tv Government Access Programming SFGTV April 13, 2019 1:00am-2:01am PDT
tenant? can she speak as public commenter? >> are you listed on the d.r.? >> president melgar: okay, go ahead. just trying to follow the rules here. >> i know city is encouraging to increase san francisco housing stock. this long-term resident from rent controlled apartments to create new apartments at market rate doesn't seem to be the intention or the way forward. this proposal to remove relocate garage is violation of my right and violation of my lease. this apartment came with a garage space. in 2007 building owner illegally increased the space by 50%.
she had history taking away people's garages. it wasn't last year i felt supported by san francisco laws to filial petition to get some of the rent back. which i did in january successfully. even after that, i permanently lost thousands of dollars simply because afraid of losing a garage. in 2013, the building owner son moved in the apartment over my garage. i was forced by management to move into a different space. i did this under protest because i was intimidated. i learned this a violation of my tenants rights. i won't go into other forms of harassment and intimidation.
ty dealt with this for years. last summer i received a letter from the architect plan to take away my garage space and turn it into an a.d.u. i'm certain this is another attempt intimidation as shortly after i received prebyeout prebt disclosure form. my last car was stolen when i parked it in front of the apartment building overnight. attempting to remove the garage and rent controlled apartment is another form of continuing to harassment. i love my apartment and i love
san francisco. the fact he wants to make thousands dollars a month market rate register tool does not change the fact that breach of contract. thank you. >> president melgar: any other public comment in support of the d.r. requester? we'll hear from the project sponsor. >> good evening. thanks for your time. the property as you know is subject to mandatory seismic retrofit. there's six existing parking
spaces. two occupied tenants by the building and who volunteered to move. one was occupied by the builder whbecome building owner and one was occupied by melissa. she didn't want to move. she filed discretionary review. in order to cammed her concern -- accommodate her concerns we did away with one of the a.d.u. it's one building. there's an entrance in the middle. we're going to put her back on the other side. one of the a.d.u.s could be built. this is explained in an email that contains the revised plan. it was stated as intention to
give the tenant one of the parking spaces. this was not enough to satisfy the tenant even though we changed the project drastically. the demand was sent to us in early january and frankly it seem that the demands are not relevant to the planning process. they don't affect the permit and they're not the purview typically of the planning department. the permits have been issued. work has not commenced. we're waiting for approval on the a.d.u. so the work can go in tandem to make time of displacement for the tenant.
thank you. >> president melgar: is there any public comment in support of the sponsor. you have two minute rebuttal. >> only thing i want to say, there's really still this problem with the permitting process o of a.d.u.s. this is a private contract dispute. it's really unfair that you guys are overraiding that. i feel like this stuff should get worked out before comes to you. >> president melgar: project sponsor you have a two minute rebuttal. >> i would agree that it's unfortunate it's taking up city time. in this particular case, we acquiesce right up front and it
seems this should have been on the consent calendar rather than here chatting with you guys about it. >> president melgar: thank you. >> commissionr hillis: just a question, this project is seismic. is the tenant being accommodated with the spot in that building the other side? i guess it's the west side. >> yes. the other side and they moved the laundry and there was other things that were changed. >> commissionr hillis: there are six spaces, one is occupied by a tenant associated with their lease? can you tell us -- you know the rent ordinance more than we do. can you take away -- if you were going to go away a parking spot, can you do that and then have
reduction? can you reduce a service like parking if it's part of your lease? >> tenant has a choice to do that. there are certain things if there was structural problem and you couldn't park there at all and then they have to use your rent. it's her decision. it's an optional. >> commissionr hillis: it's part of the lease. they couldn't do that. you can't do that under the existing one. if she's being accommodated on the other side, what is it that's holding this up? >> we want written assurances. there's other things how long she's going to be out when she can park her car in the front
when construction workers are there. there's really minor things he wouldn't say yes or no. >> commissionr hillis: ultimate. if the parking spot is part of her lease. you got to figure that out. she's got to be compensated. i'm having a hard time on this one. she's not leaving the building. it's going to be for a period of time in reduction if services. it's really an issue of the rent board. i get coming here, some of the cases you brought us, are more appropriate here than the rent board. this one, especially because she's getting parking back is really a rent board issue. that can be adjudicated through the rent board. i'm uncomfortable taking it up here as a d.r. losing parking at the end of the day. >> she is. she's agreeing to move spots. she's going to be losing it for the time of the whole
construction of the a.d.u. she would for seismic work. she's not required to move for a.d.u. >> commissionr hillis: this one i think it's more appropriate to be in the rent board figuring out the reduction of services and competent of services than here. >> she could hire a private attorney that's going to say, you don't have just cause and stop the whole thing. >> commissionr hillis: that's a rent board issue. can't they shift to the other side and put the a.d.u. on the other side? >> it would be a court case not the rent board. >> commissionr hillis: if they weren't moving her spot. they were moving her to the other side. you're saying the issue is because they're moving her parking spot. could they put the a.d.u. on the other side where her parking doesn't exist? >> i'm not really following.
