Good afternoon, everyone.

This meeting will come to order.

Welcome to the October 27th, 2025 regular meeting of the Land Use and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

I am Supervisor Mirna Melgar, chair of the committee, joined by Vice Chair, Supervisor Cheyenne Chen and Supervisor Bilal Mahmood.

The committee clerk is Mr.

John Carroll.

I would also like to thank uh Kelina Mendoza at SFGup TV for helping us broadcast this meeting.

Mr.

Clerk, do you have any announcements?

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

Please ensure that you 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 the file for any of today's agenda items, you may submit them to me, and I'll meet you up front at the rail.

You can hand them to me there.

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 sign 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 send your written public 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 comments via U.S.

Postal Service to our office in City Hall, and the address is one, Dr.

Carlton B.

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

If you submit public comment in writing, I will 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.

Items on today's agenda are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors agenda of November 4th, 2025, unless otherwise stated.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

For those of you tuning in, tuning in for folks in the audience and for my colleagues, we do have a special order item, agenda is for 3 p.m.

If we happen to get through the other items more quickly, we will take it and it's not yet 3 p.m.

We'll just take a short recess and come back at 3 p.m.

and hear that item.

So with that, Mr.

Clerk, let's call item number one, please.

Agenda number one is an ordinance amending the planning code to establish a process for the conversion of certain medical cannabis dispensaries to cannabis retail establishments.

It affirms the planning department's secret determination and makes findings of consistency with the general plan and the priority policies of planning code section 101.1 and public necessity convenience and welfare findings pursuant to planning code section 302.

Okay, thank you.

We have Anna Herrera here from Supervisor Fielder's office.

Hi.

Hello.

Good afternoon, uh Chair Melgar and Supervisors Chen and Mahmoud.

I'm Anna Herrera on behalf of Supervisor Fielder.

Supervisor Fielder sponsored this narrowly tailored ordinance on behalf of the mission operator and at request of planning and the Office of Cannabis.

The ordinance will provide a mechanism for a medical cannabis dispensary to convert to cannabis retail under section 190, which previously expired on December 31st, 2024.

It will only apply to a medical cannabis dispensary that meets the following criteria.

First, holds a valid permit from the Office of Cannabis to operate as a storefront cannabis retailer issued on or before January 1st, 2025.

And second, uh submitted a complete application to the planning department to convert to a cannabis retailer on or before December 31st, 2024.

The strict criteria ensure that the relief applies only to the single known applicant affected by the expiration of section 190 and prevents any broader reopening of the conversion process to other operators.

The single known applicant in question is a dispensary known as STISE that is located at 3326 Mission Street in District 9.

This establishment has been in the neighborhood since 2019 and initiated the process for conversion to a cannabis retailer in early 2024.

However, due to administrative errors, they were not able to complete the conversion process before Section 190 expired last year.

They have been operating in good faith and we're co-sponsoring this legislation to help clean up the error and allow them to continue to operate at this location.

As without this ordinance, they would have to cease operations.

Thank you for your support today.

I'm here to answer any questions, as is planning and the Office of Cannabis.

Thank you, Ms.

Herrera.

Welcome, Ms.

Flores.

Thank you, Chair Melgar.

Veronica Flores, Planning Department staff.

The planning commission heard this item on October 2nd, and they unanimously adopted a recommendation for approval.

So very brief commission report for you today, but I'm available for any questions.

Thank you.

Okay.

I don't see anyone on the roster and I don't have any questions myself.

So let's go to public comment on this item, please, Mr.

Clerk.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Land use and transportation will now hear public comment related to agenda item number one.

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

Good afternoon, members of the land use and transportation committee.

My name is Dustin Go, and I'm here on behalf of STISI and our store located at 3326 Mission Street.

In support of item number one for the conversion of medical cannabis use to uh cannabis retail use.

Our store has always operated in full compliance with both city and state regulations since 2019.

Without this ordinance, long-standing and compliant businesses like ours face unnecessary risk of closure.

Even though we have we hold a valid permits and have invested heavily in creating a safe, regulated and transparent operation.

Beyond compliance, we invest in the city of San Francisco by providing local union job, sponsoring city events such as the annual gun buyback event and beautify and uh we began participating.

The city's adopt the street program to help maintain and be beautify the city, and we did dedicate self-space to verify social equity products.

We have worked diligently to ensure our operate ensure we are operating compliantly and give back to the communities we operate in.

We respectfully urge the land use and transportation committee and the board of supervisors to adopt this ordinance to protect compliant businesses, preserve union jobs, and maintain community benefits and ensure equitable access to legal cannabis.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

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

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Uh and thank you, Ms.

Hernandez, for coming.

Um I would oh, public comment is closed.

I'd like to uh please make a motion uh that we uh approve this item and send it to the full board with a positive recommendation.

On the motion from the chair that the ordinance be recommended to the Board of Supervisors, Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I, Member Makmud.

Makhmood I, Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar, I madam chair.

There are three ayes.

That motion passes.

Thank you.

Um let's go please, Mr.

Clerk, uh, and call items two through seven together.

Two through seven, agenda item number two is an ordinance repealing the twenty twenty-two plumbing code in its entirety and enacting a 2025 plumbing code, consisting of the 2025 California plumbing code as amended by San Francisco.

Agenda item number three is an ordinance repealing the 2022 mechanical code in its entirety, and enacting a 2025 mechanical code consisting of the 2025 California Mechanical Code as amended by the city.

Agenda item number four is an ordinance repealing the 2022 Electrical Code and enacting the 2025 code consisting of the 2025 California Electrical Code is amended by the city.

Agenda item number five is an ordinance repealing the 2022 Green Building Code in its entirety and enacting a new code for 2025.

Agenda item number six repeals the 2022 existing building code in its entirety and enacts a 2025 building code consisting of the 2025 existing building code as amended by the city.

And agenda item number seven is an ordinance repealing the 2022 building code in its entirety and enacting a 2025 version of the code.

I'm sorry, uh Mr.

Clerk.

I think we should also call the item number eight with that group.

Also calling agenda item number eight, which is an ordinance amending the housing code to update references to provisions of the 2025 building inspection codes providing an operative date of January 1st, 2026.

That ordinance affirms the planning department's determination under CEQA.

Okay, thank you so much.

Uh we have uh Tate Hanna here from the Department of Building Inspection.

Thank you very much, Chair Milgar and committee members.

Again, Tate Hanna, legislative affairs manager at the Department of Building Inspection.

If we could get the slides up, please.

Thank you very much.

So the suite of code ordinances or the suite of ordinances, excuse me, introduce our 2025 building standards codes.

A bit of background, uh the triannual code update is a process of revising the California building standards codes to reflect new national model codes and any state-specific amendments.

The process is designed to ensure the building codes are current with latest advancements in construction, safety, energy efficiency, and other standards.

State law requires that San Francisco adopt these codes uh by January 1st, 2026.

DBI's technical services division, or TSD, has done a review of the updated state codes and provided recommended changes to ensure cross-references, accurate code sections, chapter numbering is correct, and to remove any redundant sections.

No proposals from DBI are substantive.

They're exclusively designed to carry forward existing amendments and maintain a functioning code.

These ordinances are hundreds of pages long.

We want to make sure that you all don't have to review these in extreme excruciating detail.

So any uh local code changes that are substantive have been pulled out of these uh ordinances, and we'll do those separately in the future.

Uh the code advisory committee before the introduction of these ordinances reviewed each and every uh local change.

Uh then once the ordinances were introduced, the CAC along with the Building Inspection Commission both reviewed the ordinances on October 8th and 15th, respectively.

All code sections received unanimous recommendations for approval, and the excuse me, the department is recommending approval of the ordinances without modification as well.

One note uh the housing code does not fit into this typical uh coalition ordinances.

There's a state requirement that the plumbing mechanical electrical green building and existing building all be repealed and and reenacted as 2025 codes.

The housing code is a bit of a unique local code that we have, but it hasn't been updated in numerous years, so we're adding it into this.

It'll really just strike out the prior year, say 2025 San Francisco Housing Code.

Again, no some substantive changes there.

Um I will note before the presentation is done.

We do have a proposed amendment for item number 250958, the green building code.

Uh formerly there was a finding in there relating to a cost effectiveness study.

The finding and the study are not necessary this year, and so we are proposing to remove that finding.

And happy to read that into the record at this time or whenever the chair would like.

Okay, thank you so much.

Um I don't see anyone on the roster with questions.

Uh thank you to uh the Department of Building Inspection for this tremendous amount of work.

Uh, we really appreciate it.

Um, Mr.

Clerk, let's go to public comment on these items, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Land use and transportation will now hear public comment related to agenda item numbers two through eight called together.

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

And madam chair, it appears we have no speakers.

Okay, public comment on this item is now closed.

Um I would like to make a motion that we forward these items with a positive recommendation.

Um, I'm sorry, amend the item first.

Uh, it is number five.

Number five.

Let's do the amendment first and then move everything with a positive recommendation to the full board.

So, first on the amendment presented for agenda item number five, motion by Melgar on that motion, Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I, Member Machmood.

Machmood I, Chair Melgar.

I.

Madam Chair, there are three eyes on that amendment.

Okay, and then the motion is to send um everything, including five as amended, to the full board with a positive recommendation.

On the motion that agenda item numbers two through eight all be sent to the board of supervisors with agenda item number five being sent as amended on that motion, Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I, Member Machmud.

Machmood I, Chair Melgar.

I.

Madam Chair, there are three ayes.

Great.

That motion passes.

Thank you.

Um, let's go to items nine and ten together, please, Mr.

Clerk.

Agenda item number nine is an ordinance amending the business and tax regulations code and the planning code to clarify time periods for appeals of decisions or determinations by the zoning administrator.

It affirms the planning department's sequeletermination, makes findings of consistency with the general plan, and also findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare.

Agenda item number 10.

Is an ordinance amending the planning code and business and tax regulations code to modify the city's state mandated accessory dwelling unit approval process and conform to changes to state ADU law, including by removing any appeal to the Board of Supervisors and increasing size limits for certain detached new construction ADUs on a lot containing a single family dwelling.

It also affirms secret determinations, mixed findings of consistency with the general plan.

There they are.

Okay, welcome, Mr.

Starr.

Tell us about this.

Thank you.

Uh good afternoon, Supervisors Aaron Starr, Manager of Legislative Affairs for the Planning Department.

So the first ordinance uh would amend the appeal times for the zoning administrator actions.

