tv Government Access Programming SFGTV January 8, 2018 5:00am-6:01am PST
years, coming together in one project. and, yeah, i'm really on the fence with this one. so i would like to hear what you have to say. >> commissioner fong: yeah. it's a tough one. but i'm leaning to not being in support of it. it's a habitable structure. it's midblock. if it was the corner, it feels like you would get a larger project out of it. i don't see it as a necessary demolition. if it was falling down, of course. we just had a discussion about the excelsior and the character and this to me is part of the character of the mission. while it's tiny, it plays an important role. >> commissioner richards: mr. eastwood, we heard that people were living in the house before and they're no longer there. when you purchased the property, was there anybody living in there? >> when i purchased it, it was owner-occupied.
and that owner vacated when they sold it to me. >> commissioner richards: and there were no additional tenants? >> no. it was not empty. [inaudible] >> commissioner richards: i will ask you a question in a second. my understanding, i bought it from the owner-occupant. they vacated. i purchased it. i put in tenants of my own. they're still there. right now, they're paying $7,000 a month. they plan on being there through april. >> commissioner richards: thank you. somebody from capp street -- do you have anything to add? come up to the mike. i'm giving you the same chance to make a comment. one person. >> it's been completely
unoccupied since it was purchased last june, 2016, and there are temporary, maybe vrbo or air bnb, but nobody's there. it's vacant. it's a facade. >> commissioner richards: thank you. >> president hillis: when we had this hearing and now, have you met with the neighbors on capp street that have had concern about this project? >> i have not. i called them and emailed them and they were unable to meet in the short time window we had between the two hearings. the neighbors i had contact with, the building across the street, the immediately adjacent structure, and one other
reside resident has given me support and nobody that showed up opposes the project. i've talked with them but they have not made the time to meet me. >> president hillis: are you willing to meet with the project sponsor? >> for us, it was too little, too late. myself and i believe two other residents got phone calls yesterday asking if we could meet late last night or early today. they have known of us. we put up fliers. it's not a movement. it's a community. and they wait until the 11th hour to try to strike a deal. no legitimate attempt to communicate with the community has ever been made. >> president hillis: thank you. >> the letters that they wrote in opposition were submitted two days ago, so as soon as i got
them from mr. christiansen, i reached out. >> president hillis: you knew from the last hearing there were concerns on our level, neighborhood level. >> sure. >> president hillis: i give you the example -- and thank you. last week or two weeks ago, we approved a project in the mission. i think it was a unanimous project. it was clearly housing in the mission, but it was done in a way that was respectful of neighbors, people asked for input. there was an ongoing discussion. i think, you know, we're in a tough place here because, one, i don't think the housing, if it's le left, will be affordable. it will sell for a high price. i would rather keep it as that than support this project. and you certainly all can pursue other housing accountability remedy acts, but it's hard for us when you don't do the due diligence of talking with neighbors. it can be three units. it's good.
we need housing. i think you need to weigh -- it's a sensitive block. it's extremely historic on one side. and figure out how it works best in that neighborhood, instead of just arguing the housing accountability act. so i certainly can't support it as it's proposed today. >> commissioner johnson: i was going to say that, you know, we live in a city where all lots are not equal. and i will almost say that i do -- i would want it hear what -- i haven't heard that the neighbors would not have come to some sort of agreement. all i'm hearing is that there wasn't an outreach for communication. as much as i hate continuances, i kind of feel like that needs to happen. it seems like maybe there was last-minute, not enough effort. i cannot tease apart that piece of the story, but i would like to hear what attempts would have
been made to come to an agreement or intent, because just -- something about this strikes me wrong, that we're leaving a unit that's $7,000 and not going down anytime soon, undersized for that lot. it's a small home in the middle of a larger lot. it's historic on the other side of the street, but we've seen projects that have similar characteristics in the mission and also other neighborhoods where we haven't had this degree of act r -- acrimony. there is not enough information here to say there is no middle ground whatsoever. it seems like there's a lack of communication all around, even though that's unfortunate because it's not the first time we're hearing this project. >> commissioner richards: question for the city attorney.
i'm considering -- do we have two actions here, one the demolition and the second is the approval of the replacement project? i mean, this house is not unaffordable under section 317. so we have to determine if it's necessary, desirable, compatible, to demolish the house. that said, we have a replacement product that has four units. how would you parse what we've got in front of us? >> commissioners, i would -- first of all, i would acknowledge that there are some ill-defined and unclear aspects of the housing accountability act and how it would apply where conditional use permit is
required. what is difficult here is that you have a conditional use permit that's for the demolition that has fairly general, nonspecific standards involved. that the -- and that the replacement housing, as far as i can tell and planning staff can correct me if i'm wrong, complies with the objective zoning standards. what the housing accountability act does is allow a decision making body to disapprove the project where it makes specific findings. it certainly doesn't disallow the commission from continuing the item and asking project sponsors to work on some design revisions or some discussions with the neighborhood so that it's less problematic for this
particular block. if the commission were to disapprove or make a motion of intent to disapprove the project, i would certainly ask the commission to articulate what the housing accountability act directs local entities to articulate. having said all that, i don't know if there is threatened litigation here. but if there is threatened litigation, i would recommend a closed session, so we could give you our legal analysis of sort of the city's position with that litigation in confidence. >> president hillis: great, thanks. one thing for the community. you live in a zone where this is permitted. if there's an issue with what's happening today on that street, other streets, i suggest that
the neighborhood get rezoned, so less could be built there if that's what the community wants, so we're not struggling with this state law versus local law and what is permitted or not. that says, i will leave that up to supervisor ronen if that's what you come up with. >> commissioner fong: thanks for asking that clarifying question. i feel like we're fought leaning towards a demolition, but if the existing structure wanted to stay and we wanted to continue that replacement project and the project sponsor came back with an extension into the rear yard or one story up or something or added some space there or maybe another unit, that that would be okay. is that what i'm -- >> president hillis: if it's a denial, the path that people have expressed, it's a sensitive street with historic resources and this building is a
contributor to it. and that would be the rationale. it's a significant street. we'd ask staff to relook at the historic resource report in the broader context to maintain the structure. >> commissioner moore: commissioner hillis, would you add to the list that you just mentioned the fact that it's sound housing, not in disrepair, and it's affordable, value not exceeding the number way which we normally get pushed into a corner? i think those issues would weigh into preserving the building as is. and i found the attempts of preserving the facade as prevented as the applicants unconvinci
unconvincing. i would gravitate that preserving this type of housing is of key importance and i would basically lean to not supporting this application. >> commissioner johnson: thank you. i really would -- could be open to it, but if we're going to do it, i really want to hear the commission's ideas on what the findings would be? so far, i'm not hearing it. what are the findings that we would -- specific findings that we would put in an intent to disapprove motion? if we're going to do it, we really cannot do it just on the motion. it has to be on what are the findings, so not only are we -- can we stand strong in our decision on this project, but also have a precedent if we want to set it for other projects. this is not where we're at today and it may be a reason for continuance. if we think that demolishing sound structures should be part
of some finding on public health and safety, that needs to go in our planning code. we can't just say it up here. i mean, i really want us to -- if this is the way we feel things should go, we have to find ways in our code to support that. i think one good aspect is that it forces you to do that sort of thinking. i would be supportive of a continuance to have the -- maybe the -- there can be some intent in the neighborhood and/or to work on what the specific findings would be. right now, i don't hear what they would be and i have, i'm sure, my successor might agree, whoever that person is. >> commissioner richards: i'm a