it gets confusing because you're saying they're moving her parking spot. she's agreeing to move. there's a legal distinction there. >> commissionr hillis: all right. there's a parking spot remaining. she's getting a parking spot. i don't feel comfortable adjudicating this one as we have in the past. it's a really a rent board issue. it's good we're adding an a.d.u. it will be great to add two a.d.u.s. she's kind of in control of whether they take that or not. >> this permit is inserting eyeletitself in between their pe contract once again. >> commissioner richards: does the tenant have rights to a specific space or just a parking space? >> best of my knowledge what the building owners told me, the lease indicates that the tenant
maybe moved to a different parking space at the discretion of the property owner. >> commissioner richards: if it's in the lease, i don't understand what the issue is. >> also to the point of the rent board, there's a separate amount of lease for the parking space. the tenant is not going to be charged renting the parking space and the construction timeline, the a.d.u. side may take little longer to finish. if the garage finished, they can park there. >> commissioner richards: is the parking space she's in now going to be part of the a.d.u. and there's no more parking space?
>> do you have a requester, please? she has it in her lisa she's entitled to a parking space. >> no, it doesn't say that. you can ask her. it doesn't say owner retain the right to move your parking spot. it's part of her lease. it's accepted. >> commissioner moore: i would ask ms. winslow about how do you see that. i'm confused. just like any garage, you get assigned to a space.
if the space is moved, you move with the space. is that the way you see it? >> that's exactly the way i see it. >> commissioner moore: parking space is an amenity. it's one space or the other. i live in rental building. i'm trying to be practical. i do not understand the challenge here >> that's the way we see it. look at your plans, there's six parking spaces. three going away for the a.d.u. and there's three left. mandatory seismic work happens on all six at the ground level. this is a shell game when you do construction. you can move into a place once it's completed. that being the open parking garage space that is not slated to be a.d.u. that will be done whenever the timeline for completing the
seismic upgrade is done. whatever the distance is, it's equivalent size. the lisa is the extracurricular -- the lease is extracurricular. >> commissioner moore: you maybe losing an inch or two on your own parking space. that's the name of this improvement. no rights to what constitutes a parking space that you are renting as long as parking space
of equal size and in general location and where it is, that's the way i see it. >> commissioner richards: one last question before i make a motion. are the three remaining spaces entitled to one of the spaces? is she going to get one of those spaces? >> yes. >> commissioner richards: some words for the tenant. it's extraordinary they're going to go through this additional expense to upgrade their building, which is their asset. it's for your safety as well. i think it's a good trade you'vo get the building upgraded. when the earthquake come, hopefully you're going to be safe.
