Okay, good afternoon and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, September 25th, 2025.

When we reach the item you are interested in speaking to, we ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right.

Each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes.

And when you have 30 seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up.

When your allotted time is reached, I will announce that your time is up and take the next person cued to speak.

There is a very convenient timer on the podium where you can see how much time you have left and watch your time tick down.

Please speak clearly and slowly and if you care to state your name for the record.

I ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings.

And finally, I will remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind.

I'm going to ask those folks standing at the door.

You're causing a fire uh safety hazard.

If you could move away from the door, find better yet, find a seat.

I do see a few seats still available.

Thank you.

At this time, I'd like to take roll.

Commission president soon vice president Moore.

Commissioner Braun.

Here.

Commissioner Campbell.

Here.

Commissioner Imperial.

Here.

Commissioner McGarry and Commissioner Williams.

Here.

Thank you, Commissioners.

First, on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance at the time of issuance.

There were none.

However, now under your consent calendar, Commissioners, item four, excuse me, case number 2025, hyphen 001905, CUA at 440 Petrero Avenue.

A conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to November 6th, 2025.

There was simply a noticing issue.

Um, with that, we should take public comment.

Members of the public, if you'd like to address the commission on their continuance calendar only on the matter of continuance, please come forward.

Seeing none, public comment is closed, and your continuance calendar is now before you, Commissioners.

Commissioner Imperio, move to continue items as proposed.

Second.

Thank you, Commissioners.

On that motion to continue item four to November 6.

Commissioner Campbell?

Aye.

Commissioner McGarry.

Aye.

Commissioner Williams.

Aye.

Commissioner Braun.

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial.

Aye.

Commissioner Moore.

Aye.

And Commissioner President So.

Aye.

So move Commissioners that motion passes unanimously seven to zero.

Placing us under your consent calendar.

All matters listed here under constituted consent calendar are considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote.

There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission of the public or staff so requests.

In which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing.

Item one, case number 2024, hyphen 004755.

CUA 534 Page Street, conditional use authorization.

Item 2, case number 2025, hyphen 005018 CUA, 2007, Franklin Street, conditional use authorization.

So member of the public, you need to come forward and request that any of these items be taken off of consent to be heard today under the regular calendar.

Seeing none, public comment is closed.

Commissioner Braun.

Move to approve items one, two, and three on consent calendar.

Second.

Thank you, Commissioners.

On that motion to approve uh items one through three on consent.

Commissioner Campbell.

Aye.

Commissioner McGarry.

Commissioner Williams.

Aye.

Commissioner Braun.

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial.

Aye.

Commissioner Moore.

Aye.

And Commissioner President So.

Aye.

So move.

Commissioners, that motion passes unanimously seven to zero.

Commission matters.

Item five, land acknowledgement.

The Commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramatush Alone.

Who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula?

As the indigenous stewards of this land, and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramatushae have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the Tercake caretakers of this place.

As well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory.

As guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland.

We wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramatushalone community, and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples.

Item six consideration of adoption draft minutes for September 11th, 2025.

Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their minutes.

You need to come forward.

Seeing none.

Move to adopt the minutes.

Second.

Thank you, Commissioners.

On that motion to adopt your minutes.

Commissioner Campbell.

Commissioner McGarry.

Commissioner Williams.

Aye.

Commissioner Braun.

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial.

Aye.

Commissioner Moore.

Aye.

And Commissioner President So.

Aye.

So move Commissioners.

That motion passes unanimously seven to zero.

Item seven, Commission comments and questions.

Commissioner Imperial.

Thank you.

So I have question.

This week we received the streamlining task force report and a recommendations on different commissions.

First, I would just like to, and also for the public to know.

The hearing will be on October 1st.

At what time will it be?

I believe it's a one o'clock start.

And which room it will be.

I can look it up.

It appears they meet in room 408.

So just down the hall.

Okay, thank you.

So if for public doesn't know, the streamlining task force are tasked with recommendations about the different bodies in the city hall, whether to keep them, combine them, or eliminate them.

But I do have one question about the about on the participation of October 1st.

Are commissioners like me as well are okay to participate or provide comment during that hearing?

Yeah.

You you for the for that body you consist as members of the public.

So please feel free to join, give your opinions either as a commissioner or as a resident.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

That's my question.

Okay, if there's no other commission comments, we can move on to department matters item eight, director's announcements.

Um not a lot of updates this week, Commissioners.

Glad to see you again.

