Way. Thats all for now but ill be available for any questions that you may have. I have one. Sure. Actually, i probably have a couple. So this property was a small home at one time, and then ask you explain how this home became, i think it was 13 or 1400, and then it became more Square Footage and explain what the Square Footage that they are asking for . Sure. So i dont know the exact history of the development of this site over time. This us there used to be a small Carriage House at the time. At some point that was kind of subsumed with the other that has 100 lot usage. There have been a couple of lots that have been divided on steiner, and this happens to be the smallest of those lots. A home an addition was done going back to my reference before that you cant expand a nonconforming structure thank you do it within the buildable area. The portion of their home that is primarily in the buildable area and did that require a variance and exception prior. Id have to look real quick. I dont know if there were any other prior variances. If they built the addition completely to the front and then the building envelope, no variance would be required. If you have a nonconforming structure we see this often. You have a structure thats in the rear for a variety of reasons and they want to expand it forward and the portion that theyre permitting is in the buildable envelope even though the existing building is in the required rear yard, that scenario does not require a variance because the work that youre proposing does not violate the rear yard requirement. Okay. And then last question, is since you were the the za at the time, acting za, and understandably, weve heard this a thousand times tonight that the property footprint or the property interior profile was goofy, and you know, and they still bought it, but why would it require two more stories to clean this up . Well, to be clear, theyre not adding two stories. Its already a four story building. Okay. The fourth story is quite small and has a fairly large front terrace which right now supplies the required open space for the site, so its another thing just to keep in mind also, that the fourth floor extends to the front as proposed, some amount of open space will be required in the rear to meet the open space required, otherwise an open space variance would also be required, and the third floor exists, but theyre just proposing to expand those floors to some agree. The third floor is just an expansion to some agree, and the fourth floor is just an expansion in the front and also a bay window expansion in the rear. Okay. I think i have one more. Thats okay. Theres been a couple versions of the plans, and ive heard mentioned through the public that the approval was based on a further reduction, but whats in front of us this evening . The only thing thats in front of you this evening is what was approved under the variance, so i think in the in the permit holders packet, they have kind of three scenarios existing, kind of originally proposed, what was kind of proposed in the variance, and what they took to the neighbors, saying this is even smaller, would you agree to this, and we can come to an agreement. That fourth smaller version is not whats being heard tonight. Its the third option, which is which was basically what they had in front of the Planning Commission and the Zoning Administrator at the joint hearing with the conditions of approval from the variance applied. Thank you. Lets be totally clear, the option that they had in with the variance application is not before us. No, they proposed something harminger. Larger. No, let negate finish. In the sense this is a variance. This is not a project hearing. Everybody here is talking about the project. So what is going to happen here tonight if we deny the appeal is we approve we support the variance. Then, the project is going to be designed allegedly in the fashion that was represented as the latest cutback version. Then, its going to go back to planning, and lets say planning approves it, and oh, lets say planning denies it, were going to see it any way again. Based on this crowd. I mean, lets face it. Sure. This is one of our best combative crowds that weve had here in quite sometime. And that was the point i made that obviously right now rkts the variance, even if you uphold the variance, its effectively moot. It doesnt mean anything as long as the associated Building Permit has been denied as least for another year as commissioner fung pointed out. So but if you uphold the variance, the only way for it to actually be effective is if as the Planning Department will have to do, we deny the planning permit, the property holder would have the opportunity to appeal that Building Permit to you and request that you take the appeal and approve the project as approved under the variance. Obviously, if the variance is not approved, if you overturn the variance here tonight or you decide not to grant the variance, then, the project is kaput. We cant take any questions at this point. Sorry. Is it your expectation or its my expectation that if we approve the variance and the permit gets denied that the plans that we will see potentially will be that which was represented as the latest cutback that weve made. So if you so right now were looking at the variance plans and it has a maximum scope of work. They have proposed to their neighbors i dont think theyre representing that theyre proposing this now, but they have proposed a slightly smaller