not trying to lecture you. i move not to take the d.r. and approve the project planned. >> second. >> seeing nothing further. there's a motion to not take d.r. and approve project as proposed. [roll call] motion passes unanimously. that will place us on item 20. [agenda item read] >> good evening president melgar. item before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review for 2017. for new construction of a
four-story, 4500 square foot two unit residential building an vacant 25 by 100-foot lot. owners of 1633 cabrillo and the d.r. request reached an agreemently to us -- agreement o use a translucent glass. thank you. >> commissioner richards: i move to approve the project as amended. >> second. >> very good commissioners. on that motion to take the d.r. and approve the project as
>> we will today -- to start today to chat that meeting. >> it afternoon and welcome to the san francisco historic preservation commission regular hearing for wednesday, april 3 rd, 2019. i would like to remind members of the public to pleas a silent -- silence mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings, and if speaking before the commission, please state your name for the record. i would like to take roll call at this time. [roll call] >> we expect commissioner hyland to be absent today. first on your agenda his general public comment. 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. 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 have no speaker cards. >> is there anyone in the public who would like to make general public comment? no. >> thank you. we will close the general public comment. >> very good. that will place us under a director's announcements. >> good afternoon, commissioners i department staff. nor -- nor -- note formal report from the director this afternoon >> item two, review of past events, and announcements. >> commissioners, just two updates. one is the reminder of that we will be at the planning commission next week presenting on the citywide survey, which i mentioned at the last hearing, and second, this week, our lady of guadalupe a church was at land use committee and received a positive recommendation to move to the full board. >> great.
>> if there is nothing further, we can move move onto commission matters. item three as president touch a report and announcements. >> i have no announcements at this time. >> item four his draft minutes for the historic preservation commission regular hearing of march 20th, 2019. >> we should take public comments about the draft meeting that -- minutes of march 20th, 2019. does anyone wish to make public comment? closing public comment and bringing it back to the commission. anyone on the commission interested on making public comment or comments about the march 20th, 2019 meeting. >> i moved to adopt the minutes. >> second. >> thank you. if there is nothing further to adopt the minutes for march 20 th, 2019. >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously at 6-0.
item five, commission comments and questions. >> although i am quite interested in all the matters before the commission, i think i shall comment on only one. you mustn't think that i have come under the influence of clarence thomas. [laughter] >> thank you. any other commission comments or disclosure? >> very good. seeing then, we can move on to the consent calendar. all matters listed are considered to be cut routine by the historic preservation commission and maybe acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. they will be no separate discussion of this item unless the member of the commission, public or staff says so. you have one item under your
consent calendar, item six forbush street. this is a certificate of appropriateness. i have no speaker cards. >> does anybody -- just any member of the public wish to comment about the consent calendar item? closing public comment. anyone from the commission interested in making comment or taking it off the consent calendar? >> i moved to adopt the consent calendar. >> second. >> thank you commissioners. on that motion to adopt item six under the commit -- consent calendar... [roll call] >> so moved, that motion passes unanimously 6-0. item seven, the accessory dwelling unit, architectural
review standard. >> good afternoon, commissioners i am with department staff. the item before you is a request to comment on, no waiver with accessory dwelling units located at properties listed in the california register of historical resources, and those designated individually or as part of article ten or 11 historic district. i'm here to speak strictly to the proposed standards and how department staff have tried to respond to your previous comments. the bulk of this ordinance and the hearing materials were prepared through the diligent work of my colleague who will speak after me regarding the broader legislation, and more specifics on the three buckets of projects covered by this. the commission first commented on these standards at the march 6th regular hearing, of particular concern, at that hearing, was one whether the overall construction of a single family home containing and 80 you would be ministerial, and
where this the case, there are no standards pertaining to the scale, mass and, design and detailing of the single family home. the commission noted that the standards as presented were limited solely to the creation of an aide to you within existing building envelope, or an addition to eight single family home. since that hearing, the department has coordinated with the office of the city attorney and clarified the previously mentioned scenario that in the previously mentioned scenario, only the a.d.u. portion of the project would be ministerial, whereas all other scopes of work would remain subject to the standard review and entitlement process. this also found that an a.d.u. constructed as a detached structure on a lot already containing a single-family home would be ministerial. as such, we have amended the draft review standards to address the three broad types of projects. one, modification to an existing building for the creation of an a.d.u.