Um a brief update that um, and I know this was a topic requested last week, Commissioner Williams, particularly.

Um, we're the department is still working on its analysis of SB 79.

Um, it's proving complex.

So uh appreciate your patience, but just know we are working diligently on that and hope to get it to you soon.

Um probably the only other item of note, just to keep you apprised of things in the world.

Um, this morning was San Francisco Business Times structures event, which they have every year.

Um a number of us were able to be present.

I think what was of interest, there was a panel of um uh developers and brokers talking about what they saw the state of the economy moving forward, and I think um there were two items that I think jumped out to us as planners listening to it and looking at the things that come before this body.

Um, one interest in mid-rise housing, not unlike that um proposed on uh quarters under the family zoning plan as being likely the model that will move forward earliest as residential construction becomes more feasible.

I think we heard from some high-rise developers that talked about um the challenges that pretend just with the high rise superstructure that happens and how they foresee that happening for a while before um before we're gonna see projects like that work.

Quote unquote.

Um, the other interesting thing related to office vacancy.

I I think we continue to hear that you know office vacancy downtown and throughout the city is above 30 percent.

But as they were talking about what was actually functionally leasable among that, it actually is a much lower number of about 15 percent was what one of the brokers told us.

So I think that'll be interesting to see as we play out, and I I mean there's no doubt about it.

I just uh rode a uh Bay Wheels bike through Market Street through all of downtown right now, and it's still relatively empty even on a Wednesday.

It doesn't feel like there's a whole lot of people on the street at lunchtime.

Um, but they are seeing at least in the numbers term continued progress and more progress than the 30 percent um vacancy number of wood beliefs.

So that's my report back.

Thanks so much.

Okay, if there are no questions for the director, we can move on to item nine review of past events um at the board of supervisors, board of appeals, and the historic preservation commission, although is there a report from the board of appeals.

Good afternoon, President.

So, Commissioners Corey Teague, zoning administrator.

Um the Board of Appeals did meet last night.

They haven't had many items as of late that have been of interest to the commission.

Um there was one item last night.

It was not an item that came before the planning commission, but it's a fairly prominent site, and so I thought it would be of interest to the commission, which is um there was an appeal of a variance that was issued for the site at 1,000 Broadway, which is um Cross Street Taylor, um, above the Broadway tunnel.

Um this is located within the Russian Hill Ovalleho Crest Historic District.

Um it's a large 5,400 square foot corner site with very steep slope and also um a large coastal redwood at the corner that's protected by a conservation easement, so it's a fairly challenging site to develop.

It actually was a variance was issued and it was kind of set up for development back in 2014, and that never occurred.

This was kind of a newer version of that project, which would be one combined podium below grade of multiple levels, and then essentially three separate buildings for a total of five units on the site, which is essentially the the maximum it could be developed at within that arrangement.

Um there had been a good amount of opposition for the variance at the variance hearing.

Um, and I should note that there, because it is in a preservation or in a historic district, there had been a um a negative declaration done for this and mitigation measures were adopted to help reduce any impacts from a preservation perspective.

So it was subject to that.

Um and one of the adjacent neighbors appealed that variance.

Um, however, there was practically no um opposition at the board of appeals hearing last night, and there was very good conversation about the project sponsor and the department did a good job of laying out kind of the need for the variance and why the variance was granted.

Um, and ultimately the uh planning or the board of appeals did vote unanimously to deny the appeal and uphold the variance.

Um, and I just wanted to make you aware of that project because it is a fairly prominent site there in that district.

Thank you.

Okay, commissioners.

If there are no questions, we can move on to general public comment at this time.

Members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items with respect to agenda items.

Your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting.

Each member of the public uh may address the commission for up to three minutes.

And when the number of speakers exceed the 15-minute limit.

General public comment maybe move to the end of the agenda.

I'm gonna ask those members of the public standing in front of the doorway uh to move.

You're causing a fire hazard.

So if you could find a seat or move to the other side of the room, um you can stay, and unless we get start getting more people, I'll have to ask people to go to an overflow room.

Yes, sir, all right.

Good afternoon, commissioners, Planning department.

I'm here again on SB 79.

Thank you for all the work you're doing on it.

Just a request to make sure that when we get whatever report it is that we agendize it, and I would request maybe an informational hearing or something, just so people are very clear about what it does and how it interacts with all of the work we're doing, you know, locally in San Francisco with the family upzoning.

Thank you very much, and thank you for all your work on this.

Good afternoon, Georgia Shutish.