It clarifies and corrects appeal timelines for decisions made by the zoning administrator and restores consistency and aligns the planning code with our original policy intent.

So what it does, it um for the 10-day appeal period, this would apply to variances, rear yard modifications, reasonable modifications, and elevator height exemptions.

For the 30-day period, it would apply to enforcement actions like notice of violations, penalty decisions, and compliance actions, and the 15-day appeal period would apply to all other ZA determinations, such as little letters of determination and zoning verification letters.

So this matters because it fixes an error from an ordinance number 40-23 that unintentionally extended the 30-day appeal period to all non-variance ZA actions.

So it ensures clarity, fairness, and predictability for the applicants, and supports transparency and accountability.

The Planning Commission heard this item uh last week on October 23rd on their consent um calendar and recommended approval.

The second ordinance aligns San Francisco's planning code with recent changes to California State ADU law, Assembly Bill 130.

Um it updates our local ADU regulations to ensure legal compliance, streamline permitting, and support housing production.

So some of the key changes, it changes our hybrid ADU program to streamline ADU to reflect changes in state law.

It eliminates the Board of Appeals uh process for state mandated ADUs per state law, and it expands the size limits for the ADUs, which I believe is currently 800 feet.

So if you have one bedroom or last, it would be 850 square feet.

And if you have more than one bedroom, it would be a thousand square feet.

It also increases the height uh to eighteen feet, and you get an additional two feet if you want to match your roof pitch to the main building.

Um it also updates and simplifies the planning code in section two of 7.2 to reflect new state requirements.

Um this ensures clarity, consistency in local regulations, removes outdated or conflicting standards, and reduces administrative burden and improves programming efficiency.

The planning commission also heard this last week and voted to recommend approval.

Happy to answer any questions.

Okay, thank you so much.

Uh I don't see anyone on the roster with questions.

Ums Gluckstein also for your work on this.

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

Land use and transportation.

We'll now hear public comment related to agenda item numbers nine and ten called together.

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

And Madam Chair, appreciate with no speakers.

Okay, public comment is now closed.

I would like to make a motion that we send both items to the full board with positive recommendation, please.

On the motion offered by the chair that these two ordinances be recommended to the board of supervisors, Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I, Member Machman, Machmud I, Chair Melgar.

I Melgar, I, Madam Chair.

There are three ayes.

Thank you.

Um those items pass.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Clerk, please call items 11 through 13 together.

Agenda item number 11 is an ordinance submitting the public works code to eliminate the requirement for a contractor parking plan as a condition precedent for approval of excavation permits for major work that is 30 consecutive calendar days or longer, and as a condition, precedent of specified temporary street space occupancy permits for construction work as well as the associated parking plan notice requirement and the parking plan review and inspection fees.

Agenda item number 12 is an ordinance submitting the public works code to streamline the requirements and approval processes for the commemorative designation of public right-of-way and public places, and the installation of commemorative street plaques to honor sites, events, and persons of historical interest or significance to San Francisco.

Eliminating the requirement that public works hold a hearing on applications for a commemorative street plaque.

And agenda item number thirteen is an ordinance amending the public works code to authorize the Department of Public Works to determine the circumstances under which contractors performing excavation in the public right of way shall be required to obtain a pollution liability insurance policy.

Each of these three ordinances make SQL findings.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

Lisa Gluckstein Planning Department.

I'll run through each of these uh ordinances in order.

And I also wanted to flag that Ian Schneider from the Department of Public Works is also available to answer any questions that you might have on the specifics.

Thank you.

Given that I'm not the public, I don't I can't represent the Department of Public Works as well as he can.

So just wanted to provide some context that these three ordinances along with the past two that you just heard are part of the mayor's permit SF effort to streamline the permitting process and reduce um unnecessary obligations for applicants going through the permitting process in San Francisco.

And these changes to the public works code, we thought to be common sense improvements that will remove burdens for applicants that weren't adding value to other city priorities.

So to start, um, we are changing the requirements that uh applicants who have received excavation permits, submit a parking plan for certain projects, and the backstory behind that is that currently major excavation projects require a parking plan to be submitted to the that's reviewed by the Department of Public Works, and these don't actually change uh the facts on the ground in terms of the impacts to parking, but require uh the applicant to submit this administrative plan that's administratively approved, and it's both a burden for the applicant and the department in reviewing these plans without many tangible impacts in terms of improving parking on the ground.

So the ordinance proposes removing that requirement to projects that are currently subject to this parking plan requirement.

Second, uh we wanted to streamline the approval process for commemorative plaques that are in the public right-of-way.

Currently, those are subject typically to two separate uh hearings at the Board of Supervisors, including, and then in addition to that, it includes arts commission review and approval by the Department of Public Works.

We would allow for the delegation of one of those Board of Supervisors approval so that there's only one hearing before the board of supervisors.

It's still a fairly involved process, but we're doing we're reducing some of the process.

And you know, the thinking there is we these are additions to the public right of way that then must be accepted by the city.

Uh so we do want some controls as to how uh those proposals are reviewed, uh, but it doesn't require two.

It should not require two hearings at the board of supervisors.

So we are changing the process there.

And then on the third, uh, there's currently a pollution liability insurance coverage requirement from for excavation permits, and that frankly does not apply to all projects.

So we're just including um elective or optional language in the code, switching from mandatory to as applicable.

So the requirement only applies if it's relevant to the excavation at issue in the permit.

So those are the three changes, and happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Okay, uh, thank you so much.

I do have like a very minor question as to that last point.

Uh how does that intersect with the MARA ordinance or is that uh anything that is subject to the Maher ordinance would still be subject to those requirements.

This doesn't change any of those obligations.

Um this is just the insurance requirement.

Okay, thank you.

I appreciate that.

Uh so I don't see anyone on the roster with any other questions or comments.

Um so let's go to public comment on this item, please, Mr.

Clark.

Thank you, Madam Chair, land use and transportation.

We now hear public comment related to agenda item agenda item numbers 11 through 13.

If you have public comment for these three items.

Please come forward to the lecture and at this time.

And it appears we have no speakers.

Okay.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

Um, I would like to make a motion to send items 11 through 13 to the full board with a positive recommendation.

On that motion offered by the chair that these three ordinances be recommended to the board of Supervisors, Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I, Member Machmood Machmood I, Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Madam Chair, there are three ayes.

Okay, thank you.

That motion passes.

Mr.

Clerk, please go to item number 14.

Agenda item number 14 is an ordinance amending the planning code to require conditional use authorization prior to replacing a legacy business with a new non-residential use in certain neighborhood commercial, named neighborhood commercial and neighborhood commercial transit districts, and in the Chinatown mixed use districts, the ordinance affirms the planning department's secret determination and mixed findings for consistency with the general plan and also findings of necessity, convenience, and welfare under planning code section 302.

Thank you so much.

Um we are now joined by district one and supervisor and uh sponsor of this legislation, Supervisor Connie Chan.

The floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair Malgar, and thank you so much for scheduling this item at this critical moment after last week's land use and transportation uh meeting.

Uh while this committee continues the conversation on the mayor's upzoning plan and reviews proposed amendments.

Uh, there's a lot more that needs to be done.

Um, even outside uh the plan to make sure that we protect our tenants and small business.

And this legislation before you today uh is trying to exactly uh to try to do that.

Many small business owners, especially those whose families have contributed greatly to our city for generations, are concerned about the increased development incentives and pressure of potential displacement.

We have seen this along many commercial corridors already, where existing businesses have to deal with predatory landlords and faceless corporations and billionaires who aim to monopolize neighborhood corridors by buying up blocks of commercial properties and keeping them vacant until they decide whatever it is that they want to do with it.

The upzoning plan without any real preventative measures will only add to that pressure of displacements and increasing that risk for speculative real estate investments.

The ordinance before you today aims to add a layer of protection for those long-time businesses because we recognize that legacy and long-time businesses are not just business entities, they are cultural assets that support the defining characteristics of our neighborhoods.

It really uh with them, with our legacy business, they make San Francisco a unique and attractive place to work, live, and to do so much more, including even starting a new business and raising families.

The ordinance will simply make permanent the existing interim controls, which colleagues uh, maybe with the exception of um Supervisor Mammu uh supported.

Um, this interim zoning control will expire next year, requiring business to obtain a conditional use authorization as they've been, uh, if they are to displace a legacy business.

The ordinance has an exemption uh after lengthy discussion with small business commission.

Um, this the exemption is for the storefronts where there have been a vacancy for more than three years, and now we are going to allow um legacy business to remove themselves from the registry if they need flexibility, but more amendments to also exempt um business and small business, which in definition with gross receipts under five million to be able to move into that space without a CU.

Um, understand that there are um comments from planning staff, so if I may um to go ahead to start specifically um addressing those.

So, in response to the planning commission and staff report, I would like to propose the amendments for this committee to consider um first, adding an exemption for other small businesses from the conditional use authorization to further protect the small business community, as I mentioned earlier.

Second, extending the protection to other small businesses by allowing business in operation for at least 15 years to apply to the registry if the Historic preservation commission and small Business commission find that the business has significantly contributed to the history or identify of a particular neighborhood, but faces animal risk of displacement.

The amendments also include finding that this ordinance is consistent on balance with the city's general plan and eight priorities policies.

Particularly, this ordinance is consistent with the commerce and industry elements objective.

Policy 1.1, 2.1, 2.3, and 3.1.

Again, legacy businesses are considered by the historical preservation and small business commission as contributors of our neighborhoods and are deemed cultural assets that first enhance the city's total living and working environment.

Two, maintain and enhance the diversity of the city's economic base and fiscal structure.

Three, maintain favorable social and cultural climate and attractiveness as a place of commerce, and last but not five but that not least is expand employment opportunities, particularly for minorities and economically disadvantaged communities.

What we have seen though, a lot of legacy businesses are typically Russian-speaking immigrants as well as Chinese speaking immigrants, including Korean-speaking immigrants that really are the business owners of the legacy business in the Richmond.

But we know that Richmond is not unique.

We see legacy business owners throughout the city oftentimes are generations of San Franciscan families and oftentimes come from immigrants.

I surely hope that we will consider this as a way to protect not just the business themselves, but really the culture and the traditions that these businesses have brought to make San Francisco such a diverse and beloved city that it is today.

Thank you, Chair Melgar.

I hope to have your support.

Thank you, Supervisor Chan.

I believe we have uh Lisa Gluckstein here from the planning department to tell us about their comments.

