>> thank you for your time, i lived in the neighborhood and this is determined as the best neighborhood that i lived in. i am a home owner now, 101, downtownty, 290 people from bacon bacon. when i moved with my husband into the place that we now call home. i realized that every other neighborhood is soared of pailed in comparison because of the true neighborhood feel of this community. and it really sort of is embodied in at bacon bacon where the people come together and they say hi to one another and they actually in the urban setting look each other in the eye, spend time with one another and talk with one another. and so i love this place, i hope that it stays here, it would be shame to lose it to another neighborhood or to lose it altogether. thank you. >> come on up, after this

speaker, are there any other speakers in support of the project sponsor? >> okay, if you want to line up on this side here. >> go ahead, thank you. >> good afternoon president fong and commissioners, thank you for your time. i don't want to repeat what has already been said, there are a few things that i have experienced with having bacon, bacon in the neighborhood. and i don't have a car, so, i work on twin peaks and i ride a bike so i go all the way to the top of twin peaks and i go home and i am tired and i work with teenagers and they are very draining and i want to get a quick bite to eat and it is very convenient to have that bacon bacon right there and like everyone said it is a community feeling. i feel people are cordial and i feel that people keep the voices down and i don't see the lines outside of the door and another observation that i have sort of noticed in paying

attention to smells is as i have rounded the corner from fredrick on to clayton you can smell the burger smell from burger meister strongly, there are smells in the city and you know, that is just the way that it is. but, thank you for your time. >> good afternoon, my name is piper morris and i also live right around the corner at 134 downty street and i am new to the neighborhood and i have been here three years. and when i moved in, one of the reasons that i chose my apartment was the prior businesses that were there at the market and the deli. and once they closed, it really was, a chance in the neighborhood, and one that i did not like. now, with the new market and bacon bacon, i really appreciated that change and it has been positive and that is all that i have. thanks. >> thank you.

>> good afternoon. my name is tina smith and i live at 231 fredrick, which is right next door to bacon bacon. you could not get any closer unless you moved in with the store. and i very much enjoy having them there. and i enjoy the activity that they generate. and i enjoy once in a while i get in good with the bacon. not enough, as far as i am concerned. so i do hope that you give them favorable consideration. thank you. >> thank you. >> my name is ben robin sn son and i am the owner of the ashbury market and i have been with jim for two years when i was working on the market and

jim was with the bacon bacon portion of it and we had a great relationship and we have always had a good relationship. and i know that jim is one who will do his part if called upon. and i understand the concerns of the neighbors, and i think that i don't see any reason why an ammicable resolution cannot be reached for both parties. as i know that jim is willing to do what it takes so that he can reopen and everyone here as you see shows the support for them and i am definitely a supporter of them and so i asked you all to please consider that and let him come back in and him and i can go ahead and continue to work together to make the neighborhood better. thanks. >> thank you. >> any other speakers in support of the project sponsor? >> okay.

seeing none, dr requestor you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> thank you, commissioners. my name is patterson for the dr requestor. just a few quick points. i think what you are seeing here today is a difference of opinion based on largely the proximity from the restaurant where the people live. you have a large group of customers and residents of the neighborhood from father away, and the people most affected are the ones asking for discretionary review and asking for a few very rational moderate restrictions placed on the permit. the suggestion that this is about money is simply untrue. my client offered to pay the restaurant to install an air filter, and you know, as far as

the practical impacts go, this is not an appropriate place for a food truck. this is not an appropriate place for a restaurant to stay open until ten pm. so we are asking for some pretty reasonable restrictions here. the tenant relationship with the restaurant owner, i think is understandable strained. and with that, it is because the tenants request to turn down the noise do something about the smell have been ignored and so i think that is very understandable. to correct a couple of slight misstatements, this is for a change of use as you will see from the permit application it states plainly a change of use, the permit did not legalize that lack of planning approval. this is the 1990 permit. and as you will see, again, planning na. so, we are asking for some

simple conditions to be placed on the permit as a legal matter, it is not approvable without the conditional use, but if you disagree, we respectfully ask to make this a place that all of the neighbors, gather around and find it livable. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> project sponsor you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> thank you, president. and thank you, commissioners. again, i want to thank you for your time. you know, this is turned into something that i didn't think that it was going to turn into. it has become an emotional issue. there is cameras here, there are articles written about it. and this was never my goal when i set this thing up. when i wanted to be a part of my community and offer food in the community. this was about serving food, serving my food truck, bringing people out of their houses. everyone looks down at their

