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 2-2. it was continued to today by vote of 4-0. 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 i'm 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 three-story, 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 ground-floor 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 i'm 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. >> i'll 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 commission's 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 ground-floor 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 can't 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 don't 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 commission's 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 don't 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, aren't 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 -- >> i'm 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 don't 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, staff's analysis in terms of this project, if it hadn't 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.

>> i'm 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 -- >> i'm 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 don't think outright. >> initially this project did meet -- was within the threshold for demolition. it currently was during

construction and went beyond that realm. >> you're 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 hasn't 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 single-family 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 don't 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 haven't done it, but i am requesting that again. that we put it on paper. especially when stuff like this -- we don't 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. there's 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 wouldn't, but given the plans were illegible, we had what was asked to review them, i don't 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 don't 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 didn't 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. thirty-seven 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 single-family 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 three-story 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 one-story 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 square-foot 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 department's 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 sponsor's 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. there's also a 6-foot 6-inch clearance at the location of the front of the building wall of

the first floor. the department's 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 garage's 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 department's 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. i'm 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 can't 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 didn't 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 neighbor's 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 two-story, 12-foot deep by 15-foot 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. i'm 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 half-year-old 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 i've seen. the one comment i will make, though, is there's always this issue with the rear yards, the loss of canopy and the lass of -- i don't know if it's happening here, but i didn't get to mention it earlier and it's 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 i'm 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 individually-eligible 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? it's 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 that's what you are saying you want to keep? >> correct.

it's not -- it's looking at the house, the building maintaining kind of a low -- its low setting. >> okay. i'm not sure i would buy that. but, again, it's 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 it's 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 it's about 7.5 feet wide. that curb cut we are planning to remove it and install a new code-conforming 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. >> i'm 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 6-inch height of structure indicated really work? it's just an informational question i have for myself for this type of construction at this time. >> got you. three things.

the six-inch high header over the garage door is nonstructural. that's item number one. item number two, we'll use a type of garage door that doesn't require the typical 12-inch to 15-inch clearance for the mechanism to work. there's a type of garage door track that can slide right up on to the ceiling. so we'll use that as well. and then number three, we've 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 we've had detailed discussions about this with the contractors, homeowners. and i've done this before on a couple of other historic houses we've 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. i'll 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. i'm prepared to act on the approval. >> is that a motion?

>> that's a motion. >> second. >> there's nothing further, there's a motion to approve this matter with conditions. on that motion, [roll call vote] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. that will place us on item 15 for case number 2017-000140cua, 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. i'm 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 performance-based 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. i'm available for questions. thank you. >> thank you. do we have a project sponsor?

>> hi. i'm a little nervous. this is the first time i've done this. i'm 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 couldn't 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 coca-cola. that's 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 don't care, i told them i was changing it to dermalogica, showed them the plans. the words were we don't care what it is, as long as it's 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 wasn't finished so they said everything looks good

but now you have to submit paperwork. the installer didn't 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. it's 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.

we're 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. it's a five point stop. we have bad walk-in 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. that's 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 that's trying to self sustain. it would cost us between $8,000 and $10,000. that is four times our renton that space. and it's 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 that's where the desperate is. we followed all the rules and did everything we were supposed to do, putting it up there because it's a brand name is what threw us into conditions. so we are hoping you allow us to keep the sign. >> thank you. >> you're 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. there's one business in between us and them. and i wanted to vouch for her as a good neighbor, a good member of the community. i'm 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, it's not correct? sorry about that. >> it's 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 i'm 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 i'm aware of. >> did you want to say something, ms. stacey? >> kate stacey in the city attorney's 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 can't remember all of the criteria, but if there's 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? >> i'll 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 couldn't exist at that sight.

formula retail use couldn't exist at that sight. >> mr. washington? >> that's 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? >> i'll answer that. it won't 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 wouldn't 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. >> i'm looking for clarification from staff. because i've heard a couple of things about this business operator's 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 there's 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 there's 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 department's recommendation of what they are tasked to enforce and say, hey, this doesn't matter. i have a hard time with that, as much as i would like to just say, okay, it doesn't matter. ultimately, we are putting them on the spot, because anybody could come along and say why aren't you enforcing it here? it's 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 i'm not quite sure about the

sequence of when the sign was permitted and then it wasn't. but i have a hard time going up against the department's 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, sea's candy, starbucks and g.n.c. i don't see this operator as that same type of store owner. and upper castro, market, they have a lot of vacancies, and i don't see this applicant as a bad actor that we should be looking out for. so i'm 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. i'm also having a hard time with the department recommendations, because even though it doesn't 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]...]

...