ended up on the plans. is the name you were considering unrelated? >> i had to admit originally, but since we talked to the owner, we changed it to accommodate formula of retail. >> you do not have an agreement? >> nothing. we changed the plans to accommodate. >> you felt it was permissible in the building. >> it had already taken six or seven months since we applied for the permit. now it put a big burden on me and my family. >> if you guys could just speak about why that was ok,

especially in with a large expansion of the store. >> it uses similar logos. as for the size, the move into the space was different. it was a surprise to us as well. we found out we were retaining the space. it was basically a merger of space.

it required permits, and they got none. in the japan town planning, it was a difficult question, partly because of the neighborhood of the community. we decided not to oppose formula of retail absolutely, but to subject it to the plan we hope will be adopted, to a strict conditional use. this would be rather strict. the sentiment is that most formula retail and would not be acceptable. there may be some that would contribute something unique that would be useful for acceptable in the community, so that is our

position. >> thank you. we are in a tough situation, because of this is not necessarily desirable. all we have from the applicant is this is an independent cafe. we have no reason to believe this is formula retail. on the flip side, it does not sit well with me, because the size of formula retail -- the impact would seem far more damning to me.

i think we could put something to create a community liaison, to keep track of the restaurant, maybe provide manual updates -- manual updates, but i have no basis to base this on, other than mistakes of the koran, and an affidavit with the city saying otherwise. >> i want to say the department currently has the application that will go before you in a couple of months, and this is to legalize expansion of use. >> you are going to do it first and come to us later? >> i just want to note that at

the time i think it was established. i think there were only nine. >> i understand that. my only point is the arguments they lodged would definitely better suits the expansion of the 500 square foot space, and the thing is, if it were necessary and desirable, maybe this could be a consideration, but i do not see that. i support all of the efforts in japan town.

i would move to approve the project was modified by back. -- modified by that. >> we have talked about the retail issue, and it seems as if technically they do not meet the definition of formula retail. then there is also this conditional use criteria under the japan town special use district, and this is seeing -- being brought to us as a d r. does this not apply to this particular project?

>> there is no conditional use requirements. >> the language is confusing. it implies there is a conditional use. >> if it was formula retail. >> about was my first conclusion, but then it looks like they are separate items. i understand it is not a special use requirement. the final when it is the staff made the point that it is different from a lot of other fast-food outlets but they can

only have to treat and desserts. one would assume the food is cooked on the spot. is that what they plan to do? >> i think the project sponsor might be able to better answer that question. there would just be some snacks. as i am just going by what i have been given by staff and so there is one real but makes true fast food. -- there is only one real grill that makes true fast food. >> my understanding is that it was prepared food. it is not cooked on site.

it is more snacks and desserts. that is not true? >> chicken and calamari shrimp. >> it also says the west small. -- the was small -- mall. there is only one real but prepares true fast foods, and the others deserve prepared foods, deserts, and treats. it does not make a difference, but that is one of the planes. -- the points. >> that is hough -- what to

sell or not to sell. i am not really good in english, so it is a little bit of oil that you put in, and it goes out. it is basically a snack. >> i think that answers. you have responses to what the requester is have said as far as competition with the others, so it sounds like it is different i guess. thank you.

comissioner sugaya: i am having a difficult time with this, because i think what is before the commission we have to consider as what has been presented. i know what it looks like, and i hate to go against the community, but i think based on what is before me, i can only assume this is an independent operation, and i do not know. there is one other thing. the architect said there is no good in this place. what did you mean by that?

don't you have to exhaust smoke and odors? >> they are deep-fried like that. >> he just said they are going to do some kind of auto friday, so what is -- auto fry, so what is the difference? he said there is going to be 15 gallons of oil. can we get it straight? what's it requires no -- pe-- >> it requires no hood.

>> i think this is a sloppy, a terrible business plan, and i am surprised you would sign a lease with no compete clause, so i do not know if this is the situation, but the responsibility falls upon the landlord to issue leases that you want to see in the mall. other than writing a check to purchase materials, do you pay them, or are you going to pay them any other franchise fees?