this could entail infill under the existing opening such as a garage, or through the creation of a clear exterior opening to the building envelope, or through the expansion of an existing building to create an a.d.u. two, construction of a new single-family homes that would contain an a.d.u. within it, and three, construction of a detached accessory dwelling unit structure on a lot containing an existing fount -- single-family home. as these approvals are ministerial, the standards must be objective rather then discretionary. this necessitates distinction from common preservation guidelines, which speaks to compatibility, consistency where the relation to, in client, and other similar terminology. staffers have received one letter pertaining to this item with the author stating the standard should apply more broadly, including historic buildings that are not yet listed. department staff recommends approval with any a revision that this body may feel are warranted. i would also like to note that the draft motion in your pockets
only represents adoption of the standards and does not delegate the application of the standards to staff at this time. the intent was to carry out such action when the broader delegation package is brought before the commission in may. as the agenda item did mention delegation, however, the commission has the option to amend the motion today to delegate application of these standards to staff today. with that, i will hand it over to veronica, and i'm here for any questions. >> thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. i'm with planning department staff. last time we were here, you have some questions on how and when the census would be applied, and my colleague had walked through some of the scenarios, but i will actually go over some of the scenarios more specifically, and i have some visuals to help illustrate. also, we don't anticipate the
standards will apply to too many projects, just given the very specific type of proposal, and perhaps a vacant lots that we are looking at, but we are seeking adoption of said standards to make sure we comply with state law. i also want to emphasize that the ministerial review is only to be applied to the a.d.u. portion of any project in front of us. so that said, the a.d.u. will not be subject to neighborhood notification or our whole design review, also these a.d.u. his will not be subject to any certificates of appropriateness or permit to alter entitlements. so the first scenario i want to bring up today is that the new single-family home with an a.d.u. on that of a vacant lot, so in this case, the new construction building itself will be subject to neighborhood notification, including a certificate of appropriateness as necessary. the a.d.u. portion, however, will be ministerial he reviewed.
in the case of the associated door or perhaps a required window facing out onto the front façade, those specific features will be ministerial he reviewed. and another example includes that of a new construction on a lot where there is already an existing building, so this is for a separate a.d.u. structure that is located within the buildable area of the lot. in this case, where there is no alterations to the existing structure on the lot, then the new construction a.d.u. building will be ministerial he reviewed. -- ministerial he reviewed. i thought example we have is not related to an existing single family home where the a.d.u. is located within the building envelope, or within an expansion to the existing structure.
in this case, that will be ministerial he reviewed. and the last scenario that i have prepared for today is related to an expansion of a single-family home where the expansion is it dedicated to the primary unit. it is a little different then the last slide, but the difference is where the expansion, to which unit the expansion will be related to. in this case where the expansion is primarily for the unit, and then that expansion, subject to neighborhood notification, subject to the design review, subject to certificates of appropriateness as necessary, and then if the a.d.u. is located within the existing building itself, again, that is ministerially reviewed. his of the last scenario is, i'll be at the most confusing, and we will see different variations of it but we are discussing internally, and working with d.b.i. to figure
out the clearest and smoothest review process. again, today, we are seeking your final approval and adoption of these standards. as my colleague mentioned, we will be including this delegation portion when we return for the delegation agreement amendment next month. the department recommends approval of said standards and this concludes the staff presentation. we are available for any questions. >> thank you. any questions? >> i have a commission -- i have a question. >> may i ask a question, ms. florez? on the first scenario where you have the vacant lot and you are doing a newly constructed house with an a.d.u. within it, how is it possible to separate the review? because of the windows or the doors are goat -- are all going to be part of the envelope of the new building. there is no way to separate out the two windows on the first floors of the building from the rest of the building. that one seems a little like it
will create a little convoluted kind of a review. >> so this is one of these pieces that we are still determining the best way to proceed and we are focusing on, is this portion of the project related to the a.d.u., or is it not? in the example i talked about with the door, is this the door, or is this the window, that we can very clearly determine, however -- >> that is actually not my concern. my concern is that the entire project is going to go through the typical review, so two years later, that a.d.u. will then be available to get built because you cannot build the ministerial part, you can't build separate from the building you are building. it means that the 80 -- a.d.u. is going through the full process because that will be part of the drawings.
