okay, especially on market rate housing and affordable housing. and we're doing average. so i think there is -- we've got to change how we look at this and how we approach it. things that i thought were interest are 30% of the units we currently have in san francisco are in buildings that are ten units or less. i think what we consider kind of neighborhood, more affordable, type housing. what is being built is less than -- it's about 7%. 7.5% of those units. what we're seeing is mostly condominiums, mostly built, 50 units or more in south of market and downtown. i think of the 2800 units or whatever we showed here in this report, 2000 of them were south of market or downtown. there is big inequity of where housing is being built in the city. it's interesting, she can tell us about every project in the

valley, clearly we're not building enough. i think we have to do more. we need to come up with more ideas than bash sb 50 which is i think is a huge step in the right direction of where we can do more. we have to produce more affordable housing and the balance of affordable housing, but not a lot of people come up and talk about how we're going to fund that, whether it's changes to prop 13, or parcel taxes, or income taxes in the city. we need new ideas to build more housing and build more affordable housing. one thing that i took away. we had a meeting last week and we considered a project on nordhoff street that divided a single-family home into four lots. we were being asked to approve, three, what i consider, monster homes. three, 3,000-square foot homes.

the problem was, because nordhoff street which is three or four blocks away from the bart station and other transit, is rh-1. so the incentive is to build huge 3,000-square foot homes instead of kind of the classic three or four-unit building that we know and love to be kind of classic san francisco affordable housing. so i think we need to look at that issue. i think we've done a good job over the past couple of years, you know, creating new opportunities in mid market. in eastern neighborhoods. in soma. and we see that, but vast parts of the city don't build any housing. i think we really need look at that rh-1 zoning and have a minimum of rh4 and rh3. other cities have stepped up to do that. it's the right thing to do and we should look at that.

we've done a good job in areas of the city like south of market, these larger projects like treasure island, which we're hoping will come online with housing. but like we faced on nordhoff street, rh-1 produces the type of housing we don't want. massive single-family homes instead of getting 12 units on that parcel, we got three. hopefully, we can change that. but we have to put that into our work program to figure out how to get more housing in the areas we're not getting more housing. on a regional level, sb 50 does great things to produce housing. ms. kennedy who said paloalitio could see a tripling of population, maybe that's too much, but i'd like to see it double. that is the type of housing we need to build. >> president melgar: thank you. >> commissioner richards: great

report, as always. i hear you're not going to stay around, you're going to be leaving us. has that been announced? >> it has now. >> commissioner richards: okay. you want to comment. i'm going to pull out my handkerchief and start crying, because you're incredibly valuable, and you're going to be missed. i hope you trained your successor as good. can't wait to chat with her. i'm going to look at the original reports to get trends over the decades. completely forgot this is the 50th one of these. so we can go back and start piecing things together, because there is all the stuff that happened in the 70s, 80s, 90s. we got a lot of data. i don't know if it's online or in the library. would you? that would be great. every reporting period, because i can piece it together. a couple of things.

we had this discussion on page 13 way back when, i remember todd david, cory smith, a few others got up and said, hey, we're 200% of the market rate above moderate. here we show 96%. was that because of reclassification of the bands? >> i think it was the discrepancy between built units and entitled units. so this is only built? >> the state requires that we submit permits issued, so that's the discrepancy. this report is only units produced. the requirement is permits issued or authorized. >> commissioner richards: so we're above? >> in production, yes. >> commissioner richards: if we show units that are entitled, like page 15, ocii, what would the total picture look like? this is just planning-specific

stuff. so that would be interesting to get a city-wide picture. i don't know how much oci has, whether it moves the needle. >> we do include port and ocii. >> i thought i read it wasn't included. i think page 17, 2001, something gets entitled, but it's not built until 2004, do you go back to 2001 and assign it? or do we have mismatching years? you said that was counted for the drop that we saw. >> we actually look at the permitting. that would be more accurate picture of what will get built. so we're looking at -- for example, i think it's table 2? i think. it would be the first column