Good afternoon again, supervisors.

So the planning commission heard this item uh at its October 16th hearing and considered the ordinance, which would require a conditional use authorization prior to replacing a legacy business with a new non-residential use in NC in neighborhood commercial districts and in the Chinatown mixed use districts, and the planning commission adopted a recommendation for disapproval and made findings of inconsistency with the general plan.

Um the commission voted against this or to adopt that recommendation five to two.

Happy to answer any questions on behalf of the department.

Okay, we have a question from Supervisor Mahmoud, so maybe you want to stay around.

This is the first time I'm seeing the amendments that are proposed today.

Has the planning commission was this discussed the planning commission?

And what is the planning department's perspective on the amendments being proposed today as well?

It was not discussed among the commission.

However, you know, the planning department or planning commission rather has the option of making uh recommendation for approval with modifications.

Uh they did not in that circumstance, and that's typically what they would do if they uh would like to see the ordinance continue with amendments, and the department's perspective on the proposed amendments around the gross receipts are twofold.

One is that the planning department is not in the business of verifying gross receipts of a business.

Um, the planning department did, and the commission did discuss at length whether it was appropriate to use a land use control, which is designed to regulate impacts and the appropriateness of a type of use in a certain location to uh essentially incentivize specific businesses, which is what the legacy business program does.

There's a fundamental mismatch between land use controls and legacy business um incentives which exist for the city.

You know, the legacy businesses program is administered by the Office of Small Business.

And Carrie Bernbach is here, who's the commissioner for the Small Business Commission and is a member of the Office of Small Business, can here is here to comment on that.

But fundamentally, the commission arrived at the conclusion that you know this is not the appropriate place for land use controls around legacy businesses.

They would prefer to see proactive incentives outside of the realm of land use to encourage legacy businesses to continue to exist in the city.

And they agree with the intent of the ordinance to support small business, but not with the requirement that a conditional use authorization be placed as a retroactive way of supporting legacy businesses.

As for the five million, just to return to the uh gross receipts question, um, and that amendment as proposed by Supervisor Chan today, um there's no real mechanism.

Planning does not have a way of verifying gross receipts of a business, it's actually tax information that we have no way of accessing.

Um, and I suppose the way that would work is the applicant would submit some sort of affidavit attesting to their gross receipts, but it's not really in the realm of what the planning department regulates.

Um, and so understanding which businesses are kicked in or out of this requirement is a bit of an implementation challenge.

Um, and it is also another step in the approval process for any business that seeks to occupy a space formerly occupied by a legacy business.

Um, just to clarify then, maybe a question for the city attorney as well.

Um, so you said that this these amendments were not discussed at the planning commission.

That that's the I don't believe that uh Calvin mentioned these these amendments specifically.

If I could just uh chime in, uh I don't think that that's quite the question, uh, because I think that what you're trying to get at is does this need to be re-referred if we approve it with these uh amendments at some point.

So I think that uh the question perhaps is were these issues uh discussed at the planning commission discussion on the legislation.

Um have you seen the amendments so that you do it?

I have not seen the amendments, but uh to the extent that the amendments narrow the scope of the ordinance.

My understanding is that it would not need to be re-referred to the commission because we are narrowing the ordinance.

Um I defer to the city attorney on that question specifically.

Thank you.

City attorney.

Uh good afternoon, supervisors, deputy city attorney Brad Russian.

I would need to get back to you on the question of whether the um amendment that puts the five million dollar trigger would require refer.

I don't know.

It sounds like that that particular aspect was not discussed at planning.

So it these are going to be substantive anyway.

So we can work that out later whether it needs to go back to planning.

You could can um if you adopt the amendments today, um, you could continue this to either the call of the chair or your next meeting, and in the interim we can determine whether it needs to go back to planning in the interim.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Act that's what I was gonna say.

These are substantive, so they're gonna need to sit at least a week.

And since uh next week it we're looking at the.

Sorry, I wanted to correct the record.

Okay, just so they finished next week is a family zoning plan again.

Uh so I'm not sure if we uh can uh accommodate it in the schedule.

So let me think about that for a second.

But um, yeah, go ahead.

Calvin read the concept into the record, uh, but it was not he he read it into the record the five the five million dollar threshold, um, but the amendments were not presented.

Okay, yeah.

Yeah, okay.

Um Supervisor Chan, did you have something to add?

I mean, it was read like it was discussed and technically if you were discussed at the planning commission, you do not need to re-refer, even though you don't have the actual amendments proposed.

One.

Two, uh, it wasn't actually until some of the amendments that is before you today is based on as a response back to the planning staff report about the fact that identifying why they actually recommended to disapprove this legislation and identify legacy as a business entities, where we make the argument through the findings that we're disputing the staff's report.

So just wanted to be on the record to say that while it was not proposed as specific amendments, it was clear that in that discussion, and frankly, even among the planning commission, uh that while, by the way, it's not 5-2, but 4-2, because commission Commissioner Gilbert William was absent that day, um, we know that it could have been a close vote at planning commission.

Uh it wasn't overwhelming, um, and let alone the fact that all legacy business goes through historic preservation commission uh for registry.

Um it's clearly beyond as an just a business entity, but it builds characteristics of the corridors and the neighborhood, hence the findings that before you today as part of the amendments that would dispute that.

Um I think that the questions that I I would a policy uh debate here today is um while we all know colleagues, uh time to time legislative tools uh that we we have in our toolbox, we utilize as different ways to make sure that we accomplish the policy goal.

Um conditional use authorization has been a longstanding legislative tool for a public discussion about land use and what we ought what we should be doing uh in the space in our neighborhood.

Um and here is to say if a legacy business were to be displaced, it should be a public process, and if it was to be replaced because displaced and then replaced um because of a new development, then what should be in place of it?

Um and here with the amendments again, additional amendments before you were to say about small business, which quite frankly, they are registered differently with the tax collector's office.

It's easy to get their tax ID and documentation to identify themselves as small business.

Uh that is how we collect our taxes.

Um, and so it's a documents can be provided, can be provided to planning.

Um, and again, therefore the amendments is to say we want to maintain, if not legacy business, let's make sure there's still small business in this neighborhood commercial corridor.

And again, it's very specific.

It's not everywhere, but specifically on neighborhood commercial corridor, which we know there's already uh uh uh worry about formula retail um coming in, and um, and so I hope to have your support, but I agree that it's substantive uh the amendments before you today.

I do hope that uh for the very least we could adopt the amendments before you and that allow the uh conversation to be continued.

And I do agree that November 3rd um is gonna be a whole lot of conversation, and that um we should perhaps separate the two, but I also think that it's hard to separate the two because um the need of of pushing this to be permanent instead of interim zoning control has to do with the fact that the current upzoning plan has very little protection for small business.

Um, and thanks you know, thank you to Supervisor Melgar that there is actually a relief fund, but even then we are dependent on the executive branch's commitment to fund the fund.

So I think those things are very limited.

Uh, we got to utilize every tools in our toolbox.

Understood.

Thank you, Supervisor Chan.

Um, I um, you know, we'll only point out that there are several other pieces of trailing legislation by several colleagues that also uh are meant to be an accompaniment to the plan to um you know have to address issues that cannot be addressed simply by planning.

Uh that was my only uh thing about the November 3rd.

But can I ask you, Mr.

Clerk?

Um, were we to continue this to the call of the chair?

Um would it require uh noticing?

This item didn't require noticing special noticing at this committee to appear on this agenda.

So it wouldn't.

It shouldn't not not over and above our usual weekly notice.

Yeah, so I'm not saying uh Supervisor Chan that we cannot do it on the third, so just that it's gonna be difficult, which is why I would I'm uh requesting a little more flexibility.

Uh but with that, um Supervisor Mahmoud.

Um I was also wondering is Office of Small Business here as well.

Wanted to get their perspective on the legislation and the amendments as well.

Okay, thank you.

Good afternoon, Carrie Bernbach with the Office of Small Business.

I'm also the Commission Secretary, so I'm prepared to um I can talk about what the commission discussion was, but they weren't made aware of the amendments.

But is do you want to go ahead?

The commission discussion.

Okay.

The small business commission discussed this item at length at their August meeting and voted to make no recommendation on this proposal.

During the discussion, commissioners agreed that legacy business displacement is a concern, but that the conditional use authorization mechanism was not the right solution.

Commissioners explained that their thoughts on the CU requirement have evolved significantly over time.

Initially, it sounded like it would be a valuable tool to allow community feedback over time and through on-the-ground experience.

However, they realized that a CU requirement is challenging in terms of application timelines and uncertainty.

They noted that CU requirements deter the communities they are trying to protect, people of color in particular who lack access to lawyers and capital to navigate the lengthy process.

Commissioners also noted that data over the last year evaluating the impact of existing interim controls doesn't indicate that the requirement is effective.

Happy to answer any questions about their discussion.

Okay, thank you.

Um, yes, Supervisor Chan.

Uh and we concur with the small business like understanding that it could be as small business commission's understanding that it could be difficult for uh small business that goes through the CU, um, and in order for them to uh move into the place is the reason why you do see the amendments before you that were exempting small business um and uh legacy business 15 years in order to be able to move into that space um and that they do not require a CU.

And I do wanted to um add to this though, specifically that this actually is derived from the business that was uh was the sorry, the uh legacy business that was facing displacements or potential displacements on the block of Fillmore when someone actually brought up a billionaire bought up the block and that Tanyi Chi and Um La Mediterranean uh were facing um issues about renewing their lease.

And I think that if you were to um discuss this uh with the la Meditarian knee um owners, they would let you know that a legacy business CU being put in place, provide them the leverage to be able to have those discussions uh with the landlord and being able to renew the lease.

Um, and so I just wanted to put it out there that it has this use.

It's not it's not um as it's not a silver bullet.

It doesn't solve everything, but I think definitely is a tool in the toolbox where um both small business and um district supervisor can utilize to help support.

Okay, thank you very much.

Um, with that, um let's go to public comment on this item, please, Mr.

Clerk.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Land use and transportation.

We'll now hear the public comment for agenda item number fourteen, legacy businesses and neighborhood commercial districts.

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

And it appears we have no speakers, madam chair.

Okay, without public comment on this item is now closed.

Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Chairman.

I would like to make a motion to adopt um Supervisor Chen's amendments into item number 14.

Uh, did you have further discussion?

Uh Supervisor.

Um, just wanted to comment that um I have concerns about the legislation is presented, especially given the comments that the planning department has made and given the recommendations coming out of there as well.

