Good afternoon, everyone.

This meeting will come to order.

Welcome to the October 6, 2025 regular meeting of the Land Use and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

I'm Supervisor Mirna Melgar, chair of the committee, joined by Vice Chair, Supervisor Cheyenne Chen, and Supervisor Bilal Mahmud.

The committee clerk today is John Carroll, and I also like to thank Haime Chevery from SFGov TV for supporting us in broadcasting 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 be included as part of any of today's files, you can submit them directly to me.

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 your written comment to me at J-O-H-N.

Period C-A-R-R-O-L-L at SFGOV.org.

Or you may send your written public comment via U.S.

Postal Service to our office in City Hall.

And the address for that is one, Dr.

Carlton B.

Goodlit Place, Room 244, San Francisco, California, 94102.

If you submit your public comment in writing, I'll forward your comments to the members of this committee and also include your comments as part of the official file on which you are commenting.

And agenda items acted upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors Agenda of October 21st, 2025, unless otherwise stated.

Okay, thank you so much.

Let's go ahead and call item number one, please, Mr.

Clerk.

Agenda item number one is an ordinance modifying the Geary Boulevard Neighborhood Commercial District to authorize outdoor hand washing, vacuuming, and detailing of automobiles as an accessory use in certain automotive service stations.

It affirms the planning department sequidetermination and makes findings of consistency with the general plan and the eight priority policies of planning code section 101.1 and findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare pursuant to planning code section 302.

Thank you so much.

Mr.

Clerk, this item was continued from the last time we met because it had substantive amendments.

We're not uh getting a presentation today, nor is Supervisor Chan here to talk about our item.

So I will go ahead uh, you know, if there's no comments or questions from any of my colleagues, um, let's go to public comment on this item and then we can move it.

Thank you, madam chair.

Land use and transportation will now hear public comment related to agenda item number one, permitting outdoor hand washing, vacuuming, and detailing of automobiles in the Geary Boulevard in CD.

If you have public comment for this item, please come forward to the lecture in at this time.

And Madam Chair, it appears we have no speakers.

Okay, no public comment.

So public comment on this item is now closed.

I'd like to make a motion that we uh approve this item to go to the full board uh with a recommendation today.

On the motion offered by the chair that this ordinance be sent to the board of supervisors with a recommendation of land use and transportation.

Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I, Member Machmood Machmood I, Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar, I.

Madam Chair, there are three ayes.

Okay, thank you.

Uh let's go ahead and call item number two, please.

Agenda item number two is a resolution adding the commemorative street name Jim Marshall Way to 16th Street between Noe and Castro in recognition for his contributions to capturing the cultural and music history of San Francisco.

Thank you.

We are now joined by Board President Raphael Mandelman, who's a sponsor of this item.

So the floor is yours, Supervisor.

Thank you, Chair Melgar and uh committee members.

It's nice to visit with you this Monday afternoon.

Uh this resolution will add the commemorative street name Jim Marshall Way to the signage for the block of 16th Street between Noy and Castro.

Um, I introduced this legislation at the end of July in time for Dead Summer.

Jim Marshall was a legendary music photographer who documented San Francisco bands like uh Grateful Dead, Jefferson Airplane, and the holding company with uh Janice Joplin.

Jim Marshall's foot uh photographic contributions led to him being the first photographer to win a Grammy for Chronicling Music History.

He captured iconic moments such as the Beatles' last concert at Candlestick Park in 1966.

Jimi Hendrix burning his guitar at Monterey Pop Festival.

Johnny Cash performing at San Quentin State Prison, and um The Summer of Love.

Marshall spent uh the last twenty-six years of his life living on 16th Street, and many of his photos are stamped uh on the back with that at with his address there.

I want to um thank his longtime neighbor Justin Fickelson and his former assistant Amelia Davis.

They came to me uh with uh the idea for this commemorative street name.

They also came to the neighborhood um and uh did extensive door knocking uh and got great support from um the neighbors who actually live on that block on both sides of the street, as well as the DeBose Triangle Neighborhood Association.

So this is a uh an easy but good one.

Um, and uh I want to also thank my legislative aide on Ha for his work on this.

I think there are some folks who are gonna talk to us also during public comment.

Great.

Um I love that story.

Thank you, Supervisor.

Um, so I see no one on the roster for comments or questions.

Let's go to public comment on this item, please.

Thank you, madam chair, land use and transportation.

We'll now hear public comment related to agenda item number two, a commemorative street name for Jim Marshall Way.

If you have public comment.

Sorry.

A commemorative street name for Jim Marshall on 16th between Noah and Castro.

If you have public comment for this item, please come forward.

Thank you very much for the consideration.

Um I was born and raised on 16th.

He was my neighbor all growing up and really became an institution in the neighborhood in the city.

Uh, and obviously captured not just the music scene of the 60s and 70s in San Francisco, but really the cultural uh fabric and history of the city.

Um, and now 16th is really this thoroughfare that nobody really necessarily pays attention to, and I think it would be really special from an historical perspective uh to honor him in this way and have this uh under the street sign.

So thank you again for your consideration.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number two?

And if we have other folks who want to speak next, you can line up to speak along that western wall.

I'm pointing out with my left hand.

Please begin.

You know, I've known Jim since 1968.

Jim had come from Chicago, born and raised here.

Um everything that Supervisor Mandelman said, he's done all of that and much, much more, besides photographing some of the great musicians of not just the San Francisco and California era, but globally, Jim was probably as much a character and an icon as anyone he photographed.

Um I would put him right up there with Amperor Norton, Sally Stanford.

I mean, Jim is an institution, and I think it's only fitting that he have a small street named after him where he did live his last 26 years.

Uh you know, I could go on for a half an hour regaling you with Jim Marshall's stories, but um he really was one of a kind.

Um and I'd say he was an institution.

So I'm I'm hoping that this can come to pass.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number two?

My name is Theron Kabrich.

Amelia Davis couldn't be here.

She's on a book tour for a Jim Marshall book right now.

Um he is an institution, he's globally uh respected.

Uh he's admired by photographers for National Geographic, Time Magazine, all the great photographers.

We see their work in uh the media, look at Jim Marshall as like the godfather of what they do for profession.

And in fact, Annie Liebovitz, who most people in this room know, said she became a photographer when she was at the San Francisco Art Institute because she was uh inspired by Jim Marshall.

Um I have a gallery or I had a gallery on Geary Street for almost 40 years until the pandemic closed us down.

But I used to do exhibitions, and Jim was an enthusiastic participant in some of those exhibitions because he had about a million photographs to pull from.

And I think the most excited he got was an exhibition I was doing about the civil rights movement, and that was in 2010.

And he had photographs that he shot in Mississippi.

He photographed Fannie Lee Cheney, who was the mother of James Cheney, who uh who was killed by the KKK, and he he lived and breathed every moment in in the country in San Francisco.

He recorded all these events.

So the fact that all of these, his photographs have survived all these years and will survive for the next 200 years are a record of what actually happened during our time.

And without Jim Marshall, we wouldn't have that record.

So I think that that is the least that could happen for him is having this next street named after you.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number two?

Madam Chair.

Okay.

Thank you.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

Um I would like to uh make a motion that we send this item out of committee with a positive recommendation to the full board.

On the motion from the chair that the resolution be sent with the recommendation of land use and transportation.

Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I, Member Machmood Machmoud I, Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar, I.

Madam Chair, there are three eyes.

Thank you.

That motion passes.

Mr.

Clerk, let's please call items three through eighteen together.

Agenda item numbers three through eighteen are 16 resolutions initiating landmark designations for the following locations.

Hose company number 30, located at 1757 Waller.

Mauds, which is 929 to 941 Cole.

St.

Matthew's Church, located at 1381 16th Street, St.

Nicholas Cathedral at 2005 15th Street.

St.

Paul's Church located at 1660 Church.

Uh Stick slash Eastlack, excuse me, a stick slash East Lake style home located at 102 Guerrero.

Bank of Italy branch building located at 400 to 410 Castro, the Bob Ross House at 420 20th Street, the Castro Rock Steam Baths located at 578 to 582 Castro.

The San Francisco AIDS Foundation at 514 to 520 Castro.

The Full Moon Coffee House, located at 4416 18th Street, the Most Holy Redeemer Church Complex, consisting of 110 Diamond, 100 Diamond, 115 Diamond, and 117 Diamond.

The uh 1865 folk Victorian, located at 361 San Jose Avenue, the Chautauqua House, located at 1451 Masonic, and engine company number 13, which is with the address 1458 Valencia.

Madam Chair.

Okay, thank you so much.

Uh Supervisor Mandelman, thank you for bringing these items to the land use and transportation committee.

The floor is yours.

Thank you again, Chair Melgar.

And um, I'm gonna get out of the way and let the professionals talk.

Um, in particular Alex Westoff.

Uh, but I do just want to begin, but I I'm gonna say a couple things as as uh as Mr.

West Off gets gets himself set up.

Um San Francisco is a gorgeous, amazing, beautiful city, and it is partly gorgeous, amazing, and beautiful because we are uh on a peninsula surrounded by water with great hills, but we are also a city with some truly amazing buildings.

And um we all recognize that San Francisco must grow.

We are taking, I think, important steps to allow more housing to be built in San Francisco.

We have done um work around streamlining our processes, and we are considering um expanding our capacity our overall capacity through the um family zoning legislation that this committee will be taking up quite soon.

Um, and all of that is good.

But it does uh I think also require that we give um some special thought and attention to the buildings we have that we want uh to preserve whatever may come in the way of growth.

In the past, over the last many decades, we relied on discretionary processes to um identify buildings as development proposals came forward.

Um uh the planning staff could look at them and figure out whether perhaps uh there was a historic resource there that needed to be preserved.

Uh neighbors might find out and come forward with their concerns and through discretionary review or conditional uses, a building that might not have been identified as a landmark or part of a historic district, would still have the benefit of some um attention to its historic merit.

That is going to be far less the, that is already far less the case than it used to be, and it is going to be going forward, not the way we do things.

And we are also, as I said, looking at expanding capacity and encouraging more development in the city.

