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 can't take any questions at this point. sorry. is it your expectation or it's 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 we've made. >> so if you -- so right now we're looking at the variance plans and it has a maximum scope of work. they have proposed to their neighbors -- i don't think they're representing that they're 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 won't be any kind of new plans in front of you per se. you'll 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 we'll 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, you'd have to change it in a way that would be significantly different from the original project. you can't tweak the project and say it's a different project. it has to be a significantly different project. >> yeah. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners the matter's 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 co-compliant, and the people arguing against the appellant's

buildings also are non-compliant, 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. it's 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 don't see that the five findings have been met. nobody in the audience talked to the findings. i'm 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 that's wrong gets punished for being allegedly more wrong or another version of wrong. it's -- it's kind of quizical. i don't think i'm hearing on this board tonight the support

for the variance. i would love to -- it's tragic to have a -- i speak as a real estate-oriented 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. that's the best adjective that i can come up with at this hour of the night. i would have supported the variance but i don't think there's any will for that, so i won't raise that topic. can you make a motion? >> all right.

let me float a motion and let's 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. >> you're granting the appeal if you want the variance to not exist. >> that's correct. >> i know it's 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. >> it's 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 there's voted 3-2 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, there's no other business before the board.

>> this is maybe our 10th year hosting an annual turkey giveaway. but it has been so wonderful to partner with the pay your's office and the rest of the city departments to really expand our capacity across the city. once upon a time, we were only able to serve maybe 500 to 600 families and now we're talking about 3,000 across the city. [cheering] >> a lot of people need our help. so we'll help them. and we're positive about that. and we have all of these great volunteers from mission housing and i want to say thank you to them and the housinging authority for their staff today. all coming out and giving that personal touch to redents of valencia gardens. look, it is happening on every

one of our sites that have public housing residents throughout the next 24, 48 hours. so, thises all about us giving back to the people that we care about and helping folks have both a safe and enjoyable holiday. >> how'd we do? >> i'm so excited. this is the fun part of the job where i can help people have a great thanksgiving. it is so wonderful from foster farms and the city family is all here today to share. because we're all in this together. we're a city where we all care about each other. no matter where we come from, oer what we have. we're all here for each other, to take care of each other. >> thank you! come on over. >> we're all partnered together to give back. thank you again. we're very much grateful to be part of this.

>> happy thanksgiving. >> have a happy thanksgiving, meal time. but most of all, let's give to each other the humidity that we all want and deserve. >> i just want to remind everyone about compassion and care as we roll into these holidays. we're really doing this for families. and we want to build strong families across the city. this is one of many events that we continue to do and we look forward to our toy giveaway and tree giveaway as well. thank you. [applaus coffee. >> how many agencies does that take in order to convert a parking lot into affordable housing in the middle of the tenderloin? well no longer 7, of course, tndc

of course, the mayor's office of housing, of course, the incredible financing organizations that came through the department of hud enterprise came in indicating to construction their compressed be contracted so all the agencies came together with tndc working with the community making sure at least one and 13 unit get built all accountable jobs are another stake and certificate of preference and having the schools and community they're all at stack if we can't get in housing built i'm here to thank everybody for putting this together and making sure wear on our way to do more housing that by the need and build the kind of housing housing for everyone but in particular the hardest thing to build 100 percent - even if a parking lot so many

fencing mechanisms to meet the champion >> (clapping.) >> sew mr. mayor i think what is really special about this project the fact over 60 percent will think two bedrooms and three bedrooms apartment we know there a sdaerth of family housing no inform has an incredible impact on the economy and, of course, on the communities if you can't have families that work here afford to live in the city they living live and work we have much, much more to do across the country to make sure we're housing the middle-income and working-class this supplement will help to solve the problem thank you for making that neighborhood healthy and congratulations to tndc for the groundbreaking this

please stay seens lur yo bill devices and remind you that the commission does not tolerate any disruptions or outbursts of any kind. commissioner, i'd 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 2015-225drp 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 2015-o18233 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

2017-oo7658c.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 5-2. if the acting zoning administrative --

>> 5-0. >> excuse me. 5-0. i apologize. if the zoning administrator could rule on item 2c. >> continuing item 2c to the date proposed. >> thank you. commissioners, i'll 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 2016-o42991 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? >> i'd 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. we'll 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 5-0. 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 5-0.

and places us on item 12 for commission comments, and questions. >> commissioner moore? >> i'd 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. that's 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.

let's 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 we're 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 we'll spread out our meetings a little bit more evenly. and i'm in support of recognizing the holidays and then i would suggest that it's not due -- let's not cancel the march meetings and pretend it is meetings rather than months and fifth thursdays. it just doesn't work. >> right.

>> commissioner rich aerss? >> that means if we don't cancel the march meeting, we're 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 year's 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 we're not canceling september 20 for yom kippur and not canceling november 29 as a

fifth thursday. >> i think for now that's fine. we can always add that. >> the calendar already had six hold -- holidays and you considered one, two, three, four for your consideration. and we're 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 won't be here. because the school holiday. so that would mean two meetings that i'd be out and i just respectfully request that -- maybe i'm 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 what's different from the calendar being proposed. do we need a motion on that? >> yes, plea. and then november. >> we'll 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. >> it's 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 6-0. thank you. commissioners, other places under department matters, i

have 14 director's 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 beaux-art style and it is a fine example of residential beau-arts 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. i'm 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 6-3 vote. and lastly, which you're all

probably wait, for, i'll 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, it's been very hard to keep track of all the various amendments that have been going through. so, i'm 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 carve-outs 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 600-foot buffer around schools to 1,000 feet, which this commission recommended. the committee at one point also considered adding the 1,000-foot 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 1,000-foot 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 600-foot anti-clustering provision. rather than the 300 feet originally in the ordinance is up to 600 feet.

the land-use committee added the mc-1 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 week's full board hearing, the board voted to continue the item to november 28 on a 9-1 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 adult-use 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 i'm happy to questions. -- to answer questions. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. acting senior preservation planner with the department. i'm 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 tomaso's 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 project's 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. i'll 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 commission's 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 single-family 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 5-1 with commissioner johnson absent tos take d.r. and ship the top floor five feet away from the neighbor's 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 5-0 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 4-1 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 3-2 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, we'll -- yeah. first item. georgia. >> good afternoon. i'm 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 didn't start my time. >> you have unlimited time. >> jesus! you don't want that. [laughter] no one wants that. not even my husband. [laughter] um, um, um, sorry. i shouldn't 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 don't think we've heard enough about what's 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 doesn't always know how to do it?

they haven't known until recently. loopholes that developers can slip through and site-specific issues related to poverty, i think that's come out during the public meetings that we'ved 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 so-called 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 i've 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 commission's load. and this is also relevant to the mayor's 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 don't 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 endoesn'tinger 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 10-fold 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 125-foot lot and we're happy to share this with you. we don't 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 we're happy to take questions do this off-line because i know that this is off-line topic. so we'll forward this information to the full commission. we didn't bring copies. >> thank you very much. any additional general public comment? ms. hester? >> sue hester. the planning department has a

tendency -- i don't want to say a tendency. it doesn't always remember where the law came from. 311 notices came from the planning department saying we didn't 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. it's type of zoning that may not apply to this particular area of the city that well. but that's what we're going to do. and they said we can either do

serious studies like we're doing right now on the area plans, we can do them for large parts of the city or else we can say we'll 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 didn't 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. i'm not saying you have an easy job. but it is why you're 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 all-natural sushi and japanese-inspired 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 neighbor's council and initially had requested continuance of the case. but later withdrew that request. departments' recommendation is approved conditions. this concludes my presentation and i'm 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 e-mail back to the planning department. i don't 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 there's 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 department's 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 300-foot 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, there's been no community opposition to the

conditional use permit application. eric, i don't know if you want to add anything to that. and he is here for questions if you have them. >> i'm 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, we'll 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 i'm 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 four-foot case so that is why we also sell sushi in that area. >> that means you at a smaller size didn't need the approval and now increasing in size you need the approval? i'm 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. >> that's 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. i'm just trying to really understand what we're doing as a commission. >> sure. sure. we have another one pemdsing at 2001 market street and one that's in existence for avenue whole foods.

for patrero hill, i was told that's not fallen under formula retail. if that s a not true, we'll work on processing that one as well. >> i just have to ask those questions because if i'm sitting here i need to have information that stacks up so i'll let the department deal with the question regarding patrero and also with the approval. when the approval hasn't occurred, you don't start assuming that you get it. that is my own comment on it. but i can let the rest of the commission make a motion. >> thank you. just a question. it's odd to me that if you're picking up their sushi and going to pay for it, like it's just a stand within whole foods, why does this even come to us? you know there is an area of whole foods that you are selling starbucks branded products, would that have to come to us? >> yes, exactly. starbucks, wells fargo has a

little -- >> but if they have it and it's separate and independent. but this is you get the product and you actually go to the same -- you put it in your basket with the rest of your stuff and you go check out is my understanding. >> because they're making it there. >> they do make it there. yes. >> that is the difference. >> because they make it there? >> yes. >> that seems odd that that would have to be -- it seems like a lot of process for -- if it's just -- to the person who's actually buying it, it is no different than buying, you know, a bottle of wine or a pepsi. just because they make tlit? seems like if you buy it and grab it and you go to the whole foods counter as if you are in whole foods, it seems like this is kind of overkill. commissioner moore? >> i'd like to make a comment on that. i was before your time on the commission, president.