which is units authorized. for construction. and that would be like the better -- it's building permits that we're looking at, so for example, there was a drop in 2015, and we sort of expected a drop around 2017 or 2018. >> commissioner richards: because? >> because there were not that many units that were permitted to -- >> commissioner richards: but entitled? >> entitled, that's separate. >> commissioner richards: got it. okay. so the drop was 48% to 8, or some large discrepancy. okay, i understand. several more things. on page 35, i think we do ourselves a disservice when we produce a study that says we need .31 for rental -- inclusionary units for every market rate and .379 for ownership unit. we should be putting on page 35

how much we're actually falling behind based on our own study. i don't think it's fair. we talk about it, but we never actually measure what is happening. perhaps i think really filling that gap in, funding, really can start a conversation, but without having the information together, it's just theory. so if you take the two numbers that i said, you applied it to this year, what additional number of units would we have needed to produce just to stay level? with our own nexus study? i think that's very important. it gets the conversation started. the other one, i know we understand what zone capacity is now. have we understood it in the past? we know population. i think the big missing thing is zone capacity. do you know whether we have that or not? i know we had it in the drop

housing balance report. >> we do have the zoning capacity. >> commissioner richards: historically? we do, okay. >> the zoning capacity is different than what you might want to consider development potential. the zoning capacity is the total envelope. you might have a property that allows ten units, but you really have eight there, so it's unlikely that you're going to build those two units on top of that. >> commissioner richards: agree. >> as part of your land use growth location, as part of the forecast, you have a lot of those details. we'll be updating that. >> commissioner richards: i'm going to be calling you, 1960 on? >> what do you mean by zoning capacity in the past? >> commissioner richards: there was a graph produced for los angeles, they were down zoning l.a. the population was growing, which was the wrong thing to do.

we get accused of that as a city. in 70s and 80s, we down zoned, but our population was going down, or not growing much. we up-zoned things in 1990 with rincon hill and population took off, but we still have this "housing crisis". i'm trying to understand, do we need to reverse the things we did historically, because of the bad behavior we had in the 70s and 80s? really what i'm trying to understand. i'll share the graph with you. on what was produced for l.a. which was starting was that us as well? the other question is, number of units occupied. so we're building all these units, tall towers, adding 80 units, houses sold as single-family units. i know when we had the issue

around hotel -- residential hotel conversions and the thing they wanted to do for us around moving people around every 27 days, i mean there was a whole discussion on what residential hotel was. and supervisor peskin made it clear he wanted it for longer term rental, 30 days or more and passed legislation to that effect. they were able to get data, to see if is there anybody in these units? if we produce a tower with a thousand units it, is somebody's capital parked there? do we really understand how many units are occupied? we talk about units, but we're not sure if there is people in them. i think we should do what supervisor peskin did,

understand what the vacancy rate is. is there electricity or water being used? if there is nobody in the unit, you're not going to use water. they did that for the residential hotel issue. >> well, you have -- for sros we have the information, it's a requirement for market rate. there is no way for us to track occupancy at this point. >> commissioner richards: with all the data in the world, i think we should put our heads together and think about this. >> we do collect census data, so they provide vacancy, but it's only for a portion of the population, so it's not encompassing everyone. >> commissioner richards: and 2020, we'll be able to see the whole thing? >> when it comes out, yes. >> commissioner richards: the big census, not just the yearly one, okay. that would be interesting. we can track vacancy rate.

4171 21st street, i approved the demolition of the familiar home. it produced five units and all of them are minimum $1.1 million and $6500. with the affordability crisis, we're going to have 100,000 of those projects to make a dent in all of the information and academic studies, point to a massive increase in supply in order to reduce prices, even nominally. i think, you know, i mentioned this last week, i sat with supervisor mar and said we need to start taking the lead here and always being on the reaction and the defensive around how bad we are, and we're being painted -- being called names and everything i. i think we should take a look -- i agree with commissioner hillis, let's look at the development of san francisco

tooip housing. which is the 1500 square foot flats that can house the people that are leaving the city. so i think we should look at the economic model around it too. how much should be affordable? we can accommodate sensitive infill. that's where i had a problem with the affordable housing density, go buy six lots, knock them down, and with the density bonus, we can combine 20 lots and build a huge building. i think the three-unit is the way to go. we have 30,000 parcels, that's an additional 60,000 or plus additional units. i think we should take the lead there. and at least do modelling around it. >> commissioner johnson: i just wanted to weigh in, because i

