Neighborhood. Thank you. Commissioner fung. Question for staff. The condition that was proposed by the last speaker it appears some of it is already covered. That is correct. And is there any of those conditions that are not covered . I think there are some conditions that are not covered. In my presentation there are things that i dont think the staff or commission can get involved with. But things to the nature of, we mentioned no, or a prohicks of prohibition of onsite use. The other thing is the kitchen, it could not be permitted not allowed. There are things with the existing tenant which i dont think is an issue the commission would want to be involved with. A fairly private matter. So i made there are some issues where i dont know where permitwise we have full ability to condition ability to enforce or take on the risk of having to enforce. The security fence they are adding will take care of one of the conditions. That will take care of a lot and i think theres some state requirements of things they have to do and i believe the sponsor could provide more information on what their security plans will be and i believe they have a more full, thoughtout security plan that is included in their cannabis application. Do you mind if i interrupt . Can we clarify which conditions we are talking about . Because i think theres two sets if im not mistaken, items we received the six conditions. Those appear to be something that we could enforce but im not. Im referencing the 12 that were in the letter provided within the case report and i actually havent seen what was submitted today. Okay. We should clarify which conditions we are talking about. That would be good. Thank you for that suggestion. So of the six that were passed out today, well, we can look at them more carefully but my initial read is those are things that would be some things that we could enforce and could be included in the conditions of approval. The 12 you are talking about, can be more problematic. Additional six. I explained the number where there may be issues with the city having liability on enforcing these conditions. My question was related to the six that was just. I might clarify. Yes come on up. The original 12 conditions did contain some conditions that we felt were not appropriate to go into the cua. So the list that we had today were conditions we felt could go in so its a subset of the 12. Okay. Thank you. Perhaps the project sponsor, do you want to respond to those six . Thank you, commissioner fung. Im familiar with the list of 12. This is the first time im seeing the list of six. And i dont see anything on this list that we would find objectionable. Okay. Okay. Commissioner koppel. Ill make a motion to approve with the six conditions handed in in writing by the dtna. Second. Does the City Attorney wish to Say Something . Planning commission, southwest team leader. We can restrict onsite consumption. And there is concern also about the signage. We cant prohibit them to be more restrictive than what our sign code will allow. Go ahead. President melgar, kate stacey from the City Attorneys office. I just was raising concern about condition number two as being a contentbased restriction on signage. That is quite difficult for the city to enforce in certain circumstances. I understand that the project sponsor is willing to agree to this so just maybe some future issues with enforcing that. We do have signage restrictions that regulate the time, place and manner of signage but not necessarily the content. So i have a little bit of concern about condition number two and the citys ability to enforce it in the future. Okay. Will the motion maker want to amend that . Sure. Why dont i take out condition two and then add in the look back. I second it. It was okay. Commissioner fung. I think the project sponsor heard the suggestion and is probably aware of what they need to do with respect to condition number two. Commissioners if theres nothing further there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this meater with matter with conditions. Eliminateing number two on that motion commissioner fung . Aye. Johnson. Koppel. Aye. Melgar. Aye. So moved that motion passes unanimously four to zero. cheering. . We still have business so if you could dial it down i would appreciate it, and quietly exit. I will place this under your discretionary review calendar. 1299 sanchez street. If those persons leaving the chambers could do so quietly, we would certainly appreciate that. [off mic]. Ill bring you some in a second. Southwest team leader. Good afternoon. Folks if we could keep it down, please. We still have business. Thank you. The case before you is a request for discretionary review of a Building Permit proposing to change the use of an approximately 1139 square foot tenant space to add a twostory mixed use building and transition into a limited restaurant noe Valley Coffee, with an accessory Coffee Roaster, minor alterations proposed for the subject tenant space. The property is located on the east side of sanchez street between clipper and 26th street another the noe valley neighborhood. The requester is paul who resides 416 26th street which is 150 feet west of the subject property sight. The request concerns are as follows. That the impact of the proposed business to the livability of the neighborhood due to the emissions an increase in Traffic Congestion and noise level. Potential Health Risks Due to the release of air pollutants in association with coffee roasting and the lack of active monitoring of the air Quality Management. To ensure compliance with their regulations and conditions. The compatibility of the Zoning District and the elimination of laundromat. To date the department received five correspondence in opposition to the project that are in support of the dr request. Members of the public expressing opposition to the project state concerns with compatibility of the proposed land use and potential emissions and noxious odors. To date the department has received 48 correspondents in support of the project and in opposition to the dr. Members of the public express support state the project stresses the commercial corridor. Provided to you are four correspondents received after the packet. And the Department Recommends the commission not take dr since this is a principally nc1 district. So this is a notification for change of use and it meets the goals and objectives of our general plan. An item by item response provided in the packet ensures this project will not displace the laundromat and provide a use compatible with the neighborhood, not present a Significant Health risk to the neighborhood and as identified by the bay area air Quality Management. That concludes my presentation. Thank you mr. Washington. We will hear now from the requester. Good afternoon. My name is paul. Im a physician with usff and San Francisco va. Im a scientist at those locations. I live within 150 feet of the proposed change of use. And im here representing not only myself but a number of neighbors who are very concerned about this change. And our main concerns are the hazards produced by coffee roasting onsite. And we believe if these hazards are addressed adequately we would accept all the other aspects of the change of use. So coffee roasting may sound harmless, but its really an industrial process that produces significant air pollution, containing carcinogens and toxic chemicals that can worsen lung diseases such as asthma or emphysema. This is the highest concern the health of children, such as those at the nearby preschool just down the block because of the youth, they are most susceptible to these effects. We are also concerned because the calculations of the air Quality Management district estimated that roasting coffee would produce carcinogens at levels that are really past the limits of safety. Moreover from a quality of life aspect, roasting is harmful because it produces noxious odors that have been described like burning tires, for example. And these are common causes of complaints. So we believe that there are two possible solutions that would address these hazards. First, he could replace his proposed technology called the vortex, the Spear Technology and that is the use of afterburners. Afterburners are widely used as the best Available Technology. And thats in fact how they are steamed by the air Quality Management district. These afterburners will effectively remove all carcinogens and odors. And this is the dominant Technology Used in San Francisco. I cant find any other Technology Used on record. I would also note that all the roasters that he lists as operating near schools use afterburners. Another sign of their wide acceptance. In contrast the equipment that he wants to use is not certified by air management district as having efficacy against carcinogens or odors nor does the manufacturer of this equipment claim that equipment eliminates these problems. It is an unproven and inferior technology and quite likely inadequate for abatement. During our mediation with him we discussed the use of afterburners but he rejected this. We also suggested they use an afterburner roaster unit that has zero emissions but that was rejected. So a second possibility that weve proposed that he could continue roasting as he is currently doing in berkeley. They have an extensive range of roasters including several that can do sample roasting, which is one of his goals, which was also rejected. So in conclusion, i think we have made a goodfaith effort to resolve this dispute. We have provided several solutions at mediation and afterwards, we provided mr. Rooter with the Regulatory Information that he requested. In contrast, he did not fulfill the action items listed in our mediation agreement. Nevertheless we believe we can resolve this dispute if mr. Rooter uses afterburners or if he roasts at another site such as his current location. These solutions allow him to operate the expanded cafe at sanchez street, he could fulfill all his Business Needs by simply roasting off site. While still protecting the health and quality of life of the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you very much. We will now take Public Comment in support of the dr requester. So if you are here supporting the dr request come on up now. Good afternoon. Im elenore. I was the parent of a very sweet preschooler at the academy across the street for the last three years and i planned to enroll my younger child next fall. I speak on behalf of the owner and director of academy, the cafe and heidi who submitted two letters expressing concerns over the Health Effects of the roaster on the preschool children across the street. The doctor said there was a path of success for all parties. We do not oppose the change of use to a limited restaurant but we do oppose the use of the roaster. Number one, install the best Available Technology to abate the health risks which is an afterburner or number two continue to roast at coroast. The section prohibits. This is overwhelmingly residential with a few nearby businesses generating low foot traffic. Adding a new source of pollution for so many Young Children is specifically problematic. As pediatrician and nearby resident writes to you children face special risks from air pollution as compared to adults. She explains children have increased metabolic rates and must develop 80 percent of their lung capacity after birth. She cites a number of studies that show a small incremental changes in pollution are associated with measurable changes in mortality rates and life expectancy. In addition to higher rates of asthma and otherless practice pyroproblems. Other problems. They argue other roasters dont abate their smoke or locate it near preschools. We contacted the roasters and reviewed their permits and found their claims were inaccurate. They say they have a roaster in a residential area but it no longer operates this roaster and it appears it never applied for the necessary air permits. Andy roaster is in a residential section but uses an integrated afterburner. We agreed but they declined to sign a binding agreement with us in mediation. The air district confirmed they would need to apply for a new permit to increase their capacity to just under the levels and they must grant that permit. Our concerns are both the immediate and Long Term Health risks over the Young Children across the street who should not have their health risked so they may offer a novel coffee experience. This is not neighborhood serving. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. My name is james moon. Im a senior Vehicle Systems engineer for Bay Area Rapid transit. Ive lived with my family at 1280 sanchez street across the street from the proposed noe Valley Coffee for 25 years. My wife and i do not want the terrible odor of roasting coffee wafting over the neighborhood. We are concerned about potential health risks of coffee roasting, especially the sensitive people like the children at the preschool down the street and those with asthma like my wife and other neighbors. We believe that coffee roasting is an industrial activity that is not suitable for this residential neighborhood. We are concerned that the only monitoring proposed by the bay area air Quality Management district is indirect. Coffee being purchased reporting which is unlikely to be or difficult to separate from the wholesale Coffee Business and the natural gas usage. Theres no monitoring of the actual pollutants. We are also concerned there appears to be an exemption to the noxious odor regulation of the area, bay area air Quality Management district for restaurants with less than five employees. So we feel we may have no recourse if there are noxious odors from the coffee roasting. The best Available Technology for mitigating emissions and odor from Coffee Roasters is the use of an afterburner and was stated previously, noe Valley Coffee refused to use that technology. We are not opposed to the proposed change of use for the coffee shop limited use restaurant but we are opposed to the operation of a roaster in this neighborhood without the use of an afterburner. We respect entrepreneurial spirit but believe that the desire to create a Business Opportunity should not come at the expense of the community. Thank you. Thank you sir. Next speaker please. Good afternoon. My name is kathleen maxwell. Im a professor at Santa Clara University and the spouse of paul. We have lived within 150 feet of it proposed roaster installation for the past 34 years. I support the right to open a cafe, it is the partner of Christian Ritter in this enterprise. I do not support mr. Ritters right to install a roaster that may compromise the environment of our residential neighborhood. I ask you to remember there is a significant difference between roasting coffee beans and brewing coffee. Both create odors but roasting coffee has a particular machine proposed by mr. Ritter may welcome promise the air quality of our residential neighborhood. We cannot allow our affection for it to cloud our judgment regarding the potential impact of the particular roaster that Christian Ritter wishes to install. Our neighborhood is filled now with young families. Furthermore a preschool is located in the church across the street. The childrens play yard there opens to sanchez street. I can only hope that the neighborhood children and those attending the preschool will be able to enjoy the same healthy environment that our three children did. Christian ritter has viable alternatives to the roaster he proposes to install in the cafe. Mr. Ritter could continue to roast at corow coffee in berkeley. They have many different types and capacities of roasters including small batch roasters. Mr. Ritter could purchase a safe roaster with zero emissions. Mr. Ritter could install a small batch roaster which would meet his declared needs regarding onsite roasting at the cafe, a small batch roaster would qualify him to remain legally below the radar of the air Quality Management board making this Design Review unnecessary. Mr. Ritter instead wishes to install a large capacity roaster which can process 44 pounds of beans we are hour. Despite his claims that he will only use it for a few hours a week. His roaster could easily exceed safe levels of harmful chemicals. Given the fact that mr. Ritters coffee is already sold in the bay area and packaging that claims it is roasted in the city of San Francisco and given the fact that there will be no effective oversight by any agency of mr. Ritters coffee roasting once his roaster is installed i strongly object to his being granted permission to install this high capacity roaster in our residential neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker please. Good afternoon. Ive lived in noe valley for 31 years and have been in my current home at 26th street approximately 190 feet from the proposed coffee shop at 1299. Ive been there for 28 years. Ive been a supporter of spin city now doing business as noe Valley Coffee company and the enterprise since they began serving coffee at the sanchez street location but i oppose the accessory coffee roasting provision. Most of us who are coffee drinkers enjoy the s