Expanded and more broadly applied. The proposed ordinance would create a path to legalize what appears to be an illegal accessory kitchen located at 2601 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. Theyre 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, theres another map id like to display. I believe its 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 its 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. Ive 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 60foot height district that allows a fivefoot height bonus. Its simply 65 feet. So, specifically theres 7 parcel that are mistakenly zoned as 6065 x we [speaker not understood] rezoned back to 65 b. And two mistakenly zoned as 5055 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 emails in support of the proposed amendment that would address issues associated with cafe floor. Ive 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. Im 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. Im 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 owners 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 cafes 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. Hes 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 offsite for several years and just as it was going to be shut down, ask your supervisor to legalize your offsite 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. Im eric honda, Vice President of [speaker not understood] triangle neighborhood association, dtna. Were 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 hes 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. Weve heard from many neighbors they love cafe floor, too, and they dont want it closed. Neither do we. It is an important venue and neighborhood culture. [speaker not understood]. Since that time hes 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 im a member of the Duboce Triangle [speaker not understood]. Im 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 offsite commercial kitchen down the street from the cafe. It confers this right on one parcel and one parcel only and thats cafe floor. The offsite 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 commissions 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. Its 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 offsite commercial kitchen uses you think of neighborhoods like soma. It is certainly not appropriate or legal in the subject districts that were 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 floors 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 im 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 offsite 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 onsite. This legislation will and thats whats happening at fitness sf. This legislation will allow cafe floor to legalize its long existing offsite kitchen and will enable it to continue as a very popular fullservice restaurant it is. Additionally, the offsite 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. Id also like to add that this legislation is overall in line with the cbds 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, theres always people. Even when its 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 onsite 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. Ill 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 wouldnt 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. Its 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. Its nice to see that business thrive and go there and hang out and help out with whatever i can and it would really be a shame to see it go for me personally. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, commissioners. My name is dan glazer. I am a board member of muncie and im also a Business Owner in the neighborhood. The muncie board voted unanimously to support j. D. Petras in this new permit endeavor. Also, as we know, the forefront of the space is we are still keeping a retail in the front. So, the storage room is behind that. He is definitely very Supportive Community member. I hear a lot of hatred and anger from some of the Community Groups who have never supported j. D. Id like you to take that into consideration when you make your decision and please know that the muncie board is completely behind this permit. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, im dina plotkin. I just moved back to San Francisco after being gone for 11 years, and ive been here for a couple decades before that. And a lot of change in 11 years coming home. And i moved back into the duboce area so we go to cafe floor. And there has been a lot of, like a lot of places that were here for a long time when i moved here are not here any more. So seeing cafe floor there when i got back was really nice and seeing how theyve worked and been a part of the community is really nice. So, i think they have to be away to recognize that their growth is good for the Larger Community because it helped they put it back into the community. So, 1850sing away to allow them to grow and give back to the community and be there would be great. Thank you. A couple more speakers. Kyle devrios, Michael Phillips, j. D. Petras. Hi, high name is dianne amos. Thank you for you