scope of work also. If you uphold the variance or permit the variance tonight, then their technically wont be any kind of new plans in front of you per se. Youll be reviewing the denied plans, but my assumption is their request would be that you overturn the denial of the Building Permit and approve them with a scope of work that was approved by the variance because if you approved it for a larger scope of work that would not make sense because the variance would have been approved already for that limited scope of work. So essentially if the variance is upheld tonight a maximum extent is locked in. And if the variance is denied tonight, then well see them in another year when they come back they would have an option so the city charter allows, basically if you have a project disapproved, you can, one year later, basically apply for essentially the same project. Or change the project, yeah. Yeah, and right now, youd have to change it in a way that would be significantly different from the original project. You cant tweak the project and say its a different project. It has to be a significantly different project. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioners the matters submitted. Variance commentator. Because i always comment . Exactly. You have the greatest wisdom. You know as i was listening, it was quite clear to me that you know, none of these buildings are conforming or cocompliac cocompliant, and the people arguing against the appellants buildings also are noncompliant, so the it raises the question which one is more wrong, you know, and i was thinking about that in light of another case we had on russian hill, where the organizers of and owners of certain buildings went against a permit, and the rationale they used was, you know, in terms light, air, and Everything Else but it was their building that went to the rear property line. So as i started to think about those kind of things, then i realized just what i said earli earlier is this is not a project permit. Its a project variance, and whether we agree that the five findings as produced by the za were correct in our minds, and i have to say that i dont see that the five findings have been met. Nobody in the audience talked to the findings. Im speaking that i think only two have been met, but the majority have not been met. I remember that project that commissioner fung is referring to, as well as recently, we just had 68 richardson, which was very, very similar. In that particular case, i believe that we did allow the variance. In this case, even though that the, like 68 richardson, the neighbori Neighboring Properties were not conforming, it was a whole different project. It was a it was a 600 square foot home that they were making to 1200. I would concur with Vice President fung that i would not support this either. And just to follow up the one that he was talking about the one on russian hill that came before us, i believe that we removed all the decks and conditioned that, and that that might have been prior to your coming onto this board. It was. No, i like i like the comment of commissioner fung that everybody was wrong in the first place, but the last building thats wrong gets punished for being allegedly more wrong or another version of wrong. Its its kind of quizical. I dont think im hearing on this board tonight the support for the variance. I would love to its tragic to have a i speak as a real estateoriented person to have a a piece of property which could be improved significantly and a willing sponsor to improve that for the purpose of raising their family and improving the neighborhood go go fallow and continue to be a fractured. Thats the best adjective that i can come up with at this hour of the night. I would have supported the variance but i dont think theres any will for that, so i wont raise that topic. Can you make a motion . All right. Let me float a motion and lets see if it gets anywhere. I move to grant the appeal and to deny the variance on the basis that the five criteria have not been met. Vice president , you had mentioned in particular you thought there were two findings. Do you want to identify which ones or do you want to leave it i would prefer to leave it. Okay. So the motion for the Vice President is to grant the appeal and deny the variance that the five criteria under 5 c have not about been met. My motion should be to deny the appeal. Youre granting the appeal if you want the variance to not exist. Thats correct. I know its late. I lose it at night, i guess. Okay. So on that motion to grant the appeal, commissioner lazarus. No. President honda. Aye. Commissioner wilson. Will you go first . No. Give me a second. Let me think about it. Its rare you make the decision tonight. Would you say it again, please. The motion would be to grant the appeal and deny the variance on the basis that the five findings required under the planning code have not been met. Aye. Commissioner swig. No. Four votes are needed and theres voted 32 so that motion fails. Lacking any other motion, the variance is upheld by default. I have no other no other motion being made, president honda, theres no other business before the board. Please stay seens lur yo bill devices and remind you that the commission does not tolerate any disruptions or outbursts of any kind. Commissioner, id like to take roll at this time. [roll call 1234 678d we do expect two more to arrive shortly. Commissioners, first on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance, item one for case 2015225drp at 271 justin avenue for review. Items 2a, b and c, drp and var. Publicly indicated discussion narrow view and rear yard variance. Our proposed continuance for variance to january 11, 2018. 