San Francisco Land Use and Transportation Committee Regular Meeting - March 25, 2024
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
San Francisco Land Use and Transportation Committee Regular Meeting - March 25, 2024
The Land Use and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors met on March 25, 2024, at 9:45 AM. The committee, chaired by Supervisor Mirna Melgar and joined by Board President Aaron Peskin and Vice Chair Dean Preston, considered five agenda items related to planning code amendments, a waterfront flood study, and disability access deadline extensions. All items were approved or forwarded to the full Board of Supervisors with positive recommendations.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Item 4 (Waterfront Draft Plan): Beck Trebesh with San Francisco Parks Forward spoke in support of nature-based solutions and equity for the southern waterfront, advocating for restoration of Islais Creek Channel and reinvestment in wetlands to protect surrounding communities.
Discussion Items
- Item 1: Citywide Expansion of Allowable Commercial, Restaurant, and Retail Uses – President Peskin introduced amended language regarding use size limitations in residential districts (1200 sq ft in RH/RM1/RM2, 2500 sq ft in RM3/RM4). The amendment also clarified language on outdoor activities (changing "not at front" to "elsewhere"). No public comment. The committee voted to amend and forward to the full board with positive recommendation.
- Item 2: Tobacco Paraphernalia Establishments in North of Market SUD and Lower Polk NCD – Continued from the previous week. Vice Chair Preston noted prior discussion and moved to send to the full board as a committee report. No public comment. Unanimous vote.
- Item 3: Rezone 68 Nantucket Avenue from Public to RH1 – Planning staff presented a request to rezone two irregular parcels (approx. 1900 sq ft combined) from Public to RH1 (one-family residential). Chair Melgar questioned why the parcels were not aggregated with the adjacent owner’s property for multifamily housing. Staff noted the owner’s home is next door and the parcels are small. No public comment. Forwarded to full board with positive recommendation.
- Item 4: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers SF Waterfront Coastal Flood Study Draft Plan – Assistant Port Director Michael Martin and Brad Benson (Port Waterfront Resilience Director) presented the draft plan, which proposes $13.5 billion in coastal flood defenses along 7.5 miles of waterfront. The plan includes raising shorelines, floodproofing buildings, and nature-based features. Key issues: costs (65% federal share possible), coordination with other city agencies, concerns about gate closures on bridges affecting Muni, and environmental contamination in Bayview. Rachel Tanner (Planning) discussed urban design opportunities. Chair Melgar raised questions about citywide coordination and induced flooding. The committee filed the item with a motion to continue discussion in the future.
- Item 5: Building Code – Extending Deadlines for Disability Access Improvements – Supervisor Mandelman, the sponsor, presented the ordinance to extend the compliance deadline for the Accessible Business Entrance (ABE) program from June 2024 to December 31, 2024. He noted challenges faced by small businesses and expressed intent to introduce future legislation to remove DBI enforcement. The committee duplicated the file, amended the duplicate to extend the deadline to December 31, 2024, and sent it to the Building Inspection Commission. The original file was forwarded to the full board with positive recommendation.
Key Outcomes
- Item 1: Motion to amend and recommend to full board passed (3-0).
- Item 2: Motion to recommend as committee report passed (3-0).
- Item 3: Motion to recommend to full board passed (3-0).
- Item 4: Motion to file the item passed (3-0).
- Item 5: Original file recommended to full board (3-0). Duplicate file amended (deadline extended to Dec 31, 2024) and continued to the call of the chair (3-0).
Meeting Transcript
Good afternoon, everyone. This meeting will come to order. Welcome to the March 25th, 2024 regular meeting of the Land Use and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. I am Supervisor Mirna Melgar, Chair of the Committee, joined by Board of Supervisors President Aaron Paskin and Vice Chair Dean Preston. The committee clerk today is uh Mr. John Carroll. And I would also like to acknowledge and thank Matthew Ignau at SFGov TV for staffing this meeting. Mr. Clerk, do you have any announcements? Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Please ensure that you've silenced your cell phones and other electronic devices you've brought with you into the chamber today. If you have any documents to include as part of any of today's files, you should submit them to me, and you can do so by bringing them forward to the rail. Public comment will be taken on each item on today's agenda. When your item of interest comes up and public comment is called, please line up to speak along your right hand side of this room. Alternatively, you may submit public comment in writing in either of the following ways. First, you may email me at J-O-H-N, period C A R R O L L at SFGO V dot O R G. Or you may send your written comments via U.S. Postal Service to our office in City Hall. That's the clerk's office, room 244 and City Hall's address is one Dr. Carlton B. Goodlick Place, San Francisco, California 94102. If you submit public comment in writing, I will forward your comment to the members of this panel and also include your comments as part of the official file upon which you are commenting. And finally, Madam Chair, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors' agenda of April 2nd, 2024, unless otherwise stated. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Please call agenda item number one. Agenda item number one is an ordinance amending the planning code to facilitate citywide expansion of allowable commercial restaurant and retail uses. Thank you. But I will turn it over to my colleague President Peskin because he just circulated amendments that he wants to introduce. And I want to thank you so much, uh, President Peskin for working on this language and working with the department. Thank you, Supervisor Melgar. I think we all came to consensus last week, but left it for the city attorney to massage some language which is set forth at page 10 and is now internally consistent in subsection D relative to use sizes that set forth, and I'll just read it in RH RM1 or RM2 district, the use size shall comply with the use size limitations of a neighborhood commercial district or special use district located within one quarter mile of the use up to a maximum of 1200 square feet of occupied floor area of commercial area in any RM3 or RM4 district. The use size shall comply with the use size limitations of neighborhood commercial district or special use district located within one quarter mile of the use up to a maximum of 2500 square feet of commercial use and then repeats that language uh with regard to the 1200 square foot of occupied floral area in a commercial RTO uh or in an RH1 RH RM1 RM2 uh district if the use is more than a quarter mile from an N C D or SUD and no more than 2500 square feet uh of commercial use uh in an RM3 or RM4 if the use is again within a quarter mile from a neighborhood from an NCD or SUD. Uh so um that is the language that seems to work for everyone. And I think there were also some planning department cleanup uh on page six uh under outdoor activities that I think said P if located in the front of a building, NP if elsewhere. Do I have that right, Aaron? Yes. And Mr. Starr, the other Aaron is nodding his head. So and I believe those amendments are not substantive. I'm sorry, I I'm just uh reading the the last amendment. So P if located in front of the building, and P if elsewhere. I I think that the somebody brought up something, and maybe Ms. Flores can tell us, but I think the way it was written was uh not ver was this is not my language. I think this was a suggestion from planning. I think it said not at front of building, and I think that everybody decided that it would be clearer if it said elsewhere. Um supplying department staff, that is correct. It will make it consistent to state elsewhere, similar to the other code sections, and it's just really to clarify instead of the wordy phrase of not at the front, just state elsewhere. Okay. But there's no change in the um allowances or implementation.
openpublica.com