a huge parking lot, seas candy, starbucks and g. N. C. I dont see this operator as that same type of store owner. And upper castro, market, they have a lot of vacancies, and i dont see this applicant as a bad actor that we should be looking out for. So im in support of this one. Commissioner fung. Staff is supporting this designation. There is a question regarding the discretion on the sign size. I find the existing sign size to be as compared to their standards and prepared to accept it as is. Commissioner koppel motion to approve. So i would like to provide some comments too. Im also having a hard time with the department recommendations, because even though it doesnt set a precedent, i would like there to be consistency in terms of policy in this commission. And i do feel uncomfortable doing one. That being said, i agree with commissioner koppel and commissioner fung, but i think that this, in terms of our approach to commercial corridors is what we want to see. [please stand by]. ]