Um, the email sent on uh September 21st focused on three projects.

The catalyst for the email was the 228 Vicksburg project, which just came on the market with very expensive units, which is worrisome for the proposed densification under the local program.

This is a demolition of a single-family home and a UDU, and the commission approved two-bedroom units is either rent-controlled or at 80% AMI, and this is neither has happened.

The other project at 40328th Street was a horizontal and vertical expansion with a completely new facade and interior demolition that was approved as an alteration with absurd demo calcs.

I sent the before and after photos yesterday.

Projects with this scope, like the one on 28th of work are invariably demolitions, no different than Vicksburg, which is one reason the demo calcs should have been adjusted to avoid the loss of housing.

The first email shows the original kitchens from the web ad, which said there were two units.

Both were perfectly livable and were covered by rent control.

The project sponsor omit admission of the second unit from the application.

The UDU could have been discovered from the web ad.

The project needed a CUA to legalize a demolition.

The commission added a very small second unit behind the two, the new two-car garage, and I don't know if this unit's being rented or not.

The third project is 2830 day, two flats and a UDU with tenant buyouts, which this commission approved at the beginning of the year, but Commissioner Williams was absent.

This project is a demolition, yet was able to avoid the requirements under SB 330 that it should have complied with as can be seen in the emails from the public records request.

I am skeptical if any of the day units will be on the market as rent control units once the project gets the CFC.

The outcome of the Vicksburg project personifies the very real concerns people have about the effectiveness of the rezoning in solving the affordable housing crisis and meeting the goals of housing for moderate income families, let alone low-income families.

So, what is the link between Vicksburg 28th and Day Street projects?

All three are demolitions.

All three had UDUs, all three don't solve the housing crisis.

Here is what should happen.

The demo calcs should be adjusted, so demolition will be truly rare.

The confusion over the definition, confusion over the definition of demolition needs to be resolved.

UDUs and residential flats need better protection and preservation with commission oversight under the rezoning legislation and under the TPO, tenant protection ordinance.

And here's my 150 words for the minutes, which distilled what I just said.

Thanks a lot.

Have a great day.

My name is Rommelin, and thank you for being here today, and thanks for letting us be here.

I just wanted to reiterate my colleagues' um interest and concern about having SB 79 um calendarized.

So we think that we request that S B 79 be agendized as a separate item in the next planning commission meeting.

Um and I'll just go through some of the points and and why we feel this way.

Um San Francisco Planning Department has spent the last few years updating its housing element to be compliant with the regional housing needs allocation and other regulations set forth by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

And this has been done without any consideration of the forecasted impacts from SB 79.

On September 18th, 2025, the planning commission was told that SB 79 is now stable enough to be analyzed, though planning director Dennis Phillips said that the staff did not currently have capacity to do so.

In advance of the final vote of mayor's family zoning legislation, it is critical that the Board of Supervisors has a detailed analysis of SB 79's significant impact on San Francisco, our rent-controlled housing stock, our priority equity geographies, and our ability to meet our affordable housing mandates.

So we ask for a report that includes an in-depth analysis of how SB 79 impacts RHNA, including what additional capacity SB 79 imposes on the city, and what and at what cost, how it interacts with our current zoning in the mayor's family zoning plan and other affiliated proposed legislation as Supervisor Chen's tenant protection ordinance and to release the map showing how SB 79 would currently impact the city's neighborhoods, including if the plan the family zoning plan as currently written is adopted.

So we um request that that be um put on the agenda.

Thank you very much.

Commissioners, my name is Francisco De Costa, and I've been an advocate for over 50 years.

This commission and the last three commissions before them have failed San Francisco.

Today you heard someone say that you know she wrote in the financial district, and things uh seem to be you know pretty okay.

It's not so.

Over 40 million square feet of commercial space are vacant.

We have over 60,000 units that land lots have reckoned.

The commission has not once done a needs assessment, as the gentleman who came here first spoke.

You all need to have an orientation as to how to maintain standards.

The standards that this planning commission had at one time has gone to the hogs.

And the developers and the filthy rich are favored.

The poor and good San Franciscans, middle class are treated with disdain.

Our elders are dying on the street.

Our children, our infants, our youth, those with compromise health, uh slowly dying.

Because y'all don't give a damn.

Y'all do not know about Hunter's Point.

The depleted uranium was tested.

Y'all want to build warehouses and buildings.

Nobody should live there.

Nobody should live there.

Some of y'all know that because we came here before, but every time we came here and fought for right, y'all did wrong by favoring Lena and other corporations like Lena.