so i'm just not sure that that makes any sense, that there is ministerial review when it is new construction inside a new single-family house, because there is no physical way to pull them apart, so that a.d.u. is go -- will not be built until the other project is fully approved, so it just seems like that is not one that has meaning in terms of trying to speed up the process, that is not going to speed up the process. i know that is a small subset because they're not a lot of vacant lots that could handle single families. anyway, that is just a comment. >> thank you. >> that pertains to the process too. my colleagues, fellow commissioners who are architects and have more experience moving projects through this process than i necessarily do. however, i have projects to come
before the planning department i think my basic question is, why do we have a new set of standards? why can't we just have our regular standards? i would be confused coming here for a project with an a.d.u. and -- why don't we just have the regular standards and a new set? >> the city attorney can add to this, if you wish. we have to -- we are compliant with state legislation that allows -- that no no waiver a.d.u. be ministerial. the state legislation does allow for the creation of objective review standards, the normal process is discretionary, in many ways, so we have to -- we are trying to adjust to that legislation while still ensuring that our landmark districts and
buildings are not overly adversely affected by the changes in our legislation. >> it is more driven by having to conform with the state legislation. if we had our preference, we would stick to our own and not have a new set of standards. >> that is correct. >> we only have so much sensibility. >> as you move through to explain this to the public, that would be a piece of the explanation because -- >> to be clear, it is not certain how much this would ever come up. in my time here, and i think natalia has agreed with this, in our landmark districts, we've not had a no waiver a.d.u., there has been a lot of multifamily buildings which are separate to this. >> did the city attorney want to make further... >> nothing to add to that. >> okay. >> yes, i'm just trying to think
of scenarios where this may take place pick it seems if there was a garage at the back of an existing single-family house in the landmark district, you could tear down the garage and put a new building in its place without -- that would be a ministerial process. that is probably one of the likely scenarios. >> except, would it need a variance? most garages are on an alley. >> more code compliant. >> but i am saying, most garages are on alleys and are not code compliant. i don't know how that would work >> a code compliant garage. >> ms. florez, did you want to add to that? >> thank you. the a.d.u. needs to be located in a buildable area, otherwise we would be in variance territory as you have stated. >> in the buildable area. but if it wasn't a structure that was located in a buildable area of the lot... >> thank you.
>> any other comments from the commissioner. >> speaker-04: we open it up to public comment? anyone from the public who would like to make public comment on this agenda item? closing public comment. >> i think that these standards seem reasonable and i would move to adopt them. >> second. >> second the motion. >> there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt the standards. on that motion... so moved, that motion passes unanimously 6-0. that will place us on item eight this is a landmark designation.
>> good afternoon, commissioners , desiree smith, planning department staff. the item before you as a recommendation to the board of supervisors to designate 2851 through 2861, 24th street historically known as studio 24 building as an article ten city landmark. thank you. the building was added to the h.p.c. work program, and in 2016 , as part of the san francisco civil rights project
funded by an underestimate -- represented community grant from the national park service. to briefly recap from our last hearing, the subject property is located at the southwest corner of 24th and bryant street in the mission district and within the latino cultural district. this map shows how there are several distinct buildings located on the subject parcel, the subject of this nomination are the two adjacent buildings on 24th street. as written, this landmark nomination pertains only to the two mixed-use buildings at the northern portion of the lot, is highlighted here in red. it is this portion of the property that houses the workshop retail space known as studio 24. do designation excludes the 1930 rear addition and that attached
one-story building at the very rear of the parcel. the department has received six letters in support of the designation. the district nine supervisor is also in support of the designation. a copy of the landmark designation fact sheet was provided to the property owner, which the family trusts. since the first hearing, the department has met with the property owner to discuss the designation. they have received a total of three letters from the owner and two sends -- since then. those have been provided to you all. the property is significant because of events and its architecture and supported by several local, state and federally funded studies
outlining the important contributions of latinos in the 20th century. first, the property is significant for its association with the movement of the late 1960s and seventies and with latino art history as a latter third of the 20th century. it operated out of the corner storefront since 1972, and in 1984, expanded into the adjacent storefront to operate as a gift shop and workspace known as studio 24. the organization operated out of these two storefronts until the end of 2018. it was one of the first latino cultural organizations established in the united states and was among the earliest professional galleries available to latino artists. historians of latino art have referred to the founding of it as a watershed moment and contemporary latino cultural history. many of the artists who today
are associated with the art movement have at some point exhibited their work at the galleria. property is significant for its development of the street cart suburb and neighborhood commercial corridor in the mission district during the gilded age of the latter part of the 19th century. the 24th street commercial corridor and streetcar suburb was previously identified in the city within a city, historic can't -- historical context statement by the mission district. as noted in the context of statement, remaining commercial and mixed-use properties from this period are extremely rare. largely because the 1906 -- 1906 destroyed so much of them throughout the city. leslie, the property is significant for its architecture as an example of the neighborhood to mixed-use storefronts building of the period featuring italian and edwardian design elements, a full list of of character defining features is available in the landmark designation fact
sheet. however, i would like to refresh your memory on a few of those features, especially because some of the letters from the community and to the owners have brought up these two features as a concern. the first feature i would like to discuss is the interior. as i mentioned earlier, the nomination references the california office of historic preservation, latinos in the 20 th century california, national register historical context statement that was adopted by the state historical resources commission. in that document, a framework is included that provides guidance on how to evaluate the significance and integrity of latino cultural centres in california. it identifies the gallery as an important cultural center that should be preserved, it also specifically states that primary interior spaces of latino cultural centres, especially exhibition and performance spaces should remain intact.
galeria de la ra . >> the mural frame has been identified as a character defining feature as it is an important part of the galeria de la raza's history and speaks to the role of the galeria de la raza plate. today, the space is known internationally as the liberated bill board. currently, the ordinance identifies the mural frame, but
it -- we don't provide clarity on the actual canvas that the digital mural is projected on -- or printed on. so we'd like to propose a minor change to the way this feature is described, so that's why i passed out the red line copy of what we're proposing? so we'd like to propose that the section 3-c-1-h -- >> i'm sorry. which page are you referring to? >> page five, i think. >> so currently, the sign measuring ten by ten used by galeria de la raza to display painted and digital murals on a temporary and rotating basis, we would like to add such as
maiz by frederico guajardo. so the proposed change, the intent of it is to focus -- to show the significance of the mural space to the community mural while also identifying a process for how further changes would be made. >> are those dimensions right? because it looks like an aspect ratio is who ahorizontal. >> yeah, on the image that's on the screen right now. >> it will probably be a typo. we'll get the right measurements, and we'll make that change. and so then, the second change would be to section -- would be a new section, section five, which would state, it shall be subject to further controls and
procedures pursuant to the san francisco planning code and article ten, except with respect to a mural or artwork contained within the bryant street sign, a certificate of appropriateness shall be required only for the proposed removal, demolition or permanent covering of the mural. so this is really in response to -- we're concerned with -- at the h.p.c., what we have purview on is the time, place, and manners, the material, but we wouldn't be weighing in on the content of that mural, so this section is intended to clarify that. so that is the last change that we are proposing. if we would make that change, we would like to make it to 2018 when the last mural was
installed. that wouldn't be reflected in the ordinance, that would be a change in the designation report. we can discussion that after my presentation or after public comment, if you'd like, but the department has determined that the subject building meets establishment eligibility requirements and landmark status is warranted. the department recommends that the h.p.c. recommend landmark designation to the board of supervisors including any amendments it deems necessary. should the h.p.c. choose to recommend landmark designation today, the nomination would be forwarded to the board of supervisors for final consideration. this concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions. in addition, we have a representative from supervisor ronen's office who would like to say a few words. >> thank you. did the city attorney's office already review this -- the amendments and has approved it? >> yes, president matsuda. austin yang, deputy city attorney. we've reviewed the proposed
amendments. >> thank you. can we ask the commission to wait for comments, and we'd like to ask if supervisor ronen's office, miss morales, would like to say a few words. >> good afternoon, commissioners, carolina morales, legislative director for supervisor ronen. we were here when this first was introduced. thank you for hearing this item today. the supervisor remains supportive of landmarking galeria de la raza and designating this institution and its long history in the neighborhood. it is very important that this building is landmarked because it has housed a very important space for the latino community not only in the neighborhood but also in the whole city, in
the city of san francisco. i believe this will be the first latino landmark in the neighborhood, is that correct, desiree? so i think that's of very particular significance, and especially protecting that rotating mural would be very important because it provides a space for latino voices and latino needs to be constantly updated and displayed in the middle of the cultural district and in the middle of the neighborhood, so i hope that you can move this item forward, and i look forward to hearing your comments and questions and learning more about this very important building. thank you. >> thank you, miss morales. i'm going to bring it back to the commission. >> i have a question, actually. my question is about that section you just read on page five, which i think was 31-h, where it says sign measuring
the dimensions which will determine, i'm just wondering about that word, sign, is this meeting the planning code definition of a sign or should it say sign frame? i just seems to me -- it just seems to me, the definition in the planning code is different than what we're encompassing. >> yeah. i think that's a question for the city attorney so we can get clarification. >> sure. deputy city attorney austin yang. really, i think it -- the zoning administrator is the one to interpret the code. i don't believe what's been presented would meet the definition of a sign, but i would defer to the zoning
administrator on that. but a text amendment is along the lines of what commissioner pearlman mentioned about a structure or something otherwise would also be fine. all right. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner johns? >> is the purpose and intention of c-1-h to require the building owner to allow changing posters or murals on that sign frame? that calls for a yes or a no answer. >> well, it's a little more complicated because currently the galeria de la raza and the property owner -- it's potential there might be an opportunity to engage in a situation where the mural is rotated out, as it has been
historically, but that's not been decided yes either way. >> what if a galeria de la raza wants to put up a mural, and the property owner doesn't want that mural put up? >> well, it's the property owner -- they own the building, so there's no -- the galeria or the city or anyone else cannot force any changes to that -- to the mural, so it would really be, like, a private agreement that would need to take place? >> i take it the answer would be in that case the property owner could prevent the poster or mural from being posted. >> yes. >> all right. could other people in the community post or ask the property owner for permission
to post murals? >> sure, my understanding. >> do you, mr. yang, concur with that? >> i'm sorry. question was whether other individuals in the neighborhood could ask the property owner to put up a new mural? >> yes. >> i don't see why they wouldn't, but they would still have to comply with the landmarking designation if this were to go through. >> in other words, they need a certificate of appropriateness, which is our entitlement. >> does that mean that every time there is to be a new mural there must be a certificate of appropriateness? >> that is correct. >> that is -- i thought it was just the opposite. >> well, it -- to specify, though, it -- and i believe this is the section 5 on the
last page of the ordinance, and deputy city attorney, please correct me if i am wrong, but my interpretation is it's clarifying that the city's purview over the frame is -- is not related to content, it is related to the -- the existing mural when whether it's alternated, obscured, etc. that would trigger the c of a, but the staff would not be reviewing the content on the site. >> so if the proposal's to remove the canvas, that would require the c of a. a c of a does last three yea years -- two years. >> but i take it on what you
have -- based on what you have said, if the property owner wished to have a blank canvas in that space, the property owner could do that. >> that is correct. >> well, i think that this c-1-h raises very important issues, and which is why i went into this in such detail, and i think that we ought to be very careful to -- so that not just those present today but those who will deal with this in the future are aware that we are landmarking an object and we are not attempting to require,
we are not attempting to impinge on free speech rights or to require the landlord to post murals to which the landlord objects. since that is what this addition means, i am supportive of it. but if it doesn't mean that, i wouldn't be. >> yeah, and we've been working with the city attorney's office on the language that we proposed, and it's basically for those reasons that you brought up. >> this is city attorney. -- does the city attorney want to make further comment on that? >> no, i think staff has made appropriate inquiry on that. >> okay. commissioner