And in that context, I think it is incumbent on us to do the work on the front end before those development proposals come forward to identify the buildings that we really do think do need additional levels of protection that are either landmarks or should be included in historic districts.

This is a conversation I've been having with the planning department for a while now.

In some ways, it began long before we started talking about streamlining and upzoning.

Supervisor, then Supervisor Peskin and I have been prodding and cajoling the department and funding historic resource surveys that we are hoping will be finished soon.

But I think, you know, actually getting buildings landmarked and districts established is going to be important for us going forward.

I see the work in District 8 so far as a small down payment on the work that needs to happen going forward.

It is nonetheless time-consuming and arduous for the planners who have worked on this, and so I want to thank Rich Sucre and Alex Westoff and the rest of your team for pouring through the buildings that might uh qualify for landmark status, identifying the ones that rise to sort of the top of the list, going through the extensive public process that's required under our laws, responding to my concerns and feedback.

And coming forward now with this 16, we're working on another 30 that I hope we'll be able to move forward with over the next year.

We also have a couple of districts that we're working on in the mission, and eager to work on more districts that may be collections of particularly noteworthy and important buildings that we don't want to see ministerially demolished.

So with that, I'd like to invite uh Alex West off to come in and talk about these 16 buildings.

Thank you, President Mandelman.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

Alex Westhoff planning department staff.

So as President Mandelman mentioned, I'm here to present on the 16 initiated landmark designations.

But before that, I'll share just a bit of background, expanding upon what President Mandelman said about the family zoning plan landmark program.

So this is an effort initiated by former Board of Supervisor President Aaron Peskin.

And as part of the broader family zoning plan, the city is committed to ensuring that growth associated with ambitious housing production goals is aligned with San Francisco's longstanding dedication to preserving historic places deeply embedded in San Francisco's unique cultural identity.

One facet of this program is focused on designating existing historic resources that are within the family zoning plan, and this includes identifying properties that have already been classified as category A historic resources through previous efforts such as past surveys and historic resources reviews.

Phase one of this program focuses on existing category A properties that are non-residential or single-family residences outside of public and RH zoning districts.

I want to mention that this effort is very much centered on racial and social equity consistent with the 2020 racial and social equity resolution passed by our historic preservation commission.

This program includes proposing landmarks, which were identified through the planning department's cultural historic context statements.

As you will see, this particular batch includes seven properties with LGBTQ associations as well as the first proposed landmark with an American Indian Association.

And as we walk work through other districts in the city, we'll bring forward other landmarks with underrepresented community associations, which will vary district by district.

I'd also like to mention that this is very much an iterative process.

In future phases.

We'll loop in new properties proposed for landmarking through our parallel effort, the citywide cultural Resources Survey, which is reviewing every property in San Francisco for historical significance and integrity.

This process includes a series of public hearings with opportunities for community participation held both by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Board of Supervisors.

Final approval of a landmark requires a majority vote by the Board of Supervisors and signature by the mayor.

So this program started as a pilot in District 8.

And in addition to District 8, we have been working closely with Supervisor Chan's office and recently held public meetings to discuss nine proposed landmarks throughout District 1.

We have also identified potential landmarks in District 11, which we have discussed with Supervisor Chen and begun relevant outreach.

Finally, we were working with Supervisor Cheryl's office and will participate in a public forum tomorrow evening to discuss a number of potential district two landmarks and the property owners and occupants of all these properties have been invited to these various public events.

So the next several slides will present the properties which were initiated for landmark designation by Board President Mandelman on July 29th, 2025.

And given the volume of proposed landmarks, I'll just provide high-level comments on individual properties, but can answer any specific questions about these sites.

Again, these slides cover agenda items 3 through 18.

So 757 Waller Street is significant as one of San Francisco's earliest Dixtant Firehouses.

The subject property was constructed in 1896 to house engine company number 30.

Constructed of granite and wood, the subject property is an intact example of Italianate architecture.

929 to 941 Cole Street is significant for its early association with San Francisco's lesbian community, including Ricky Stryker, one of San Francisco's most influential and successful openly lesbian businesswomen.

Mauds was the first bar she opened and was one of San Francisco's earliest, longest-running, and most popular lesbian bars.

This is the first of three Gothic Revival churches in this batch, all of which are exuberant examples of this style.

328116th Street was erected in 1907 by the German Evangelical Lutheran Church and has been owned and occupied by the group since then.

The second Gothic Revival Church is St.

Nicholas Cathedral, built in 1904.

This building was constructed to serve the religious needs of the growing population in Eureka Valley.

The third of the Gothic Revival Churches is St.

Paul's churches.

This one was notably designed by architect of merit Frank She.

1660 Church Street is significant for its association with the growth and development of Noe Valley as well as for its architecture.

102 Guerrero Street is a significant and intact example of a stick East Lake home and an early example of the work of architect Henry Gilfuss.

Gilfuss was a prominent San Francisco architect, and this represents one of his ornate and earlier works.

Originally constructed as the Bank of Italy, 400 to 410 Castro Street, is significant for its association with commercial development of Eureka Valley, now commonly known as the Castro.

Additionally, it embodies characteristics typical of neighborhood branch banks from the 1920s and is a good example of Beau Arts architecture with large exterior windows and a large interior volume.

42020th Street is significant as the home of Bob Ross, who co-founded the Bayer Reporter in 1971, which is reportedly the oldest LGBDQ weekly and continuous publication in the United States.

Ross also co-founded the Tavern Guild, which raised money for numerous pro-gay politicians, and he held frequent political and professional events at the subject property.

582 Castro Street is significant as the home of the Castro Rock Steam Baths, an exclusively gay bathhouse in the 1970s amidst the backdrop of the Castro initially establishing itself as an internationally recognized LGBTQ enclave.

Bathhouses played important role in community development as safe and private spaces for queer men to meet.

514 to 520 Castro Street is significant as the original location of the Office of the San Francisco AIDS Foundation.

Cleve Jones helped begin the organization and is credited as one of the first agencies in the United States specifically addressing AIDS.

441618th Street is significant as the location of the Full Moon Coffee House in the mid-1970s.

The 1970s represents a pivotal time in the Castro's history, as it established itself as queer San Francisco's cultural, economic, and political hub, drawing international attention to issues surrounding LGBTQ equality.

But at the time it was largely dominated by gay men, and the full moon was collectively owned by a group of lesbians and is credited as the first women-only establishment in San Francisco.

The most holy redeemer Catholic Church complex has a layered history.

Its significance includes association with the growth of the Roman Catholic Church in San Francisco at the turn of the century as an important social asset for the Eureka Valley Irish, German, and Italian immigrant communities in the early 20th century, with the history of Roman Catholic relationships with LGBTQ communities and for its early and continued use as an AIDS hospice.

220 Danver Street is significant for its historical association with San Francisco's LGBTQ Jewish community.

The property was the original home of Congregation Shaher Zahav, one of the first LGBTQ Jewish groups on the West Coast formed in 1977.

361 San Jose Avenue was constructed in 1865 and is significant for its association with early settlement of San Francisco following the California Gold Rush, as well as being an early and intact example of folk Victorian architecture, which is extremely rare in San Francisco.

As the historic location of the American Indian Historical Society, 1451 Masonic Avenue is significant for its association with the Red Power Movement of the 1960s, as well as with the Costa family who played prominent roles in American Indian civil rights advocacy.

Chautauqua House also included gallery space for American Indian artists and published The Indian Historian, a quarterly journal.

As I mentioned, this would be the very first city landmark with a strong American Indian Association.

And lastly, 1458 Valencia Street is significant as the oldest standing firehouse in San Francisco.

Constructed in 1883, the property is rare as a brick firehouse in Italianette design with cast iron front facade detailing.

So just to wrap up for some context, over the past five years, there have been 32 new Article 10 landmark designated, averaging around six landmark designations per year, thus designating 16 landmarks at once will be unprecedented, significantly increasing the number of designations completed at any one time.

In summary, this effort is a concerted approach to ensure the protection of San Francisco's most precious resources with utmost cultural, historical andor architectural significance, spanning the breadth of San Francisco's diverse and cherished histories, underscoring the city's commitment to historic preservation.

That is all that I have, but I am available to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for this amazing work.

Thank you, Supervisor Mandelman, for your timely pursuit of this effort.

Let's go.

I don't see any questions or comments from my colleagues, so let's go to public comment on this item, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Land use and transportation will now hear public comment related to agenda item numbers three through eighteen, initiating landmark designations.

If you have public comment for these items, please come forward to the lecture at this time.

And if you're waiting for the opportunity to speak, you can line up to speak along that western wall that I'm indicating with my left hand.

Let's hear from that first speaker, please.

Kathleen Courtney Rushnill Community Association.

Congratulations and thank you for your efforts to preserve and protect your district and the city.

Thank you.

Comments.

Do we have anyone else to provide public comment for agenda item numbers three through 18?

Madam Chair.

Okay.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

Supervisor Mahmoud.

Sorry, just had a quick question for the planning department.

Um, thanks for the presentation, walking through each of the different buildings that will be uh part of this landmarking process.

As we're also going through a rezoning process with the city right now, I want to just two questions.

One of these landmarks, do any of them fall currently within where the family zoning ordinance is designating either density to control or an increase in allowed height?

Yes, correct.

So the ones within the neighborhood commercial districts do the equity landmarks are scattered throughout other districts, but um the other ones that we did through that filtering process are so about half of them do.

Half of them are there.

Um and then have you done an analysis on how that would affect uh the likelihood of those respective blocks to reach the heights that the mayor's office is is purporting are going to be developed at that height, or how does it affect the probability of those outcomes, or does those planning projections that have been given need to change?

Sure.

So it wouldn't um change the allowable height for any of these properties.

So you could still add additional height to landmark buildings within the maximum allowed height.

You can still do vertical additions, and we have many examples of properties throughout the city that are landmarked that have had vertical additions done to them to allow for more growth, more housing, um different uses, et cetera.

Um has it uh more specifically, have they also done analysis on whether it's going to change the likelihood of using density control or um some of the other like whether they might be redeveloped into another there are estimates that are be given of how many we're gonna how many units we're gonna create as a result of this plan.

Do those estimates of the number of units need to be adopted based on these projects being turned into historical landmarks?

Yeah, correct.

We haven't done such an analysis, but based on past precedent, we do have examples of um historic buildings that have had additional units, housing units added, vertical additions.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Supervisor Mandelman.

Um thank you, Chair Chair Mulgar.

I don't uh want to hide the ball though.

I mean, the reason we we are starting with the family opportunity zone.

I I think um uh the you know the entire city ought to uh we ought to be you know finishing the historic resource survey and identifying landmarks and potential historic districts everywhere, but the areas where there will be the greatest um development pressure and therefore the greatest likelihood of demolishing um an important historic resource if we haven't identified it in some way is going to be, I think, in the areas that we're upzoning.

So I think I mean, I don't think the deal is that to get the units we need we have to demolish our historic resources.

Um if that's the deal, I'm not down.

Um I think I think we can do both, and I think that identifying um properties where it's gonna be a little bit potentially harder to demolish the building or where we're encouraging you to incorporate the historic resource into whatever you're doing on the property is is uh um is a feature, not a bug.

Like I think that's that's kind of what I want.

Thank you, uh Supervisor Mandelman, and thank you for the question.

Uh Supervisor Mahmoud, thank you for the presentation.

Um I will just add that you know, I also agree that we don't need to um you know demolish everything uh to comply with our commitments to the next generation of San Franciscans to build enough housing for everyone.

Um I also think that there are tools are at our disposal and things that we can do to think creatively about these issues.

For example, we have allowed historic buildings in the downtown area to uh monetize and transfer their development rights to other new buildings to still get you know some of that development potential and generate some income to maintain some of these very expensive properties that are historic.

So uh it is something that we may, you know.

If this is not my district, so but you know, this is um there are um just you know, pointing out there are tools that we can use uh to meet both things.

So uh oftentimes with these discussions, it's either one way or the other.

Um, and I find that oftentimes, you know, there's an in-between, there's both.

Uh we can meet multiple goals and walk and chew gum at the same time.

So, with that, uh thank you, colleagues.

I will um make the motion, if that's okay, to uh recommend this uh to the full board for with a positive recommendation.

On the motion offered by the chair that these 16 resolutions be sent to the board of supervisors with the recommendation of land use and transportation.

Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I, Member Mockwood Mockwood I, Chair Melgar.

Melgar I.

Madam Chair, there are three eyes.

Great.

Congratulations, Supervisor Mandelman.

Thank you.

Okay, it is now 2 04.

Uh, and we had uh agenda is the next item for two o'clock.

Uh and we now have uh Supervisor Sauter here with us.

So let's go ahead and call the next item, please, Mr.

Clerk.

Agenda item number 19 is an ordinance amending the planning code to first eliminate the North Beach Special Use District and consolidate certain controls into the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District.

Expand allowable uses and increase use size limits in the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District.

Second, expand allowable uses and increase the use size limits in the Polk Street neighborhood commercial district.

Third, expand allowable uses in the Pacific Avenue Neighborhood Commercial District.

Fourth, expand allowable uses and increase use size limits in the Knob Hill Special Use District, and fifth, reduce limitations on restaurants and bars in the Jackson Square Special Use District, amending the zoning map to reflect removal of the North Beach Special Use District, affirming the planning department's secret determination, making findings of consistency with the general plan and the eight priority policies of planning code section 101.1 and making findings of public necessity convenience and welfare under planning code section three zero two, madam chair.

Okay, thank you so much, Mr.

Clerk.

Uh this committee is happy to welcome uh district three supervisor Danny Sauter.

Uh so the floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair, and good afternoon, colleagues.

Thank you for allowing me to join your committee today and for your consideration of our item.

I wanna wanna start by thanking Michelle Andrews in my office uh for her hard work on this and Veronica Flores from planning as well, who have been instrumental on this.

We are really excited about this item of legislation because it will make it easier for small businesses to open and grow in district three and will help fill empty storefronts across our neighborhoods.

In recent years, San Francisco has made real progress in simplifying rules and removing barriers for small businesses.

But many of these changes have never made their way to my district.

As a result, it has become easier, more fair, and more predictable to open or grow a small business in every part of San Francisco except district three.

And so our legislation, District Three Thrives, seeks to change that.

We've crafted this legislation in a way that keeps all of our neighborhood commercial districts intact so that we can respect the character of the neighborhood, retain popular protections against formula retail, and make this process more transparent to the public through notices and objective standards rather than a system that too often leads to one-off special special legislation done without community input.

A few highlights of our legislation.

It makes North Beach small busin businesses eligible for our city's priority permitting processing program, so that North Beach small business owners have the same predictable timeline for permits as every other neighborhood in District 3.

It removes bans that currently exist across District 3.

For example, a ban on flexible retail, having two things under one roof in North Beach and Pacific Avenue, a prohibition on small storefront mergers in North Beach and Polk Street, a prohibition on arts activities in Knob Hill, a prohibition on walk-up facilities in North Beach, a prohibition on small first floor health services in North Beach Polk Street and Pacific Avenue.

It allows limited restaurants, which is a category of for small establishments like cafes and bakeries, not full-scale restaurants, but limited restaurants to have greater flexibility by opening in spaces that were not food use prior in North Beach and in Jackson Square.

It also removes the requirement for limited restaurants, again, these small establishments to go through the months long conditional use process in those two neighborhoods plus Knob Hill, bringing our permitting more in line with citywide rules.

Finally, it consolidates the North Beach Special Use District and the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District into just one set of rules: the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District.

The rules from the North Beach Special Use District don't disappear as some have suggested, but rather they are consolidated under one set of rules, so that business owners need to only look at one set of controls instead of two.

The newly consolidated neighborhood commercial district, NCD, will have the exact same ground floor commercial use requirement, restrictions on planned unit developments, and a requirement that restaurants and bars only occupy spaces previously used as food or drink establishment.

Additionally, I am transferring language from the SUD, that special use district, to the NCD, the neighborhood commercial district, requiring historic preservation commission review for alterations to historic buildings in the NCD and requiring a conditional use authorization for the replacement of an active legacy business, except if the space has been vacant for more than three years.

I want to be clear that our legislation does not change formula retail rules in any neighborhood.

It does not change existing protections against ghost kitchens in North Beach.

It does not remove any notifications.

In fact, this legislation allows more public input and notices.

It does not change any existing prohibitions of conversions of second floor residential spaces into re into retail spaces, and it does not impact any housing rules or legislation such as the family zoning plan.

We've been having productive conversations about this legislation with stakeholders for many months.

This legislation was introduced in June, and we've held about a dozen meetings with various neighborhood groups since then.

Thousands of mailers were sent to properties in the areas included in our legislation.

We've discussed this at our monthly coffee meetings and community meetings and shared extensive details on our social media and in our newsletter.

And our legislation has been through two public hearings before today, once at the Small Business Commission in July, and once at planning in September, both bodies of which recommended approval of the legislation.

We've worked hard to develop amendments in response to specific concerns brought up by a few organizations, and we believe these amendments are significant and highly responsive.

These amendments include tighter controls for storefront mergers in North Beach.

They clarify that medical uses would only be limited to small footprints, and they return limits on bars in Jackson Square and Pacific Avenue.

Colleagues, you have a list of those amendments, and I'd be happy to read them in their entirety into record before you consider a motion later.

Despite these amendments and widespread outreach and opportunities for public comment, we have heard from a few organizations another request for continuance today.

There was a continuance granted recently at planning, and we've heard that request again here today.

So I think that we have a good balance which we can strike today.

Colleagues, given the substantive amendments being introduced today, I'd ask that you adopt the amendments and then continue this to the October 27th meeting of the land use committee, where I hope you will refer to the full board as a committee report with recommendations.

This approach would allow further conversations while not slowing things down too much with the board not meeting next week, anyways, given the holiday.

We've had an open request out for the past two weeks to the groups who have requested amendments, and we hope that this extra time will allow them to meet with us as we have been eager to do.

We are proud to have earned support from a wide range of small businesses and organizations through our discussions, and those supporters include North Beach Neighbors, Jackson Square Merchants Association, Golden Gate Restaurant Association, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, Knob Hill Association, Discover Polk Community Benefit District, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, and Russian Hill Neighbors.

What has been most encouraging to me throughout this entire process is all of the small business owners that we have met who have reached out to us and have said that their business wants to open or grow in District three, but they literally cannot do that unless our legislation passes.

This is has included Shadi, who's a beloved merchant in North Beach and wants to expand his small market and grocery store into a space next door that has been vacant since 2018.

A yoga studio that wants to open in district three but has been scared away by stories of long delays specific to our district only.

Milana Ram and her husband Hamanchu, who want to open a cafe on Lombard Street in a space that has been empty for seven years.

And the list goes on and on.

A popular bakery that wants to open, a wine bar in Jackson Square, a gelato shop run by Italian immigrants, a barber that wants to expand into an empty space next door, and so on.

I believe that those can be the next great San Francisco stories of entrepreneurs succeeding.

But they are literally blocked right now because of these outdated rules, which are seeking to change.

That's the reality of what this legislation will fix, who it will help, and why I ask your support when this item returns to you.

Um I am here, of course, for questions.

Um I also know that we will have robust public comment today, which I look forward to.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you so much, uh, Supervisor Sauter.

Uh, we will have a presentation by Miss Veronica Flores from the planning department, and then we will open it up for public comment.

Go ahead, Miss Flores.

Thank you, Supervisors.

Veronica Flores, planning department staff.

The item before you was heard at the September 25th Planning Commission hearing, during which time they adopted a recommendation for approval with the anticipated amendments.

Supervisor Sauter has already described those amendments, and I just want to emphasize that these additional amendments were with through continued collaboration with the planning department staff leading up to the planning commission hearing, as well as additional amendments in response to additional outreach and community meetings thereafter.

Um this concludes the board report, but I am happy to answer any questions for planning.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Ms.

Flores.

Uh, with that, uh, Mr.

Clerk, let's open this item up for public comment, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Land use and transportation will now hear public comment related to agenda item number 19, consolidating the North Beach special use and neighborhood commercial districts and expanding allowable uses and use size limits in certain districts.

If you have public comment for this item, line up to speak along that western wall that I'm indicating with my left hand and then come forward to the left term when it is your turn.

Either one is fine.

Two minutes, please.

Closer to all of you.

Please begin.

Thank you for letting us speak today and for suggesting continuance, Supervisor Souter, which I agree with.

My name is Mark Bruno.

I've lived in North Beach for 35 years.

The current SUD encourages and protects an amazingly diverse group of small businesses, one reason people from all over the world visit North Beach.

Given this success, I don't believe the legislation by Supervisor Souter should be recommended unless major amendments are made to it.

For instance, changing the current 2,000 square foot commercial limit to 3,000 seems reckless.

It's well known that larger stores push out smaller ones due to economies of scale, and they raise land values and make rents untenable for smaller businesses.

Under the current SUD, North Beach is thriving.

There is no real need for this legislation.

The 49 ground floor venues on Grant Avenue from Columbus to Filbert are all occupied with one exception, and this has been recently rented.

Vallejo and Green, another 26 spaces, are 100% full.

In addition, it should be noted that 50% of the businesses on Grant and Columbus are neighborhood serving retail stores.

We're not all about restaurants and bars.

We have seven clothing stores, three seamstresses, five barbershops, four nail salons, six laundromats, three bodegas, two chocolate stores, a hardware store, three grocers, and one of the city's most famous pet shops.

You can get a haircut in North Beach for $65.

You can also get one for $25, and then you can go where I go and get one for $12.

The people at my shop don't speak English as their first language.

We are a diverse collection in North Beach of small businesses invigorating our streets and sidewalks.

It's good for businesses and customers, this diversity.

Why?

Because not everyone can afford a $65 haircut.

Adding a 3,000 square foot limit hurts these immigrant business communities and others.

They will be driven out under parts of this legislation.

Isn't there a place in North Beach both for a sixty-five dollar and a twelve dollar haircut?

I believe there is.

Speaker's time has concluded.

Thank you for your comments.

Yeah, thank you, Spanish.

And you can use either of those microphones.

Good afternoon.

I want to speak today on behalf of my bakery, Butter and Crumble.

Since I opened my doors a couple years ago, we have been serving both the neighborhood of North Beach as well as people from all around the world who are coming to visit our bakery.

And we are truly bursting out the seams.

We love our small space, but we are looking to open a second location for this next tenant of our business and our growth.

We want to keep it small, but stay within the area of North Beach so that I can keep a close eye and protect my attention to quality and the integrity of my vision for this spot.

Unfortunately, it's been really difficult to make that happen.

We've been looking for spaces and it's been quite a journey, but we've finally found one that will fit our vision perfectly, that we have our heart very set on.

Unfortunately, we won't be able to go into this spot unless this legislation is passed and approves uh the use of a limited use restaurant in this location.

Um, thank you so much uh for considering this request.

Um, it's just so important to my team to be able to have this next opportunity.

Um over the years, we have really uh watched the city go through a lot of improvements to make the process for opening a business such as mine uh more understandable and comprehensible for a young and um business owner like myself, and I'm really hoping that this legislation passing will be the next tenant of this improvement.

Um I don't have investors in my business.

Um I'm a one-woman show uh in terms of making this happen, and it's so important to me that this happened quickly.

Thank you.

Thank you for sharing your comments.

Before we hear from the next speaker, withhold your applause.

Don't interrupt the proceedings with your applause or any kind of audible support.

We will hear from you if you want to get up into the public comment line, and you will have your two minutes.

Let's have the next speaker, please.

Hello, supervisors.

My name is Ben Blyman.

I am the president of the San Francisco Entertainment Commission.

Today I'm speaking not on behalf of them, but on behalf of Discover Polk Community Benefit District, of which I'm the executive director.

Uh, we as an organization are in very strong support of this legislation.

Um, the city as a whole, and especially D3 has a hodgepodge of almost a Frankenstein-esque uh code around managing small businesses, who can open where, how late they can open.

It creates a very difficult uh situation for new business owners.

We have a number of vacancies within our district, and as the supervisor said before, people are scared away from D3, they're scared away from doing business there, they're scared away by the code and the reputation that some of these neighborhoods have.

Um I am in personally in very strong support of this and Discover Polk as well.

We encompass the district from California Street to Broadway on Polk and Van Ness primarily.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

So the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Peter Quan.

I'm a member of and I serve on the board of North Beach Neighbors.

I have lived and voted in district three for more than 20 years.

During that time, I've seen many small businesses close down only to have the storefront lie vacant for many years.

A case in point is the dry cleaning store uh just around a quarter from Lombard and Columbus, very close to where I live.

Uh there are far too many red tape and bureaucratic roadblocks that hinder small businesses from moving into district three.

Prospective businesses continue to pay rent while they wait month after month, year after year, for the permits to come through.

Many abandon their business plans in frustration.

These amendments to the planning code uh common sense improvements that will unblock the log jam and make District 3 a thriving, vibrant neighborhood.

Please support and adopt these amendments.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Ted Bartlett.

I'm a business owner in Knob Hill in District 3.

I'm here in full support of Supervisor Sauter's District 3 Thrives legislation.

I'm a San Francisco native and real estate agent serving San Franciscans for the past 27 years.

Thinking about our futures together, I'm certain that this is legislation that is not only warranted but badly needed.

As our city looks to rebound, it is imperative that well-intentioned but now out of date planning code restrictions are removed to allow for new and growing small businesses to thrive in San Francisco.

By allowing a greater number of businesses to come into our neighborhood commercial districts, empty storefronts will be filled, successful small businesses will be able to expand, and new businesses will open without almost requiring a graduate degree in city planning and incredible patience to navigate the current process.

These changes will encourage a more vibrant street scene for shoppers, residents, and our well-over 20 million warmly welcomed annual visitors.

San Francisco is the best city on earth.

Our downtown is the economic heart of the city.

Or neighborhood commercial districts are the soul of the city.

By allowing small businesses a direct and transparent path into all of our spectacular D3 neighborhoods, we will start to hear about San Francisco's boom loop rather than the negative news cycles that have dominated the national and local press over the past five years.

I urge you to support this legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, committee members, Supervisor Sauter.

I am Dr.

Chile Kratz, and I'm honored to be here to support this important legislation.

I am a small business owner.

I own positive influences and educational consulting firm.

And I have long had the vision of opening a storefront in the North Beach area to provide education, academic, and mindfulness programs to children and adults alike.

But that vision was put to sleep basically because of the long, arduous process that takes place in order to open up the storefront.

So I'm very excited by this legislation, and I hope it passes through for approval.

I'd like to leave you all with a crotz dot, which I give out across the city, which reminds you that you too can be a positive influence.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, Chair Melgayer, Supervisors Chen and Mahmood.

I've lived and worked in North Beach for 20 years, and I've owned two retail spaces and art galleries there, both on Green Street and Columbus Avenue, in addition to being past director of our monthly art and small business festival, North Beach First Fridays.

Mr.

Sauder says he has reached out to us, but planning commission, the planning commission on 925 showed us the emails that were intentionally staggered to obfuscate direct communication.

It was kind of amazing, actually.

It's kind of a juvenile trick.

But it hasn't been, it hasn't been effective in fostering real communication.

Like by North Beach neighbors, I've got a lot of questions for our supervisor, but here's the one burning me most today.

Why am I doing my district supervisor's due diligence?

I've spent the last weekend dropping into dozens of local shops.

Many of our business owners still haven't heard any details of Souter's plans as of yesterday, and many of them hadn't heard of it at all.

Now the right to conclude, they have the right to conclude two things from this.

Either Souter doesn't care about the informed input as a small business owner, or Souter didn't want them to know about it in advance of its passing.

Local artist of international acclaimed Jeremy Fish designed a poster opposing this and Lurry's upzoning in local businesses, couldn't get it into their windows fast enough in solidarity.

You'll see them in dozens of shop windows because our efforts to inform our community.

Every poster is saying no to this plan.

Owners want them in their windows so much, we actually, ran out of the 50 posters we printed.

It's embarrassing to hear.

So many of them ask me why no one's informed them, much less included them about decisions.

But in the words of third generation owner of the oldest and arguably most famous Italian coffee shop on the West Coast, Cafe Trieste, North Beach cannot truly thrive without the voices of the people who built it.

Please don't silence so many voices by approving supervisors' undemocratic plan.

At the very least, it needs to be returned to the table, and this time there need to be far more chairs seated at it.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

So the next speaker, please.

Thank you, Chair Melgar and Supervisors Chen and Matt Hood.

I submit this comment on behalf of the Jackson Square Historic District Association and Thaddeus Carhart, the San Francisco resident.

We request that the land use committee decline to act on the proposed rezone until the city prepares an environmental review document under CEQA.

All of the rezone's changes have potentially significant environmental impacts that must be analyzed and mitigated near a CEQA.

Supervisor Souter's staff report contains a single sentence stating that the rezone is not a project within the meaning of CEQA because it will not have direct environmental impacts.

This is incorrect.

The rezone is a project because it is an essential step that may lead to direct or indirect environmental impacts.

It is legally indistinguishable from the ordinance addressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of Medical Marijuana Patients Incorporated versus City of San Diego.

It held that rezoning was a CEQA project because it could result in new construction and additional traffic.

His CEQA review was required.

As in marijuana patients, this is likely to result in indirect physical changes to the environment through construction and additional traffic.

A CEQA impact study is also required for the following reasons.

The project eliminates the North Beach special use district, removing important protections for historical resources.

It also eliminates important protections against displacement compared contained in the North Beach SUD.

We urge you to refrain from considering this rezone until a CEQA document is prepared.

The rezone is clearly a project within the meaning of CEQA and CEQA review is therefore required.

And I have copies of the full letter for the clerk to hand up.

Thank you.

Let's have the next speaker, please.

You can just leave them on the rail.

Any legislation that helps small business people get their doors open, even though it may not be perfect, can be beneficial.

Now I have to read something because it's very emotional, but I will only state the truth.

I've come here more than support of Representative Sauder.

I've come here to potentially save someone's life.

Okay, I almost killed myself about three months ago.

As I reached out to the city of San Francisco to help me open my wine bar.

I plan to write a note.

Said City of San Francisco, treat people better than you treated me, and then hang myself inside the wine bar.

How did it get to a point of total loss of hope and faith?

Well, the letter that I wrote and mailed an email to Mayor Laurie can shed some light.

The letter reads, Dear Metal, dear Mayor Laurie.

How was it that I invited the health department to my small storefront that is being converted to a wine bar to help me get ready for inspection?

And the agent who came obviously filed an anonymous complaint against me to the plumbing department.

That's exactly what happened.

I invited the health inspector to my not open wine bar to help me prepare for inspection in the very next day while I was in a meeting in the wine bar with the Department of Building Inspection, whom I had also invited to prepare before meeting.

A plumbing inspector suddenly knocked on the door.

He says, I've come here because of a complaint about a bathroom.

I responded a complaint.

My business is not even open, so who could complain?

He replied it was an anonymous complaint.

Then I said it could only have come from the health inspector who was here yesterday.

My storefront is a live work space.

I and no one has ever gone into any space not related to the business.

The only people who had been there were the people was the person from the planning department.

Speaker of the complaint.

Thank you for sharing your comments with the committee.

We have to hear from the next speaker now.

I I I thank you very much.

Thank you.

If I have just one more minute.

I'm sorry, we have to give everyone the same amount of time to address the committee.

You can submit it.

Yes, thank you.

You can just leave it at the rail and I'll pass it out in a moment.

This location.

That's fine.

Okay.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Sam Woodworth.

I'm a homeowner of North Beach.

Um, thank you so much for the opportunity to be here.

Uh I am concerned about this proposal, uh, largely in the context of the pace and scale of other changes that are occurring in North Beach.

I am certainly in favor of reducing red tape, of which there's far too much in San Francisco.

I think that's a well-acknowledged um truth.

Uh but um I'm just concerned about how quickly North Beach appears to be changing, particularly in the context of the family zoning um plan.

North Beach is an absolutely world-class neighborhood, uh, it is deeply beloved by not only residents but millions of people who come from all over the world uh to visit what I think is the crown jewel of San Francisco, no offense to any other neighborhoods.

Um, and uh I think that the special use district, from what I understand of it, kind of represents uh a European-style curation of the neighborhood to maintain balance among all sorts of different uses.

And I think something like this, and I I respect that there have been recent amendments made, is really important to maintain what uh makes North Beach so special.

And what what confuses me is as uh someone who really loves the community is that it seems to be thriving today almost more than ever before.

I understand and hear these concerns from small business owners, and those should be taken very seriously.

But what I see is a community that just that looks like it's really at its peak.

Uh vacancies seem to be at near all-time lows.

Um, and so I'm I'm just wondering if this is a solution in search of a problem, and I think it does need to be slowed down.

And I will say uh part of my concern does arise from the family zoning plan.

Um, the in particular the uh what I think is a really devastating proposal to erect a wall of towers along the waterfront that would disconnect the waterfront from uh the hills and vice versa, and effectively steal away these um iconic public vistas that are treasured by residents and visitors alike and eventually transfer them to private developers and eventually uh buyers of future uh luxury townhomes.

So I'm just concerned about the scope of change.

I appreciate uh your sharing your comments with the committee.

Thank you.

We'll have the next speaker next.

Thank you.

I just want to remind everyone that this is about uh the legislation that's on the agenda, not about the family zoning plan.

We will hear that on the 20th.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Chair Melgar, members of the committee, uh Supervisor Sauter.

My name is Nick Ferris.

I'm the president of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers, and representing nearly 600 residents and small businesses, uh, small business owners in North Beach, Telegraph Hill, and the waterfront.

Uh I'm here to say that we are in very strong opposition of this legislation as it is written today.

Uh to be clear, we do not disagree with everything uh here, and it may make sense for some parts of the district.

Uh, but significant sections of this legislation will reverse decades of very careful zoning that have protected one of San Francisco's most historic, beloved, and economically vibrant neighborhoods.

Uh for context here, um, we asked for a continuance uh to complete our commercial survey.

Um we are now very close to completion of that survey.

And I think when forming legislation, it's essential to have data to back it up.

Now, out of about 440 or so businesses uh in our corridor, uh North Beach has one of the lowest vacancy rates in the entire city.

Uh it is six percent.

That is extremely healthy.

Uh economists and urban planners recommend five to ten percent as being uh really the equilibrium range for a commercial neighborhood.

Um, bottom line, we keep hearing about small businesses having challenges, and they certainly do.

That is very real and they exist.

But this legislation is a solution to an entirely different problem with incredible risks to our community, uh without being properly understood.

The North Beach special use district was created hand in hand with local merchants to preserve storefronts, protect tenants, and keep our commercial corridors human scale and living.

Removing it now and allowing storefront mergers up to 3,000 square feet.

Speaker's time is concluded.

Thank you for showing your comments.

The committee seven next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

Supervisor Sauter and committee members.

My name is Lance Carnes.

I'm a 30-year resident of North Beach.

And uh, when I moved here, I uh spent a lot of time walking up and down Columbus Avenue, Grant Avenue, uh Broadway, you know, looking over what we had here.

It was I never noticed any vacancies that went for a long time.

So I wonder why today there's such a such an impetus to, you know, to book up more businesses here when there's really not a need.

Last month at uh the planning commission, there was a piece of legislation introduced by Mr.

by Supervisor Sauder.

Um that was also um not run by any of any of the I think there are five neighborhood groups that were not contacted at all about this legislation, and uh nonetheless, the uh the planning commission ran it through.

I don't I don't know how we can get that back.

Um the other thing is when I first lived here and walked up and down Columbus Avenue.

Uh one day I ran into Danny Souter.

He's a young guy from Ohio, I think.

Um, he was interested in putting in a farmer's market, and so I introduced him to a guy I knew who had an extra vacant lot, and they they did a farmers market.

But uh, Danny Sauter was has been here for what about 10 years, and I just don't think he understands what North Beach is.

I think he thinks it's Ohio.

I was in Ohio briefly a couple years ago, and I couldn't wait to get well, it was okay.

I couldn't wait to get home.

So anyway, those are my brief comments.

Thank you.

You're sharing your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hello.

Uh hi, supervisors.

My name is Gina Peterson, owner and operator of Postscript Specialty Grocery at 499 Jackson Street, which is opened um, which was opened uh 2023.

I urge you to approve this leg legislation allowing for limited new restaurants and bars in Jackson Square.

I am appreciative of the outreach and engagement that Supervisor Sauter has done on this important issue.

I was able to open Postscript on Jackson Square after configuring my reconfiguring my plans for a restaurant into a specialty grocery store because I could not open a restaurant due to the existing limitations.

I have I have 29 staff members that I've hired locally.

Allowing drinking alcohol on site would allow me to expand my hours of operation, creating more job opportunities for me to continue hiring more locally more local people and grow my small business.

Jackson Square is a wonderful part of the city that has both residents and build and businesses.

There is foot traffic all the time, not just nine to five during the work week um or or weekends.

Allowing for limited new restaurants and bars in Jackson Square will help offset some of the challenges for us small business owners.

I've received some feedback from customers that they they'd enjoy sitting down and enjoying our prepared foods and just having more businesses around.

For this reason, I urge you to support this legislation and recommend approval.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Kari Wellstone, and I'm here on behalf of Quincy Co.

to express our support for District 3 Thrives.

Particularly in Jackson Square.

We've been in Jackson Square since 2009 and have loved seeing the neighborhood grow since then.

We believe this legislation will help our neighborhood thrive even more, and we look forward to welcoming more amazing neighbors to Jackson Square once this passes.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Supervisor Sauter and Council members.

My name is Megan Doherty, and I've lived in or worked in District 3 since 2017.

While that isn't as long as some other commenters today, San Francisco is in my blood.

My grandfather drove a taxi crab in San Francisco, and my grandmother grew up in the Valency Gardens housing project.

I spent much of my career in hospitality, so I know how hard it can be to run a small business and how much these places mean to a neighborhood.

I love sitting at a sidewalk cafe with a glass of wine and taking my dog Clementine out to explore our streets.

But I also see too many storefronts stay empty and too many businesses struggle to keep their doors open.

That's why I support District 3 Thrives.

This initiative is about more than zoning or permits.

It's about breathing life back into our streets, cutting unnecessary barriers for local entrepreneurs, and helping small businesses stay open and succeed.

At the same time, it honors the longstanding shops and restaurants that give our community its soul.

There's room here for both old and new businesses to flourish side by side.

And when they do, our streets feel safer, cleaner, and full of life.

So I support District 35s and help keep our district welcoming, vibrant, and thriving, everyone.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Um is a solution in search of a problem.

I'd like to start with the facts.

In Jackson Square, the vacancy rate there is 2%.

In North Beach in general, the vacancy rate is 5%.

We've had several businesses on Grant Avenue, in particular where I am, which are used closed stores that wanted to expand.

They rented the place next door to them.

They didn't need to combine space.

The only people that would want to expand the space or place like McDonald's or Gemsley Diamonds, or places that would compete with our clothing places like Alzheimer.

Danny, you ran on making it easier for small businesses to get permits.

That's a good thing.

Thank you for sharing your comments to the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Susan Fish, and I am here to speak on uh behalf of Supervisor Saudder's legislation.

I'm a recent resident of D3.

I moved here in May after living in Cole Valley for 35 years.

So I've spent a lot of time in the neighborhood getting to know what's around, and specifically Polk Street.

And for the most part, Polk Street is a really wonderful, vibrant street, but there are a number of empty storefronts, and they're an eyesore.

They attract garbage, they attract graffiti and drug usage.

And we should be doing everything we can as a city to encourage small businesses to open up in these storefronts, many of which have been vacant for a long time.

So I urge you to support this legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Happy Italian Heritage Month, all.

Uh Teresa Flandric, North Beach Tenants Committee, also a 40-plus year resident of North Beach.

I'm here in I also am a co-signer on the letter asking for this to be continued so that there can actually be some deep conversations that were lacking and have been lacking.

So what we know for those of us who have lived for uh long enough time in North Beach in particular is we've gone through several speculation mania periods, which decimated our housing, small businesses, there were exorbitant rent increases, evictions, and permanent displacement.

Also a loss of neighborhood serving businesses.

The SUD protections are needed today, just as when they were first put in back in 2012.

Oddly enough, I was here both in 1987 as well as in 2012 about the NCD and SUD, and here I am again.

So there has been no proper outreach.

There has been no truly meaningful discussions, no fact-based study has accompanied this legislation or been part of it at any point.

It's the reason that we ask for a continuance.

The misrepresentation of this is at the Small Business Commission when D3 representatives stated Supervisor Sauter had reached out to every major neighborhood or association and merchant group before this was even introduced.

This is not true.

When the NBBA was not included, when many of us residents were not included, and many today still do not know.

This impacts us.

Small business owners in North Beach have dedicated their lives and resources to making our neighborhood livable and diverse.

In fact, many of our my acquaintances who have small businesses here are multilingual speakers whose first language is not English.

These include business owners and managers from Palestine, Asia, Europe, the Caribbean, and Central and South America.

These small businesses will be harmed by the changes being proposed.

For this reason, I'm asking you to vote against it.

Allowing a 3,000 square foot store in North Beach means inviting large businesses to compete with these small businesses that already make our neighborhood vibrant and diverse, equally harmful would be allowing second-story retail.

These will diminish the vibrancy of our streets and sidewalks, and may even take away living spaces from the residents who currently patronize our small businesses.

For all these reasons, I ask the land use subcommittee not to recommend the legislation before you and the full board of supervisors.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Barry Schiller.

I own a condo at Telegraph Landing and have lived there for the last 24 years.

It seems like the major opposition to what I think is a very sensible plan, is that it's a plan in search of a solution where there's no problem, and why do we care anyway?

Because it's a low vacancy rate.

So I have a little bit of a different take on this.

First, let me just say that my wife and I, we love North Beach.

Uh we've been to Club Pagassi ten times.

I would love Club Pagasi.

It's it's like a love ode to San Francisco, and we bring all of our guests that are from out of town.

We go to Stellas on the weekend.

We love Stellas.

We love going there.

It's a great night spot.

Although I think Stella did make a mistake by getting rid of their almond croissants, but that's a small point.

Okay, so what's the problem and why do I care?

So I'd like to compare North Beach, which we love, to another another area.

Look at Cal Hollow.

Cal Hollow doesn't have these uh very limiting restrictions, and Cal Hollow thrives.

Kyle Hollow came back very fast after the pandemic, even though quite a few of the businesses went out.

And so I looked for some guidance from my uh spiritual advisor, um uh Mr.

Google, and um he said that Cal Hollow is considered a highly desirable neighborhood, renowned for its excellent shopping, very important shopping, diverse restaurants, vibrancing, it offers a mix of urban convenience.

So the point I'm trying to get to is that in Cal Hollow, it they're more of a marketing approach rather than a very self-controlled approach to what's going to live and what's going to die.

And in Calhallo, you see that you have all these businesses.

I have a whole list, but I don't have time to go through it, of very diverse businesses that serve the community.

And I love Italian restaurants.

Speaker's time is concluded.

Thank you for sharing your comments.

Okay, thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Uh hi, my name is Shaheen, and I'm here to in support of the legislation uh to make small business feasible and accessible for everyone.

Um I think vacancies are beside the point.

Uh I'm always reading news about people who want to start a business but are stuck in limbo for years in San Francisco, all over the city.

Um, this means the only ones with access are the most well-connected, well-resourced people who don't have anything else to do but to deal with these permitting issues.

And I think that makes San Francisco and North Beach unusual, but uh not in a way that speaks to our values.

Um we need a city that's open to change, not afraid of it.

This is a small low-risk fix.

Uh please pass it.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, uh, my name is Ira Kaplan.

Um, I live in North Beach.

I love North Beach.

I am building a future with my wife in North Beach.

Um, we talk a lot at the national level about how people are losing faith in government, they're not sure that our government serves their interests.

Um I think the kind of petty corruption that uh people in D3 have had to deal with over the last 20 or so years is also really harmful to uh trust in government and the belief that government can work for you.

Um, you shouldn't need a handshake deal with Aaron Peskin in order to open or run a small business in District 3.

Um, it's no way to run a city, and uh I think it says a lot about supervisor Sauter that uh when he took office, he did not try to uh wield that corrupt power himself to pick winners and losers.

Um instead, he is um trying to fix the unjust process at his source, and uh I hope you will join him in trying to uh fix the unjust status quo.

Thank you.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Blair Helsing, president of North Beach Neighbors.

Good afternoon.

Uh during the summer, our board, a few of our board members met with a supervisor to walk through the legislation with him.

We then took uh to the entire board the proposal.

The board voted in support of the proposal.

We now uh support the proposal and its amendments, which have been described here today.

Uh we feel that not only will North Beach benefit by the proposal, but also uh more importantly, perhaps are the you might say neglected parts of North Beach, more toward the northern end of Columbus Avenue where there are vacancies that have existed for some long time.

Also the rest of D3, we looked at this from the standpoint of the entire D3 benefit of it, and uh those were some of the reasons we voted in support, and we urge you to support the legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments to the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

Uh my name is Nadia Williams.

I'm a San Francisco Bay Area native.

My father graduated from Mission High in 1925.

I'm a 33-year renter in North Beach, and I am definitely opposed to these moves that allow profits for the few at the expense of renters and small businesses.

Uh it's almost like a small city scale size of the big beautiful bill, frankly, and the names that are attached to these small businesses will not thrive in North Beach with chain stores.

Um we don't need more bars and restaurants at the expense of our iconic small businesses that offer special products and cultural and art uh offerings to tourists and bridge and tunnel people and local San Franciscans.

And we will not thrive with the destruction of our our architecture, which is built to scale.

It's kind of like the family upzoning thing.

Um rents will go up for tenants and small businesses.

Why is there opposition to the historic district when most people in San Francisco that I talked to think we thought North Beach was a historic district for decades, which it should be?

So you've gotten all the main uh points from our more knowledgeable um speakers here, but I just want to emphasize that um it's very hard for the little guy, especially people who have jobs to make payments and rent, to come here and spend hours and hours.

It's really a David and Goliath type of situation.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments to the next speaker, please.

Supervisor Sauter, Chair Melgar, members of the land use committee, Kathleen Courtney Russian Hill Community Association.

Um the Russian Hill Community Association joins with the Pacific Avenue Neighborhood Association and other district three neighborhood and merchant associations in opposing the consolidation of the North Beach Special Use and Neighborhood Commercial Districts.

We are all aware that North Beach is the nexus of our Russian Hill and Knob Hill commercial energy.

North Beach generates the vitality spirit, tribe, vigor that comes up Union Street, comes up Green Street, comes up Phileo Street, comes up Broadway, comes up Pacific, and connects the restaurateurs on Hyde Street and the merchants on Polk Street with that energy.

The commercial success of North Beach that allows it to exert its influence on our surrounding neighborhoods is due in large measure to the protections inherent in the special use district.

With the mayor's upzoning plan on the horizon, with its development pressures, why are we removing that protection that will impact the surrounding communities as well?

Why are we removing it?

Why are we removing it now?

The Russian Hill Association appreciates the uh supervisors' request for a continuance, but we strongly urge you to oppose this legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Mike Chang.

I'm resident of district two, but I have lived, I lived for 10 years very close to Polk Street.

Uh, and I still visit and shop as well as other neighborhoods in District 3.

I'm speaking support of the legislation.

Um I think looking at Polk Street, you know, there's been a lot of long-time vacancies, you know, the storm mix.

I think it's hard for I feel like it's been too prescriptive about how we want these things to be, and then sometimes having to work through exceptions.

And one thing that's come to mind is when Bob's donuts uh relocated because it lease was ending.

They had to get a special legislation to find to get into the next door front.

And that is a bar that's probably too high for most businesses to reach.

And I'd like to think about making sure that we say yes to lots of things that we do like and making sure that some of those things we can continue.

So we love walk-up windows, so making sure we have walk-up window restaurants.

We like bookstore cafes and make sure we can legalize that.

Uh saying yes so that the small businesses that we do love who would like to expand into the neighboring vacant storefront can do that.

Uh, and I think more importantly, thinking about what are the beloved small businesses of tomorrow that we want to make sure they can get their start today.

Uh so thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Supervisor Soder and fellow supervisors.

My name is Stuart Watts.

I'm a fifth generation San Franciscan.

I've had a small business for over 10 years, and I'm the president of the North Beach Business Association.

I here have a formal amendment that we would like to propose from the MBBA, which has three things in it.

First off is please bring back the use size cap for businesses in North Beach.

Right now, under the projector here, is about a month ago the use size cap of 4,000 square feet was removed.

And now there's no cap to how large a physical business could be in North Beach.

We want to see that back, or at least have a discussion if we want to increase that to a more realistic size.

Second to that is our issues with medical services coming back into North Beach as well as no cap to restaurants and bars, even limited or regular.

With that said, increases square footage costs significantly.

But most importantly, we want to be flexible.

If you want to have more bars and restaurants in the neighborhood, let's add that, but let's not remove the cap entirely because right now we have more than any other residential neighborhood in San Francisco per capita.

With that said, let's continue this conversation.

This amendment has almost 40 signatures from different businesses here in San Francisco.

You can see here and here, and we have more to go.

I'm a busy business uh small business owner, so I've been going door to door, letting everybody know, and we would love to have a longer conversation.

Please, please, let's continue this collaboration with your office to find a suitable solution for all the businesses in North Beach.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Justin Zucker from Zucker Law on behalf of the property owner of 499 Jackson Street in support of its tenant Postscript, urging you to approve the legislation before you.

The current controls prohibiting bars and restaurants in the Jackson Square SUD hinder the district and small businesses.

Thriving neighborhoods are places where people work, eat, live, play, sleep, and study.

Places for eating and drinking are third spaces for people in the district and the community that foster activation and community engagement, especially small neighborhood establishments.

Allowing restaurants and bars on the first floor in Jackson Square SUD would be in alignment with the other most other S NCDs where these uses are already principally permitted, making it easier for small businesses.

Restaurants and other eating and drinking establishments are essential part of San Francisco's neighborhood vitality, supporting small business activity and contributing to the city's broader economic base.

This legislation creates balance by retaining the controls in place for the first floor, limiting office uses, business services, and institutional uses, while also requiring conditional use authorization for larger restaurants and bars.

I urge you to support this legislation and recommend approval.

That concludes my comments.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Brianna Morales, and I am with the Housing Action Coalition.

And I'm here today to support Supervisor Souter's proposal.

So San Francisco zoning map hasn't kept pace with how our neighborhoods actually work for a long time.

For too long, we've been operating under layers of outdated rules that no longer reflect how people live, work, and run their businesses.

The result has been fewer open storefronts, more restrictions on what kind of businesses can operate and barriers to building homes above our vibrant ground floors.

This legislation brings our land use policy into the present by creating flexible standards and operations.

We're able to see new housing, neighborhood serving uses, and it helps to address two crises at once.

One for homes and two for our empty commercial corridors.

We need zoning that invites creativity, flexibility, and life back into our neighborhoods.

We support this ordinance because it helps the city be more efficient and responsive, especially in places like North Beach with its prided and much beloved walkable community oriented neighborhoods.

At HAC, we believe that businesses, housing, healthy communities go hand in hand.

And when we create homes near shops and restaurants and cultural spaces, we're not just adding housing, but we are also adding stability.

We would love to see this proposal move forward so that we see this flexibility and the ever changing growing businesses and creativity that San Francisco is known for.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for comments to the next speaker.

And as that speaker is approaching the left turn, do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number 19 from whom we have not yet heard?

Please line up to speak along that western wall.

Next speaker, please.

Thank you.

My name is F.

Joseph Butler.

I'm an architect here in the city, member of the AIA emeritus.

Tenants live upstairs.

Five percent of the vacancies in North Beach show just how scary it is for small businesses.

You can't find a space.

And if the space you find isn't right for your business, is it North Beach's fault?

No.

Is it the rules' fault?

No.

Yeah, you can simplify the red tape of making permits, but you you can't put a square business in a round hole.

Here's what is really scary.

Let us in, the newcomers say we want to be part of a vibrant commercial district where little space is left, but we can't take the time or trouble, same as those who came before us, with their shops consistent with local needs and made it vibrant.

Now we want in too.

Early closing times keep the commercial and residential in balance.

Second floor rent-controlled housing is not an asset the community can afford to lose.

I received no notice from the city regarding the legislation to change the district where I live.

Oppose these changes, please.

I attended three public meetings in North Beach about the zoning.

But this camel's nose is only recently appeared.

What's the hurry?

42 years of negotiated balanced and fair community input to a set of rules that we can all agree to, undone in 40 days.

No thanks.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Serena City Asai.

I'm a North Beach resident, and I lived both close to the Polk Street district as well as the North Beach district.

And I'm here in support of the legislation.

I think that one of the things that it's hard to capture in this room is that there are a lot of businesses who wanted to open up in District 3 and have not been able to.

They're not in the room here.

You heard from Butter and Crumble and you heard from Brandon.

I live around the corner from these businesses, and I know how hard Brandon has worked to open up, it's been years, his business, and Butter and Crumble too.

And so these are a flavor of the newer business owners that would be welcome if the bit if the rules were a bit easier.

I also want to say that I have kids.

My kids have gone to Tel High Preschool, they've gone to all the local public schools, and I didn't even realize medical uses weren't allowed.

And this is why I have to go to other neighborhoods to go to take them to dentist appointments, doctor's appointments, et cetera.

So what I'm asking for is for you to vote for flexibility and for growth and for all of the residents in district three, not just the ones who are here already.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number 19?

Okay.

We may have a commenter approaching the lectern.

Is there anyone else after this speaker who will want to speak?

If so, please line up to speak along that wall.

Please begin.

Whew, just ran up here.

I hope this is the right meeting.

Um I'm with North Beach Neighbors, and I'm here to uh endorse Danny Sauter's uh legislation.

Um, sorry, let me catch my breath.

Um I have uh kind of a long history with this uh legislation or this law that was here before.

In 2006, I led a campaign to uh change most of this law.

I was at the time the president of the North Beach neighbors.

And um, well, we were able to change some of it, but not most of it.

And I think that the legislation at the time went really too far.

And uh noted to that after the legislation passed in 2006, um, a lot of storefronts were suffering.

And Aaron Peskin, who uh who brought the legislation uh uh to uh the board, um admitted a couple years later, that he too thought that it's it failed and it went too far.

Uh Danny's uh Danny's legislation has not gone too far.

It's going to really help businesses in North Beach.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number 19?

Madam Chair.

Okay.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

Supervisor Mahmoud.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you all to those who came in public comment um to uh ask questions or note feedback on this legislation.

Um, or the planning department wanted to ask uh two questions based on some feedback we heard.

Um the first was there was several comments about uh increasing the to 3,000 square feet merger.

Can you walk through a little bit more about what the intention is and what type of businesses that will help?

Yes, uh thank you, Supervisor Muttmood.

Um on storefront mergers.

Um, I think that's something that we throughout all of our engagement in the community, that's something we heard concerns about.

Um what we tried to do here, striking a balance with the amendments is open up a pathway for storefront mergers where they do not exist today.

What we found is that in North Beach and on Polk Street within those NCDs, currently they are prohibited.

So there's not even in theory, there's not even the possibility of them happening.

However, what we've seen is that there has been special one-off legislation written in the past for storefront mergers.

Uh happened a year ago for Bob's Donuts on Polk Street, and we all love Bob's Donuts.

Um, but that illustrates why instead of doing it one off, let's actually look at the underlying controls of storefront mergers and make it so that if we're going to allow Bob's Donuts to do it in a way, by the way, that wasn't very transparent.

Let's actually bring it into the light.

Let's set the rules up for everyone.

Let's allow uh public comment, let's allow notices, let's have the rules out front and center.

We landed on 3,000 square feet because we felt that that was kind of an important transition point where, you know, things started to get uh natural I mean obviously they're getting larger after that, but with the amendments before you have it to be conditional use up to 3,000 square feet.

So it is not saying that you're you're able to do this by right.

There is a public uh notice period there's a public comment period.

It is not by right.

It gives the pathway and it does not give a pathway after 3,000 square feet.

And you know that was something we wrestled with uh there are plenty of folks within restaurants who don't like that change we made um because it will prohibit you know another something like another original Joe's from ever existing in North Beach.

But that's something we heard from the community which is that there's a good supply of full scale restaurants that sometimes cater a little bit more to tourists.

We're we're more interested in the small scale limited restaurants and so that's where we landed with 3,000 square feet.

Thank you.

Second question was we heard from several small businesses that advocated and support one of them being Butter and crumble.

Can you walk us through maybe the specific ways this legislation will help businesses like Butter and Crumble to achieve what they're looking to do in your district.

In that specific example um the space that they're hoping to um to open in for and I mean well I guess I shouldn't endorse but everyone knows how good their their pastries are but they're looking to open a second store focused uh exclusively or more so on on um on their cakes and they just don't have any room in their current place for for that side of the business.

So they're trying to do that in a space that has been empty for about four or five years um but its last use was I think it was a frame shop.

Been empty since then current legislation would not allow it them to open because they are a limited restaurant.

And so our specific change allows a limited restaurant and a limited restaurant only to be in a space that was retail before.

Importantly you know because I know this has been a concern it does not allow a full-scale restaurant to do uh such a transition only a limited restaurant again um things that are more approachable to the neighborhood generally a lower price point uh and so that's the balance we found with limited restaurants only so that piece in the legislation would specifically allow them to open uh it's the same thing that's holding back um the uh the example I shared of the uh cafe on Lombard Street and uh in a um old dry cleaner that's been empty for eight years as well.

Thank you.

Thanks again for this legislation uh I'm excited to support I think it's based on the feedback we've heard um it's going to benefit a lot of businesses and kind of bring things into the light or transparency like you said things are already happening let's try to do them through the the process um I want to make one final comment though which is just generally hearing all the feedback I think appreciate everyone's perspectives but I think I would like to comment on something personal which is that um there were comments made about how long you have to be in San Francisco to be able to provide legitimate advice to what San Francisco can be.

And I think I take some uh question to that because we are in a moment right now in a national crisis where we are trying to invite refugees and immigrants to our city to provide them shelter to and we're telling people that we want to be welcoming to so many people across the country especially as what's happening with our federal administration so and in a in a neighborhood that I represent which has immigrants and refugees that have often only been here for a couple days I think we have to set a precedent and a framework that whether you've been here for 10 days, 10 years or 100 years, every person's views are valid.

It doesn't matter how long you've been here we have to respect the people who have been here for for some time and and listen and hear from them we have to take equal measure in listening to the people who've just landed at our doorstep and show them an inviting way and listen to them as well to say that we are all San Franciscans and I hope that in that spirit we could acknowledge and respect everyone's opinions as well.

Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Mahmoud.

Supervisor Chen.

Oh thank you.

I also want to appreciate all the commentars coming to speak and I find this one very hard too um I have been hearing and reading from stakeholders regarding this legislation that it's moving forward but something about the process hasn't been really working and and from what I'm seeing today the communities part of the community is seems very frustrated and I I also hear that the supervisor's office seems to be frustrating and wanting to communicate and and meetings do not cost um and this hasn't been an opportunity to get beyond I I feel like the adequately vetted in this legislation.

So again then this really raised some concerns for me about how as supervisors that we actually continue to listen to our constituents especially when there's a request for um process or maybe a better process.

In my very own background as a community and labor organizers I always uplift the need to build policy from ground up.

So this is really important to me to make sure that we continue to engage our community and otherwise I think the government acts if we know everything and we know what is best and I think this is not always the case that we know what is best.

And again if it's up to me I would say this legislation is not ready for its prime time.

And I hope that all parties could get together to talk it through and find a path that continue to build stronger buy-in or limits the changes to more specific and real time needs of a particular projects and I think at the very least to ensure that policymaking approach is more collaborative and also informed by data.

And for now I feel like um I'm not ready to quite support this legislation as of today.

Thank you Supervisor Chen.

You know there are substantive amendments being proposed today so we cannot vote on it today.

We will vote on it as per Supervisor Sauter's request on October 27th.

So that's three weeks from now I will say you know I am an urban planner and a geek about these things this is not my district.

However I did look very closely at all the things that you have proposed Supervisor Sauter and I just um wanted to have a couple things on on the record there is obviously a lot of uh disagreement among neighbors about what should happen uh to the future of the commercial corridors in District three um some of it is that we know we love our city so much we love our neighborhood so much we love uh the shops we love the way the street feels we l love the way our homes interact with the businesses around us I get that and I share that uh feeling um this city um gave my family when I was a 12-year-old refugee from a war-torn country a place to thrive uh and a refuge from violence and I'm very aware that if my family had landed anywhere else but the San Francisco Bay Area I would not be here today that upward mobility that people who come here seeking freedom whether you are gay from Ohio or uh anywhere else in the world is pretty unique and it's because of who we are that being said all cities change.

They change because new generations come to our city and set roots and shape the environment around us and they change also because things change.

So you know 20 30 years ago the way we banked was very different than the way that we bank today and we look at the land around us and we have these huge financial institutions that have buildings all over the city that are empty because people do their banking online when somebody brings you whatever your little heart desires in a little box to your house the um you know the the desire to go up to the eighth floor of Nordstrom is just not as compelling anymore.

Things have changed in the retail environment uh in the last 30 years, fundamentally.

And we need to reflect those changes in our rules to make sure that we are paving the way for our present and our future.

That being said, I spend a big chunk of my career supporting small businesses.

I am a huge small business advocate.

My grandmother was a small business woman who had a second grade education and put every single one of her kids through college, including my mother, as a small business woman, owned her own home.

And you know, I know the power of small business and how important it is for immigrants, for people who don't have you know uh other alternatives for employment.

And so that being said, you know, it's very different when you uh have a 20-year lease than when you're trying to come into a uh, you know, uh a neighborhood and start a new small business.

Those are fundamentally different agendas.

I get that.

And as legislators, we have to make sure that both are addressed, both the ability for existing businesses to thrive and protection uh of their rights and investment, and also to make sure that new businesses can come in and thrive as well because those new businesses are often uh you know owned and operated by immigrants, increasingly by women, by people who cannot pay uh $500 an hour to a lawyer to uh do their uh stuff.

Um, and I think that that's also our role.

So that being said, um, thank you, Supervisor Sauter, for spending the time, the effort, the energy to uh do these things to um try to strike a middle path, which I think this is.

I don't think these are radical changes.

I actually think that this is like a middle path toward from a very restrictive uh set of rules to uh you know something a little more open.

Um I don't think that they are a doing away of formula retail restrictions that actually is in our charter.

It was passed by the voters, so we can't undo that.

Uh but it does allow for a little bit more flexibility.

Um, uh, yes, uh the prohibition cap uh is uh you know lifted to 3,000 feet, but it's still a conditional use.

There's still a way for the community to weigh in if um things are not uh the way that folks like um and you know there's always gonna be dissent.

So for that, um I am gonna take a look at the amendments that you presented today because I have not gone through those in the same way as the legislation that you um had introduced earlier, and I think I will be ready to vote on it uh in three weeks when it comes back.

Uh I would encourage you to continue the conversations with folks in the community who are still anxious about these changes and have questions.

Um I will say just to wrap up my comments that um, you know, in today's uh, you know, uh political landscape, what's going on in Washington, what's going on in our political uh discourse in this country, it really um just disquiets me when people get really personal uh when they disagree on political things, when they attack the legislator for being from Ohio or for um, you know, not having engaged with me personally, you know, and ascribe evil motives to uh public servants, you know, it just doesn't feel right.

So um, and that goes both ways.

That also goes for you know former supervisors who are no longer in office.

There's no need to disparage those folks either on a personal way.

So uh that being said, I hope that we can continue to collaborate and try to serve the people of San Francisco, the folks who are here who have contributed to the vibrancy of our neighborhoods and the next generation because we also uh that's part of our role as well.

So that being said, I understand uh oh, a supervisor solder wants to say a few words, and then I think Supervisor Mahmoud is going to move the amendments.

Absolutely.

Um Thank you, Chair Melgard.

Thank you, uh supervisors for your comment, and thank you to everyone who came today for public comment.

Uh whether you spoke in support or opposed it, I appreciate you coming out here.

I know uh this is a tough process.

I know uh it can be inconvenient.

I appreciate you spending time and I I feel um, you know, the the care for this district.

I know uh there's a lot of good intentions here for those opposed and those in support.

Um, you know, and I I would uh kindly ask that we um, you know, do keep keep uh on track with what is actually in this legislation again, you know, things that were mentioned today that have been flooding our inboxes about this changing chain stores, it doesn't do that.

This being related to housing and rezoning, it doesn't do that, doesn't remove any protections for tenants, it doesn't do that, doesn't uh remove any historic preservation uh pieces.

So um, you know, the conversations have been uh largely productive.

I'm about to bore you all reading three pages of amendments that we have made, listening to the community, but it has to be focused in what is in this legislation.

I think that's productive for all of us.

So I would ask us to to um keep that in mind.

Um I will be asking um this committee to to consider a motion which would amend this file, introduce uh to take these amendments today.

We would then hear this back on October 27th, uh so there'd be a continuance of this.

And if it's okay, I I believe I am to read these in the record, and again, it will bore all of you, so apologies in advance.

Okay.

So the amendments today include on page four, line 23, insert an additional asterisk asterisk after Polk Street, remove reference to subsection B of section 121.2 from page five, lines three through 25 to page six, lines one through four.

On page seven, lines five through six, strike out the North Beach neighborhood commercial district set forth in 722 of this code.

Amend page eight, lines 17 through 18 to read arts activities, use uses as defined in section 102 of this code shall be principally permitted on the first floor and as a conditional use under section 303 of this code on the second floor and above.

Add in page nine, line one G, an existing retail professional service as defined in section 102 of this code that has operated without the benefit of a permit prior to June 17, 2025, may be principally permitted and allowed to expand into another commercial space within the same structure.

Such use shall not be required to be incidental to a principal or conditionally permitted use on the site.

Additionally, such use shall be exempt from signage and public access restrictions on this SUD.

Amend page lines 18 to 20 to read restaurant uses larger than 4,000 square feet and bar uses may be permitted as conditional use through the procedure set forth in section 303.

On page 15, line five.

Insert the sentence, the protection and enhancement of the unique architectural, cultural and historic character of North Beach shall be prioritized.

On page 15, line seven, insert the sentence special controls limit health services to small neighborhoods serving medical and dental services while large-scale medical facilities are prohibited on line on page 15 line 11.

Strike out the words conversion back to, conversion back to the, excuse me.

On page 15 line 14, insert the sentence to honor the importance of legacy businesses and the success of the neighborhood.

Special controls are in place to prevent the replacement of an acted legacy business with a non-legacy business.

On page 17, amend the use size table to read P up to 3,000 square feet, C 3,000 square feet and above, 105 division of a large use, large use sizes per code 121.5.

On page 17, amend the storefront mergers table to read C up to 3,000 square feet, NP 3,001 square feet and above.

On page 17, amend the flexible retail table to read NP for second story and NP for third plus story.

On page 17, amend the services health table to add 19 after C for first story.

On page 18, line 18, add limited restaurant between A and restaurant.

On page 19, line 25 and page 20, line 1, capitalize the H and historic and the B in buildings.

On page line 11, insert 19, health services permitted as a conditional use on the first story up to 3,000 square feet and not permitted 3,000 one square feet and above.

On page 21, amend the U size table to read P up to 3,000 square feet, C 3,001 square feet and above.

Division of large use sizes per 121.5.

On page 23, amend the bar table to read NP for first story.

On page 23, amend the flexible retail table to read NP for second story and NP for third plus story.

On page 28, line eight, add section nine on September 9 on September 2nd, 2025, the Board of Supervisors finally passed ordinance number 173-25, board file number two fifty six thirty-four, which was signed by the mayor on September 5th, 2025 and became effective 30 days later.

And the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District Section 723.2A 722 and 723 as enacted by ordinance number 173-25.

The ordinance shows in board amendment font double underlined aerial for additions and strike through aerial for deletions, the amendments to existing law that the committee adopted on October 6, 2025.

Ordinance number 173-25 also amended planning code section 121.2b to remove subsections one through four in light of ordinance number one seven three-25 being finally passed and approved and the more limited amendment to planning code section 121.2b3 proposed in this ordinance as introduced at the regular meeting of the land use and transportation committee on October 6, 2025.

The committee amended this ordinance to remove the proposed amendments to section 121.2b3, such that this ordinance no longer includes that section.

And thank you for bearing with me.

I'm surprised there's people still here.

Um I will say, if um if if anyone wants to go over these specific amendments, please reach out and we're happy to um give it in more laypersons uh language.

Um and colleagues, thank you for uh your time today and your consideration again.

Yes, thank you.

And the amended version will be available on the website so everybody can take a look at it.

Uh so thank you so much to our clerk for always saying on top of it.

Supervisor Mahmoud.

Uh thank you, Chair.

Uh I would like to move the amendments uh as right into the record by Supervisor Sauter for a vote and then call for a continuation of the file to the October 27th land use and transportation meeting.

Two motions from Supervisor Machmood.

The first being that the ordinance be amended and the second that the ordinance be continued as amended for consideration on the October 27th agenda.

On those motions, Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I, Member Mockwood.

Machmood I, Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar aye.

Madam Chair, there are three ayes.

That motion passes.

Thank you so much, uh, Supervisor Sauter.

Uh, Mr.

Clerk, do we have any other items on our agenda?

There's no further business.

Okay, we are adjourned.