also think this is an incredibly fascinating report. and thank to staff. i think i have to agree with some of the thoughtful comments of my fellow commissioners. i think in reading this report, it puts some things in perspective, great. we're entitling more housing and yet at the same time i would also agree i don't think we get to pat ourselves on the back. i think we are one piece of, you know, a continuum of how housing gets produced in the city. and even though we're entitling housing, it's the city's responsibility to figure out the chasm between entitlement and getting built. i would echo that i think that occupancy -- understanding

occupancy in our city is incredibly important as well as the rental registry. understanding how hour housing is -- our housing is being used or not used. i also agree that, yeah, we are going to need hundreds of thousands of new units of housing actually. and a step toward that is looking at how we can densify our city and get infill development. and would fully support exploration of what it would be to up-zone the city to rh3 or 4. i have to say in the inner richmond, there is a bunch of housing that was working class housing. that is now single-family housing. single-family massive homes that are going for 8, 9. and i would like this give people an actual option to make multiple units that are affordable for more people.

and then i just have to say that i think affordability, the affordable housing numbers made me really sad. i think we should all just recognize that we don't have the tools and mechanisms and it's a crisis that we need to find ways to fund affordable housing beyond the ways that we are now. and as we talk about every single week, the need for more affordable housing without having, you know, real staff time and resources across the city to think about what the measures are going to be, to fund affordable housing, we'll continue to speak until there is no room for anybody who has somehow scraped by to be here in the affordable housing that is here, to continue to stay here. so that feels urgent to me. >> president melgar: thank you. commissioner koppel. >> commissioner koppel: thank you. great report, staff. these issues are really important and it's good to have all the right information in

front of us. i was talking to one of my neighbors the other day, to put things in context, my neighbor owns a house that is rh-2 house. he installed a second unit on the ground floor, but his house is zoned up to 40 feet. he looks at me what am i supposed to do, i can go up 20 feet, i want to add two units, but i'm maxed out. his brother owns a property in the richmond, he has garages, adu in the bottom and my neighbor wants to do the same thing, but right now he can't. this puts into context what commissioners hillis and richards are talking about. if we could just loosen the belt for ourselves, maybe we could sometimes double in areas. >> president melgar: i will say, i have a couple of questions, but first i want to say thank you to staff for a very well

researched and well put report. understandable, transparent, clear. so i really appreciate that. the claert for -- clarity for the public to look at different things and compare them. i was surprised by the condo conversion numbers. this is more a why question than a what. so it seems like there was a blip there, but you know, for years it's been going down. so why is that? i think it's page -- where was it? anyone want to -- >> abolition of the lottery? >> i think it is, yes. >> we can find out more about that and get back to you about why the numbers are decreasing. >> i think the change about three years ago put a limit on

the numbers that could be converted after a certain point. if you had so many tickets that were in the lottery at the time, you could buy your way out of it. you could say, i'll give $13,000 for the affordable housing fee and you paid your way to convert. >> but there was a time limit on when you could do that. >> converting still be reflected in the numbers, it would be reflected in the numbers. i would love to know the answer. then, you know, about the demolition numbers. i hear questioning what those numbers really mean. that surprised me, too, that there was an actual increase in the total units that we're getting as opposed to a decrease in demolition. and you know, to the point, it would be really interesting to find out how these compare to like square footage added.

you know, if it is that those units that are being demolished, are being replaced by much larger homes, which also seem to be what commissioner koppel was implying. there is a mismatch between what people are allowed to do in terms of the allowable envelope and density and what we have been trying to push for density. i'm not going to repeat what my fellow commissioners have stated. i've stated for the record many times, so i do think we should share a little bit in terms of the space and densify areas. and you know, something that we don't talk about very often, but i think it's important to bring up in this question, this issue about density on the west side, if you look at the educational opportunities that are available for people in areas of low density, there is a really big mismatch in the terms of the

quality of the schools, the access to open space and parks. you know, where zones -- zoned for rh-1 and where we have higher density zoning. i think we cannot talk about the social justice city when we have zoned such inequality to opportunity advancement and you know, education into our code. so i am one that thinks, yes, we should densify. we should also make sure that we're taxing equityably. which brings me to the other point. i think that, you know, we're almost there with the numbers from market rate housing. but the reason market rate housing is produced is because somebody makes a profit out of it. and that's how we're finding most of our affordable housing. i think that is crazy.