744 harrison street, propose ed use authorization. Item four for case number 2014 at 89 roosevelt way. Discretionary review as proposed for continuance to march 1, 2018. Item five for case number 2015o18233 drp at shafter avenue. Discretionary review has been withdrawn. Commissioners, further under your regular calendar, item number 19, we have received a request for continuance. For case number 2017oo7658c. U. A. At 4522 rd street as we have received a request for continuance for case number 2016 at mission street. Commission use authorization. That is proposed to be continued indefinitely and i believe second week in december. What is that date . Second week in december is december 14. All right 678 that is the proposed date. Any Public Comment on the items proposed for continuance . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Commissioner fong. Move to continue the proposed items in addition to item 19 and 20. Second. Thank you, commissioners. On that motion then to continue items as proposed, commissioner fong . [roll call] so move. It passes unanimously 52. If the acting zoning administrative 50. Excuse me. 50. I apologize. If the Zoning Administrator could rule on item 2c. Continuing item 2c to the date proposed. Thank you. Commissioners, ill place this on your consent calendar. All matters here are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, staff or public so requests. In which the matter will be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this point and future hearing. Item six, case number 2016o42991 c. U. A. , commissioner use authorization. Item seven, 2 geneva avenue. Commissioner use authorization. Item eight, and 501 through 503 and 508 through 511, laguna street. Item nine at 123 west portal avenue, conditional use authorization and item 10, 1765 california street, conditional use authorization. I have no speaker cards. Ok. Thank you. Any members of the public who would like to comment on the consent items or pull frem the consent calendar . Seeing none, commissioner moore . Id like to ask item 10 to be pulled of con sent. I just have a few questions that i could not really discern from the staff report. Ok. Well hear that first on the regular calendar. Do i hear a motion . Oh, sorry. I make a motion that we approve the item from the consent calendar. Except for item 10. Except for item 10. Second. Thank you, commissioners. So, on that moex to approvement items under consent did you have a comment . Just a second. Ok. So, on that motion to approve items under consent, except item 10 , commissioner fong. [roll call] so moved. Commissioners, that motion passes 50. Commissioners, that will place us under commission matter, item 11. Consideration of Adoption Draft minutes for october 26, 2017 and november 2, 2017. Any Public Comment on the draft minutes . Sighing none, Public Comment is closed. Commissioners . Motion. Any motion . I make a motion that we approve the minutes. Second. Thank you. On that motion to approve or, excuse me, adopt the minutes for october 26 and november 2, 2017. [roll call] so moved. Commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 50. And places us on item 12 for commission comments, and questions. Commissioner moore . Id just like to ask the question when the department is going to distribute meeting material for our meeting at the end of november because many of us are going away for thanksgiving and it is kind of a little bit unclear when we will be receiving packages. Those packages are expected to be delivered to you wednesday before the thanksgiving holiday. And for those who are gone already, are they on the web when . They get posted on the web as soon as we deliver them to you. Ok. Thank you. Thats good. Appreciate it. Thank you. We can move on to the next item. Very good, commissioners that. Will place us on item 13 for the 2018 hearing schedule. Commissioners, i submitted to you a proposed 2018 Commission Hearing schedule. It includes all of your regular holidays and the summer hiatus in august. Generally speaking, you take or cancel 11 hearings every year. Occasionally you add one. Occasionally you subtract one. But on average, you ahead of time cancel 11. I would suggest considering Chinese New Year for the thursday, february 15. That hearing conveniently coincides with the president s day holiday that monday. You may consider easter for april 5. Yom kippur falls on september 20. You generally recognize rosh hashanah, not yom kippur, but it calls on that. And then in november, after thanksgiving, you have a fifth thursday so my suggestions would be to consider those, but i would strongly consider the Chinese New Year and the Easter Holidays to be included in your advanced hearing schedule. All right. Thank you. Lets see if there is any Public Comment on the schedule. Nope. Seeing none, commissioner moore . The only thing i would say is coming out of a rather sketchy calendar in november and december of this year, and then moving into a cancellation on the first thursday in january, we have three meetings in january, three meetings in february, the fifth meeting in march is canceled. All were going to do is get penalized one way or the other. It is going to haunt us no matter what we do. So it will be here until midnight or well spread out our meetings a little bit more evenly. And im in support of recognizing the holidays and then i would suggest that its not due lets not cancel the march meetings and pretend it is meetings rather than months and fifth thursdays. It just doesnt work. Right. Commissioner rich aerss . That means if we dont cancel the march meeting, were up to 16 weeks in a row . [counting] speak up, please that means we are up to 16 meetings in a row all the way up through may 31. Well, if we take the Easter Holiday 12 meetings in a row. If you take Chinese New Years on february 15 and then the Easter Holiday in april. It would make a lot of sense to keep the 5th thursday this march. The suggestion is add back the 29th, cancel the 5th of april and february 15 for Chinese New Year. Yes. So, add back march 29. Yes. But cancel back the 15th of february and april 5. Right. And keep Everything Else as proposed. So were not canceling september 20 for yom kippur and not canceling november 29 as a fifth thursday. I think for now thats fine. We can always add that. The calendar already had six hold holidays and you considered one, two, three, four for your consideration. And were down to seven, six 10 on here. There were four holiday cancellations and then three summer hiatus cancellations and then there were two fifth thursdays. But all together, this would account for about 11 cancellations now, which is on average on par for your average every year. And the suggestion was do not continue to meet february 15. No. Cancel february 15, cancel april 5. Ok. Commissioner . I would respectfully request that we cancel yom kippur. I already bought plane tickets for the 29th so i wont be here. Because the school holiday. So that would mean two meetings that id be out and i just respectfully request that maybe im the only person who observes. That would still make 11 ok. So commissioner is requesting that we cancel the 20th. It would be cancellation on february 15, add back march 29, cancel april 5 and cancel september 20 is whats different from the calendar being proposed. Do we need a motion on that . Yes, plea. And then november. Well keep it for now and cancel it if need be. Ok. There any motion . Commissioner richards . Motion to adopt the calendar with thursday, february 15 as a holiday, april 5 as a holiday or day off, yom kippur, september 20 and adding back a meeting on 29th of march. And november 29. Its already on there. November 29th. Regular meeting. Ok. Second. Thank you, commissioners. If there is nothing further, shall i call that question on that motion, then, commissioners to adopt the proposed 2018 calendar and just to be explicit, canceling february 15, restoring the march 29 hearing, canceling april 5, canceling september 20th and keeping november 29 as a regular hearing on that motion. Commissioner fong . [roll call] so moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 60. Thank you. Commissioners, other places under department matters, i have 14 directors announcements. Thank you. I just wanted to call your attention to the resilient by design, the competition that is under way. Regionally. Yesterday the teams released the 10 teams released their conceptable ideas for a number of sites across the bay and those sites are on the website, under resilientbydesign. Org and they are accepting Public Comments for the next two weeks on those sites and on those ideas until december 1. At that point, there is a committee that is going to go through a process of matching teams with particular locations in the bay area and that will happen by the middle of december and then those designs will move forward and are due may 1. So, i encourage you to look at the website, to check out the idea that there was some pretty interesting stuff that came up as you might imagine and we could submit your comments anytime until december 1. Thank you. That concludes my presentation. Thank you. Item 15 review past event at the boyder of supervisors, board of appeals and the Historic Preservation commission. Good afternoon. Aaron starr, manager of legislative affairs for the Planning Department. First on agenda this week was a landmark designation for 2731 to 2735 fullsome street known as the dougrahn house designed in the beauxart style and it is a fine example of residential beauarts architecture. Staff president designated to the committee and answered questions from the committee members. Supervisor peskin then asked to be added as a sponsor and then the Committee Vote unanimously to extend the designation. The pier 70 project passed its second read. The landmark designation for 1399 mcallister street also passed its second read. The planning code and zoning map amendment for the Transit Center special sign district, sponsored by supervisor kim passed its first read. And also on the agenda was the appeal of the category exemption for a project located at 20 nobles avenue. Im sorry, noble alley. The project has a long and complicated permit history dating back to the 1990s. It was not focused on ceqa, instead appeared toable a proxy for settling disagreements between neighbors. There was a motion to extend the item for three months to resolve the issues but failed to receive a majority vote. Ultimately the board agreed with staff by upholding the environmental determination and rejecting the appeal by a 63 vote. And lastly, which youre all probably wait, for, ill discuss the cannabis regulations that were heard at the land use committee, the rules committee and the full board this week and the previous weeks. After a total of Six Committee hearings, three at land use, three at the board and between four and five and six hours each where i theseder same Public Comment over and over again [laughter] i understand how you feel on the m. C. D. Hearings, its been very hard to keep track of all the various amendments that have been going through. So, im going to do my best. Some of these may not be completely up to date, but i have checked with the City Attorney and i believe this is the most Accurate Information i have thus far. First the ordinance was split at the land use hearing. One version is referred as the skinny version and the other is refered to as the bulky version. The skinny version removes most of the special carveouts that they added to the ordinance in the first land use hearing while the bulky version keeps most of those in. The skinny version was recommended to the board without recommendation and the bulky version remains in committee, allowing the board to pick different amendments to place into the skinny version at the full board. Regionally the land use Committee Voted to increase the 600foot buffer around schools to 1,000 feet, which this commission recommended. The committee at one point also considered adding the 1,000foot buffer around child care facilities, adding child care facilities that the buffer would have all but eliminated the green zone in the city. Since then and through various amendments, the 1,000foot buffer around schools has been brought back down to 600 feet in the skinny version and the child Care Provision has been eliminated in both versions. Also originally the orbit option was added to the ordinance which, again, this commission did recommend. However, currently the version that was before the board on tuesday, the orbit option was replaced with a straight 600foot anticlustering provision. Rather than the 300 feet originally in the ordinance is up to 600 feet. The Landuse Committee added the mc1 districts to the green zone and this is something that you recommended. And also with those version, there is a finding that directs the Planning Commission to [inaudible] m. C. D. S and cannabis retailers when reviewing amly indications. Both version of the ordinance have a limit of three m. C. D. S or cannabis retailers in any in the excelsior mission in m. C. D. This previously extended to all of district 11. The bulky version also has a requirement that m. C. D. S converting to cannabis tailers in the four outer sunset m. C. D. S, the ocean avenue m. C. D. , the west portal m. C. D. Must seek mandatory v. D. R. To do so. The bulky version has only one cannabis dispensary or establishment in the sacramento street, n. C. S. District and supervisorual district two and west portal m. C. D. And has a limit of two such establishments. At this weeks full board hearing, the board voted to continue the item to november 28 on a 91 vote with supervisor peskin voting no and supervisor cullen absent. This was done to allow more time to consider the proposed amendments. There was a proposed amendment by supervisor sheehy that would have allowed the sale of adult use cannabis on january 1 for existing m. C. D. S on a temporary basis until they got their final land use designation and permanent permit for the office of cannabis. And then to push off the other land use decisions for a few more weeks. Ultimately this recommendation was withdrawn by supervisor sheehy. So tend result of that San Francisco will not have regulations for adultuse cannabis in San Francisco for january 1, 2018. The earliest the law could take effect would be on january 6 if the mayor signs the ordinance one day after the board adopts it. And that is all the information i have on that. But im happy to questions. To answer questions. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. Acting senior preservation planner with the department. Im here in place of tim to file a report on the actions of the Historic Preservation commission yesterday. The commission heard three certificates of appropriateness, recommended approval for the addition of Cliffs Variety and tomasos Ristorante Italiano to the business registry and heard an informational item from the waterfront on the land use plan. In addition, they heard a permit to alter case. This projects proposal is to restore and partially replace 75 street facing windows. The permit was submitted as a minor permit to alter and request for hearing was filed by sue hester on august 28 who raised concerns about the potential loss of the existing 41 s. R. O. Units at the property, which have been vacant since 2013. During the hearing yesterday, the h. P. C. Heard Public Comment from 11 members of the public as well as ms. Hester, the Tenderloin Neighborhood Development corporation, hospitality house and the senior and senior and disabilities action. Expressing concerns regarding lawn construction history of the hotel, past legal action against Property Owner and the potential loss of s. R. O. Units at the property. Because the permit did not address the use of the property, which is an issue beyond the per view of the h. P. C. And because the permit would lead to the inhabitability of the building, it would improve to alter. In their remarks, the h. B. C. Directed staff to make the Planning Commission, mayor and board of supervisors aware of the Public Comments and the h. P. C. s concerns about these issues. It is our understanding that a request for discretionary