And these amendments are substantive and came quite late before this committee.

Um the planning we haven't had a chance to discuss with the planning department, even these amendments, and doesn't seem that they were made aware of the amendments yet either.

So uh I'm inclined to, I'll accept these amendments today to allow for their time for review, both by my office as well as the planning department, so we can make a decision at the subsequent meeting, but would um appreciate a larger heads up next time so that both the departments and our offices have some time to review and further discussion as well.

Okay, there's a motion on the floor, Mr.

Clerk.

Motion offered by Vice Chair Chen that the ordinance be amended as presented by Supervisor Chan.

On that motion, Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I.

Thank you.

Um, did you want to chime in before I make a motion?

Uh yes, I I just want to recognize what Supervisor Mama, Mammu has mentioned, and that like uh absolutely we wanted to make sure that we have more time for this commit.

We should have more time for this committee to review and process before you make the decision today.

So I really appreciate for your support and with the continuance that um that I hope we can answer any questions and be able to have those discussions.

So I'm really grateful.

Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor.

Um, I would like to make a motion that we continue this item to the call of the chair.

Um, and I will work with Supervisor Chan's office to find a time that works.

Uh, giving everyone time to digest the amendments and also working with the clerk.

Uh, so are very busy schedule from now till the end of the year.

Motion offered by the chair that the ordinance be continued to the call.

The chair as amended on that vice chair Chen.

Chen I, Member Machmoon.

Machmood I, Chair Melgar.

I melgar I.

Madam Chair, there are three ayes.

Okay, that motion passes.

Thank you.

Um, so uh we are done uh with this portion of the meeting.

Uh the next item is agendized as a special um item at the special order item at three o'clock.

So we're gonna recess and reconvene at three o'clock.

No sooner than three o'clock.

No sooner than three o'clock.

So we're adjourned.

Thank you.

Recess.

That's the right.

We're recessed.

San Francisco government television.

Um, We're here at 40 seconds and focus, the archery range here in Golden Gate Park.

And I'm here with my friend Jim, who's an expert at archery.

He's gonna give us a few tips.

First off, let's see, I think safety is really important.

That's an excellent idea.

So uh number one, just uh with anything like archery, you want to make sure that everything is pointed at the target.

So once we have an arrow on the bow, we wouldn't want to point it at somebody.

We would always want to make sure that what we're doing is pointed downrange toward the target.

So number two is the number one is for mostly for protecting other people.

Protecting yourself is important too.

So you always want to use a tab, or a glove like the one you're wearing for uh finger protection when drawing and releasing the string.

Also, our arm guards keep the string from hitting our arms on the release.

What we're using today is a very modern and contemporary recurve bow.

So compounds, long bows, recurves.

Uh, there are Asian Asiatic bows, uh, Mongolian, Japanese, uh, Turkish, Syrian, uh, very distinctive uh shapes, totally different flavors of archery, just based on the let's try this.

All right.

Archery is all about accuracy as you try to hit the target.

The sports roots go way back to hunting in battlefield, but today it's evolved into something recreational and competitive.

This range is in a chill spot tucked into a peaceful wooded area on the west end of the park.

This is a lot of fun, guys.

Whether you're just starting out or already a pro, it's the perfect place to practice.

There are well-maintained target bales at different distances, all surrounded by tall trees and lush greenery, creating a calm atmosphere.

I think well, can't get better than that, right?

Am I getting too close?

The range is run by volunteers, and it's totally free to use, but you'll need to bring your own gear or rent somewhere by.

I didn't really feel that one as well.

But once I got it honed in, I think.

Yeah, I got one in the 10.

So let's go that way.

Oh wow, farther back?

Oh, left again.

Just left.

Oh, just to the left.

That's the right elevation.

I saw that.

You got it.

Okay.

Right, the last second.

Oh, so close.

I've looked so good in the air.

Sorry, next time.

That's why I gotta come out here.

Practice.

That was very exhilarating.

I love archery.

Man, Jim, why do you love archery?

What's not to like?

You can uh do what we just did, which was spend time together exploring it and working on it.

You can also have a blast going off into the woods by yourself.

Uh so all of the, you know, this range, any range.

You can do it with friends, you can do it by yourself, you can get the experience you want from it.

That was a lot of fun, and I thank you for being my buddy on this archery.

That's my pleasure.

It's good to see you, Michael.

That's great.

Now, we're gonna go rowing.

Now we're at the Blue Heron Boat House.

We come at two different kinds of boats.

There's actually a pedal boat and a rowboat.

I think we're gonna go get a rowboat.

Let's go get on the lake.

Time to row a boat.

Surrounded by greenery, this man-made lake is a nice little escape from the busy city.

The key thing is to get into a rhythm and move in sync with the water and your boat.

It can have a calming meditative feel while still giving you a serious workout.

Alright, uh, how cool is this?

Whoa, look how big that tree is.

It's like nice and peaceful out here.

I'm the only one.

That means I think people really need to come out here.

It's actually really calm out here.

As you navigate the lake, you'll pass by Strawberry Hill, an island in the middle of the lake with a waterfall, trails, and tons of wildlife like ducks, turtles, and birds.

Strawberry Hill is connected by two bridges to the park, and it's the highest point in Golden Gate Park.

It includes Huntington Falls.

A 110 foot tall artificial waterfall that feeds into the lake.

There's also the Chinese pavilion, a gift from San Francisco's sister city, Taipei, Taiwan.

It's a charming place to rest and take in the views.

Ooh, that was a workout for the arms.

I love boating.

That was a lot of fun getting out on the lake.

But now I gotta work at the legs.

Let's go skating.

We're here at the skating place on Six and Fulton.

Beautiful day.

I think I'm gonna rent some rollerblades.

Let's get rollin'.

If you're looking for a fun way to spend a Sunday afternoon, check out the skating place.

It's near Sixth Avenue in Kennedy Drive and has a great surface that's perfect for practicing or hanging out with fellow skaters.

Oh man, this is uh.

This is very nostalgic for the millennial and me.

90s.

Playing with my boys, some street hockey.

I haven't ridden uh blades in a while, but it's gonna be like riding a bike.

Let's go!

I'm here at the freeze Sunday roller disco party from noon to 5 p.m.

The Godfather Escape brings his mobile DJ unit and plays groovy tunes for you to skate to.

And if you need skates, no worries.

Rentals are available nearby from 11 a.m.

to 6 p.m.

on the weekends.

Starting at just $12 an hour for kids and 20 for everyone else.

The skating place has been here since 1986, and it got a fresh makeover in 2022 with new pavement and a stunning mural by local artist Amy Steadlin.

The mural, called Psychedelic Golden Gate Skate, features a colorful design that celebrates the park's roller skating history.

Plus, it was created in collaboration with the Church of Eight Wheels, which is all about keeping the skating spirit alive.

This is fun.

I had no idea this is over here.

San Francisco has everything.

Oh, it's so nostalgic getting back on some rollerblade, just like being a little kid.

This is Golden Gate Adventures, and I'm Michael Baltzar from SFGL TV.

Thanks for watching.

I am Supervisor Mirna Melgar.

I am the supervisor for District 7.

I am an immigrant to San Francisco.

My family came when I was 12, uh, from El Salvador during the Civil War.

A bunch of, you know, war refugees.

Uh this place gave us security, safety, and an opportunity to thrive.

So I love the city deeply.

And as a mother of three kids who have grown up as city kids, you know, I am grateful for everything the city has to offer to people like me and to families.

I have been politically involved my whole life, uh, either in government or as a nonprofit worker.

And I care about the community.

I care about people around me, and I want to make sure that as uh the world changes around us, other people have the opportunities that my family did.

We are back in San Francisco post-pandemic, so important to be out supporting our businesses, supporting our neighbors.

I'm the first woman to represent this district, believe it or not.

I'm the first Latina elected to the board of supervisors without an appointment first ever.

So I do think that diversity is important.

I want immigrants to be represented, women, moms, you know, people that have different experiences because that brings richness to our decision making, and I think that it makes for better decisions.

So that's what inspired me to run.

District 7 is one of the most diverse districts in San Francisco, both in terms of uh economics and also ethnicity.

It spans now all the way north from Golden Gate Park.

It includes um all of the institutions in the park, the Ferris Wheel, the music concourse, the museums, to the south to the Daily City border, and west to the ocean, includes the zoo, Fort Funston, all of those fun things, and then to 280 on uh the east.

So it includes a city college, San Francisco State, it has UCSF Parnassa, so it's very large geographically.

It is mostly single-family homes.

So it is the place where for generations families set roots sent their kids to school.

We have nice parks, Lake Morset, Mount Davidson.

This is like a village within the city, so we're very close-knit community.

We tend to band together and try to support one another, and also it's just a friendly place for families and people to have a cup of coffee and check out the park.

Ocean Avenue, which is at the southern end of our district, is a very vibrant commercial corridor that mostly caters to our local neighborhoods, but also to the students.

And as you go further west, you know, you have filmstown mall, which has some of the best pan-Asian food offerings, I think, in the city.

If you haven't been there, uh it's really fun.

As you go up a little bit further, there's West Portal Avenue, which is a very old school, you know, uh commercial district where you can still find antique shops and cobbler shops, and you know, as well as like more modern restaurants.

It is definitely hopping and full of families on any weekend.

I'm Matt Rogers.

I'm the co-owner of Papenhausen Hardware on West Portal Avenue, and Carl Aguilar, uh, other co-owner of Papenhouse and Hardware and West Portal.

We're a neighborhood hardware store.

It's been a community institution since it was founded in 1936.

We have a little bit of everything for doing yourself home repairs to gardening or gift buying.

Like my entire experience with San Francisco has been with this community.

It's a very small town feel for a big city.

The community is really caring and connected, and I like that.

What makes me excited about doing business in District 7 is just that I know it so well.

I grew up here.

I know a lot of the customers.

I they're childhood friends or parents of childhood friends, and it's just a very comfortable place, and it feels like home.

If you go up north, uh we have the Inner Sunset Commercial Corridor, which has an awesome farmers market on weekends, and a plethora of restaurants.

There's Iranian, there's Ethiopian, there's everything you need.

There's really friendly, and they stop and talk to you about, you know, the daily base and I love that they bring their kids with them.

They teach them how to use their money and it change.

And it's something that you don't see in too many markets and in other communities.

But I love to see the kids as they're coming and talking to you.