if like the main source of affordable housing production is market rate pruks pro introduction and we have such low production of affordable housing, how are we going to catch up? that makes no sense to me. as a city, i will challenge to find a way to permanently find on affordable housing production that does not depend on market rate production, because if that is the case, the math doesn't work. we'll never catch up. [please stand by]

>> a couple of quick points. i had an extended conversation with robert collins at the kickoff of the planning event, and he said something really telling that i didn't understand we're talking about the d.r. we had over the parking space the day before, and i said, what is the answer here, is this a rent

toward issue? and robert said, the thing with the rent board, the point is to assess the rent. he said that would come to us we would say, you get a reduction of so much in the rent, and i said they put an elevator shaft to the apartment and they complain about it, what is the remedy? >> i said that's not what i thought the rent or did. i think another rent board informational or whatever on what they do, i think the commission wants to get into the conversation. we want to understand what you do versus what you can't do. i said to the director, we're becoming a defect oh, rent board here. we're the only ones that can have a remedy. if we don't have any -- we don't have any remedies. there is i think that should be examined and that grey space or that area needs to be examined. we talk about affordable housing

and we have some of these affordable housing in the back row -- we have someone from affordable housing in the back row. we talked about how the heck to beget affordable housing money, because we can't just rely on market rate developers. enlighten us. >> sure. as you all know, there is a housing bond coming out for the november ballot. it is already at half a billion dollars. there has been active conversations about getting that number even larger, so the question is where do we find the edge of the envelope where we can maximize the opportunity moment with the voters. we think the voters are totally on board with affordable housing so is adequate -- it is not a question of whether we'll get the support, it is how much we can get at one time. that is immediate. >> what is the cost of the problem? half a billion dollars, will that move the needle, was it a 10 billion-dollar problem? what are we looking at? >> if we want to get as extensional about it -- about it , there is an unlimited amount

of money. our population will continue to grow. we can't just have these sources i think to commissioner milgaard touch a point, bonds will not do it. we need to have constant permanent sources of funds. over time, we don't ever really solve the problem. we have a continuing need to do production. and because we are living outside the market, our need to never really goes away. i didn't want to put on the screen for y'all, too big funding opportunities for 2020. one of them is prop 13 reform on the ballot for 2020. it will be a rough sledding from the state level for the politics , but let's assume -- assume that winds. the production is but -- put objection is be doing $80,900,000,000 a year from that what if, as a matter of policy, our board of supervisors and mayor set aside some portion of that is the permanent source for affordable housing? 10%, 15%, a lot of folks will want that money. the second is, in the

dissolution of redevelopment, one piece that went away, and unfortunately we couldn't get back is something called the san francisco replacement housing obligation. and urban renewal, 15,000 housing units were torn down. and about half of those were placed under redevelopment but we are still negative around 6,000 units of housing. the city is obligated to replace , and there was an authorization to use tax income and financing to do that. that was dissolved by jury brown we have a new governor who hails from san francisco, we have an opportunity, if not this legislation in 2020, to go back and say, can you restore that authorization so that we can use our tax income and financing, and we draw a lot of money off of those big old redevelopment areas to finish the job on 6,000 currently affordable housing units that need to be replaced. those are two big opportunities for the city in 2020. >> thank you. commissioner moore? >> to the last question, last