>> there is no agreement. i am not going to pay them anything other than tahat. >> you plan to make crepes? >> no. >> i do not see this is a chain store. i feel it is weak as a business model. >> i just have one last question. it is more directed toward 3d. there seems to be a more

developing animosity between the community and the owner of the mall. in the beginning when the process began, there is a great deal of participation. it all looked fairly glossiey. i admit error -- there are real plans. it meant extensive remodeling, etc., but as the economy got worse and the planning process kept moving, they withdrew or

did not continue to participate, which i think the community found extremely disappointing. the community planning process went on in the way with any other region without any input we do without any input. because japan town has been engaged in this planning process for so long, i would encourage the current owners to begin to be engage with the community, and i think part of what you are seeing today is based upon that mistrust, and the fact you have

allowed them to move in, i was actually there over the weekend and found it to be quite fine. -- fun. i actually bought something, and it does bring people to the malls. i think we have seen a lot of these. planning staff is very accommodating about trying to legalize the use, and i do not think that is a good way to proceed. i hope they will continue to become more community friendly. >> i have of a problem on this one.

number one, allowing the expansion, when you know allowing them to expand without going through the planning process first, that is ridiculous. much smaller occupants require a business plan. he is a nice gentlemen. he does not even know exactly what his menu is going to be, and he has had until the beginning of this year to put something together. the other big problem is somebody put their foot into it when they crossed out kobe

bento. the man himself, when he got up to the microphone a few minutes ago said, i am a future owner. that is exactly what he said. that is in direct opposition to what he put on the application, so what am i supposed to believe? do not expect the planning department to start monitoring this to find out if he has made an ideal -- has made a deal. this is something we are not equipped to deal with, so we have to be cautious, and i

cannot support this because i do not believe i am being told anything logical, and i do not think i am being told anything truthful if somebody tells me i am the future owner of a formula retail indirect opposition to what is on the paper. >> i would like to make a comment to what you just said. i would like to see a condition, should this be approved, but basically presents as much as i am support, this particular establishment could never be taken over by any other formula

of retail, because that is obviously a way. this business line -- this business plan is of less than perfect for a thing. -- perfect footing. i want to make sure there is a condition in disapproval -- in the approval but sends the message there will be no substituting. he cannot just handout off the -- handed off to the suppliers.

>> i would be supportive of that. if it does fail, i do not think are conditions would allow it to be open. can we put that in there? once we have completed a condition of approval. there is a condition we have drafted on page 8 that says is so be identified as a small self-service restaurant and not in retail use. >> i would assume it were to morph into that, it would no longer be a permit its use. >> it would no longer be subject

to controls and would have to go through a process to become violent -- valid. parks commissioners, the motion is to take a project and modifications for staff recommendation. on that motion? comissioner moore: no. comissioner antonini: no. >> the motion fails, 3-3. i need to allow for a substitute motion, so if no one is going to make a substitute motion, as crazy as your rules are, this should fail.

>> the problem is we are going to have the same vote, so i will move to continue until we have seven commissioners. >> i would second that. that would fail. the project would go ahead. it is 3-3. i will move to continue. >> i second that. >> can we ask that the project sponsor would bring something? >> the project sponsor could bring a menu or work it out with the community or whatever he needs to do to create a clearer picture.

>> you're hearing for next week is close. all of your january hearings are closed, so this would be continued on january 2 -- on february 2. on the motion for a continuance of this item. >> public hearing opened. >> if this is being continued, a public hearing is open to allow for reservations. on that motion? [calling votes] the motion passed, 5-1 with commissioner antonini voting

against. you are now on item number 12. for 42 miramar avenue and who on a proposal to demolish and 12b also for 42 miramar avenue and a request for dr of new construction. >> good evening. i am presenting two discretionary review cases for single-family miramar avenue. the report is due modifier -- is to modify the single-family

dwelling and replace it signed -- replace it by a garage single feamily dwelling. for the original replacement building there was a discretionary review filed, and the reason for the discretionary review was that it was to talk, too deep, and out of character. the second concern was the original structure did not provide enough parking spaces, and for the single family

dwelling, they felt there should be at least two parking spaces. the department applicants revise the original structure, especially following the requested modifications, and the changes include to not exceed the average of the two neighbors, and the second set a third story back from the front , and the third story although taller will not project beyond either of the adjacent buildings.

this is the current structure. this is the final replacement structure. it is minimally visible from the street and basically read like a two-story facade. the staff believes the final structure complies with the applicable provisions of the planning codes and is consistent with general policies