You know, it's something different than I see from all the markets.

What I loved about this district was the easy access to transit from the inner sunset and uh the ability to do a lot of our shopping on foot.

And now the improved biking with JFK being close to cars, because we have a four and a half year old who rides her bike.

You know, we now have a safe place to go ride bikes, or we don't have to worry about traffic.

So graffiti continues to be one of these things that um during the pandemic just got out of control everywhere in the city, and I do think that it is um hampering our recovery of commercial corridors.

So uh some of the volunteers on uh West Portal Avenue, some of the merchants got together with our interns at our office to do some just hands-on abatement.

Uh, and we've been doing it regularly ever since.

We're doing it once a week.

We have a wonderful neighbor, Carrie Sykes, who has been organizing and storing the paint and the supplies in her office on West Portal, but this obviously needs more than just a volunteer effort.

I'm really grateful for the collaboration.

We passed legislation at the board and put four million dollars in the budget over the next 24 months to help the Department of Public Works hire laborers and labor apprentices to abate the graffiti on private property on commercial corridors.

I think that for a couple years, this is a good uh recovery strategy until we can get back up as normal after this uh awful pandemic.

Participatory budgeting is a pot of money that is available every year for District 7 neighbors to propose projects that improve the neighborhood in the district.

And so uh anyone, any organization in uh the district can propose a project, and then it's a vote, it's a popular vote.

So we have 14 projects that were just approved, uh, and they span from um you know a vegetable garden at Apdos Middle School to uh, you know, pedestrian safety projects on Slowhurst Avenue.

Uh it just runs the gamut, but it's really wonderful because um it allows people to be engaged in a real way, and then to see the outcome of their uh, you know, energy and work uh because the things, you know, get improved right in front of them.

I think I really like that it's really close to the both parks and like a bunch of businesses as well as just like a very calm feel, like it feels very peaceful still, even though it's close to a lot of things, which makes it feel just very serene, but then also not boring, you know.

Just like there's always stuff to do too.

So there's lots to see, uh taste uh inexperience in district seven.

And for gov cheesy, San Francisco.

A deep fake is a picture that is altered by artificial intelligence.

So it can take a photo of anyone anytime, anywhere, and turn it into pornographic naked images.

Not surprisingly, the majority of images that are loaded into these sites and are nudified and distributed are women, and a disturbingly high number of them are children, without the individual's consent or even knowledge, be generating these photos and sending them out for the world to see, and particularly for young women, this can just be devastating to them.

This isn't about tech, this is about sexual abuse, sexual abuse of women, sexual abuse of children, that we have the power to at least take some steps to stop.

I brought this lawsuit in part because of our city's role in helping to shape the future of artificial intelligence.

There are so many positive benefits to AI technologies, but we also know that there are dark sides, the ability of AI-driven technologies to create in a minute, DPA pornography is one of those.

You can use all the best practices in the world.

You can be careful, you can be safe, and still fall victim to this, because anybody can take any picture and turn it into a nude.

In our mind, the best way to try and prevent this from happening to more people is to stop it before it starts.

And that's what this lawsuit is trying to do to take away the tool that allows this to happen.

These websites aren't free.

So someone is making a profit out of allowing someone to nudify the image of a young girl or woman.

That cannot be.

Someone using a website that she was had no knowledge of which website it was used, but it generated this kind of deep fake image.

It put her face on a nude body.

Neither the daughter nor the mom could give enough detail for law enforcement to hold the perpetrators responsible.

So when I read the article, I thought that cannot be.

It cannot be that there is no consequence.

And so, because I have done a fair amount of the kind of affirmative consumer work, I wonder if our office can do something.

As far as we know, this is the first time that a government agency has tried to hold accountable the bad actors that are responsible for this industry.

Those cases are the AI case that we're talking about is one of those cases.

The unfair competition law is actually a much broader, very powerful tool that allows us as an office to bring a case against any unfair, unlawful or deceptive business actor practice.

So if a company is out there doing something that violates the law or deceives consumers, we can sue them on behalf of the people of the state of California.

They're breaking a variety of laws.

They are breaking laws about revenge porn, they're breaking laws about child pornography, they're breaking a slew of different laws that we have used as sort of a hook to say that these are unlawful acts.

Our lawsuit gave us the flexibility to add additional websites.

And so if someone thinks that they're going to just shut down website A and restart website B, we will be monitoring that and looking to go after them as well.

Because this field has been evolving so quickly, because it's very difficult for an individual to be able to prove that a particular website abused their image and turned it into pornography.

Thus far, we've really been the one office that has stepped up to hold these companies accountable.

We've been contacted by both civil and criminal prosecutors around the country who are interested in what we're doing, and my hope is that others will follow suit.

San Francisco government television.

We will get through this together.

Check on your neighbors, see if you can help deliver groceries, walk children to school, support each other, join protest with creativity and peace.

Stay safe.

San Francisco Eggmahe or Hum up the Community Care Kate.

A gotta open support or report file now for ice activity.

Your number called 415 200 1548.

Or Hamara Sat Hiddej Mishamil Ho.

As salam alaikum.

We stand with you.

Hello, I'm Sharice Thursey Smith, Director of the Department of Children, Youth and Their Families, also known as DCYF.

After school programs are more than a safe place for kids.

They are a lifeline for working families, they are a space where children and youth can explore, build connections, gain confidence, and engage in experiences that will help shape who they become.

Every afternoon, these programs keep the lights on for thousands of children.

Through the Children and Youth Fund, San Francisco invests millions each year so children and youth can learn, be creative, and find joy after the school day ends.

Today I am celebrating our fantastic partnership with San Francisco's Department of Children, Youth, and their families, who work with us to make sure that our students, especially those from low-income and working families, receive high-quality programs each and every day that reinforce classroom learning, social emotional wellness, and spark curiosity.

These programs are part of our city's commitment to equity and opportunity for every single student in San Francisco.

At Booker T.

Our Freedom School offers free programs designed to uplift the whole family.

We serve kindergarten all the way to transitional age youth coming out of the foster care system.

We help students build strong self and cultural identity, academic success, and support their wellness, while also providing parents education to ensure every family thrives together.

We usually use stuff that would usually go in legal techniques.

It's kind of like a legal engineering class.

My favorite things about the program is food playground, my friends.

My favorite activity here to do a book of tea, learning school, and the gym.

Base camp has deep roots in the community and supports 60 students during the school year and 90 each summer.

Families count on our program with many returning year after year.

My name is Edwin.

I'm a third grade, and I grew up baby on the tree.

Today one of our favorite activities was was Mr.

Mordu or Fingers.

Hi, my name is This is my brother Lunal.

One thing I really like that we did, we made a volcano.

My name is Calia.

I'm eight and I'm a day grade, and I got a kid elementary.

We're making uh sculptures with gray and making like food for our characters.

And we're gonna make that more sense.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Uh, this meeting will come to order.

We are reconvening this uh October twenty seventh, twenty twenty five, 2025 regular meeting of the land use and transportation committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

I am Supervisor Miranda Melgar, chair of the committee, joined by Vice Chair, Supervisor Cheyenne Chen and Supervisor Bilal Mahmoud.

The committee clerk is John Carroll.

And I would also like to thank uh Colina Mendoza from SFGov TV for supporting us in this meeting.

Mr.

Clerk, do you have any announcements?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Please ensure that you've silenced your cell phones and other electronic devices.

If you have any documents to be included as part of today's file, you can submit it to me.

If you have public comment, you can send it to J-O-H-N-P-C-A-R-R-O-L-L at SFGOV.org, or you may send your written comments via postal service to our office in City Hall.

One, Dr.

Carlton B.

Goodlit, place room 244 San Francisco, California, 94102.

Madam Chair.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Clerk.

Let's go to item number 15.

15 is what remains.

Yes.

Thank you.

Agenda item number 15 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 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.

It amends the zoning map to reflect removal of the North Beach special use district.

It affirms the planning department's secret determinations and makes findings of consistency with the general plan, the A priority policies and planning code section 101.1 and findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare under planning code section 302.

And finally, Madam Chair, by prior arrangement, this ordinance is on our agenda as a potential committee report.

It may be sent for consideration at the board meeting tomorrow, October 28th, 2025.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

Uh we are now joined by uh the sponsor of this legislation, Supervisor Danny Sauter from District 3.

The floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair Melgar, and good afternoon, colleagues.

Thank you for welcoming me to this committee and for your consideration of our small business package, District 3 Thrives.

This legislation will help fill empty storefronts, allow existing small business owners to grow, and bring reform to complex, confusing, and equitable planning codes across district three neighborhoods.

There are many reasons why I'm excited about this legislation and many examples of how it will improve the lives of small business owners in the district.

But the need for it might be summed up best by a message I got over the weekend from a wonderful small business owner.

And that message read, Danny, hello, I hope you are well.

I wanted to pick your brain about something.

I am looking at a space in district three, but I'm aware of so many restrictions with certain businesses coming into the district.

Generally, is my business one that might face that sort of red tape.

It's early days, but we're looking to sign the lease in the next two to three months, so I thought you'd be a great person to connect with.

That note came from a beloved small business owner, a one-woman operation who started her business at the North Beach Farmers Market and now wants to turn that into a brick and mortar shop in our district.

District 3's reputation as the hardest district in San Francisco to start or run a small business is not something I think anyone should be proud of.

And I believe our legislation will go a long way towards changing that.

A few highlights of what our legislation does.

It will allow faster reviews for small business owners who want to open by adding North Beach into the city's priority permitting processing program.

This allows more certainty and less wasted rent while waiting for permanent reviews.

It removes bans on uses that currently exist across district three.

For example, you are currently not allowed to open flexible retail in North Beach or parts of Russian Hill and Knob Hill.

So if you wanted to open a coffee shop, for example, and have a fellow small business owner run a bookstore in the same space, you wouldn't be allowed to do that today.

You are also currently not allowed to have even a pathway to small storefront mergers in North Beach or on Polk Street.

This prohibition has led to one-off special legislation in the past.

Instead of that, we are creating a transparent pathway that allows public notice of storefront mergers.

In another example, arts activities on Knob Hill are currently not allowed, meaning you can't open a ceramic studio or a dance studio in the area.

We're gonna change this.

Finally, it consolidates two separate layers of rules in North Beach from a special use district and neighborhood commercial district into just one, the North Beach neighborhood commercial district.

I believe small business owners should be able to look in one place for a full set of rules.

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.