week, i held up an article on the thousand units in san francisco to be vacant, and we were asking the director, what is the source of that information, if that is true, i still want to adds the -- add these units. they would very much factor into words available housing stock that could help with being available, and i think we need to get a handle on that number. >> thank you. director? >> thank you. i just want to thank everyone for their input on this. this is an important report. i didn't realize this was a 50 th anniversary. it is very telling. it will be teresa's last report, so i know that she is not completely comfortable with being publicly recognized, but i do wanted to say, put on the record and thank her publicly, think her on behalf of the department for 20 years of amazing work, and since i've been here, and since before managing all the data needs of the department in the reports we

do every year, and managing it with extraordinarily -- extraordinary attention to detail, so theresa, thank you on behalf of all of us for all of this work and we wish you all the best in the next phase. >> thank you. [applause]. >> if there's nothing further, commissioners, "can move on to item nine. conditional use authorization. please note that this was originally heard a november 29 th, 2019 -- 2018 when the commission adopted a motion of intent to continue the matter to december 13th, 2018 by vote of 4-2. commissioners voted against and commissioner richards you were absent. on december 13th, 2018 after hearing again enclosing public comment, you continued the matter to for brief 14th, 2019 by vote of 6-0.

commissioner johnson, you are absent. and then again, subsequently continued without hearing to today, in order to participate, commissioners johnson and richards you have to acknowledge you've reviewed the previous hearings you missed and materials. thank you, i appreciate that. and this is the third time you'll be hearing this matter, we shall limit testimony to three and public testimony to one. >> yes. >> good afternoon, commissioners planning department staff. commissioners, before you is a request for conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code section 186 through 303 to allow a change of use from an existing limited commercial use to restore to a restaurant use within the zoning district. the application has been reviewed under the community business priority processing program. since the last hearing, the project sponsor has provided material or and -- interior and

exterior renderings of the proposal. a new proposed menu and a copy of a text message from the landlord. in total, the department has received three letters of support, 34 letters of opposition, three petitions of opposition with a total of 586 signatures among them, and an additional addition of opposition from the russian orthodox church with 17 signatures. unbalance not direction of the planning commission, the department does not find the change of use to a restaurant used to be compatible with the general plan, nor necessary and survivable for the community and recommends disapproval. thank you, and i'm available for any questions you may have. >> project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commissioners . here is the existing structure built in 1915.

it is a single tenant grocery store, and that is how it looks today. our rendering -- so a lot of the glass is covered by signage and all kinds of things like that, and there's some glass that's been covered and painted on top of the previous picture, so we're just trying to open all of this up and really have this place shined like it should, and we think if we were given the opportunity to put a restaurant here, we would completely change the corner and the dynamic of the whole area. here is the centrepiece of the restaurant, the diner. we have exposed wood, some nice tile, we want to do cement floors, just kind of repair and

replace as much as the natural element and ad in modern fixtures with a touch. here is facing east and looking at the front door. if you were to come in we had some table set up there, and you can see the diner, the counter. here is looking east. same type of set up, just another view of the door, so you can see it wraps around. here is our menu. we are really trying to be an affordable place, a place where families can come to an everybody has an option. we have breakfast -- breakfast, what is going on here, is a lunch items. we are working through that.

we are planning on having a burger, couple of sandwiches for the lunch options, but primarily , here is the breakfast options. everything is priced under $15 and we even have options under $10 as well. something for everybody. here is a text message from the store operator to the landlord declining the option wrench that was proposed to them. i got a note from the landlord saying the tenant would be leaving in 60 days from march 1 st so that would put a vacant store somewhere around me first that would be vacant and they would be moved out, and i just want to make a note that there was a preplanning meeting, and a community outreach meeting on june 26 of last year, and nobody showed up from the neighborhood. i know we have a lot of opposition here today, but nobody showed up. >> your time is up.

thank you so much. we will now take public comment on this item. i do have a few speaker cards. margaret rafferty, nadine and victor coble. anyone else who wants to speak on the site and please line up on the left-hand side. come on up. >> anyone can come and address the commission. >> come on up, don't be shy. >> hello, commissioners. i am a concerned neighbor and a friend of quite a few people here today, and i want to let you know that along -- we all know the parking situation and we all know about -- we don't need another restaurant in the neighborhood, so to speak, but we would be taking a livelihood from a friend and a family man who is the store owner, and i

just want to let you know that i am deeply opposed, and i think that we need to keep the market alive. thank you very much. >> thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is margaret rafferty, and i collected some of the 700 signatures we have opposing this i do not want to restaurant, i want a market, and when i collected those signatures between 7:30 p.m. -- 7:30 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. on a weekday, and no one that i approached to sign refused, no one, these are complete strangers, i don't know them at all. if you sign this position -- they petition, they agreed, they signed it. thank you.

>> thank you, next speaker, please. >> hello, my name is alex. i'm adjacent to the supermarket and i'm neighbors with the gentleman who spoke first. i apologize i'm not just for the occasion but i did just get off work here to come here and say my peace. i really like the gentleman who was saying regarding all the nice materials that they would be using on the very affordable prices for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, that is great, when unfortunately, i don't think that changing the dynamic of a neighborhood that hasn't been touched by all the changes that have been going on for the last 15 years. i think to go ahead and touch this neighborhood with changes like making a small supermarket into a large restaurant with, you know, gold sinks, or whatever they are using, that is great, but i don't think this is a place where the neighborhood for that restaurant, and like you said, he would be changing the dynamic of the neighborhood

that has basically remained the same for the last 15 and 20 years and hasn't been touched. that market was built in, what year was that? >> your time is up. >> thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> hi. i was born and raised in the richmond district and i'm happy to be living here again. i don't live in a specific area where the market is, but i completely oppose the new restaurant. we have so many new restaurants on balboa, on clement, all over the place, and i personally have seen, in my specific neighborhood, around sixth avenue, restaurants, places have closed, places of business that were working fine, have closed. those storefronts are vacant, they are vacant, they have been vacant for years, and i'm afraid

this would happen. i opposed very much the restaurant and support the markets. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i live at 229 on the same block as the market. i'm here because i want to teach my young daughters to support local businesses, and i know without this market will -- we will be going to balboa green a few blocks away or the safeway and driving there, and this market is the one thing that makes our block feel like a community. that is why am here. thanks. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> my name is beyond the. i am a neighbor of the market, and i am opposing the change of usage from grocery store to restaurant. i represent -- actually, i can speak for some of the people that they could not make it to come because it is the middle of the day.

anyway, my reason to oppose is that on the needs of the neighborhood, we need the market , but we don't need the restaurant. just like all the people said. and the second thing is that why do we keep something that is working well and serving the community well into something that we don't want and we don't need to? second thing is the preservation of the character and identity of the neighborhoods. i would like to point out back to the party policy, was established in the san francisco city planning and highlights a couple. based on the existing neighborhood serving retail uses >> ma'am, thank you, your time is up. [indiscernible]. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, my name is victor and

i live on 16th and california. the communities pretty passionate, so i will be quick. i think we should pay a little bit more attention to smaller businesses, and i think that is an aspect of san francisco that has been lost and it is sad, and so in this particular case, listen to the community. the community does not want the restaurant. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is kathryn robbins. i live on 20th avenue, a block and a half from the markets. i would like you to picture our neighborhood immediately around the california market. we are a high density residential community with a few amenities that we use. corner stores, drycleaners. we are distinctly separate from our commercial corridor, which

is two blocks away, and would like this consideration to remain. there are many empty properties in the commercial corridor near us that would be suitable for new restaurants. i'm also a member of the church adjacent to the market and i support this opposition to a restaurant moving in the store. we are comfortable, yet high density neighborhood. we do not want to change our dynamic. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i purchased a place in 2007, and i appreciate everybody here.

>> i'm sorry, sir, you are the owner? >> yes, ma'am. it is a family run business. i purchased it in 2007. >> of the market, i'm sorry, go ahead. >> recently i received a message from the landlord doubling my rent with no option of lease, month-to-month, asking from $3,050 to $6,000. i have a long community message between he and him me and him. i even offered up my business to see if i could afford to pay the 6,000, which is impossible and he still refused. he also did not talk to show up today when i was talking him -- talking to him. thank you so much for your time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i am here today as a member of the planning association for the richmond and the neighbors at the new california market, but specifically to speak as a representative from the russian community in the richmond district at our lady of because on church which is directly next to the market, as you know. over the past five months, appeared -- in dealing with this issue, we presented signatures from our parish priest and a majority of our parish, and the archbishop, in the church of san