review will be filed against the permit and heard then before this commission in the coming months. And that the h. P. C. Will provide a statement to this commission, the board of supervisors and the mayor regarding their concerns about the Affordable Housing at the property. There are three approved permits from 2013 to 2014 for interior tenant improvements, but no permit has been filed for change of use. It would trigger a conditional use authorization for both the remove alt of Affordable Housing units and for hotel use and per chapter 41 of the code, one of the units would be required at an alternative location. That concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioners, there is a board of appeals report from the Zoning Administrator. Ill apologize in advance for it does appear to be lengthy. Last week, the board of appeals held a hearing and considered two items that may be of interest to the commission. First the board heard and denied a rehearing request for their decision 2226 green street. The board upheld the Planning Commissions decision to allow a roof deck at the subject property. Second, the board heard an appeal of the Building Permits for demolition and new construction of a singlefamily dwelling at 2255 sea cliff avenue. The commission heard this under discretionary review and approved the permit with reduction in the size of the top floor. The board upheld the demolition permits but required the top floor be removed, allowing a roof deck up to 500 square feet. The board continued the item and requested that the parties Work Together on the final details of the roof deck. Last night, the board of appeals held a hearing and considered three items that may be of interest to the commission. First they considered an appeal of the variance issued by the Zoning Administrator of the project 6545 valencia street. The Planning Commission heard a discretionary review request on june 2 of this year, filed by the neighbors to the rear of the property. Their primary concerns were potential impacts to the rear yard tree and impacts of new shadow on to their rear yard. The Commission Voted 51 with commissioner johnson absent tos take d. R. And ship the top floor five feet away from the neighbors property line. The apellant made the same arguments at the board of appeals but the board determined that the project met the require reasonable doubt five findings to grant the variance and voted unanimously to deny the appeal of the variance. Second, board considered an appeal of a Building Permit for a third story addition to 255 avilla street. They heard a discretionary review on the project august 4 of this year, file by the neighbor to the rear of the subject property. His primary concerns were the added height created by the third story and potential structural issues related to seismic activity. The Commission Found no exceptional extraordinary circumstances and voted 50 to not take [inaudible]. The appellant made the same argument at the board of apaoelts but the board determined that the project had been properly approved and voted unanimously to deny the appeal of the Building Permit. Finally, the board considered an appeal of the rear yard variance issued by the Zoning Administrator for the project 2523 steiner street. The proposal was for rear additions on the third and fourth floors. The Planning Commission heard a discretionary review on june 15, 2017 which was filed by an adjacent neighbor. And the Zoning Administrator heard the variance at the same hearing. The Commission Voted 41 to take d. R. And disapprove the entire project, which also included a horizontal addition of the front of the fourth floor that did not require a variance. The Zoning Administrator took the variance under advisement and granted the variance with several conditions of approval that set back the proposed rear additions terraces further from the adjacent property. The appellant made basically the same argues to the board of appeals after a lengthy hearing and deliberation. The board voted 32 to deny the variance. However, four votes are required to overturn the administrators granting of the variance. No motions were made and appeal was denied due to lack of votes. All right. Thank you, jonas. Commissioners, that will place us under general Public Comment. At this time, members of public may address the commission that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission, except for agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. Each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. I have two speaker cards. All right. Step forward. [inaudible]. Ok. So, well yeah. First item. Georgia. Good afternoon. Im here with a copy of a memo that i sent to the r. E. T. I sent it last week. Your december 7 hearing for the initiation of the residential expansion threshold, as you probably know, no longer going to be initiation, it will be informational and pushed back to 2018. So my suggestions are in this memo. Oh, you didnt start my time. You have unlimited time. Jesus you dont want that. [laughter] no one wants that. Not even my husband. [laughter] um, um, um, sorry. I shouldnt have made a joke. Um, so anyway, getting back to the serious matter. The r. E. T. I made some suggestions in this memo that you should deal with some of background. I dont think weve heard enough about whats wrong with tanltsment to demolition. As i write in here, i have three bullet points. A full description of the problems with tantamount demolition. How come the staff doesnt always know how to do it . They havent known until recently. Loopholes that developers can slip through and sitespecific issues related to poverty, i think thats come out during the Public Meetings that weved ha. And those have been really good and i think the staff has been fairly really accessible to the public. What i would like the know is a description of why 40 of the samples that we discussed two years ago should have been demolitions. I think that was dealt with by the enforcement staff. So maybe we need to hear about that. Why would those projects have been demos and not the other 60. And what does that mean . Especially related to bullet point number three, the socalled economic oddities of San Francisco real estate market. Compared with other markets. If those had been changed as mandatory d. R. S, what would that have changed . Would that have changed the market . Like there is a 10 million home in glen park right now. Ladley manor. It actually was campbell and wong bay area tradition. But it is basically virtually they wanted to get a demolition permit. The demolition permit would have been denied so they got an alteration permit. Things like that, we need to understand how it happens. I think the staff presentation like this would be very helpful for understanding the goals of the r. E. T. And ive given you copies of the memo and thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Lum. Hello, commissioners. This is Michael Moore from my office. Similarly to the 317 tantamount to demolition reform, they did ask us to do an analysis of our current project load just to understand what this might do to the commissions load. And this is also relevant to the mayors directive to streamline things. So, in relationship to our current residential project load here, we have currently in San Francisco 65 San Francisco projects, which i guess would be great. Residential. And 85 of these are actually, why dont you speak about this, michael . You focus. Can you focus it . Sorry. 85 of our 65 San Francisco projects are r. H. Districts and will be affected by the proposed f. A. R. Legislation or code. 32 or 18 projects as existing structures are over the s. A. R. Numbers proposed. 66 are 37 of those 65 projects are over as proposed for the additions. We were told that this process was numbererly done to reduce the amount of things that were brought forward in front of the commission to endoesntinger density. Of our 64 projects, four are currently undergoing a d. R. Process and unfortunately none of those four are actually over the f. A. R. In r. H. Districts. So, where we currently have four projects in front of the commission, we would have 41. That is a 10fold increase in projects brought to the commission. Which could only slow things down. We have also done an analysis of different districts, which show the reduction of Square Footage proposed in regards to the f. A. R. And standard 125foot lot and were happy to share this with you. We dont want to be premature, but the schedule was going to be this was first heard in the month of december and it is of great concern to see the impact so were happy to take questions do this offline because i know that this is offline topic. So well forward this information to the full commission. We didnt bring copies. Thank you very much. Any additional general Public Comment . Ms. Hester . Sue hester. The Planning Department has a tendency i dont want to say a tendency. It doesnt always remember where the law came from. 311 notices came from the Planning Department saying we didnt have the ability to figure out how to apply part of prop m and part of prop m that passed was Development Policies and they required context of the neighborhood be evaluated in a project. And there was two years of meetings at the Planning Department. And the Planning Department finally said that we have zoning that is imperfect. Its type of zoning that may not apply to this particular area of the city that well. But thats what were going to do. And they said we can either do serious studies like were doing right now on the area plans, we can do them for large parts of the city or else we can say well issue 311 and our neighbors will tell us it is a neighborhood character. So, what it is about, 311 and 312, goes back to neighborhood character section 101. 1 of the planning code, which is adopted policy by the voters of San Francisco. And so it is a controversy to this day. But you have to realize that these issues have been talked about by the citizens of San Francisco and the voters of San Francisco. And the Planning Department came up with their 311, 312 process because they didnt want to do the work. Of really looking at a fine grain level to neighborhoods of the city and their terrain. We have mouths in the city and the mouths of the city really have an effect on what is otherwise a noncontroversial zoning category for that land. And so that is why we have a Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is there sitting in the shoes of the public. You have a huge responsibility. Im not saying you have an easy job. But it is why youre there. Thank you. Thank you, ms. Hester. Any additional general Public Comment . Seeing none, we can move to the regular calendar. Very good, commissioners. That will place us under your regular calendar and item 10 was pulled off of consent and will be considered now for case number 2016. California street. This is a conditional use authorization. Good afternoon, members of the Planning Commission. Sharon young, Planning Department staff. Item before you is request for conditional use authorization to establish a retail restaurant, specializing in sushi packaged for takeout inside the exist Whole Foods Market grocery store. To occupy a portion of the existing deli and food preparation area with approximately 400 square feet of floor area. There would be no expansion to the existing building. According to the project sponsor, also known as gn enji sushi and genji express and specializing in allnatural sushi and japaneseinspired cuisine in the grab and go style. As the years progressed, the name was simplified. They currently have seven locations in San Francisco and approximately 191 stores worldwide. Sushi bars are located in over 180 whole food market locations in 21 states, the district of columbia and the united kingdom. Thes ed project will allow for the San Francisco location located within the Whole Foods Market grocery store. The former retail findings, to date the department had is received a correspondence from members of the van ness corridor Neighbors Council and initially had requested continuance of the case. But later withdrew that request. Departments recommendation is approved conditions. This concludes my presentation and im available to answer any questions. Great. Thank you very much. Project sponsor . Thank you, chair and commissioners. My name is robert selna and i represent genji sushi in this matter. To my left is the representative. In San Francisco. As ms. Young mentioned, there was an interest in a possible continuance because a representative of van ness corner Neighborhood Council thought proper notice had not been done. I spoke with her yesterday. That representative and she sent an email back to the Planning Department. I dont know if the commission was cc d on that. This project followed all the noticing requirements. It has met all the findings for a c. U. Perform and theres been no neighborhood opposition. The use is consistent with the commercial character of the neighborhood. The location of the sushi vendor is within an existing formula retail, the whole foods which has been through the formula retail c. U. P. Process and it is essentially an accessory use as the Planning Departments report says to you. In the area, formula retail represents just 14 of 93 commercial establishments. So this addition will be extremely minimal. It is also the only sushi vendor within a 300foot radius. In the neighborhood. So this sushi operation, which is essentially a counter within the existing whole foods in which customers pick up sushi and then talk it to the checkout line in the whole foods is a very, very minimal to an existing retail use. Again, theres been no Community Opposition to the conditional use permit application. Eric, i dont know if you want to add anything to that. And he is here for questions if you have them. Im just here for questions. Again, we are just replacing an existing sushi vendor that was already there so it is not a new addition to this location. As well, i think rob pretty much covered everything. Great. Thank you very much. Any Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, well close Public Comment. Commissioner moore, you had yes, i have a question. The whole foods in that location always had sushi, which is prepared right on site in what looks potentially as slightly smaller area. And since im a frequent customer, i was wondering as to whether or not you are taking in the fields area or staying within the already food prep area that is designated for the reparation and sale of other foods. That is where we do our food prep and share our food preparation area for whole foods team which is belo that area. On a level below. The sushis that are being sold at whole foods, at least the one that comes out of the freezer across from where the sushi is prepared already has the name of your company on the back of it. Is that because you supplied the store before hand or because you were waiting for approval operating there . You mean across from the actual sushi counter . That is correct. It is a little Additional Space that whole foods gives us since we have smaller fourfoot case so that is why we also sell sushi in that area. That means you at a smaller size didnt need the approval and now increasing in size you need the approval . Im trying to understand the move from what it is right now to where you are going. We are already existing in there when we started this process. I asked the planner at the time if we could move forward and start operations on good faith. They said that that was approved as long as we went through this process. Thats a question which somebody else needs to answer. To me, it is a little unusual. But as far as other stores are concerned, in Larger Stores you are also selling under your brand. Are you attempting to make other formula retail applications in other stores. I was in the store saturday eating your sushi and turning my box over and i see your name on there. However, there is no application for those stores and formula retail. Im just trying to really understand what were doing as a commission. Sure. Sure. We have another one pemdsing at 2001 Market Street and one thats in existence for avenue whole foods. For patrero hill, i was told thats not fallen under formula retail. If that s a not true, well work on processing that one as well. I just have to ask those questions because if im sitting here i need to ve