time of the certificate of final occupancy when the bank west takes occupancy of the whole space. this doesn't prevent them from being able to start to lease it immediately as soon as they have approval of the project but if there's any delay, then if it starts at the date of the hearing, the clock starts clicking for us and that time could run out or a lot of it could run out and by the time the occupancy begins of these retail -- small retail spaces, there could be maybe only two years left, so we think it makes more sense to start with the certificate of occupancy. i have one more important thing to say and that is that we also strongly want the signage issue to come back before you for final approval rather than just leaving it in the planning

department for final approval, so we ask for those two differences in the agreement and we will support the project, thank you very much. >> any additional public comment? okay, public comment portion is closed. commissioner borden? >> i want the issue addressed about the signage, as i understand it, we can't -- signage is standard in the code and we don't have a lot of discretion around the signage. in terms of your issue of the clock, i think it's important the clock is tied to occupancy and one of the things we could use, the temporary, the first temporary certificate of occupancy, that would be -- because sometimes it is true, people don't get a certificate of occupancy even though they're supposed to, they would be occupying the space with the

certificate of temporary occupancy and the clock would start at that point when the bank was using the space, if the clock runs out and the bank goes in, then formula retail would come in later. in supporting the community's desire to see these spaces, the local merchants and if there's an opportunity for that to happen, i would support that and with it coming with a certificate of temporary occupancy and then address the signage? >> commissioner, signs are one part of the code that are non-discretionary, if they meet the size and height requirements, there is no discretionary action, you could require that they simply share with you the final sign design

or final agreement, there is no discretion that you have or frankly that the department has on the actual design of signage. if it is code compliant, we have to approve it because of first amendment issues. >> commissioner ant onini? >> yes, this is going to be a nice addition,. we'll have more tenants in there because we'll presumably have the three, local retail and then the bank and this is from my understanding a small san francisco bay bank, on the issues that are before us, i'm fine with the larger size which everybody seems to be fine with the 3300 square feet and the signage issue again, it depends on what we're allowed to do because we heard we may not

have as much authority over that. if we need some more information or lookback or something that comes back to us if that's allowed, that's fine, the project could move forward except the signage issue, we may have to look at the sign again, i don't know what we're allowed to do on the sign issue, i will need some advice on that and finally on the timing, i think commissioner borden's suggestion is probably fine, the other possibility is when the spaces are actually leased, they presumably would correspond with the initial temporary occupancy because one would assume that -- but it may be the tenants are found and paying their leases ahead of time which could be months before they're occupying but i'm willing to go along with whatever the commission feels is the best way, but i think

final occupancy sounds difficult to me and i think probably whenever there is some activity and there is a time when you can certainly do it, i would be fine with starting it today too but it sounds like the consensus is most people would want there to be an actual tenant that has been taken off the lease. with the number of vacancies in the area, it might be a challenge but i'm sure you'll be able to find some tenants who will occupy it. >> commissioner sugaya? >> yes. i'd like to have the department start looking at the sign ordinance. i don't think that you're saying we can't control signs because of the amendment, it's just that i know we can't control signs probably in terms of what they say or something like that, but size and placement and that kind of stuff is -- >> basically what you can

control -- you can control anything that can be measured quantitatively so height and size, you can't control the visual aspects or what it say ts, in other words, there can't be any discretionary action on the design of the sign, only the hiekt and the size of the sign of this specific location that the code controls. >> this is coming up more and more, it's not just upper market, we're having potential retail activity, it's also i think as commissioner moore has pointed out in past meetings beginning to happen on market street and also on california, on the c-3 areas whereas before, it seems like companies that were in those, especially in the downtown seem to have, i don't know how to put it, more respect or whatever for the type of signage they were putting up, but now we have,

you know, other companies that are coming in who seem to think they can put signs everywhere on the exterior so i think it's becoming more of an issue and if we can't directly address it this afternoon, then i think we need to start a process in looking at what's currently in the code. with that said, can we also then -- the city attorney isn't here, but the neighborhood association has asked for two conditions, one, the signage thing which we're saying we'd be glad to have it come back and look at it but we can't do anything about it which is the same thing that happened with verizon that ticked everybody off in the neighborhood because we had thought that part of the sign which i think got bigger was supposed to be within the

dimension that was clearly in a photograph that was -- that we saw in the area and i think it got bigger or something, but in any case, i think that's something that is troubling people, i understand we can't take any action but maybe we can have some kind of memo or drawing or something that we can see, but we can't make it a condition. the other thing with respect to the space, i understand that we can approve the project with the 3200 square feet and the configuration, we'd have to make that condition or are we approving the plan on that basis? >> because the motion was written, i'm sorry, i believe i can answer that, the motion was written -- we recommended less than 3 thousand square feet, if you want to recommend more than

3 thousand, it would have to come back to you with a revised motion. >> and can we include the neighborhood's concern about the division in the front? >> yeah, i would think you could do that today, add those conditions. >> so, we can take the intent along those lines, and i think you're agreeable to that as you present it? i just wanted to make sure we could do all of that >> neighborhood council had a request for you to come to an agreement with the neighborhood, you can ask them to continue to consult with the neighborhood, you can't require they come to an agreement. >> right. >> commissioner moore? >> i want to make a comment about the signage. as we're struggling to approve a contemporary residential building in the market of the

adjoining neighborhood, we have long discussions about an appropriate architecture and we found an answer to find a building which is generally acceptable, the finance as far as i can tell, it takes us all the way back to something which on its own i find not approvably, the designer comes from offices in dallas, san antonio, somewhere in vista, california, wherever that is, somewhere in an unknown city and kentucky, is signage designer may have never seen the building and we're sticking something on this building that doesn't havebullying to do with what we're trying to do here and the commission is starting a policy discussion with the department but also in response to a push back to formula retail. when i see this, i'm sorry, i'm having a hard time, the bank is

only recognizable [inaudible] the bank of the west is apparently a non-brand, but to also bring that in this manner on the facade of a contemporary building which is supposed to bring a new context in a newer neighborhood, i think it brings into question our attempts to approve sensitive buildings of sensible subdivision of buildings and if the neighborhood has found a way to agree on the larger size than what we normally allow and find a reasonable division for adding smaller retail, then i think the signage issue should still be within the control of this commission, at least advisory to the effect that an insensitive branding is unacceptable and i think it's basically, here i am, i got my space, here's my bear. i expect that the commission

will find a way to guide the [inaudible] and in support of small retail which is a big issue for me, i would believe that the certificate of occupancy would be the trigger date for five years. in comparison to large formula retail, the smaller use has a much harder time moving into this type of a building and that's why i think giving them at least a clear five year [inaudible] like a formula retail bank is a fair way for getting everyone in. >> commissioner hillis? >> so, thank you to the neighbors and the project sponsors, i think you reach add good conclusion here to divide the space into three retail spaces, that's key, and not

having one large retail space, i'm supportive of commissioner borden's request and the proposed conditions that the signage be reviewed by planning, i don't have any negative feelings about the bear, i think it's cute, so i would support the amendments with the proposal with the change that started, with the five years. >> just for a point of clarification, for which commercial space, is it the larger or the smaller one? >> the bank of the west. >> commissioner antonini? >> i would be okay with the motion and if we're talking about the temporary occupancy, okay. as far as the signage, you know, just because -- maybe these designers are okay even

though they came from louisville or a number of other places, they have some offices in san antonio too, i haven't seen too much signage, as far as the bear, this is their logo, and you know, there's the question of how large the letters are, are they done tastefully, this is a bear represented tastefully, years ago, i think it's been since the 50s, bank of america used to use the san carlos sailing into the bay adds their logo or their signature long before they left san francisco, and so i have no problem with the bear, it's just the size of the letters and if they're appropriate. i don't know whether the neighborhood is talking about what the sign says but rather how big it is and how big its

impact is. >> another point of clarification, the signage package that you have before you has not been reviewed by the department for a compliance with any code requirement. usually a separate sign permit is reviewed at a later date, and usually the signage is limited to about two square feet per foot of street frontage, so generally, that keeps the size of the sign relatively and relative to the size of the frontage, i can't guarantee that the package you have in front of you complies with that. this was an issue with the neighbors so see how they were going to -- >> was that an intent of a motion, just to clarify? >> sure, yes. so moved. >> so, intent made --

>> intent to improve based on these conditions with five years being triggered. >> second. >> commissioner sugaya? >> yes, i think the bank representative is listening to this so i hope he understands. mr. ruben understands, i'm sure, in any case, for me, it's a question of -- this is a conditional use because the project sponsor wants a bigger space, we're about to give it to them and i think in a sense even though we don't have control, we'd like a little give back ourselves and so would the neighborhood, it's not just the three little retail spaces, it's also the spekd part was signed, so i think that in good faith, i'm hoping the project sponsor will

keep that in mind as they move forward on the project. >> i just have to agree on the conversation about the signage. for me, it's not necessarily exactly what the logo is on the signs, in the depiction, thank you for clarifying this is not yet approved, there are two signs essentially right next to each other which is what we saw in the verizon store which made it feel very cluttered and really over the top so i would be encouraged to see the project sponsor worldling with the neighborhood on it even though it would not be part of our review, there is some upper market sign guidelines as part of the community plan, i would be curious to know if those get reflected in the code, if they don't, is it one set sign of guidelines pr the city?

>> michael from planning department staff, i'm not sure if the upper market workshop guidelines includes signage guidelines, they may, they don't incorporate to the code directly. there is the upper market street special sign district which applies to this property as well as the normal upper market nct controls as well. >> okay, thank you. >> commissioner antonini? >> i believe our motion has to include the fact that we are also allowing taking conditional use to allow approval of a financial institution which is qualified as a formula retail because presumably they have more than 9 branches, i would think they do, if they don't, i think that wouldn't apply, i think they obviously have more than 9, and then the other thing would be that the signage would have to

go in connection with the architect and i see that the architect is a local firm on here. >> can you call the question, please. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor as i understand it is a motion for -- of intent to approve including the increased square footage to accommodate the three retail spaces that the five year period will start with a temporary certificate of occupancy of the bank. the signage to be honest with you, i'm not quite sure what you've included regarding that. >> i think it was the language that was -- >> the language here, requiring to come back to you? >> i was fine with delegating the department. >> continue working with the

department? okay, on that motion, commissioners -- >> we also have to have the part about the formula retail approved. >> that's already there. . >> when it's worked out, i would like to see it. >> in the form of a memo? >> yeah. >> but if it's an intent, you need to pick a date: that was my next point, i need to know when it's to come back to you. >> if october 4th works, i think several members because i have another pronlt in the same market street corridor, we'll meet on that date, >> so, the final action for you would be on october 4th. public hearing will be closed.

>> yes. alright. >> okay, on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden in >> aye. >> commission mer hillis? >> aye. >> xher ner wu? >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> thank you, commissioners, that motion passed unanimously. >> okay, we're going to take a five minute break on our last item. >> this is for 613 faxon avenue, it's a request for discretionary review, and i believe staff is outside. >> hello, commissioners, michael smith, planning commission staff, the dr

project is proposing a 22 thousand square foot restaurant, it's not a formula retail use, it comes from the adjacent resident to the north who has concerns about trash, loitering, and traffic that the project could potentially cause in the neighborhood. i met with the dr requester recently to understand her concerns. what i saw were several vehicles on her block that were parked illegally, and it was going to the dr requesters front yard, this block, faxon avenue has no parking until 6 p.m., the proposed restaurant is primarily, it's a sit-down

restaurant, so patrons are not likely to park in this area or for quick visits as i saw when i went out there. the plans also show a bar use inside the restaurant, and she was concerned that that would be normal bar use, however, the bar that's proposed is for a more casual dining experience and this restaurant would only have sort of the beer and wine. the sponsor operate as similar restaurant in oakland also within a residential neighborhood so we believe he has experience co-existing his business near residential uses and that he can control trash, noise and loitering. there's no outdoor space proposed for this use in the rear yard and the restaurant would close at 9 p.m. monday

through friday and 10 p.m. on saturday and sunday so it's not intended to be a late night type of use. i did receive an e-mail from commissioner sugaya with the recommendation possibly to extend the fence along the north side property line to provide a greater barrier between the subject store front and the residents next door, and the sponsor is aware of that request and he will speak to it in his presentation. the department sees no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances for this project, it's a normal use located on a commercial corridor that abuts residential uses and we think it would help revitalize the neighborhood as well, so we are recommending that you not take dr and recommend the project that's proposed and that concludes my presentation. >> thank you.

>> dr requestor, you have five minutes. >> my name is [inaudible], i live at 265 fax -- faxon with this one. i have a problem. >> you have to submit your letter? >> yeah. >> okay. this one is the same kind but i copied, and also, i have my neighbors, there's a copy over there.

>> okay, thank you. >> thank you. >> we'll give the commissioners a couple of minutes to read it over. >> why don't we take the speakers that are in support of the dr. >> hi, thank you very much for your time today, i know it's been a busy day and hopefully with one more to go. the first thing i would like to say, so my name is ken piper, i

live at 30 some odd feet across the street from 613 faxon. i don't want to say i'm necessarily 100% prone to dr but we have issues on our street that i would say the city has not been listening to and not been working through that we would like to see resolved. those parking issues, the speed issues of cars on the street are a big concern for us. now on -- i work in the city, my wife is a special ed city, i have three kids going to 34th and mission, we are san francisco people, we know what it means to work and live in the city, we also know what it means to own a house in the city, in particular, one so close to a commercial corridor, so i'm mot trying to think we deserve special treatment, but what i want to show you is a couple of things regarding parking and i think i can do it

on this display, right? >> yes. >> so, let's see, i don't know if you're looking at this material that's here, but on page 5, that picture's not so good, it's more 6 and 7, these pages with the aerial photo, let me start with that, so ms. pike lives here, i live right here and here's where the restaurant's going to be and here is the wall green's parking lot, that has a lot to do with this. what we have is we have continual problem after people parking on the sidewalk both half way and full way on that side of the parking lot and on the restaurant side. that being said, the

restaurant, the landlord have committed to putting in trees, so we're happy to see that, so this picture here will really be of little consequence but that sidewalk parking blocking the ability to go down the sidewalk, over here on the wall green's side, you'll see the ambulance here half way on, more pictures. here is the fun full on the sidewalk picture where you can see both on individual as well as an plans on the sidewalk. here's more general -- here's a motorcycle parking, here's another car full on, they come on the sidewalk, they come right off of ocean avenue, swing right into that wall green's parking lot, they come into the parking lot and back up or they pull directly on. is that my one minute? >> you have 30 seconds. >> my point is we've looked at that restaurant online, i would