francisco. i presented the signatures to the planning commission on multiple occasions. we have been able to find -- unable to find one example of a restaurant moving in next to an existing established historic church, and we do believe that is probably for good reason. so what we are asking is to demonstrate requests to be considered in planning commissions that directly impact the well-being of our community. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioners. thank you for the opportunity. i will make this quick. i live at 201,919th avenue, two doors down from the street. i would like to point out a couple comments about the disingenuous proponents. the rendering conveniently removed a bus stop and a garbage can, which was directly in front of the market. that is an active bus stop, and

he proposes to put seating for a restaurant in front of a bus stop which has, it is expressed, limited, and it is a regular stop. this is not a location for a restaurant. the community uniformly supports the market, and we will assist the market and going forward, and the owners of the market are saying they want to stay. thank you very much. >> thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i am with supervisor fever's office. supervisor vera cannot take a position on this authorization, but we did want to say what the office has been following the communications with the neighbors neighbors very closely we also appreciate the community coming out to making their voices heard. i believe this is the fourth time that they have come out and spend their afternoon here, so we also want to say that we are making our office available to

any -- >> thank you. i want to thank all of the neighbors who have repeatedly come out and shared your perspective. we only first heard this case. we thought it was an odd one that we would be voting on a project without plans in front of us and also while there was a tenant there. there is still a tenant there, and i think in seeing some of the correspondence between the owner and the tenant, has not really shifted the position on

the fact that proving this project seems both neither necessary or desirable to the community, nor do i feel comfortable approving a project that has direct implications on ending a small business. so personally, i cannot support this project and would go with the planning department charger recommendations but want to hear other commissioners' thoughts. >> second. >> commissioners? >> we have spent a lot of time looking at this project and the store really has not changed. the voices of the community have been consistent. the information we have gotten is not as substantiated that it would be indeed necessary and desirable use, ultimately it is the neighbors who are supporting the grocery store, and that for

me its where my decision lies, i will not be able to support the change in use in this particular location. >> commissioner richards? >> i agree. one thing was telling that the project sponsor said that if you want to make this building shine , there's no rhyme or reason why that can be done with the existing business and it and we have had examples where clerestory windows, the paint was removed, the windows at the top recovered by the banner or painted over. there's so many ways to make this a much better location concerning the community institution. i really would have a hard time justifying why i would vote yes on this so i am completely in support of it. >> thank you. >> thank you. it makes it easier on us on there is no support for a project definitely following --

falling in line with the other commissioners. >> seeing nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to disapprove this project. [roll call]. >> so moved, that motion passes unanimously 6-0. that will place us on item ten.

>> the tenant spaces most recently occupied by a hair salon. the application has been reviewed under the priority processing program but was taken off a consent calendar today due to significant public input. the department has received two letters of support, one of which from the creator of the west portal neighborhood association. thirteen letters of opposition and previously received three letters requesting continuance and those letters are received prior to the originally scheduled march 21st hearing. commissioners, the apartment -- the department was made aware of the proposed menu provided to the department was department was identical to that of another establishment which is a former retail establishment. the sponsor since updated the menu, however despite this, the application today is for a limited restaurant and the sponsor can provide more details on that. the department finds a project to be compatible with the general plan and the

establishment of a limited restaurant necessary and desirable for the community and represents approval. i am available for any questions >> thank you. we will hear from the project sponsor. you have five minutes, ma'am. >> members of the planning commission, my name is cheryl and i represent the owner, we are requesting a conditional use authorization under the community business priority process and program to allow when you 1,224 square feet restaurant and hours offer -- of operation from 7:00 a.m. until 8:00 a.m. -- 8:00 p.m. daily we are excited to bring a healthy, affordable alternative neighborhood restaurant focusing and the menu has changed on a

