plan west of castro street and make zoning consistent with east of noe street. this change, i believe, to have no opposition and to be supported by various organizations that are taking a position on the legislation. the second aspect reestablishes the height control originally envisioned as part of the market and octavia plan which is generally proposes heights of 85 feet along market street east of church street for corner lots, and 65 feet west of church street. the heights west of church street were reduced back down to 50 feet pending an historic resource survey which has now been completed. when market and octavia controls were extended west to castro street, the height controls were not extended along with it and so we have

the [speaker not understood] property formerly the gold stem property, which is seeking to expand the gym and also add apartments above. and, so, the rezoning proposes to go up to 65 feet. i believe that this project should be capped at actually 62 feet. 60 foot height plus a two-foot bonus because the ground floor is 12 feet instead of 10 feet. but planning staff advises that 62 feet is not an actual planning height category. and, so, the legislation at the request of the planning staff says 65 feet that my understanding, my belief and desire is that the actual limit of the project would end up being 62 feet, not 65 feet. and this aspect of the legislation is supported by muncie as well as the castro to market cbd. and i will note that some have

indicated that the -- this rezoning of the height for the fitness property should not happen until there is a specific project pending at the planning department. and i don't agree with that argument because when you look at market/octavia, the adoption of the plan, or eastern neighborhoods, or many other rezonings that we've done, properties are routinely up zoned as part of a plan without knowing what the specific project is that's going to go there. so, i don't think we need to have the project pending at the planning department, before the commission, before the rezoning can occur. and then finally, the legislation would allow the off-site kitchen cafe floor on noe street to come into compliance with the planning code to provide cafe floor with a path to legalize the off-site kitchen that has had at one

location or another for several decades. this legislation is critical to ensuring the continued success of an important and iconic neighborhood business, specifically cafe floor. in san francisco and in city hall, we talk a very good game about supporting our locally owned unique neighborhood businesses. we talk a lot about how we prefer these businesses to formula retail. but our codes and sometimes our actions aren't consistent with that rhetoric about supporting our unique locally owned neighborhood businesses. we need to be more consistent and support these businesses and support their success because they are critical to the vibrancy of our neighborhoods. and cafe floor certainly falls into that category in terms of its important role in the castro/upper market neighborhood. cafe floor has had an off-site kitchen for decades on noe street. it was at one location and when

the business was sold about 10 years ago and moved to a different location. this legislation simply recognizes that reality and provides cafe floor with a path to legalizing the kitchen. it's important it step back and really view this issue for what it is. * to and just to be very clear, if this kitchen is removed, cafe floor will scale back its ability to serve food. it will have a reduced food service. it will serve fewer meals, and i assume we've all been to cafe floor or seen it at one point or another. it's very rare that it's not full. it is an incredibly popular restaurant in the neighborhood, one of a number of amazing restaurants and businesses in the neighborhood where people come to eat, to drink coffee.

it is it sometimes serves as a community center, people meet there, many events there, many fund-raisers there. allowing the scaling back of the food service there is not in the interest of the neighborhood. some of the opposition has focused on the owner and management of the restaurant. this really isn't about who owns the restaurant or who is going to -- someone is going to benefit or if someone has complied with the rules in the past or not. this is about what's best for the neighborhood, and i strongly believe as the district supervisor, and i think there is a lot of support in the community for this view, that a reduced cafe floor is not in the best interest of the neighborhood. as i mentioned in the letter that i sent that several neighborhood associations who had written to me about the ka fillet floor issue, i know it's in your packet, either the

planning code is not a sacred self-revealed text. * the planning code exists to serve our gaunt and to make it vibrant and strong. * community you know better than i do in term of the number of planning code amendments that move through this commission and through the board. i assume probably perhaps more than any other code. we routinely amend our planning code, including for some very specific geographic areas when the planning code is not reflecting the reality of what's best for our community. now, i understand the planning staff is recommending support of this legislation and also allowing potentially off-site kitchens in the city as a whole. while this may be something that should be considered, and i am very happy to work with planning staff to see if there is support for that in the

city, that's a pretty significant step and it's a new way of approaching our neighborhood commercial district. it might be a very good idea, but i think that will require quite a bit of dialogue with various neighborhoods to see what people think and to see if people think this is a good idea or not. i'm open to participating in that dialogue. but that is a separate issue from the need to make sure that we address the situation around cafe floor and, so, i encourage you to support the legislation. i'd be honored to have your support, and then to move forward if folk want to have that broader conversation. so, commissioners, i'd be honored to have your support and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. there may be questions. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, president fong and members of the commission. sophie hayward, planning staff. and thank you to supervisor wiener for summarizing the

ordinance so thoroughly. just to repeat, the proposed ordinance does three things. first, it would convert much of the existing upper market ncd to the upper market nct. it would also amend the height and bulk classification of the single lot, lot 34 and block 35 63 from 50 x to 65 b. and then lastly, it would amend planning code section 703.2b to allow food processing as an accessory use. on the west side of noe street between 15th and beaver for -- as an accessory use to a nonresidential establishment within 300 feet, provided that the food processing setback minimum of 15 feet from the property line and that accessory use be subject to section 312 notification and that it would sunset after one year. now, the department has presented to you in your

packets a two-part recommendation and it's reflected in the draft resolution before you. first, the department makes a series of recommendations to the commission that you recommend approval with modifications to the board of supervisors. and then separately and secondly, the department recommends that the commission directs staff to initiate or to prepare an ordinance for initiation separately that would address concerns regarding inconsistencieses in the height designationses within the upper market district. i've also distributed a series of maps that might be helpful in the discussion. i put some extra copies out for the public and also put them in the overhead. the first recommendation by staff to the commission is that you recommend to the board of supervisors that all of the upper market ncd be converted to the nct. so, i'll put this first map up. the upper market nct was established as part of the market octavia plan adopted in 2008 and at the time of the

plan adoption, that stretch of market street west of noe was outside of the plan area and therefore not included in the new nct. the controls for the two districts by this time are almost identical. and, so, there's no real land use or planning rationale to maintain two nearly identical districts. here in this map just on the overhead shows that as proposed, there would be just a couple of small lots left out. so the department's recommendation is that the commission recommend that the full area be rezoned to the upper market nct by including those last remaining parcels on lots 263, 6 and 91. on the northeast corner of castro [speaker not understood]. the fed recommendation does not require a map and the department is recommending that the commission recommend that

the limited use of the off-site food prep for cafe floor be expanded and more broadly applied. the proposed ordinance would create a path to legalize what appears to be an illegal accessory kitchen located at 260-1/2 noe street, which supports the very small kitchen at cafe floor. and as proposed, this provision would sunset after one year. and during that one year the operator could obtain all necessary permits, go through 312 notification, and then that use when the provision -- when the ordinance sunsets would become a legal nonconforming use. the department recommends that the commission recommend a modification that it would expand the provision in very specific ways and that would, first, it would remove the sunset provision. secondly, it would require that food processing as an accessory use either be very active and visible to the street front consistent with planning code section 145. or that it be completely

screened from view behind an active use so that the active street frontage is maintained. next, we also recommend that the ordinance explicitly prohibit serving the public in any way within that accessory food prep area. so, that would be the intent there would be to prevent the space being turned into an area for cooking classes or wine tasting or something to that effect. lastly, well, if these conditions are met, the department recommends the provisions would apply in all nct districts rather than limited to the specific geographic area outlined in the proposed ordinance and that the proposed sunset provision be removed. this would maintain the idea there would be 312 notification associated with the idea. lastly, the department recommends that the commission incorporate minor technical modifications that are outlined in the draft ordinance. they're very specifically essentially typos that we found in the course of reviewing the ordinance.

the second batch of recommendations included in your draft ordinance would be initiated separately at your direction by staff at a future hearing with a separate ordinance. basically to address issues regarding the zoning map, height amendments in light of lessons learned through the market octavia planned and the historic survey integration. so, there's another map i'd like to display. i believe it's the last map in your packet. the market octavia plan originally called for market street to be zoned at 85 feet beginning at the church street intersection and to the east while west of church street was to be zoned at 65 feet in height. the survey integration resulted in allowing heights to be raised from nonhistoric corner parcels to 65 feet while other parcels remained at 50 feet. and those in the 50 feet

threshold have the potential five foot bonus for active ground floor uses. the department believes that that same rationale should be applied to all of market street that has been surveyed and recommends that the commission consider initiating separate legislation to rezone the remaining two parcel at that corner of market noe and 16th street that are not historic resources. so, put that map up on the overhead as well. these are the only two remaining corner parcels east of castro street that are not historic resources and that are not proposed for height reclassification in the proposed ordinance. rezoning these two additional parcels would apply consistent design principle for all of market street and from castro to van ness. and then lastly, the department recommends that the commission consider initiating future legislation to fix what we believe are existing map errors. this is described in detail on page 7 of your case report, but i can show you quickly, i think it's the third map in your packet.

and i apologize that i stapled these incorrectly. while the intent of the survey integration was to follow consistent nomenclature for the rezoning, some parcels are actually incorrectly designated by height. so, typically a parcel is given one height limit such as 50 feet. and if a height bonus is allowed, it is indicated by planning code section 263.20. during the survey integration process, some parcels were given a height district with two numbers such as 50, 55 x, that reflects that same intention. that is, the base height limit is 50 with available five foot bonus depending on the active ground floor or the height of the ground floor. the split zoning 50, 55 x is not correct and is not seen anywhere else in the city. i've seen the map and these are the only places where this exists. there are also a number of parcel mistakenly zoned similarly 60, 65 x.

the five foot is available to zoning districts 50 feet and below. there is no 60-foot height district that allows a five-foot height bonus. it's simply 65 feet. so, specifically there's 7 parcel that are mistakenly zoned as 60-65 x we [speaker not understood] rezoned back to 65 b. and two mistakenly zoned as 50-55 x that should be 50. right, just to reiterate, the convention is to zone the parcel for a base of 10, 30, or 50 feet and offer to five foot height bonus via the requirements of 263.20. that concludes my presentation, but for the public comment section i wanted to add that i included most of the correspondence in your packets. however, since the publication of our packets i received approximately 100 additional letters and e-mails in support of the proposed amendment that

would address issues associated with cafe floor. i've also received one petition and two letters in opposition which i believe were forwarded to you directly, but i have copies of them here today. i'm also certainly available for questions. thank you. >> thank you very much. opening up to public comment, a couple of speaker cards. gary weiss, eric honda, raymond patterson, and adriana elio. good afternoon. my name is gary weiss. i am the president of upper -- of the corbett heights neighbors in upper market. i'm a member of the upper market alliance, the treasurer of the [speaker not understood] valley neighborhood association, and a merchant on market street practically across the street from cafe floor. i have owned the flower shop there for going on 30 years. cafe floor is a venable and

much loved [speaker not understood]. none feel that cafe floor is given preferential treatment. we feel this is spot zoning in its purest form. one of the owner's arguments is had it not been for [speaker not understood] treatment it could possibly go out of business. the owner requested sub for the for getting a liquor license and again for extending the cafe's hours. the business had flourished for three decades before he purchased it and it did just fine preparing snacks in the small kitchen. this all started when mr. petra he wanted to offer a full menu. rather than going through the legal channels he converted the back half of a building he purchased across the street, no inspections by the health department. he's done this many years now, having his employees jay walk

across noe street with food frequently with garbage in the same trip. just think of the message this would send to other restaurants in the city. prepare your food off-site for several years and just as it was going to be shut down, ask your supervisor to legalize your off-site kitchen through spot zoning. he also neglected to pay any property taxes he for five years on either the cafe or the building across the street that is in question. no other business in the city would benefit by granting legal status to this kitchen facility whose owner has [speaker not understood] for years. we merchants of the castro and upper market neighborhood are very supportive of proposed zoning change of our commercial district and sincerely hope you will strike this zoning for cafe floor from the legislation. thank you. hello, commissioners. director ram. i'm eric honda, vice president of [speaker not understood]

triangle neighborhood association, dtna. we're opposed to this ordinance for several reasons. first, the piece of this legislation which cites [speaker not understood] in essence takes three totally different subjects. food service zoning and building height in two totally different properties and matches them together and make it impossible to consider them [speaker not understood]. supervisor wiener split the legislation [speaker not understood]. after meeting with us recently he's expressed the term to buy the term of our agreement at that time. affordable housing and finding local tenants for retail space. he preferred that the fitness project be submitted to the planning department [speaker not understood].

and the kitchen has been cited by the health department for multiple violations. as he told the supervisor, putting these two pieces of legislation is not only inappropriate, [speaker not understood]. let us also be clear we love cafe floor. we've heard from many neighbors they love cafe floor, too, and they don't want it closed. neither do we. it is an important venue and neighborhood culture. [speaker not understood]. since that time he's been able to get multiple changes to the law. mr. weiss said that have increased his possibility, including the allowance of live music and granting of a liquor license for full bar. [speaker not understood] could be profitable without the kitchen across the street and transport [speaker not understood], a process we final frankly disturbing to watch and leaves us scratching our heads

how [speaker not understood] could find it healthy. [speaker not understood]. as mr. weiss also mentioned it is a matter of public record mr. [speaker not understood] dunkelberg pay property tax and only worked out a payment plan with the city when the restaurant was about to be auctioned off. [speaker not understood]. [speaker not understood]. in short the ordinance as proposed lacks merit. [speaker not understood]. >> thank you. thank you.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. good afternoon, president fong and commissioners. my name is ryan patterson and i'm a member of the duboce triangle [speaker not understood]. i'm also an attorney and live near the subject properties. i researched the applicable law and reviewed the planning and health department files on this matter. the proposed legislation has two parts. the first is a change in the height and bulk classifications for 2301 market street. the second part would allow cafe floor at 22 98 market street to operate an off-site commercial kitchen down the street from the cafe. it confers this right on one parcel and one parcel only and that's cafe floor. the off-site koch sen located down a dingy alley behind a nail salon. [speaker not understood] is

likevly illegal under state law and constitutes reverse [speaker not understood] spot zoning. i draw the commission's attention to [speaker not understood] wilkins v. san bernardino which recognize spot zoning as illegal. there is a good reason why courts would strike down zoning schemes like this. it confers on only one parcel in the district. it's fundamentally unfair to other par tell. -- parcel. the other merchants are furious about cafe floor being singled out to operate a second kitchen. no one else in the district is allowed to [speaker not understood] this use. there is also a reason why commercial kitchens are prohibited in both ncd and nct district.

use is incompatible with the district in which it is located. when you think of off-site commercial kitchen uses you think of neighborhoods like soma. it is certainly not appropriate or legal in the subject districts that we're talking about tonight -- today. as i mentioned, i reviewed the health and planning department files on this matter and there is no indication that the city has given significant thought to other possible solutions to this problem to cafe floor's desire for extra kitchen space. so, if the commission is not willing to vote against this legislation today. i would ask simply that you table the matter for a short period of time so that the stakeholders can come back and discuss other possible solutions. * supervisor wiener mentioned one possibility today which is extending this right to all of the district so that other restaurants can enjoy this privilege as well. but, you know, without considering [speaker not

understood] and with that right being extended to only one particular restaurant, it is likely inappropriate and illegal. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is andrea aiello. [speaker not understood]. and i'm here speaking today on behalf of the cbd in support of this legislation. as supervisor wiener and planning staff stated earlier, this legislation obviously does three things. it extends the controls of the orphan block as we have been talking about to make them similar to the rest of the market octavia plan area. it allows for increased residential den it on the 2300 block of market street, amends the planning code to support existing small businesses,

including allowing for an off-site prep kitchen for use of popular local restaurant cafe floor and expansion of fitness sf, another popular fitness center in the castro. it also includes the addition of 14 apartment units with rental health -- rental housing below market rental apartments on-site. this legislation will -- and that's what's happening at fitness sf. this legislation will allow cafe floor to legalize its long existing off-site kitchen and will enable it to continue as a very popular full-service restaurant it is. additionally, the off-site kitchen is behind an existing retail space that is not visible from the street, allowing this nonconforming space will not interfere with the mandate for store fronts at street level in a neighborhood commercial district. additionally, the castro cbd is [speaker not understood] of the additional residential den it on upper market and supports allowing increase [speaker not understood] to enable the growth of fitness sf and the addition of approximately 14

rental units. i'd also like to add that this legislation is overall in line with the cbd's mission which supports small businesses, pedestrian friendly and engaging sidewalk cafe floor has a lot of outdoor permitted outdoor seating and whenever you walk by there, there's always people. even when it's nasty out, there are always people sitting out on the sidewalk eating and it really makes for an engaging pedestrian experience. and it also allows for the increased density which -- and allows for diversity of residents because of the on-site lower market rate housing and increased diversity of residents living in the district. this is totally in line with the cbd is about and we urge you to support this legislation. thank you. >> thank you. i'll call a couple more name. if you could please line up on this side of the room with the monitors.

calvin amos, daniel glazer, dina [speaker not understood], and dianne [speaker not understood]. >> if your name has been called, you can feel free to come up to the microphone. >> please come up to the podium. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. just like to make it quick, i just wanted to say -- >> excuse me, if you wouldn't mind stating your name for the record. my name is calvin amos. sorry about that. for years this place has just been a good place to go. it's halloween, july 4th, pride day, castro street fair, market street festival, all that stuff is pretty much like my go to place. plus the owner, mr. petras has been a good friend to me and my family for a long time. it's nice to see that business thrive and go there and hang out and help out