dyed-in-the-wool preservationist. i objectively looked at the report, even though the building appears of the mass and scale and setback of its time, which is 1865, the building itself is not historic. it's -- the facade has been changed. it's not the same as it was, if you look at the buildings across the street. and, honestly, i get where the neighbors are coming from, i truly do. but i would be a hypocrit to say, we have 141,000 available capacity and say no to this. the neighborhood needs to work with the supervisor if there's an issue around the perceived density issues and potential demolitions. so i'm going to force the issue and make a motion to approve the project with conditions as
outlined. >> commissioner melger: i said what i needed to say. >> president hillis: do i hear a second? >> second. >> can i ask for further discussion on the outcome of continuance versus approval. what is the outcome if there was a motion to continue? >> president hillis: i think we've seen projects that have happened where there's, again, 100 units of housing, that there's give and take and there's discussion and i can't ask that of the developer because it hasn't been done and the neighbors, in that we're in a difficult situation in which this housing will not be an affordable home. it fits in with the character of the neighborhood. it's an old building, but we at least have documentation that
says -- which we can relook at, it's not historic. so, you know, you can have three units of equal or smaller size that are probably cheaper than what this house will ultimately sell for. it's how that is contextual contextuallized. i think you changed some material on the facade. there's an historic building adjacent to it that's smaller and more of the cottage vernacular. i could think of ways to change the project architecturally. i think there's ways to talk about this project and engage people who live in this neighborhood to figure it out. i think we're being -- gun is being put to our head, which is not comfortable. i don't think there was a full
engagement on this project as we would like to see. >> commissioner koppel: we saw two projects tonight. one that was almost a no-brainer. zero units to four. our next item was on saturn. almost equal size house, one unit. so that was almost just as easy as a decision for us. this is not as much of a no-brainer because there's an existing house there. but one thing that pops up in my mind is the proximity to bart and the fact that for planning purposes, we should be densifying near the bart stations. it doesn't have a four-car garage or anything like that. it's a four-unit building, which
is -- if you think about it, it will make it more affordable than it would be if it stays as-is. and proximity to bart is putting me over the fence on this one. it wouldn't be the end of the world if it was continued, but i'm supporting the project as-is. >> commissioner richards: we talked last night and we talked about the dominos falling and this will be the first of the entire street and then there goes the entire street. and i asked you to provide us with a look at what the street looks like even though i've been there. this would be for the rest of the commissioners. and you said you would. can you help us out by showing us what the context is? >> can you go to the overhead? there was a comment at the last hearing by one of the commissioners that led to the
conversation -- commissioner richards asked if tearing this down would have a domino effect on the street that we would be losing either historic housing or rent-controlled housing or both. and there's a chart showing the other units on the street. by the other units, i mean this. this is the unit in question that we're talking about today. this one is the corner and the one next to it and the single-family home that we're talking about here today. what this chart shows and i have surveys for the planning department, historic surveys, that every building on this block, other than the small one right here, but every other building is rent-condition --
controlled or historic. it's my belief and your commission has said this over and over, where there's a rent-controlled building or a building with historic nature to it, it will not be something that the commission will be allowing to be demolished. >> commissioner richards: you mentioned housing accountability act, i believe. is it your understanding that rent-controlled buildings would be allowed to be demolished under housing accountability act if their supplanted with more units? >> the building question today is not rent-controlled, but i don't know -- i've read the housing accountability act. i don't know whether use of it would allow the demolition -- whether the city would be liable under it for saying we won't demolish if there's a multiunit building.
i don't think you are liable if you refuse to demolish a multiunit, rent-controlled building. that could create a finding that you could make that's not in the health and safety and in the best interests of the public. that's a finding that i think would work. i don't think findings on turning down this project as proposed are easy to make under the housing accountability act. >> commissioner richards: my fear is, and i made the motion it approve this, if we went this way and the dominos started to fall and we get to the multiunit and people say, there's no historic and there's no health or safety issues. like they will get hurt physically, that we're not on solid ground still. and that really worries me. [please stand by] for $7,000, a
replacing it with what you're just saying is an economic equation, i think we're going directly against that policy support. and for that reason, i cannot support the application. it's for that very reason. >> vice president richards: i understand. >> commissioner moore: it's a game that is skillfully played, and we are sitting here, not quite knowing how to respond to the housing accountablity act, although i believe commissioner hillis gave a very good four or five reasons of why we should not support this billing. >> vice president richards: you can tell it's conflicted internally. >> commissioner moore: yeah. i hear you, but i also hear of what we call supported with a
lot of work and a lot of work from the community to do here. it was a very simple answer and a very simple support to do that. >> vice president richards: sure. perhaps we should have recommended a rezoning here, as well. >> again, i would support a continuance. i don't think we have a great reason to deny. i think we've got legitimate design concerns about this building that haven't been addressed by what he kind of came back to us. we asked to kind of look at the context, and that's the massing, also. it's not just putting on a different facade to this building, and i think in good faith, you should have met with folks in the community to try to figure out what works best. so that's -- you know, i -- i'm not comfortable at all taking
action. >> president hillis: commission commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: yeah, and i know this is my last hearing, but i also agree. i don't think the commission has enough information to deny this. i still have not heard what those objective findings would be. i think that if, you know, there's a couple things that actually could happen. if we want to say that demolishing safe structures goes against the health and safety code, that is one thing. but i look at the plan that is presented here, and we've seen similar projects that there have been various attempts. there's four units in this plan, and we've seen projects with four or five units where developers have greed to give one unit to the voluntary how's housing program because it's not required for buildings
under ten units. we've seen other sorts of benefits or other ways to sort of make projects conform a little bit more with the community, and i just don't feel like we've had any opportunity for that discussion to have happened. all i'm hearing is people saying there's been no communication and people haven't spoken. i would have even felt better making a decision one way or another hearing if they'd met and screamed at each other for an hour. i think we've been backed into a corner as a commission, and we need to push our way out of this and put this work back on some of the other parties, so i would be supportive of a continuance. one for people to potentially talk to the supervisor's office for potential changes that she may want to make -- supervisor ronen may want to make with the planning code to make sure we have approve will for those specific projects in the
neighborho neighborhood. and i want the ability for the pr sponsor to have a meeting with the community other than saying i tried. i want there to be evidence that there was actually a meeting and there was discussion and there was no agreement, and i think that at minimum, the commission should request that before getting backed into a corner to make a decision. >> i also think we should engage with the city attorney and have a potential closed session on the housing accountablity act? commissioner moore. >> supervisor campos and then supervisor cothen actually participated in the reform of interim controls and helped the community come as far as we did. we just need to remind ourselves that they did that. that was a very important step to acknowledge. i was not here on december 12th
when when you discussed the project. however, i followed it, and i did not here any objection to the design except for the location, and for facade modification, this particular case, including the changes in demonstration, which makes it a nice building. i could comfortably say in any other location, this would definitely be an approval of the building. however, where it is with the overlay that at the core of this is the demolition of a sound structure, the whole discussion has a completely different meaning, and i do not think that a continuance of this project would create any other result other than the community rightfully presenting the year or 1.5 or 2 year-long work with particular emphasis of where this project is. so i personally cannot support
a continuance because i don't think it would create anything other than they might scream at each other, and we would be confronted with the same issues that are in front of us right now. so that is my interpretation of where we really are or where we would be with a continuance. >> president hillis: commissioner melgar. >> commissioner melgar: so there's a motion on the floor, and i believe we could get it over with. i also don't support a continuance, but we'll see where it goes. if the commission does end up voting for a continuance, i would like to please ask the project sponsor to enter into a conversation with the neighborhood in good faith. don't say racist things. show some respect, and then, let's see where it goes. >> president hillis: one, we have a motion, a motion to continue would take precedent if there was a motion to continue. i think we also would be best
advised to talk to the city attorney before approving or denying a project just because housing accountablity has been brought up. we've approved projects that have demoed buildings single story in rh-2 and rh-3 that staff has said this was not a historic building, so i think we'd want to look at that, also. i don't want to end up in a situation where there's continued conflict on this, which i think we could get at either way commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: okay. i'm going to make a motion to continue to some date in february , and while we look at what date, i would ask that when you go into closed session with the city attorney, which i hope that will also happen before then, that you specifically ask about demolitions of sou demolitions of sound structures, and if you could make changes to the planning
code or the health code, to -- what changes could you make to be able to make that finding, because i think that that's sort of a key to some things that we want to see around here, and again, this is stuff we can't makeup as we go along. this has been a challenge to our planning code and general plan all along. it's too i go have vague, and chickens are coming home to roost. >> commissioner johnson, if you expect the commissioners to actually schedule a closed session prior to reconsidering this matter, i would suggest a date in march, so how about march 22nd? >> president hillis: second. commissioner richards? >> vice president richards: three things here. we could have findings, we could change the zoning. the other thing is we could change the housing accountablity act to say you can't demolish historic
buildings in these types of situations. there is other things you can do to take into account these kind of issues, so there are three things to do, so there's a lot of work to do. >> president hillis: commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: sorry. just going to say, first of all, we can change the housing accountablity act? >> vice president richards: no, i was saying -- >> commissioner johnson: yes, i know what you mean now. yes, i think a legislative session for 2018 is probably full up, but i think we can clarify our own codes. that's something that can happen in the next few months, so there's that. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i'm sorry to say that as a commissioner, i feel like somebody's putting a gun on my head. if there's no clear answer or no clear metrics in the housing accountablity act, how can i just act out of fear for let gas statilet -- litigation?
how can i? if the housing accountablity act is against the basic principles of why we're sitting here, deliberating on a very critical issue, then i think we might as well take sometime out of being commissioners because we're not doing what we're supposed to do. we're kicking the can down the road because by march whatever it is, 22nd, none of those issues are going to be fully vetted. if the city attorney sitting here cannot give us a clear answer of what that does or does not mean. we have the full account of the housing accountablity act in our packet, and none of it speaks to -- none of it speaks to using the back up on the mission 2020 plan to basically at least firmly affirm of what we believe in. if we can't do that, i feel basically threatened by a hypothetical litigation, and i'm not doing my duty.
>> president hillis: commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: i think commissioner moore makes a good point, and i know we're belaboring this, but it's really important, because it keeps coming back, and we do keep kicking can down the road. the housing accountablity act is completely taking advantage of the fact that our planning code and our general plan are deliberately vague. and we -- and we -- and there's not enough guidance for us -- there's a reason why that whole objective standards term was put in there. it was particularly to try to work around cities like san francisco that have vague terminology, and i'm saying i think that there's a way to clarify it so that we can get more of what we want and less of what we don't want, and we should not kick the can down the road and just yell at the state and say, you know, we
haste th hate this law. we should clarify our own standards. i've put a a couple of ideas -- commissioner richards has put out a couple of codes. i think we need to do that work, and then, we will lighten our load somewhat. >> president hillis: commissioner koppel? >> i would just remind that the housing accountablity law is to deliberately stop the accountablity of housing. it's for communities, for example, like brisbane who have been holding up housing on their land for years. we don't have the authority or the ability to say it applies to some communities and not others. it is a statewide law, and so i would just remind us of that act. >> clerk: commissioners, there was a motion with conditions
that was superseded by a motion to continue to march 22nd and for the sponsor to work with that community. on that. [ roll call. ] >> clerk: the motion fails, 3-4 with commissioners koppel, melgar, moor, and richards voting agai voting against. should i call the motion to approve? [ roll call. ] >> clerk: the motion fails, commissioners, 3-4, with commissioners fong, melgar, moore, and hillis voting against. i will remind commissioners that if there's no subsequent motion, that this matter will be de facto disapproved by the planning commission.
>> commissioners, kate stacey in the planning department. i will remind you that the housing accountablity act does require specific finding, so if the commission is not going to make specific findings, i would suggest you take a motion to disapproval and give staff some guidance on what information you need for those findings. >> president hillis: commissioner koppel. >> is the more preservationist style in here -- there's two options in our packet, correct? >> i don't think one's a real option. >> president hillis: commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: i will give a strong nod to the sponsor to meet with the commission and have a discussion with the city attorney what reasonable arguments we could make for the
city of san francisco and this particular neighborhood to indeed create strong arguments of why we deny this project. i think since there is a lot of uncertainty, i do believe a little bit more concise head work at the right time would probably help us to be more articulate with common grounds defining criteria. >> kate stacey from the city attorney's office. i think that discussion needs to happen in open session. we can certainly give you legal advice on the risks and consequences of certain kinds of legal analyses in the litigation, but the general spans of what could apply or should apply should happen in open session. there will need to be some discussion about what types of
findings and what types of standards would comply with the housing accountablity act and what would the city's position be. >> commissioner moore: i was never implying that it would be done behind closed doors. i think it would be the benefit of everybody to hear a robust discussion on the subject matter. it is new territory, and again, we could schedule that early in the year and, again, it's a big learning curve for all of us, but i think it would very much empower us to be more effective and consistent in how we look at these particular types of cases. >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> vice president richards: my take on it, miss stacey, is there would be a motion to disapprove, and we'd take a stab -- or staff working with us would take a stab at the findings so that we'd have it in front of us to debate in public. >> if i may, commissioners, i'm hearing somewhat two different things.
i think what kate stacey was recommending for this particular project, you take a motion of intent, give us time to actually develop -- >> right. >> the second thing that i'm hearing is a general discussion, but that recommendation at this point would be to give us a motion of intent, give us three weeks, four weeks to develop those findings and to come back with a final vote. >> right. >> president hillis: commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: i'll take a stab at it. make a motion to continue to -- march 22nd was the original continuance date we had. and for the findings, i know staff will take a stab at it, but i'll stick with my original idea. i think seeing no others, that we look for specific public health and -- adverse public health and safety impacts of demolition of sound housing. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i'd
like to look for consistency with state law that this particular legislation is created to find more equity in what specific communities do in response to director william's interpretation. i think that would be very helpful for us. but on the other hand, i'm not necessarily supporting making a -- making a motion of intent to deny because given that the project de facto has been denied by what the outcome of what we just did, why don't we just figure out how we can develop those criteria in order to substantiate our situation today. >> my concern was even though there wasn't a housing accountablity issue, you don't have a motion in front of you at that time. >> commissioner moore: i'm taking the interpretation of secretary ionin the fact that he did not have four votes to support is an automatic denial. >> when you do that, typically,
you take a motion of intent so that we can rewrite the motion for you. >> yes. >> that's typically what you do when you want to deny. >> correct. i don't think we're required to do that, commissioner moore. i think in this case, given the discussion of the housing accountablity act, if we wanted to deny the project, it would be in our best interest to go through that effort so that if there is a challenge to this, there are the findings that are reflective of this discussion that can -- were better articulated. >> commissioner moore: would the moxy hotel where we had a vote by which -- >> there wasn't a housing project under the housing accountablity act. >> commissioner moore: no, but it was the outcome of a type of motion. if the motion doesn't have the required four votes, it's automatically denied, and that does not require another motion
with intent to deny. >> president hillis: we did a motion to disapprove. it just came back to us. even though in that interim -- >> commissioner moore: at this point, a clarification of the moment. >> yeah. there's no requirement that the commission adopt a motion of intent to disapprove. i think the advice from both the commission president and the director is that it be -- would be wise to do so. there is no requirement. it would be de facto disapproved without an authorization action by this commission or subsequent continuance motion by this commission. >> commissioner melgar? >> commissioner melgar: i'm going to second commissioner john's motion. >> and on that motion, commissioner john, my motion was on march 22nd to continue where the intent was for the project sponsor to work with the neighbors. this, i don't think needs a three month continuance. >> commissioner johnson: okay. my only suggestion to that would be i still think the closed session on the housing
accountablity act to make findings would be helpful, and i think because we're looking at intent to disapprove, i don't think it matters if you do it tomorrow -- >> president hillis: yeah, yeah, commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: just on commissioner moore's point, point taken. i think with other types of disapprovals, the commission generally has the discretion to say yes or no for any or no reason at all. usually, they're broad. in this case, it's not broad. the law said we have to make specific types of findings, and we're not prepared to do that tonight. >> clerk: all right. commissioners, there is a motion of intent to deny and continue to march 22nd.
on that motion. [ roll call. ] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 4-3, with commissioners, moore, richards, and hillis voting against. commissioners, that'll place us on item 17 for case 2017-07440 at 2094 folsom street. this is a conditional use authorization. >> good evening, commissioners. commissioner johnson, thank you for your years of public service, for your wit, intellect and human. it will certainly be missed. the item before you is a request for conditional use authorization pursuant to planning codes sections 121.2, 249.0303, and 711 to allow the change of use from trade shop to restaurant with accessory brewery and to allow a nonresidential use larger than
4,000 square feet. the new restaurant will occupy space formerly occupied by timbuk2. the existing commercial space is 2,481 square feet in size. the proposed restaurant is 4,646 square feet, inclusive of a mezzanine. sections require the commission to establish nonresidential criterias for -- [ inaudible ] -- and considers the intensity of the activity, the proposed use -- that the proposed use will serve the neighborhood and that the building in which the use is to be located is designed in discreet elements. planning code section 3030 establishes criteria that require the commission to consider the existing
concentration of the eating and drinking uses in the area. such concentration should not exceed 33% within the immediate area of the subject site for the purposes of code section 03030, the immediate area shall be defined as all properties westbou within 300 feet of the subject property. one of the chief concerns of the community is the loss of neighborhoods serving retail establishments to destination venues. community advocates have indicated their desire for regulations and incentives that retain 1 retain in favor of communities serving retail institutions. the community concerns gave
rise to commission interim zoning controls adopted by the planning commission on january 14th, 2016. planning commission resolution number 19865 requires any restaurant within the interim control boundary area to obtain a conditional use authorization from the zoning and planning commission. planning code section 711 principlely permitted a restaurant on the zoning district nc-2. while the proposed use is an eating establishment, the percent of commercial frontage in subject -- in the subject zoning district within 300 feet of the project site that would be devoted to restaurant and limited restaurant use would increase from 16.6% to 22.3%, remaining below the afore mentioned prescriptive 25%
maximum. with regard to the accessory brewer re, project 703 states that -- also requires the use of more than one-third of the total floor area occupied by such use, and the principal or conditional use to which it is accessoried to. proposed accessory brewer remeasures approximately 475 square feet. which is 10% of the total 4,644 square feet for the restaurant. furthermore, the accessory brewer rewill be limited in production to a maximum of no more than 5,000 barrels peryear, however, the project sponsor does not anticipate producing more than 1,000 barrels peryear. today, the department has received public comments inquiring about the project, the hearing, as well as expressing opposition and support of the proposal.
united to save the mission submitted an e-mail expressing concerns of the limited amount of production that is proposed. they would much rather see this location to be used for beer manufacturing rather than for consumption. u.s. sam is in opposition to high end bars and restaurants that do not serve the local community. 12 letters of support have been submitted. letters of support have been submitted from 12 entities, all correspondences in writing has been included in packet. the project promotes a locally owned small business, the district is well served by transient, therefore, consumers should not impact requirement. the project meets all general
requirements of the public planning code. this concludes staff's presentation, and i am happy to answer any questions. >> president hillis: thank you very much. project sponsor? welcome. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm going to be copresenting with timbuk2 as well. they're just going to say a couple of notes at the end. my name is justin. i'm the owner of four point brewery, and we'd love the opportunity to open a brewery in the corridor. we will create a beautifully designed community central run tap room and kitchen. the space will be open from 11:00 a.m. to midnight, and will remain to all ages at all times. particular buck 2 initially invited us to take over this portion of their building to
not only activate the space but to invite the public to come and see the premier application of two san francisco manufacturers. we're honored to be offered this opportunity to activate the space along with particular buck 2. in our neighborhood outreach, we heard three primary concerns: one, how are you going to make sure the space is welcoming to mission locals who can't afford the price of the pie in brew pubs that have popped up in neighborhoods. what are you going to ensure that you're hiring locally? in response, we've committed to all our hiring throughout sf made, all hiring will be local three. what are you going to do about drunkenness and noise. our response. unlike nearby bars, we are only selling beer and wine and not full liquor.
this is very important. this long said with the design of the space and the fact that we are all ages at all hours will not be conducive to creating a dive bar environment, but to mitigate noise, we'll make sure our entrance is on the commercially active corridor instead of shotwell street. there'd be zero displacement of pdr. project will create ten service jobs and four manufacturing jobs on-site in the mission. we pay employees above market rate, including 100% health care coverage. i'd like to end on this note. i'm committed to ensuring this project will be an asset to this neighborhood.
we have supported over 70 nonprofits in the bay areas, several of which are in the mission, so i'd like to thank the commission for considering this project and hand it over for tony. >> thank you. i'm tony, and i've been the coo of timbuk2 for the past ten years, and as jeff's mentioned, we've been manufacturing our bags in the commission district since our founding about 28 years ago, and without question, our single biggest competitive disadvantage is the high cost of operating a san francisco driven primarily by the high cost of real estate, and what we're proposing to do is sublease less than 15% of our space to four point who has a business model that can significantly support the rent that we're asking. they're to support us in able to mitigate some of that competitive disadvantage. and second of all in this project, we're going to be able to open up our building and our
manufacturing facilities to the community. right now, it's fairly closed off. the location where it's centered, there's no real way to have it visually -- visually appealing or aware of in the neighborhood. many people walk by, don't even know we make bags there, and we'll be able to shift or entrance from shotwell street, which is primarily residential, to 20th street to an existing rolltop door where our facility will be much more visible. it'll be much more welcoming to the community to come in and see our bags being manufactured, so we're excited about that opportunity as well. so thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. so we'll open this item up for public comment. there's organized opposition, spike, is that you? welcome. >> we have three people for the organized opposition, and i'm going to introduce shelley who i found through the package
that she had been asking for information, and until i contacted her, she had no idea it was happening today. >> hi. my name is shelley. i live down the street from the project. i -- i've -- was born and raised in san francisco, and i'm still here. i've lived on shotwell street for 15 years. i've spent -- since i talked to spike, i've spent a few hours only collecting signatures, so i'd like to submit a petition with 58 signatures against this that i've collected in just a couple hours standing outside my house. i am -- in addition, there are my comments that i have e-mailed to the commission. the -- so personally, the eating and drinking survey is flawed. the -- the survey, instead of
comparing retail -- the eating and drinking retail frontage to all retail frontage, it compares eating and drinking frontage to all frontage in the 300-foot radius, and so it includes the school, the frontage that the eating and drinking frontage is -- includes the fire house, and the residential. and so it really skews that 25% marker. i'm very concerned about the stink of the brewery that, you know, having a brewery right next to me will cause my apartment -- i'm on the third floor. i live in a tiny studio with very little ventilation, and
i -- there's nothing impeding the offgasing from my air in my apartment, and i'm very concerned about that. there's -- and i also understand that that building is -- does have a historic resource status, and there's nothing in that plan that i saw that addresses the venting of the brewery or the restaurant. and obviously, that would make an exterior change on the building. i'm very concerned. right now -- i counted 165 seats in this restaurant, and that's an enormous restaurant from the plan that was submitted. that's an enormous restaurant way out of scale for the neighborhood, and i'm very concerned about the ubers and ride shares that presently
block the crosswalk, and i'll turn it over. >> and i'll follow up with that. they talk about a 20th street corridor. 20th street is the smallest little street at shot well. there's no room for drop off of ubers. it's transit rich, but none of the patrons of pacific brewery company, which is a very similar type of brewery that's just down the block. nobody takes the 12 folsom to get there, they all take ubers and lyfts. as i ride my bike home from south vanness, very easy to go down 20th street until i hit tricksaw, and all of a sudden i'm getting doors, there's double parking, there's lyft, there's uber. and this street has one white zone space. there's no way there's 1,000 people -- if it's 165 or 1 # 0
seats, but they're going to be open 13 hours, so there's probably going to be 1,000 people coming onto this little residential street per day without any sort of accommodation to the people who live there. the problem that pacific felt factory which is who i'm representing has, 'cause our artists have also signed another 20 signatures on a petition against this complex, we're concerned about the impact of this huge place. we tried to talk to them. this is destination. it's not serving the community unless you consider hot dogs as serving the community. we tried to talk with la cocina and sit down with justin and