simple menu of juices, sandwiches, salads and breakfast type items. the owner that is next to me will go into more detail on the revised menu, which seems to be the issue with the restaurant. we did meet and have a pre application on october 29th which was conducted and notices were sent to the surrounding residents and business owners. a few were candid and there were no issues raised and everybody seemed excited and looking forward to the opening. after the owner goes through the menu, we are available to answer any questions you might have. >> should i speak these three minutes or should i take another

five? >> so i want to start -- >> hold on, are you a public comment or a part of the project sponsor? >> we are partners. >> okay. go ahead, this is your opportunity. >> let's start with we have never done this before. we sent a sample application in a rush, which was a mistake and i take full credit for. it was based on what we thought we would be doing, that has since changed. we did not know, and we also found out they would be another juice bar. we have no affiliation with anyone, we are individuals and we have completely changed the menu because carbs are the enemy and juice are carbs, so, anyway. our menu is now solid. it is called k. forney a. we don't care. we are embracing it and these are few -- foods from all over the world. they're healthy, they are easy,

anyway, we have a solid, asian chicken salad, k. caesar salad, taste of the mediterranean solid , south of the border solid , sandwiches, for lawful wraps, skirt steak sandwich, pumice dip, roasted cauliflower, the only juices we are doing our fresh squeezed orange juice, lemonade, and perhaps a special. , and breakfast is bagels and a choice of muffins, avocado toast , eggs, hashbrowns, asparagus, bacon, we are not exactly breaking the mould here, we are also not part -- we're not copying any menu, we are not part of any corporation, nor do we have any desire to be. we just want to serve the neighborhood that we have already been serving.

my salon burns down and my partner owns the corner store next door. we know the neighborhood, we know everyone. they want food that is fast, easy, healthy, and that is all we are trying to do, and we know the community well. we have been there for seven or eight years. we are both there six or seven days a week and people love the idea, so that is our full agenda [laughter]. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. we will now take public comment on this item. did you give me a card? grace? >> good afternoon, my name is grace. as a concerned citizen, i urge this commission to decline the application for the juice bar at

40th west portal avenue. as the commission knows, there are a number of neighbors in my neighborhood who have submitted written opposition to this juice bar. today is a the fourth time that i am aware that this new business has changed the menu. when the neighborhood had heard about this new juice bar, we thought that this is going to be a duplicate business where the commission has already approved another juice bar about a block away. west portal is a neighborhood that prides itself with small family business. so with approving this juice bar , the neighbors believe that is creating two competing businesses in an eight block radius, and this will be detrimental to the uniqueness of the west portal. so that is a major opposition from the various neighbors as i have discussed these issues, so i urge this commission to decline the application for the juice bar.

thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioners. good afternoon. my name is sandra. i am a neighbor of west portal. i also represent the other juice bar that is going to be opening up down the street. there's a lot of confusing issues going on with this application, originally they filed applications based on the application that they were going to be a juice bar. there was a rumour on the neighborhood and they thought it was a chain coming in. the menu that they used to apply for this conditional use change is an exact duplicate of a change that has affected over 40 stores. so did create a lot of confusion , and also, when you look at the totality of the circumstances, it is not just

one thing where there's another juice bar opening up of -- out down the street. it doesn't make business sense for either one of these small businesses. it is not a peace, it is not a starbucks that could survive. i like that in a small neighborhood. and when you look at the code, the planning code, it violates the guidelines of the planning department code. if you look at section 303 subsection zero, it says that the concentration to not exceed 25% of the total commercial frontage is measured in linear feet within the media -- immediate area of the subject site, and that linear feet should be with the subject property. when you look at the planning department's project summary, it states its findings are that if approved, this proposed establishment would raise the concentration of eating and drinking uses within a 300 feet

radius of the property from 35-point 4% to 37-point 2%. that is above the recommendation of section three '03 subsection zero, and when you review that in addition to the planning code , the other food establishments in the neighborhood, it just doesn't make sense, and when you look at the new menu, i guess that they just filed yesterday afternoon, it is questionable what they are really going to be putting in here. it is an ink and accurate representation of what they are proposing to put here. i would really like to see what they will be putting in here, and i don't know how the commission could approve this application today without knowing for sure what kind of establishment is going in there. we would like more information on that. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker