By Dave Osgood
It wasn’t expected, but Rincon Annex was the only appeal considered at the meeting and it lasted 4 1/2 hours! And it’s not done. The matter was continued to September 6.
Board of Supervisors President Peskin sat through the meeting in person for over three hours in order to speak during public comment. He said the planning department had erred in approving these permits.
Obviously we’ve raised an issue of some importance.
Actually the meeting devolved into two related subject matters:
- The Rincon Annex building and the proposed signs.
- How the planning department processes permits involving historic buildings.
Annex: This remains an uphill battle. Three board members are appointed by Breed. Two are appointed by supervisors, and one of them indicated he has considerable interest in Rincon Annex and was ready to deny the four permits. The other was absent last night, so we would have had to get the votes of all three Breed members to prevail.
Process: The process of preserving historic buildings in the city is a real hodgepodge of confusing ordinances that allows developers and planners to pick and choose how permits are issued. Numerous areas of the planning code apply with vague exceptions and subjective requirements. President Peskin stated this matter should’ve gone to the historic preservation commission, but it appears that recent efforts to streamline planning means that step is no longer required. Despite pages of code, it was stated that there are no limits on the size and number of signs that could go on Rincon annex. It remains unclear why other historic buildings, such as the old federal reserve, remain sign free. Concern was expressed about the precedent the Rincon permits would set.
The appeals board’s minutes are already out and indicate:
“The Board continued the matter to September 6, 2023 so that the department and parties can submit briefs addressing the following topics:
- How the Planning Department arrived at its decision to approve the permits, including the determinations it made; and whether the Planning Department could provide written findings of a determination under Planning Code section 1006.6, including any resource implications that would have for the Department.
- The applicability and conformity of these permits with Article 11 of the Planning Code.
- Whether the issuance of the permits complies with the 2018 legislation (Planning Code section 1005(e)(6)).
The City Attorney will provide an opinion to the Board on the legal issues raised by these topics.”
I believe they were also to report why the matter didn’t go to the historic preservation Commission . Briefs will be submitted by the parties on August 24. As the appellant, we obviously have a seat at the table. It was suggested that we get an attorney involved. City officials often make that recommendation to activists without seeming to appreciate the burden and cost involved. Mr. Peskin left after public comment, and officials said during the subsequent discussion that they didn’t completely understand why he said the planning department had erred. It has been suggested that it is critical for Peskin to submit a document to the Board of Appeals.
Hopefully this could lead to some reform, and we should encourage that. We should get a better idea at the upcoming general assembly meeting about what groups and organizations are most involved in historic preservation. Any thoughts people have on how we can best use this unique opportunity to encourage reform would be welcome.