phones, let's get out of our houses and out of our head and have a cup of coffee together and meet. and i met with the gilties and the youngers and i responded to their e-mails and i have been reasonable. the tenant upstairs, we worked this out i bought a new sound system. and i placed it in a place that was agreeable everybody. you know my intentions are not to upset a neighborhood. my intention is to provide for a neighborhood. there is obviously a need. we do well in the neighborhood. and you know it has been mentioned as another little shop and it is basically, i am using it to prep for the truck right now while we figure this out. it is a fraction of the business, i have been impacted significantly financially, and because of this. and my goals are to follow through and install the exhaust system and upgrade what is on the roof there. but i can't do that until i am permitted. i can't invest that money until

i get from you guys, the go ahead. so i'm asking you for the go ahead. thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. the public hearing is closed. and we will open it up to commissioners for questions and comments. commissioner moore? >> two and a half hours of talking about bacon bacon. the number of people supporting the neighbor institution seem to be significantly larger than those people who are supporting the dr requestor. however, for as it is not sorting between how we weigh emotions, but what are the real issues. so i am going to correct my question to the zoning administrator. sanchez, is this new material? is this dr? is there a lack of clarity in the permitting as you track it? i understand that certain rules have changed. >> this is a discretionary review matter. this is why i believe that the matter is properly before the commission today to make a decision on this building

permit application. a couple of things to note, this is a permit to legalize the use. so that is why the matter is before you a discretionary review was filed on that. on the arguments for the conditional use authorization that is based upon the dr requestor that they have abandoned the non-conforming use the limited commercial use for this property and base that on a change of use from 1980. i disagree with that. they site that under the provisions of the code, you can restore a limited commercial use with the cu authorization. so had this been abandoned and not operated it since 1980. then i would agree that it has been abandoned, and that they would need a conditional use authorization to restore the commercial use. that said, even if that were to happen they could restore the use with the conditional use authorization but the use itself whether it is a restaurant or another use would be subject to the normal planning code requirements which in this case is permitted as of right.

it is not as if the use itself would require the cu, they are arguing that the restoration that the non-or technil have been receiving over the last couple of weeks, arguments from the dr requestor, at first they were arguing that is violated the commercial district because of the permit from 1980. and they said that it violated the notification requirements and this is the permit in 1980. i pointed out that was not adopted until 2000. and then to section 186.1 and said that should have been applied in 1980 and i pointed out that was not adopted until 1986 or 87. and there is a process of arguments to try to knock this out on a technicality and we have renewed this thoroughly. and you have heard the arguments about the use and the impacts from the use.

it is a residential zoning district but this is a limited commercial use and in 1979. the city, had done massive down zoning. and they created termination dates for the non-conforming uses and the city woke up and said well, we actually like to have commercial uses in our residential neighborhoods. and because the gentleman who spoke earlier made the wise investment decision when he bought his house in the early 70s, this is a valuable thing and it is very much valuable for the city and that is why the city had recently in reviewing these controls, allowed for the restoration of these uses had them been abandoned which previously had not been allowed. we as the city recognize the importance of this and the matter has been thoroughly investigated and that is properly before you for consideration. >> thank you. mr. sanchez, the reason why i posed the question back to you is that all instructions and

what we are listening to comes from the zoning administrator as he represents what the city attorney, the planning code, etc., gives us to guide, and all of the emotions to our policy are boiled down to understand what you just said. and it is very clear that indeed to that, early ruling on mixed use, in the residential neighborhoods the quality of the city is clearly documented. i see and listening to the touching story of mr. wong and his grandfather and all of that, that the continued use of a food establishment in this particular location is a correct way of moving into the future. and i would like to ask you as to whether or not in the course of establishing this bacon bacon business, there was a mistake made because the house department closed temporarily, what is exactly the nature of the mistake? >> that is an excellent question, i think that when

this was first brought to our attention, i think at that time, well, i guess i will make the assumptions on how it was happened. >> it was used as a deli and perhaps the business owner could go in and take over the space because it had previously been used for food service and he would continue to use it as food service and i think that may have happened but then it was being used as the commesary for the food truck and i think that early on it was not being used as a retail use it was to service the food truck and it evolved and i think that pastries in the morning and coffee and opened for lunch and that we explained in order to operate out of that location which we thought was okay, in order to do that, he had to open it and operate it as a restaurant. and you could have as an