It does not remove any notifications, it does not uh create a change in any, does not change any existing prohibitions of conversions of second floor residential spaces into retail spaces, and it also does not impact any housing rules or legislation such as the separate family zoning plan.

We have been having productive conversations about this legislation with the stakeholders since it was first introduced in June.

In that time, we've had over a dozen meetings with small businesses and neighborhood associations in District 3.

Thousands of mailers have been sent to properties in the areas included in the legislation.

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

And before today, our legislation has been through three public hearings.

At the Small Business Commission in July, the Planning Commission in September, both bodies which recommended approval of the legislation, and at a prior land use committee here about three weeks ago.

We've also supported two past continuances or extensions, totaling more than a month's time, to allow for further conversations and amendments to be considered.

Before today, we had already made five amendments to directly respond to concerns from certain neighborhood groups.

And these have ranged from shrinking allowable storefront mergers in North Beach to strengthening language on historic protections and tighter controls on bars in Jackson Square.

Today I am introducing an additional single non-substantive amendment, which will revert health services on the ground floor in North Beach to continue to not be permitted as the code currently reads today.

This was a top concern we heard, so we made a decision to drop this, and just for posterity, I will read these brief changes into the record, which would see on page 17 striking out 19, and then on page 19 striking out uh phrase 19 health services permitted as conditional use on the first story up to 3,000 square feet, not permitted 3,001 square feet and above.

I want to thank the North Beach Business Association in particular for our many conversations and for their work to improve this legislation.

Well, we're not fully aligned on everything in this final package.

It has been shaped greatly by their feedback, and they also have my commitment to monitor concerns like balance of restaurant and retail, explore the idea of an inner and outer North Beach NCD, and explore ground floor use reforms.

Throughout this process, we are proud to have earned support from a wide range of small businesses and organizations, including North Beach Neighbors, Jackson Square Merchants Association, Golden Gate Restaurant Association, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, Knob Hill Association, Discover Polk, a Chinese Chamber of Commerce, and Russian Hill Neighbors.

Sometimes we craft legislation in these chambers in hopes that it might be used one day, but in this case, I'm really excited because we literally have small business owners that are waiting on this legislation to pass to grow their businesses, to sign leases, and to fill empty storefronts.

They include Milana Ram and her husband, Hamanshu, who want to open a cafe on Lombard Street to serve their families coffee from their farm in India.

This would fill a storefront that has been empty for seven years, and they would not be allowed to open unless our legislation passes.

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

Also would not be allowed unless this legislation passes.

A Gelato shop run by Italian immigrants who wants to open their second location in San Francisco, filling hopefully a storefront that has been empty for eight years.

Butter and Crumble, who we've heard from in these chambers before, a popular bakery who wants to grow but stay in the neighborhood by opening a second store for their cakes would not be allowed unless this legislation passes.

The list goes on a yoga studio, a wine bar in Jackson Square, a barber who wants to expand their space to grow their business, so on and so on.

All of these examples of small businesses opening or growing would be illegal unless this legislation passes, and that is the reality of what this legislation does.

Colleagues, you have a chance with today's vote to pass sound legislation and help give these small business owners a chance.

I hope you will join me in working to make sure that our planning code is more fair and more transparent across District 3 to meet the needs of our neighborhoods today and into the future.

Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Sauter.

I did have a question.

So as to your amendment today on line 19.

So striking out uh section 19 would then revert back the prohibition against health services.

That's correct within the North Beach.

Regardless of size.

Correct.

Okay.

All right, thank you so much.

Um I don't see anyone on the roster with questions.

And since we heard this item previously, we're not gonna have a presentation from planning.

Um, so let's go to public comment on this item, please.

Mr.

Clerk.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Land use and transportation.

We'll now hear public comment related to agenda item number 15.

If you have public comment for this item, please line up to speak along that western wall that I'm pointing out with my left hand, and then come forward to the lecture and if you're ready to speak.

Let's get that first speaker, please.

Yep, come on up.

You maybe can.

Hello, I'm Judy Basolo.

I've lived for 27 years in District 3, and for 37 years, I've been a commercial real estate agent specializing in representing small, mostly mom and pop retailers in San Francisco.

It pains me to think of the hundreds of tenants, my potential clients that I've had to turn away from district three.

And in the past five years, it's gotten worse.

We tire in our business of hearing about the lengthy process and the cost to these people who are hardworking.

They've been vetted financially, they have a business plan that works, they might be a startup, but they might be a second location.

And I'd love for you to please consider changing this legislation so that our city can get back on track and thriving in the retail world.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Chair Melkar and members of the land use and transportation committee.

My name is Jackson Nepier, speaking on behalf of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce.

The chamber strongly supports this ordinance, which represents a thoughtful modernization of our city's planning code to better reflect current economic realities and community needs.

By consolidating the outdated North Beach special use district into the North Beach neighborhood commercial district and expanding allowable uses across key corridors in North Beach, Polk Street, Pacific Avenue, Knob Hill, and Jackson Square.

This legislation streamlines zoning regulations and provides much needed flexibility for small businesses to thrive.

Increasing use size limits and reducing restrictions on restaurants and bars will help attract new investment, encourage storefront activation in revitalized beloved neighborhood corridors that continue to struggle with vacancies and rising costs.

More importantly, these updates are consistent with the general plan and the city's priority policies, reinforcing our collective commitment to economic recovery, neighborhood vibrancy, and walkable commercial districts.

The chamber appreciates the leadership of Supervisor Sauter behind this proposal, and it urges the committee's support to ensure San Francisco's small business corridors can remain dynamic, diverse, and resilient for years to come.

Thank you.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Kari Wellstone, speaking on behalf of Quincy Co.

to express strong support for District 3 Thrives, specifically in Jackson Square.

This initiative represents an important opportunity for our neighborhood.

It will uplift our small businesses, help our local shops not just survive but grow and bring new life to our streets.

Jackson Square has always been a vibrant historic part of our city, and this initiative will strengthen that, creating a welcoming environment for residents, entrepreneurs, and visitors alike.

We hope to see this pass.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Thank you, supervisors.

I've been in this chamber a couple times with the public safety neighborhood services subcommittee.

I'm a permanent expeditor.

My name is Gemma Jarrell Lester.

I'm here in support of this legislation.

I've worked with several clients who wanted to open in District 3, and we just couldn't find any path forward because of the prohibitions on restaurants and limited restaurants.

So I would just like to ask for your support in this because I think you'll see some really amazing businesses come in as a result.

Thank you.

Thanks for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Supervisor Sauter, Council members.

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

I love seeing new businesses take over empty storefronts.

I love seeing people I used to work with start their own small businesses.

I have a hospitality background.

I love seeing these passion projects on people that I worked with 20 years ago now open their own little butter and crumble deliciousness and then expand.

Um I do see too many storefronts staying empty.

Um I see too many businesses struggle to keep their doors open or to even get to a point to open the doors.

So 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, I do believe it honors the long-standing shops and restaurants that give our community its soul.

I believe there's room here for both old and new businesses to flourish side by side.

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

Please support District Three Thrives and help keep our district welcoming, vibrant, driving for everyone.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Chair Melgar, Supervisors.

My name is Lawrence Lee.

I'm a native San Franciscan and a resident of District 8.

I grew up in District 1.

I'm speaking for this District 3 Thrives legislation in support of it because it's uh it's something that a couple reasons.

It's something that I know is of value for small business everywhere.

A few years ago I was on the civil grand jury.

We did a report on small businesses because we saw the concerns of ice cream shops opening, and this kind of thing is something where our group of citizens spent 20 hours doing all the research, and regardless of ideology, we came on the same page that businesses need to have less regulation.

Another thing that I'm doing personally is I I'm trying to get a sense of how San Francisco can thrive over the next 10, 20 years, and seeing how other cities are doing it across the West Coast is something that really is inspiring as we try to figure out the right things to do.

To me, having this sort of extra work in District 3 is like having my child go from Presidio Middle School to Marina Middle School and find that she can't play basketball anymore because she's in Marina Middle School.

It just doesn't make any sense.

So please support this legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Chair Melgar, members of the committee, Supervisor Sauter.

Uh thank you.

My name is Nick Ferris.

I serve as president of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers and representing our nearly 600 residents and small business owners.

North Beach Telegraph Hill and the Waterfront.

Uh North Beach is not a struggling corridor, and that is the purpose of what I'm speaking about today.

Our commercial vacancy rate is 6% among the very lowest in the city.

These policies that have created that stability are the very policies that this legislation would undo.

I have three requests.

First, we ask you to restore the long-standing non-residential use size limits.

For nearly 40 years, storefronts have capped at 2,000 square feet with conditional use allowed up to 4,000.

This has preserved small independent businesses and presented prevented large format retail from dominating.

Think about just up and down Grant Avenue, Columbus.

What we ask here is that you restore both the 2,000 square uh foot limit and the 4,000 square foot cap.

Second, we urge you to restore the restaurant controls.

North Beach already has the highest concentration of restaurants and bars per capita in the city.

These controls have protected bookstores, tailors, galleries, record shops, the specialty retailers that define our neighborhood's character and keep it livable.

Third, please restore the prohibition on storefront mergers.

Allowing mergers up to 3,000 square feet would increase rents, reduce diversity, and undermine the small-scale storefront pattern that keeps our streets active and walkable.

These are not policies of the past.

These are the reason North Beach is thriving today.

Please do not undo what is working in North Beach.

Thank you.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Melgar Souter and other members of the committee.

My name is Lance Carnes.

I'm a resident of District 3.

I've lived here for about 35 years.

And uh I was looking at yesterday's 48 Hills newsletter, where the editor Tim Redmond writes, the land use and transportation committee and then the full board will also consider a measure by Supervisor Denny Sauter that would undo decades of carefully crafted legislation to protect small locally owned businesses in North Beach.

The bill would abolish the North Beach Special Use District and wipe out limits on the size of commercial spaces, allowing bigger businesses to expand into several storefronts, wiping out smaller outfits.

Stuart Watts, president of the North Beach Business Association, notes in the letter to the soups.

He begins.

The use size cap is a critical tool that has helped North Beach maintain its unique character as a vibrant mixed-use neighborhood.

Its removal during recent land use and board of supervisors meetings occurred without consultation with the very businesses it affects.

This cap ensures that no single type of business dominates our streetscape, preserving the diverse ecosystem of shops, services, and dining that makes North Beach a destination for both residents and visitors.

We respectfully request this provision be reinstated to protect the economic diversity that has made our neighborhood thrive for generations.

That's it.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Thank you, Supervisors.

I'm Apollo and I live and work in North Beach, where I moved just 10 months ago today.

Every day I appreciate the scale of my new home where neighbors know each other by name.

Small businesses are in balance and their shop owners feel they are thriving after the pandemic.

Our vacancy rates are at record lows, and it shows.

When I moved here 10 months ago, right before our new supervisor took office, there was general optimism in North Beach.

Now most residents and business owners I talk to are terrified of what is happening under his watch.

Between his offering our neighborhood to be demolished under the family zoning plan, refusing to help honor us as a historic district, and now this deregulation of our special use size caps for North Beach retail businesses.

Restore our longstanding restaurant density controls, restore the prohibition on storefront mergers, restore the exemption of North Beach from priority processing.

Restore the North Beach special use district definition of historic buildings.

Restore protections for nearby residential district from inappropriate uses, and prohibit ghost kitchen use.

Please include all of these amendments in any legislation moving forward under this plan.

Thank you.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors, and thank you.

Um hello yet again.

I'm still Ramlin Schmaltz, and I've still lived and worked in North Beach for over 20 years.

Saturday night at our night market, celebrating small businesses.

I was talking to a second generation legacy business owner who I know very well and former president of the North Beach Business Association, who is in tears about today's proposed legislation.

I'm quoting now.

Rommelin, he sighed.

Why even come down to City Hall again when they're just gonna rubber stamp this through?

So he's not here today.

Recently, we had over 400 collective years of local businesses ownership, legacy business ownership, try to talk to Danny, our supervisor, from over 400 years of experience about how these change how we know these changes will push a lot of us out in favor of larger, more corporate businesses, all while creating more vacancies.

But he just stays the course.

He doesn't care about existing small businesses, and he went on.

So he he isn't here today because he doesn't believe you care anymore or will listen, but I am here in his stead because I believe that even if supervisor, our supervisor doesn't care that you do.

I have to believe that democracy for district three thrives somewhere in all of this non-democratic nonprocess.

Over 50 of our small businesses reject this plan.

Small business owners feel blindsided and have tried to hold meaningful meetings with Supervisor Souter, revolt resulting in mostly insulting and they believe intentional miscommunication.

As Planning Commissioner Moore pointed out when planning took this up last month, the paper trail betrays that Supervisor Sauter's office replied to the wrong emails to stymie coordination during the short week.

The hearing was continued.

So it was just optics, the pretense to outreach.

Supervisor Souter made only token amendments to this plan, no medical on the ground floor, and that's not even window dressing.

So I vehemently request at least these um amendments to be made.

Restore the non-residential use sites caps, restore our long-standing resident restaurant density controls, and rest restore the prohibition on storefront mergers.

That's the minimum.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

So the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

Uh my name is Marilyn Breen.

I moved to San Francisco in 1964.

I have lived at North Waterfront for 40 years, so I'm bringing my seniority here to support the legislation that Danny Sader is proposing.

Um the present rules do not make any sense.

Apparently, there are several applications for small businesses, and many storefronts in North Beach and other places in District 3 are boarded up.

So open applications, it does it just doesn't make this doesn't make common sense.

Changing changing some of the archaic rules could allow for storefronts to be adding to the economy and the tax base of San Francisco.

The arguments against this legislation also don't make sense to me.

I heard somebody say they would be kicked out of their apartment if this passed.

Well, that doesn't make any sense.

The idea that big the big box stores are gonna move into the neighborhood, patently absurd.

They're not gonna tear down a city block to build a big box store.

So it just doesn't make sense.

Um I do ask the committee to use your own common sense.

This I heard the uh occupancy rate is at six percent, the unoccupancy rate in North Beach is six percent.

I think it could be changed to zero percent if this legislation is passed.

So I thank you for hearing this.

I thank you for carefully considering these arguments in favor of the passage and using your good judgment to make a decision based on the good of all San Franciscan.

Thank you.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Barry Schiller.

I've lived in North and Telegraph Landing for 25 years now.

There's been a lot of discussion over all of these sessions, pros and cons and details and opinions, and a lot of emotion.

Let me offer a little bit of perspective.

North Beach is definitely a special area of the city.

No one wants to lose its loved and iconic businesses.

I can think of original Joe's, Tony's Pizzas, Della's Bakery, the Stinking Rose, City Lights, and my personal favorite, Club Pogassi.

No one wants to get rid of those.

They're going to be icons for a long, long time to come.

No one wants big medical center and all the traffic coming through for that.

No one wants a big box store.

This legislation isn't about that.

It's about making it easier to open up a variety of community serving businesses along Polk Street, not just North Beach, and all the neighborhoods in District 3.

It's about removing archaic rules that do more harm than good.

Look at Cal Hollow as an example.

I take my grandkids there.

We shop for clothes, for books, for puzzles for toys.

I get my B 12 shots there once a month.

I've had my clothes altered there.

There's a really rich variety of different kinds of restaurants there.

And I don't bend, but if I could, I could take a yoga class there.

Cow Hollow serves the folks who live there.

Cowhala is vibrant and can adapt to changing neighborhood needs.

This is what we want in District 3.

We don't want anything special.

We want to be treated like everyone else in San Francisco and all the other neighborhoods.

Thank you.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Ted Bartlett.

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

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

I'm a San Francisco native and real estate agent for the last 27 years, thinking about our futures together.

This legislation is not only warranted but badly needed.

As our city rebounds, it is imperative that well-intentioned but now out-of-date planning code restrictions are removed to allow for a 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.

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

San Francisco is the best city on earth, as you know.

Our downtown is the economic heart of the city.

Our neighborhood commercial districts are the soul of our city.

By allowing small businesses a direct and transparent path into all of our just spectacular district three neighborhoods, the future is bright.

Please support this legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Herschel Berry, and like many in this room, I too am a longtime resident of District 3, 35 years in North Beach.

Frankly, I had no intention of speaking on this matter, but unfortunately, after attending the October 6th hearing when this legislation was presented, I failed to come forth today with a statement of support.

I went to the October 6th session because I thought it was going to be a celebration that this committee and gallery would be toasting Supervisor Soder for removing a misguided set of bureaucratic regulations that defy the very framework of American society, given small business is the heart and soul of this country.

While many neighbors spoke in favor of the bill, there were a few small but loud collection of voices who spoke and continue to speak today with conviction against it.

Not only is this position arrogant, it's shameful and embarrassing, for it's completely without merit, as no one in this room, not a citizen or an elected official has the authoritative right to dictate what a small business person can or cannot do with his or her energy and resources within the confines of the law.

We're not talking about corporate America opening up storefronts.

We are addressing the rights of individuals who are risking their livelihoods to realize a dream.

This is free market society 101.

If you don't approve of the type of business being opened, don't shop there.

Whether you are a fellow business owner, a neighborhood organization, a longtime resident, a native San Franciscan who just moved to district three last night.

You have no right to meddle in the affairs of these individuals.

The only third-party voice that truly matters is the relationship between the landlord or the given entrepreneur.

And today's environment, now more than ever.

It is a small business person that deserves to be met with the red carpet treatment from communities, not cement walls.

Committee members, I'll leave you with this.

You have an opportunity today to attach your legacy to do something truly important.

Please do the right thing.

Pass this bill with speed and in unanimous fashion.

Thank you.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Peter Kwang.

I've lived in North Beach for over 20 years.

I'm a member of North Beach Neighbors.

I serve on the board, but today I'm speaking on my own behalf, not on behalf of North Beach neighbors.

I would like to use support uh the proposed legislation.

Um, for the over 20 years I've lived in in North Beach.

There was for a long time a little charming dry cleaner store just around the corner, and typically the landlord raises rent.

Uh the Korean American operator could not continue and left.

That storefront has been empty now for years and years and years.

Many other kinds of businesses have tried to occupy that space, but have found um the bureaucracy and the restrictions too much.

This legislation uh will help fill empty storefronts by updating broken, bizarre and outdated planning codes.

It retains the protections that keeps our D3 neighborhood unique while making things easier and more transparent for small businesses.

Uh these are common sense reforms, long overdue.

Uh I urge you to support them.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Chair Mulligar, members of the land use committee, Supervisor Soder, Kathleen Courtney, Russian Hill Community Association, District Three.

The Russian Hill Community Association joins with the Pacific Avenue Neighborhood Association and District Three Neighborhood and Merchant Associations in opposing the consolidation of the North Beach special use in neighborhood commercial districts.

Supervisor Sauter has often stated to us that he was elected to represent his constituents.

A significant number of those constituents object to this proposed legislation.

We thank the supervisor and his staff for providing an analysis of the legislation in its context.

However, we still object.

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

With the mayor's upcoming upcoming plan on the horizon upzoning plan on the horizon with its developmental pressures, why are we removing that protection now?

Why are we removing the protection now?

It the NS analysis started four months ago.

What's the urgency?

I appreciate it very much.

Supervisor Mandelman's urgency in designating or moving the landmark uh process on the 16 historic districts or 16 historic buildings in his district, but he was protecting his district.

That's not happening here.

The Russian Hill Community Association, we appreciate Supervisor Soder's work.

But this is not appropriate now.

Thank you.

So the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Supervisors and other passionate neighbors.

How are you all doing?

My name is Stuart Watts.

I am the president of the North Beach Business Association, fifth generation San Franciscan, and I've been a small business owner for over 10 years.

I have been working closely with Danny for many months now.

I've spent over a hundred hours making this happen.

And we're almost there.

I really appreciate your office eliminating health services, which makes a huge difference for brick and mortars on the street.

But we're not quite there yet.

In San Francisco, North Beach has more restaurants and bars per capita of any residential neighborhood in the city.

Actually, in central North Beach, which is in this district right here.

This is an amendment that was made back in the 80s to prevent banking from taking over the neighborhood.

We put a restriction on banks, and it's an amendment I would love to use to help provide a bit more restrictions on how many restaurants and bars can open up in the neighborhood.

When you install a kitchen, it never comes out.

It hasn't been done yet, and we rarely see a kitchen turned back into a non-restaur space.

So with that said, we would love to see a limit on how many bars and restaurants can open up because within Central and North Beach alone, there are eight vacant restaurants.

Sorry, eight vacant storefronts, five of them are restaurants.

Within that, we have over 50 businesses on the projector here that have signed on to this.

I've met one-on-one with many of those businesses, like the coffee uh family that wants to open up.

Shatty himself signed on to this.

Let's take a bounce approach so we can have flute stores, candle shops that won't get priced out of their own neighborhood and community.

Thank you very much for your time.

I really appreciate it.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, my name is F.

Joseph Butler.

I'm an architect and land use expert and was admitted by the planning department as an expert witness on issues of historic preservation.

Please restore the definition of historic buildings as set forth in Section 783B3 to ensure that the eligible North Beach National Register Historic District will be protected.

There will be a negative adverse effect if this demolition is eliminated.

An earlier speaker said he doesn't want planning.

Well, that's used in Texas.

Owners of properties can put a mortuary next to a school, a slaughterhouse next to a church.

That's what we need in North Beach.

Go there if you want and forget careful balanced planning.

Upzoning in North Beach and wrecking the social contract of which commercial uses go where in our neighborhood commercial district is a threat to the success of our community.

Like the time they wanted to put a parking garage under Washington Square in the 1960s.

Over the 40 years I've lived in North Beach since before the author was born.

We as a community have fought off nationwide chain stores, small retail space mergers, oversaturation of bars and restaurants, residential demolitions, and we've surveyed historic buildings.

This city, this city has supported our efforts, and they've all come through this room.

I have five suits at home.

My suit that I'm wearing has been in this room more often than the author of this legislation.

When you save single family and duplex historic homes, people who could not otherwise afford to, Supervisor Sauter, can raise a family in North Carolina.

A supervisor by name, you address the entire committee.

I'm sorry.

Thank you for that.

The author of this legislation had not yet worn his first diaper when I and my community started these efforts.

Thank you for your comments.

Could we have the next speaker, please?

And before that speaker begins, do we have anyone in addition who has public comment for agenda item number 15 from whom we have not yet heard?

If so, please line up to speak along that western Wall.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

Yes, we're coming to the upzoning.

Yes, and we're coming to the historic district.

But today we're talking about this legislation.

My name is Charles Thomas.

Um I'm here to it's today to express wholehearted support for this legislation, and I'm proud to say that North Beach Neighbors also supports it.

In fact, within hours of uh Supervisor Salter's uh being elected, I reached out to him to offer help and working out uh solution for this legislation.

And I'll I'll tell you why.

And I'm a pretty good uh person to speak about this.

Um I ran my business out of my home uh in North Beach for over 25 years, and I can tell you firsthand it is very difficult to have a business in San Francisco, especially a small business, and even more difficult to have uh business in North Beach.

Um I also have a long history with both the North Beach neighborhood commercial district, the NCD and the SUD.

In 2006, I was president of North Beach Neighbors, and just the days before this current piece of provision of the planning code uh was to be heard in front of uh the land use uh committee.

I found out from somebody in the planning department that this was coming.

The president of the North Beach neighbors, nobody had talked to me.

So I I reached out to the Russian Hill neighbors, the uh North Beach uh merchants association, uh, Chamber of Commerce.

Nobody had heard anything.

So we got our stuff together and we went out to uh fight this.

And uh as we built the coalition, um, we came together, we wrote a brief and we started fighting.

It went on for like a year.

Um, and when I finally got to the uh land use committee, that is concluded.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number 15?

Madam Chair.

Okay, public comment on this item is now closed.

Uh Supervisor Schodder, did you have any uh closing comments before we make a motion?

I'd be happy to hear from uh the members of the committee and then I'll have some final remarks.

Thank you.

Okay, Supervisor Chen.

Um, first of all, I want to thank again everyone who has shared their public comment at the hearings today and also two weeks ago.

It is really important to me to hear directly from all the stakeholders who are being impacted by this change in the policy.

Uh there are a number of issues being raised that are critical to small business.

They are how use size limits uh apply and their impact on protecting the ecosystem of small business, preventing an over-saturation of specific kinds of establishments, and maintaining a diverse cross-section of uses and business.

I'm very compelled by letters that we receive regarding these items.

When what I heard loud and clear is that this neighborhoods represented a successful story worth it protecting.

I also hear there are risks and vulnerability that the neighborhood business ecosystem has to bear by opening the door to more flexibility and large use sizes.

This is causing fear and concern, which I understand, and I also really appreciate the amendment that is being introduced today by Supervisor Salter to revert back health services to not permit it on the first floor.

I know that this is one of the changes that the community has been requesting.

Uh Supervisor Salter and I also have spoken, and then I want to also urge him, and I know that uh we we have ongoing conversation on the two matters.

The first one is I would like to see data that actually show how the existing controls are working or not working.

And I haven't seen uh much of the data that could really help justify the change that are being proposed, and it's very good to try new things to be innovative, but at the same time, it's important uh for us to gather data and and for us to have time to evaluate.

Um, I also have been asserted by Supervisor Valter uh Salter's office that they are committed to continue to monitor the impacts on the neighborhood as this changes are going into effect and address any unintended issues that may come up at the point around restaurant density, use sizes, and other concerns.

Second, I understand that North Beach Business Association is pushing a sub-area in the heart of North Beach that would establish some additional protection, such as the limits on additional restaurants and store fund mergers and other controls.

This core area of North Beach has much lower vacancy rates.

And in fact, I heard that like a rest a vacancy, five of them are restaurants.

And does not really face the same challenges as areas under uh other areas of the SUDs.

So we have been hearing a strong uh rationale to retain some of the protection in the core core area.

Why I would greatly prefer that the committee wait until this proposal is introduced.

And I also urge uh Supervisor Salter to continue to keep the conversation going and craft a more specific proposal.

This will go a long way toward building trust and partnership in community and also um uh with data and that is really backing the strategies going toward and support our small business corridor.

Um and with that I I really appreciate everyone showing up today.

Thank you, Supervisor Chen.

Um I also appreciate all the feedback from the community.

Uh it this uh item has gotten a lot of uh attention uh and discussion.

Thank you, Supervisor Sauter, uh and to your staff, Michelle Andrews, for all the work that you have put into this.

Um I don't think that this proposal is that big.

I think it's a modest uh proposal.

Um I am the District 7 supervisor.

We have district elections here in San Francisco.

Uh, and this um body has a long history of deference to the district supervisor for legislation that affects their district.

It's very rare that uh supervisors uh weigh in, uh especially without the uh consent of the other supervisors on issues that uh pertain to someone else's district.

So for that alone, I will defer to Supervisor Sauter, who is the elected supervisor uh for district three.

Um but beyond that, I'm gonna point out that um economic markets are complicated, they are an ecosystem that responds to not just the neighborhood but to global um issues.

Uh we are a terrorist city, the area of uh North Beach, Telegraph Hill, the waterfront, is an area that is visited by visitors from all over the world, which is what makes our city really wonderful and magical.

Um, I think regulations like this uh take time.

Uh people have leases, um, and it takes a while for things to turn over.

So I don't think that uh changes that are being implemented today will be felt tomorrow.

I think it's gonna be felt over the decades.

The flip side of that is actually very fast.

We saw how during the pandemic, one of our most uh successful business areas, the downtown Union Square uh core, um, fell just like this.

So I think that you know, going out of business is actually pretty easy when things uh change around you, economic uh um conditions, the rise of uh Uber Eats and Amazon has been something that has changed the retail environment really fast.

And so I think it is wise to look ahead and plan ahead uh into changes that are going on around us and adapt and give a little bit more flexibility.

I don't think these changes are um all that, you know, or shaking.

Like I said, I think that they're fairly modest.

Um, I will support them.

Um, and I do think that we have to be thoughtful and responsive uh to the needs of the community, even though as San Franciscans, it's very rare that we all agree on something anytime.

So uh thank you uh supervisor for your thoughtfulness.

Um and uh did you want to address something again, supervisor before we've done it.

Yes, please quickly, and thank you, Chair.

Um, you know, I think uh Supervisor Channel share your desire for more data or um on vacancy rates and square footage.

Um it's something that I think the the city and us collectively have to do a better job of.

Uh in fact, uh many of the folks in this room uh we first came together almost 10 years ago because um there was no data in the North Beach NCD, and we had different groups that came together to physically manually do a storefront uh vacancy study, and then uh actually a lot of the ideas that are in today's legislation were born out of that, so it's been a decade in the making.

Um I do want to just make sure to clarify um there's nothing in this legislation that changes U-size caps that was changed in prior legislation.

Um, and you know, I know it gets into the weeds of the planning code categories, um, but our changes are are focused on limited restaurants, which is smaller scale cafes, things like that.

Um we maintain controls for restaurants only going to only able to go into a space that was prior uh restaurant the same for bars.

So this does not make it more permissive for for bars.

The CU is still kept there.

All in all, um, you know, I concur with Joe Mark Joe Chair Melgar, it is um I think you know the the changes are not terribly extensive.

This takes us one step closer to what exists in other districts, but it's still much more restrictive in this district than other districts across the city.

Um but with all that uh I hope you'll consider adopting the amendment and then passing this on to the full board.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Chair Malga.

I would like to make a motion uh to move forward with this legislation as a committee report without recommendation.

I think we need to amend it.

Okay, don't, yeah.

Sorry, then uh do you want to move the amendments?

Yes, I'd like to make uh a motion that we adopt the amendments as have been submitted by Supervisor Sauter.

Motion offered by the chair that the ordinance be amended as presented on that motion, Vice Chair Chen.

Chen, I member Machmud Makmoud I, Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar, aye.

Madam Chair, there are three eyes on the amendments.

Okay, thank you.

I think now the motion that supervised.

That motion to move to amended uh legislation uh as a committee report with dot recommendations.

Supervisor Mahmoud, did you want to say something before we vote?

Um I'd like to propose a motion to introduce this committee report with a positive recommendation.

Okay, the the first motion supersedes because it was okay.

I'm gonna record that second motion.

Give me just a moment.

Verification, Clerk.

Um, if we vote no on the first one, if you vote if if a no sorry if the first vote doesn't prevail because it doesn't reach two eyes, then we would take the vote on the second motion.

Which yeah, that's that would be.

And if the first one succeeds, then does the second one get a vote?

Then that's the end of that, unless that motion then is rescinded.

Okay, interesting.

On the motion that was offered by Vice Chair Chen that the ordinance be sent to the Board of Supervisors as a committee report as amended without the recommendation of land use and transportation.

Vice Chair Chen I.

Member Machmood.

There are three ayes.

Okay, that motion passes.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Clerk, are there any other items in our uh agenda?

There is no further business.

Okay.

Uh we are adjourned.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay.