Agenda his consideration of items proposed for continuance and your short agenda will likely get much shorter. Items one a and b. , conditional use authorization for proposed continuance for august 22nd, 2019. Item two, 50 post street, downtown product or three shes authorization is proposed for continuous august 22nd, 2019. Item three, 121 gates street, conditional use authorization is proposed for continuous to august 29th, 2019. Item four, 367 hamilton avenue, conditional use authorization, proposed for continuance to September September 12th 2019, item five, 2417 green street, is proposed for continuance until september 19th, 2019, item six , 3700 california street, the Draft Environmental Impact report is proposed for continuance to september 19th, 2019. Further, under your consent calendar, item seven, 1501 c. Slow boulevard, conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to october third, 2019. We did receive a request from the lakeshore area Improvement Club to continue item eight as well, but you can take up that matter if you so choose. Under your regular calendar, item 16 a, b. , and see for the Large Office Development authorization and development are proposed for continuous until july 25th, 2019. Item 18 at 55 belcher street, conditional use authorization, we received a request from the Supervisors Office to continue this to september, however, i continue i recommend you continue it until october just due to the already scheduled items in september. Under your discretionary review calendar, item 19, 215 montana street, discretionary review, has been withdrawn. You have a couple of items to consider today. Okay. , i would like to open this up for Public Comment. What anyone like to publicly comment on items proposed for continuance before i take members of the public, i would like to bring up tom from supervisor mandelmans office. You are next. Thank you. Commissioners, im from supervisor mandelmans office. We have requested a continuance of item number 18 to allow for additional design refinement. I think that the recommendation of an october date is fine with our office. Thank you for your consideration in this continuance. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Thank you. John with speaking to two items on continuance. Fiftyfive belcher, we feel like we will be happier to get on the same page so we are happy with the continuance request and happy to agree to that. Were looking forward to resolving that in the coming months. If this is on your calendar, mrt brought it up yet, it is on calendar for today, but we havent made any resolution in terms of the working out of any final agreement with the neighborhood. I would like to request a continuance to give us a couple more weeks of opportunity to try to resolve that. I ask for two weeks now on the 25th. Not to hold a hearing to fight on it fight over it on the 25 th, but im hoping we get through this and everyone is on the same page and it is simply just a vote at a staff report. We would make that request, as well. Thank you. Thank. Thank you. Next speaker please. Good afternoon, commissioners i am here with a representative from petes coffee. We would like to hear the case for dean hundred and one 1509 , 1511 since we should and you are here today, we are here today so we would like to hear the case on the regular calendar if we could. That is number 8, correct . Yes. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Commissioners, representing lakeshore plaza as the owner and management. We also would like to see petes move forward. We dont know why there was a continuance. There may be some allegations of issues related to the center, which are not our issues. Were here to talk to the neighborhood at any time they want but we dont see how that can interfere with a retailer going into a former retailer center. We would like to go forward today. Thanks. Thank you. Thank thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, commissioners im the president of lakeshore Improvement Club. We are concerned, i have a letter here for you and i can give it to the secretary, it outlines our concerns about the center, but our concerns about public motives when it comes to petes. Petes is not an issue but the notice is. Notices were not received by any of the homeowners that live on the perimeter of the plaza, norwood they were said nor were they received by the organization. Apparently there was a meeting held by the public downtown in the middle of the working day, basically for a meet and greet. That is not acceptable. Never and 25 years of lakeshore plaza has been there has there ever been a move to change in condition and not have it in the plaza, not have it after 6 00 p. M. As people get home from work, and their kids get home from school. I represent 1100 homeowners out there. They would like to talk to them, but to go shopping downtown in the middle of the workday is not a way, and im surprised. This is not good retail. We are asking for continuance until they actually show their original intent of that regulation. I remember years ago where you didnt have the application meetings, it didnt happen. There was more on your agenda here then there is now. I would ask you, quite simply, to continue this matter until they come out to the plaza, set up a meeting so the public can show up and at least talk to them. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Commissioners, thank you. One second, sorry. Im sorry, continue. We basically met all the requirements for public notice. We werent intending to take it downtown for any specific reason that was supported by the planner. At this juncture, we would really like to hear this case if we can. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Commissioners, i am david elliot, i am the architect an applicant for item seven. The operation that is going in this plaza, i appreciate the attorney coming. Apparently last week they were Communications Going to the supervisor regarding concerns of the Shopping Center which is a separate issue from this. There has it looks like there was some issues with posting and stuff, too. I stood out in front of the building for quite some time and no one showed up at that time, but apparently there is a need to talk to the Community Groups and stuff like that, so we felt like we were in compliance with everything and we had staff look at things. We appreciate working with stephanie and all of the staff. There were about three people involved since last august. We are here now formally, the last six months, and we were not understanding that there was anything that we hadnt done incorrectly. I think we might have been still on the consent item if someone hadnt complained. So i appreciate that we would continue the project. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Anymore speakers for Public Comment on the continuance on the consent calendar . I was right, the continuance calendar. Anymore Public Comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Just before i chime in with the other commissioners, correct me if i am wrong, the two lakeshore items, the first one was a notice and the second one was a request from the neighborhood group. That is right. The issues surrounding both of these was related to the noticing for the preapplication meeting that petes opted for a department facilitated meeting which doesnt meet the requirements of a preapplication meeting. In looking at their packet, they did complete it according to our noticing instructions. Therefore, with regards to the store, they also were aware of the preapplication process. Unfortunately the neighborhood organizations were not included in that noticing, which was caught. With regard to that, there is some ability to move forward with a new preapplication. Great, thank you. Before i let you guys chime in, i would be okay with continuing the first one, which is more of a notification issue, and then since it is a formula retail swap with a formula retail, i am okay with hearing the second one today, but lets hear what you guys say. Commissioner richards . I can understand the neighbors saying, hey, we should have a clear application meeting on site, there is already people there. I will side with the neighborhood association, but i would hope that the petes folks can meet with them at the location so that they can honor whatever issues they have. I will move to continue them to the dates specified. Item seven and eight, to october 3rd. Two item 15, to july 25th. Item 16 to july 25th. And 18 to october 3rd. Commissioner moore . Before i second, i have a comment i would like to bring to your attention. At 12 00 p. M. This afternoon we received a comment from supervisor yous office that was asking us to continue the items because they are involved with the center and it is not in front of us but they are asking us to continue regarding issues of maintenance and general issues pertaining to how the center is operating. And since these are new retailers, i assume that they are asking us to take that into consideration until they have resolved those issues. That is how i am interpreting it the email came from the Supervisors Office and i would just like to bring that to your attention. Is there a second . It is a second, yes. Thank you. I had not received anything related to that from supervisor yis office. He emailed this morning. Not me. Just to clarify that it was sent by supervisor norman yees office. Just to clarify, the continuance was from the community organization, but the email itself just stated that they were involved in discussions with the property owner. They didnt ask for continuance that i saw. Commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded. Would you like me to call the question . Yeah. Very good. Commissioners, on that motion to continue items one through six as proposed, item seven and eight under consent calendar, and i will read item eight at 1509 through 1511, conditional use authorization. Both of those items to october 3 rd. Item 15 to july 25th, item 16 a through c. To july 25th, item 18 to october third and acknowledging the withdrawal of item 19. Jonas, one quick thing. I thank you need to do item h. Separately. Is the commission amenable for pulling item eight . Yes. Excluding item eight on that motion. [roll call] so moved. That motion passes unanimously 5 0. On the motion to continue item eight to october 3rd. [roll call] that motion fails 41, excuse me 14. That will remain under your consent calendar. And we will continue items one b. To october 22nd and item, sorry 16 see sorry 16 c. To july 25th. Very good, thank you. That will place us under your consent calendar for item eight, conditional use authorization. I have no speaker cards. I would like to open this up for Public Comment . Pull it off consent, please. Very good. We will hear that at the beginning of your regular calendar. I apologize, commissioners, there was another item. Item nine, 2187 markets Market Street, conditional use authorization, for which i also have no speaker cards. Would anyone like to Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Moved to approve number 9. Second. Thank you. On that motion to approve item number 9 under consent calendar. [roll call] so moved. That motion passes unanimously 5 0. That will place us under commission matters, item ten, consideration of adoption dropped me to minutes for the june 20th, 2019 joint with the building inspection regular hearing for june 20th and the regular hearing for june 27th, 2019. I have no speaker cards. We will now take Public Comment on this item. Would anyone like to comment on the adoption of the draft minutes . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Commissioner moore . Move to approve. Second. Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to adopt the minutes for june 20th and june 27th. [roll call] so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 50. Item 11, commission comments and questions. Seeing none, we can move onto department matters. Item 12, directors announcements. Commissioners, i would like to spend a couple minutes if i might talking about the current status of proposition m. And the allocation and how we will bring the projects forward. The continuation today was partially or largely in response to a request by the developer to do something slightly different. So as you recall, we have been taking central soma projects in phases in the order that they are ready to be reviewed. The project sponsor came to us and asked if we would consider approving that and if you would consider approving that project in one phase with a slightly smaller project. When we looked at that, we asked them to and part of the reason for that is because this building, the project is really designed as one building, it kind of looks like two, but in reality it is one building. That was coupled with a recent analysis that we started looking at the unused allocation of office space from past approvals and i have asked the Zoning Administrator to start looking at that. As it turns out, there are there could be as much as between four and 500,000 square feet of space that is largely the result of projects not building as much as they were approved to build. And a couple of those projects are quite they could be as much as 100 square feet each. They were billed smaller than they were approved for. When we looked at the request of 88 block some developers along with the fact that we might have 400 to 500,000 square feet, we were able to move forward with the proposal that we have planned in the fall to allow phase one of the central soma projects to move forward, as well as other projects that have come to you asking for approval. If i might, and again, i will put this in the form of a memo, if we are still gathering all the data, but just for your purposes and the public, and the project sponsors, i wanted to outline what is coming in the next couple of phases. You have already approved 598 brannan which was next week you are scheduled to approve the first phase of the flower mart, which is just short of 1. 4 million, and then the week after that, based on your continuance action just now, you would approve 88 and about 775,000 square feet. That essentially depletes this years prop and with a few thousand square feet left over. In october when the next phase of prop m. Comes forward, and if we add this Additional Space that i just described, you would be able to consider six projects , or four projects and then two others on port property that could come forward. Those projects are 60,000 square feet at pierce 70. 500,000 square feet at harrison gardens which is the boston property project on harrison and forth, i guess, transbay parcel f. , the project on Howard Street , which is 275,000 square feet, they came to you during one of the hearings requesting that, if you recall, it is a very Tall Building with hotel and office and housing. He you would be able to consider one vassar, which is lawrence louis project on harrison street at 420,000, and then both seventy and mission rock would be able to move forward, as well under their agreement. As you know, you dont approve the prop m. For the port sites, the office space on the port property is comes out of the pool when they pull building permits. Again, you would be able to consider four projects in the fall, and it includes all of the phase i phase i and all of the central soma projects that we have been talking to you about. You would be able to do that even if you chose to go ahead and approve the full project at 88 bluxome which is slightly reduced from the original proposal. If that all makes sense, ill put this in the form of a memo, but i wanted to make sure that you and the project sponsors in the public all understood where we were headed on this. Thank you. Thank you, director. My apologies. The one thing i should add to all of that is that to actually capture this space that has been unused, you will have to take an action. We will likely bring that action to you in the early fall to literally revoke the unused space or the space of the projects that havent been before you. That will come to you in september, i think. Thank you. Commissioner fung . A slight question, director. Does that require a legal opinion . On the revocation of unused . The commission has done this in the past. There are two options. One is the project sponsor could voluntarily give it up, and if they do not, then the commission can revoke. If theres nothing further, item 13, review of past events of the board of supervisors, there is no report from the court of appeals and there was no Historic PreservationCommission Hearing. Good afternoon. Aaron starr, Minute Legislative manager. At this landuse hearing, the committee considered supervisor mandelmans building ordinance. Some modifications include decreasing required front setbacks, increasing increasing rear yard requirements, the multiple development of buildings on through and corner lots and imposing height limits. Commissioners, you heard this item on april 11th and voted to recommend approval with modifications. This modifications were to modify the front setback requirement for properties of narrow streets in the r. H. Districts from ten, 215 feet and clarifying the process for non altering confirming structures. And a limit proposed language regarding the proposed the purpose of rear yards is providing views into green space several amendments were proposed and clarifying the process for altering nonconforming structures. Supervisor peskin proposed amendments that would tie development into entering into a costa hawkins agreement. Public comment was in support of the ordinance, especially the aspects that controlled billed in size and allowed additional density. Because the amendments were shown as substantive, they were continuing the item to july 15 th. Next, the committee considered supervisor mandelmans ordinance that immense land use controls for the upper market and the Zoning Districts. The ordinance proposes to increase permissible arts activities, institutional uses, public facilities, general entertainment and other retail uses. You heard this item on may 9th and recommended approval with ten modifications. And those modification sought to provide planning staff with quantitative a