accessory use to that restaurant the food truck and so this permit is the permit that establishes this restaurant. this limited restaurant use at this location. and that is what is before you today. it requires the neighborhood notification and it went out and this discretionary review was filed at that that. >> however we are not part of this permit the continuation of the food truck, food preparation beyond the hours? >> the question as to whether or not they have it as a come sarry, they can if they operate a restaurant at this location, if the commission has concerns about the operation of a food truck or tying that to this location, i think that is something that we could investigate. i don't see an issue, saying that this could not be used as the location for the food truck, i know that they have a

location that they are operating out of on mission street. and i don't know what the retention is of retaining that, that could be used for the come sarry for the food truck and they have found another location for that if they could continue there and simply operate a restaurant, out of the fredrick street location. >> let me make one more comment before i hog all of the time. i believe that the smell intrusion is a valid issue, one of which can be helped with air filter, and air handling equipment and improvements and i think that the applicant already said that he would be doing that. i kind of see the food truck operation a little bit as an insensefiation of use, i am not comfortable with and i have to be honest about it. it is not having the food truck, supervisor weiner

invented wonderful rules about the trucks operating as independently and how they are serviced should not be happening in these kinds of corner neighborhoods and r3 districts i don't think that is quite the right way of doing it particularly when it is correct the handling and cleaning of the food rep ration equipment in that area and the trucks will come in order to do that, that is not sit right with me. and generally i am in support if there is indeed a neighborhood icon type of a food operation in the location, but i would put a question mark on the food truck, food servicing and equipment cleaning part of the operation. >> commissioner antonini? >> this is a follow up to the question, if i'm interpreting your remarks correctly, we go back to 1990, when the laundry

mat became an accessory use to the market and whatever permitting was needed at that time it was properly done, and i doubt that it was a conditional use at that time. >> it was in 1980. >> yeah. >> there was a building permit application that converted the laundry to the deli for the grocery store and it has been noted by the dr requestor that permit did not have planning department approval signature on it, they asked me what the planning department review procedures were at that time in 1980. and i noted that there is an ncu card which is the non-conforming use and we track these over time and so we have a card and it notes the change of use. it says, you know, 1 point there is a grocery store with the laundry and then, the next line is that this is all grocery. and so, my assumption is that the department was aware of this. we had documented it and we did not initiate the enforcement action and this goes back to

1980, where we could have handwritten this note into the tracking system at the time and so with that, it is my interpretation and my reading of this that we did not see this as an enforcement issue at the time. and so that is my position on that matter. >> you are basically saying that it was permitted in lieu of any kind of action by the city to stop its permitting? >> it was approved by the city, it just was not signed by the planning department. but, we noted it in our records, that the change had occurred. and did not have any issue with that at the time. so, you know, asking what procedure was in place, and may in 1980 i was not there and based upon the records it appears that we did not have an issue with that. >> and then there was reference made to a 1990 permit. and i don't know what that involved. but one of the speakers, i think that it was on the project sponsor side talked about there being a 1990 permit. but, it is not really that

important, it is not germane to our discussion. but my other question is at the time of permitting it was a deli use. which does that involve or allow for cooking activity too? >> at the time, i don't see anything in the code that would have prohibited cooking and planning code, yeah. i mean back in 1980. >> since it is a continuous use, >> that is why no cu is necessary, at this point? >> even if this was a florist shop under the planning code they could convert it to a restaurant now. it is not as if they had to maintain one stove or one, you know set of burners and saying that it is not that restrictive and we do allow a chance of use and that is again to encourage the vibrantcy of these limited commercial uses you can change from a floral shop to a restaurant even if it was not a

deli and this was another commercial use, this would still be allowed. >> yeah. >> and it is particular to the zoning in this area rather than some neighbors, i know have to visit from the use of change of one but not all neighborhood haves to have that. >> that answers a lot of use questions. i have a couple of questions for the project sponsor regarding the food truck. and now one of the allegations by the dr requesters is a truck is there all of the time and although you showed the pictures of the various sized trucks being there since 1980 for the market. it goes through this for the distribution, is that the case? >> it is the case, thank you, commissioner antonini for this clarification. and there is a significant yellow zone, in front of this

building, but, i think that it is about 75 feet. it was put in for the ash bury market and deli and it is used for deliveries but it has a 30-minute limitation and bacon bacon respects that and they do not do the primary servicing of the trucks and do not do the cleaning of the food trucks at that location. and it is important that they be able to stop there and make use of that yellow zone for less than 30 minutes. and if there is anyone else in the community. they were using as their primary come sarry and they were doing their very best to adhere to the 30-minute limitation. going forward, they will not be using it as the primary come sarry, but they do need to be able to access the storage and the personnel from that location within the limitations of the dpt, limitations of the yellow zone. >> okay, and the other thing that i think that answers the

question of the food truck, what is your permit from what i understand is the establishment of the odor abatement system, which what has to be done for this permit to be granted and then a new dining service counter, i guess as part of it too. >> well, we were unclear whether the counter top in the front window was there as part of the previous permits or not. and we found that the plans from 1990 and saw that there was a counter put in at that time. that was when the kitchen fixtures were all put in. and fully inspected and passed and cleared. so, we did include replacement of the installation of a counter top that already exists in that window.

we found that the exhaust system in 1980 1k3 changed in 90 is failing in a lot of ways and there are opening in the exhaust flus that will be able to be repaired, with this building permit. and right now, they are fundamentally is not an effective exhaust system. it is not a surprise that the neighbor directly next door, who said that she enjoys the occasional pick in. and you can smell it in the shop. when they are cooking, a lot of

bacon. and once the ventilation system is upgraded, with the issuance of this permit, i am sure that that will no longer be a problem, because they are not doing a industrial scale operation, and they are cooking in the morning and a good exhaust system will take care of that. and this is probably more of a fire issue, but the sprinkler system, is it necessary to put it in, no, within the hoods, only, and it is exists and inspected regularly. >> it is all there, obvious place. >> and the fire department comes in to check it. >> that takes care of that issue. and then i guess, that the other, the only other thing that was brought in by dr requestor was the hours of operation, and those remain the same or they are extended or can you tell me what your hours of operation are going to be? >> the hours of operation at present, they do close at 3. and quite often earlier than

that. and the planning code allows a business in this kind of location, to be opened later. and i don't think that it is fair to either mr. angeles who is the operator of the business or to the wong family who owns the property and had this deli there to ask them to agree to close at 3:00 p.m. and i don't think that that is necessary at this location. and it is clearly not a place that is going to become a nighttime eatery but i can imagine a future where someone might want to have a cup of coffee in the evening and that would be appropriate. >> the code allows until ten. >> that is correct. >> and there is no plans to actually use that.

i don't see any other areas of concern and i was impressed about how this revitalized a neighborhood and how it is neighborhooding serving in its own by a neighborhood res dent and it is all of the things that we want to stand for in san francisco where we want to promote the small businesses that are locally owned and keeping the people from having to go long distances for basic needs and in this case, some food, or, in the case of the ash bury market for the groceries, and you don't have to walk up and down the long

hills and the gentleman with the sister-in-law having the same symptom and recovering sxlt only thing that i thought that he was going to say is that they both recovered after they had eaten bacon. >> thank you. >> commissioner? >> commissioner sugaya? >> thank you. yes. i'm kind of the mind in agreeing with commissioner moore's approach. we don't have a particular threshold for the come sarry or the restaurant itself. >> it is not a planning code definition, it is indicated that they are not using it as the primary come sarry and the only use of the space out in front would be within their requirements of the mta, for limiting it to 30 minutes for

loading. >> but... >> at one time it was being used that way. because someone said that they were cooking 500 pounds of bacon there a day. whoever said that it was, you know, whatever. >> but, be that as it may, i don't see how you could cook that much in that kitchen any way. but there are only four burners and a grill and an oven and a deep fryer and maybe your, i don't know, a few microwaves. but that could be done in a portable machine. any way. the point is that i don't think that it is the property location for providing food products to be loaded on a food truck and then driven around to the sites where the food trucks would go. so, i'm agreeing with commissioner moore on that. i don't have a problem with the limited restaurant use. and i will make a motion to take dr and approve the project

with the several conditions, one would be that the air filtration exhaust system be installed and especially addressing the odor issue. and that it is a code issue so that is not in our camp. that the kitchen not be used as a come sarry kitchen to provision the food truck and i think that is about it. >> hours. >> no, i'm not going to go there. >> what they are. >> i think that the hours that extend, that it would be only until ten,; is that correct?? >> currently the hours to be limited from 6:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. >> right. >> i'm okay with that. >> as i understand it, it cannot be used as the primary come sarry, but we would not