Thank you very much.

My name is Steve Zeltzer.

I'm with the United Front Committee for a Labor Party.

I think that this uh these b initiatives these uh of this commission of the mayor lurry of the developers is to destroy in Manhattanized San Francisco.

It's not about the working class, the people of San Francisco, and that's what the voters said in rejecting the supervisor who wanted to develop this park.

You do not represent the people of San Francisco.

You represent the developers, as does the mayor.

This pro-largest development that you're planning is to build a major warehouse that will pollute Hunter's Point Bayville that will contaminate the community.

This racist project is hurting the community and the people of Hunter's Point Bayview.

After they've been hurt with a radioactive shipyard.

You're gonna add this on top.

Sir, I'm sorry to interrupt.

So who is behind this?

Who is behind this item?

You know who's behind it?

Today's agenda.

Is the mayor and the developer, the owner of logistics?

That's what's behind it.

Sir, if you speak, you'll need to wait until that item gets called.

Well, the other issue I want to talk about is gentrification, because that's who this commission represents.

The bills passed by the legislature by Scott Weiner are aimed at gentrifying San Francisco, driving working class people out of San Francisco of bulldozing rent-controlled units.

It's reactionary, it's racist, it's anti-working class.

We need working class housing.

This projects and the projects you're developing aren't about working class housing.

They're about millionaires buying more condos.

That's what this is about.

We, the people of San Francisco, have to stop this.

And politically, that means an alternative to the mayor and the appointed representatives who really represent the developers and the speculators.

Thank you.

Okay, I'm gonna remind members of the public that the commission doesn't tolerate any disruption or outbursts.

Please, if you want to show support, wiggle your fingers, your hands, your ears, or your toes.

But if you could do so silently, please.

Last call for general public comment for items not on today's agenda.

Seeing none general public comment is closed, and those folks standing in front of the doorway, you're causing a fire hazard.

You're gonna have to move or find a seat, please.

Okay, commissioners, that'll place us under your regular calendar for item 10, case number 2025, hyphen zero zero five eight, excuse me, five nine eight nine PCA and MAP consolidating the North Beach special use and neighborhood commercial districts and expanding allowable uses and use size limits in certain zoning districts districts.

Uh, these are planning code and zoning map amendments.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Veronica Flores Planning Department staff.

This next ordinance, an item in front of you, is um focus on small business efforts within neighborhood commercial districts in district three.

Um we uh do you have Supervisor Sauter here to introduce the item?

So I will let him introduce the ordinance first, and I will return with staff presentation after.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

Thank you for your time and consideration of our item.

We are really excited about this item of legislation because it will make it easier for small businesses to open and grow in District 3 and will help fill empty storefronts across our neighborhoods.

I first want to thank uh all of the folks who have worked with us closely to make this possible.

Uh, Veronica Flores from the planning department, of course, Michelle Andrews from my team, the Office of Small Business as well.

Commissioners, with your support, San Francisco has made real progress across our city in simplifying rules and removing barriers for small businesses.

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

As a result, it has become easier, more fair, and more predictable to open or grow a small business in every part of San Francisco except District 3.

So our legislation, District 3 Thrive, seeks to change that.

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

A few highlights of our legislation.

It makes North Beach small businesses eligible for the city's priority permitting processing program, because we believe that North Beach small business owners should have the same predictable timeline for permits as every other neighborhood in our district.

It removes many bans uh for uses, including flexible a ban on flexible retail on North Beach and Pacific Avenue, which, as you know, is the idea of having two businesses under one roof.

That's not allowed in much of our district currently, removes bans on small storefront mergers in North Beach and Polk Street, removes bans on arts activities on Knob Hill.

Uh currently, you're not allowed to open a dance studio, ceramic studio on Knob Hill.

We're hoping to change that.

It removes bans on walk-up facilities in North Beach, something like uh the delightful experience of getting a slice of pizza at Golden Boy is no longer allowed because of this ban.

It removes bans on small first-floor health services in North Beach Polk Street and Pacific Avenue.

We believe if a small health service like a neighborhood dentist wants to open in these quarters, it should have a pathway to do that.

It allows limited restaurants, which of course are small restaurants like cafes and bakeries to have greater flexibility by opening in spaces that were not food use prior.

Finally, it consolidates the North Beach special use district and the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District into just one set of rules, the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District.

We believe things are complex already, and if someone is looking to open a small business, they should have one set of rules to look at and not have to go back and forth between many different controls.

Our legislation does not change formula retail rules in any neighborhood.

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

It does not remove any notifications.

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

It does not change any rules around conversions of second floor residential spaces into retail spaces, and it does not impact or change anything related to the family zoning plan.

This legislation has been shaped by many discussions with small business owners in the past year, but also going back to nearly a decade ago when I was the president of my neighborhood association and worked with my neighbors to propose a number of planning code changes to modify some small business rules in our district.

Some of these we were able to work with former Supervisor Peskin to turn into legislation for more flexibility of use, which has been a big part of the reason for North Beach resurgence.

So our legislation continues this and tries to fill some of the stubborn empty storefronts and address planning hurdles across District 3.

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

The legislation was introduced in June.

It was publicly heard at the Small Business Commission in July, where it passed unanimously, and we've been mating with neighborhood groups and stakeholders since then.

We've been working hard the last few weeks to develop amendments in response to specific concerns that were brought up.

A few groups asked for a continuance last week, which we supported to have more time for these discussions.

Since then, we have met with one organization and have been able to share a number of amendments, which we think address many of their concerns.

You should have in front of you a list of the amendments which we have been considering.

A number already in your packet, and then there are a few additional here.

I welcome your thoughts and feedback on these.

For some that are not in your packet, I want to just quickly read through those and share our thinking and the concerns they react to.

In the North Beach NCD, in the intro language, we're adding additional language about legacy businesses, historic character, smaller storefront mergers, and neighborhoods serving smaller health services.

When it comes to storefront mergers, we heard concerns about these storefront mergers growing too large.

So we've we've decided in this amendment to have a conditional use permit up to 3,000 square feet and then do a not permitted above 3,000 square feet.

So we're really encouraging small storefront mergers only, and again through a conditional use permit process.

Uh that process is done with public notice.

It's done with opportunities for community feedback.

On the concerns we heard about health services on first floor, we agree we want to make sure that these are neighborhood serving small footprint health services, things like a dentist, a chiropractor.

We don't want hospitals in the middle of our neighborhood commercial quarters.

So we've made an amendment that these are conditionally permitted up to 3,000 square feet.

Again, retaining public uh comment uh notices and then not permitted above 3,000 square feet.

As we move to Jackson Square, we heard concerns from a few homeowners about uh proliferation of bars.

Potentially, so uh we are uh including a conditional use process for bars of any square footage in Jackson Square.

And then as we move to Pacific Avenue, the stretch between Knob Hill and Russian Hill and Pacific Avenue, we revert to not permitted on all floors for a bar.

That was something that uh from those, even from those that support our legislation, there just wasn't a lot of interest in that particular use.

So those are a number of the amendments that we're making today.

Um I want to emphasize that we're really proud to have earned support from many small business organizations throughout our discussions, including North Beach neighbors, Jackson Square Merchant Association, Golden Gate Restaurant Association, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, Knob Hill Association, the Discover Polk Community Benefit District, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, and Russian Hill Neighbors.

What has been most encouraging to me throughout this entire process is all of the small business owners who have reached out to us and have said that their business wants to open or grow in District 3, something I hope we all agree that we want to welcome and encourage.

But these small business owners are literally not allowed to do that unless our legislation passes.

Several of them are here to express their support, but many others, of course, couldn't make it here in the middle of the day.

We've passed out a packet of about 50 different submissions of comments from residents and business owners expressing their support for this legislation.

We have heard from almost a dozen current and prospective small business owners, including a small grocery store, a bakery, a cafe, a gelato shop, and a yoga studio that would directly benefit from this.

Many are looking to fill storefronts that have been empty in district three for four or five or six or seven, all the way up to nine years vacancy, and that is the reality of what this legislation will do and who it will help.

I know there's been a astroma continuance from a few organizations, and I respect that, but I urge you commissioners to move this legislation forward today.

We have proposed the amendments here in response to some of the concerns.

We have many small business owners who are actively waiting for this legislation to pass so they can open up and support our communities, and we know that this legislation will go a long way to helping improve our neighborhoods, making our planning codes more fair and straightforward.

I do want to note I have a 1 30 meeting, the first meeting of our downtown financing district.

So I'll have to leave it that time, but here otherwise for any questions.

And again, thank you for your time on this matter.

Thank you, Supervisor Sauter.

Just want to reiterate that this proposed ordinance really builds on past efforts to support small businesses and reduce commercial vacancies.

And this ordinance would extend those same tools to district three.

The goal here is to help fill empty storefronts and better support new or existing businesses to open or expand within these districts.

The supervisor actually outlined the various amendments within this package, but I do want to elaborate on one of the amendments, and that is related to consolidating the North Beach special use district and neighborhood commercial districts.

So just as a reminder, special use districts are an overlay, an additional set of rules or restrictions on top of the base zoning, and in which this case, that is the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District.

The special use district and neighborhood commercial district have almost identical boundaries.

So when we have a named neighborhood commercial district, which is in this case again, the North Beach NCD, that is the tool through which we should be putting all of the controls for this area.

So under this proposal, while the North Beach SUD would be eliminated, there is still the named NCD of the North Beach NCD in place.

I also want to emphasize that many of the SUD controls are already replicated within the neighborhood commercial district.

That will remain the same.

Additionally, a number of provisions from the SUD will be moved to the NCD.

So many of those protections are still in place.

The end result is one single set of rules for North Beach, really making it easier for the public and applicants to understand what is allowed.

As seen in the staff report and as the supervisor mentioned today, there are a number of anticipated amendments, many of which did come out of continued conversations with the supervisor, so we appreciate the collaboration here.

The amendments listed in the staff report were either technical in nature or generally made controls more permissive within these district three NCDs.

In terms of the additional amendments described um just moments ago, the department has done a preliminary review of them and is generally supportive.

These changes are still more permissive than what today's controls are.

So we support being able to provide more flexibility and remove some of the barriers for these small businesses.

There is one instance where the new amendment would revert to the status quo rather than making more things permissive.

And while this is not ideal for streamlining efforts, we understand the intent to balance the community feedback and the neighborhood needs today.

So overall, the department remains in full support of the amendment anticipated amendments, both outlined in your staff report and described described moments ago.

The department supports the overall goals of this ordinance.

Again, it better supports small businesses seeking to open or expand within these districts.

It reduces process and streamlines review and makes the planning code easier and more transparent for the public.

This ordinance aligns the district NCDs with most other NCDs citywide.

And through the consolidation of the North Beach SUD and NCD, it also reduces the need for any future legislative fixes to accommodate individual projects within them.

With that said, we are full in support of the anticipated amendments and recommend you adopt a recommendation of approval with the amendments today.

This concludes the staff presentation.

I'm available for any questions.

Thank you.

With that, we should open up public comment, members of the public.

This is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter.

Three.

Okay.

Go ahead, sir.

Hello.

My name is Bob Cosma.

I've been a resident in San Francisco for 30 years and a resident of District 3 for the past uh 10 years.

On my way here, I walked past at least 12 empty storefronts.

I think the policy that Supervisor Souter is supporting is the kind of policy that can support the launch and development of our next generation of iconic small businesses.

The kind of businesses that make San Francisco a unique and vibrant city.

Next speaker.

Hi, Commissioners.

I just want to share a little bit about my business, Better and Crumble, and how this legislation will really help us at this stage in our growth.

When we opened our bakery a couple years ago, ever since then, we've been flooded with people coming from all over the country and the world to come visit us, and we are just bursting out the seams in our spot in North Beach.

But we love the neighborhood so much.

And at this point in our expansion, staying local and staying within the district is going to be so important in order to just uphold the integrity of my vision for this next project and hold on to that attention for quality that I care so much about.

And we just love North Beach so much.

That being said, it's been really challenging to find a place that we'll be able to open up.

We have our heart really set on a spot that is just at an incredible location that will just be such an amazing kind of European-style spot to come grab a pastry, a coffee, and a slice of cake in North Beach fashion.

However, we are not going to be permitted to open up there unless this legislation passes.

And I just want to share that as somebody who has funded my business from the ground up, we really don't have the extravagant means to kind of sit on this spot or waste any time.

We really need to move on it and make it happen.

And so I'm really hoping this will help us do so.

And finally, I just wanted to share that over the years.

I'm really hoping that this legislation will be kind of the next tenant to that improvement that I've seen over the years.

So yeah, thank you so much.

Hello, my name is Barry Sheller.

I have deep roots in San Francisco.

As a child, I lived in the tenderline.

My father was an officer at San Quentin.

I'm sorry, at Alcatraz.

And as a young married person, moved to the city.

Our first child was born here.

As a retired person, I moved back into District 3.

I live near Santa and Lombard.

And my wife and I, we love being here.

We love the uniqueness of the city, aside from all the national natural beauty.

We love the fact that we don't have big chain stores in our area.

However, it's also really disheartening to see all the empty storefronts.

It's really disheartening.

And I think there has to be a balance between trying to preserve all the things that are good and unique to San Francisco, but at the same time, take the steps that are reasonable to start to fill in these storefronts and to make San Francisco continue to be a vibrant city.

So I think that the legislation that Supervisor Sauter has proposed does this.

You know, we're in an age where everyone's polarized to either this or that.

And I think it's it's really important that we look at things uh clearly and in the detail to find out that you know this legislation actually makes really good sense.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Ted Bartlett, and I'm a business owner on Knob Hill in District 3.

I'm here in full support of Supervisor Sauter's district three Thrives legislation.

As a San Francisco native and real estate agent serving San Francisco for the past 27 years, I'm certain that this legislation is not only warranted but badly needed.

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

By allowing a greater number of businesses to come into our neighborhood commercial districts, empty storefronts will be filled.

Successful small businesses will be able to expand, and new businesses will open without almost requiring a graduate degree in city planning and incredible patience to navigate this process.

These changes will encourage a more vibrant street scene for shoppers, residents, and our millions of welcome visitors.

Our downtown is the economic heart of our city.

Our neighborhood commercial districts are the soul of our city.

By allowing small businesses a direct and transparent path into the spectacular D3 neighborhood, we will start to hear about San Francisco boom loop, rather than the negative news cycles that have dominated the national and sometimes local press over the past few years.

I urge you to support this legislation.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Bill Perry.

I'm a North Beach resident and a businessman.

I'm here also to enthusiastically support the approval and progression of this D3 Thrives bill.

Two things I just wanted to highlight.

The first one is that I'm thrilled to see this bill because this is exactly what Supervisor Sauter said in his platform he was gonna do if he got elected.

And he garnered an enormous amount of support in D3 because of the platform that he was running on.

It was very clearly laid out over and over, and he won the election.

And I think that it's critical that we actually then support and enable the enactment of the things that he was voted in to do.

And I think that's a critical point.

I actually think District 3 has already spoken.

I think that District 3 has made it very clear that this is the type of thing overall by electing him, they want to get done.

The second thing that I'd like to highlight is walking through the neighborhood as I do, like everybody at North Beach does all the time.

I'm struck by two things.

First, how much the neighborhood is bouncing back and how much it is growing.

But I'm also struck by how many spaces are still empty and how many of them have been empty for three or four or five years.

And I've gotten to know owners of small businesses and talk to them about what it's like being a business person myself, asking them what's it like to have a storefront here?

And I hear the stories, and I'm startled, and I hear the rules and I hear the double layers of bureaucracy and the Byzantine nature of some of these things and the things they tell me that this makes no sense.

Where did this come from?

Why was this put here?

And I think that a lot of these rules are looking to be amended in this very wisely and in a very balanced way, and that that thrills me.

And so I'm actually really excited to see these places get filled and see the movement forward on that.

Um, and I I want to urge you to pass this and approve this.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Amy Cleary, and I'm here on behalf of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association.

As you heard earlier, we are in support of this sensible legislation that will help restaurants but also other small businesses not only open but survive and hopefully thrive.

We ask for your support.

Thank you.

Hi, Commissioners.

My name is David Harrison.

I'm here on behalf of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, also to lend our support for this legislation.

Um I would say the number one concern that we hear when we do outreach with our small business members is um around uh lack of clarity around um restrictions, reason why the city is saying no to new ideas, um to filling the ground floor to vibrancy.

Um there's been so much positive work in in many respects thanks to the staff at planning, um, in many respects thanks to supervisors uh like Supervisor Sauter.

Um, a lot of progress, and I think this legislation builds on that progress.

So we're happy to support today, and thank you for your consideration.

Uh hi, good afternoon.

Um, my name is Kumar.

I'm a resident of District Three, and I lead the volunteer cleanup for the Lower Polk neighborhood.

Um I'm asking today for you all to approve the district three thrives plan um put forward by um Supervisor Sauter.

Um District Three is kind of in a state of recovery from COVID, but we will not fully recover um without our small businesses, and because of this legislation to help them help us is vital.

Um, in my opinion, District 3 is the jewel of the city.

I think probably most of this room agrees.

Um but the businesses and the buildings that we love, they were built in times when we didn't um have the kind of restrictions that we're trying to um remove today.

And all of the neighborhood character in the world does not make up for vacant storefronts.

Um I saw recent data showing that um Polk Street was one of the few places in San Francisco which has um pre-pandemic levels of um foot traffic.

And I think you know, we gotta strike while the iron is hot.

Um you've heard the perspective of business owners in district three today.

Um, my perspective is someone who cleans up my neighborhood.

Um, and one thing that I always notice is hey, the vacant storefronts they have trash in, you know, behind the shutters, they have trash um out in front because there's nobody there to really have the responsibility of cleaning up.

Um, yeah, make San Francisco.

Beautiful.

And I urge all to support this ordinance.

Thank you very much.

Hello.

Uh hi, commissioners.

My name is Nick Ferris.

I serve as president of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers.

On behalf of our 600-member organization, we are asking you to not recommend this amendment, uh, as there is still much more work that needs to be done.

I believe this can be good, but there are many unintended consequences, and it's frankly not a fully baked proposal.

Good legislation takes time.

We see two core problems with this proposal.

First, the process.

The legislation is being rushed through in terms of community engagement.

It's missing data to support the changes, and we haven't even seen the most recent legislation as proposed.

The Telegraph Hill dwellers, along with the North Beach Business Association, Jackson Square Historic District Association, Pacific Avenue Neighborhood Association were not included before the legislation was drafted.

The hearing was set, then continued to collect feedback, but the office went silent until we reached out.

When we finally did just days ago, we learned the hearing was already scheduled for today.

That's not how good, successful, collaborative, and transparent legislation gets made.

Second, the legislation itself.

It's eliminating very much of the code that kept North Beach vibrant through COVID.

This is not a data-driven approach.

The legislation is very well-intentioned, but we're solving a problem that doesn't exist in North Beach specifically.

As far as I can best tell, this is benefiting a small subset of businesses in the neighborhood, and that is a good thing, and we've heard from some of these today.

For context, a healthy percentage is between five and ten percent.

So I ask where is the problem in North Beach at 5% vacancy.

Let's use data to back this legislation and support.

That is our request.

Without details, it's impossible to assess unintended consequences.

Already this proposal to allow more limited restaurants threatens the balance of shops and culture that make North Beach unique.

The legislation forgets why we have this current legislation in the very first place.

We don't want to become a neighborhood of only restaurants and bars.

Once a storefront becomes a restaurant, it almost never reverts back.

That's why the current controls matter.

In conclusion, North Beach is thriving.

Don't trade long-term neighborhood health for the benefit of a few select businesses.

Let's use real data and true collaboration to get this right.

I believe we can do it together, and it would be supported by a no recommendation here.

Thank you.

North Beach's story is much more than a vacancy rate.

It's about the type of businesses and the people whose livelihoods depend on them.

It's living in one of the last bastions of live music in the city and quite honestly the country.

It's the independent, locally owned places that are what make North Beach irreplaceable.

The neighborhood feels alive, just walking down it.

And as a young voter invested in San Francisco's future, I want to see this character preserved, not erased.

When we lose these spaces to change and generic development, we lose something that can never be replaced.

So eliminating the SUD kick starts, the erosion of protections for existing small businesses, legacy businesses, and the residents who live above those stores who are and should be completely protected from demolition.

So, commissioners, I ask you to please preserve what makes North Beach truly unique.

Our community deserves protections that preserve what makes the neighborhood special.

Thank you for working with me and other members of the community.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Andrew Smith.

I'm a property owner and property manager in the Polk Neighborhood Commercial District.

In 2004, I built a mixed use building at Polk in California in the Polk NCD.

We came in front of this planning commission to obtain permission to build 40 new rental apartments with several medium-sized commercial stores underneath it against significant opposite opposition.

From the last for the last 20 years, we've owned and managed this building, our family and I.

During this time, we've seen the planning code change many times in regards to what businesses the government thinks is good or bad for the residents and visitors to our neighborhood.

My family and I have lived in this neighborhood for more than 25 years.

We also vote in this district.

We constructed our building in accordance with the conditional use is at the time.

They allowed us up to 9900, sorry, 9,950 square feet of retail divided into medium-sized units.

Our units are in the two to 3,000 square foot size range.

They've typically been leased to local, locally owned small businesses, some of them retail, some service-related.

We're not talking about huge big box operations here.

Our building is made of concrete and steel.

It's almost impossible to reconfigure the commercial units each time the planning code changes.

I count seven times that the use size restrictions in Polk NCD have been modified by legislation since we built our building.

It's really hard to keep up.

Our stores are in and out of compliance all the time, at the whim of the local politicians.

Most of these rules have been imposed without any data in response to one of the previous speakers.

No data is usually provided here when people want to change the use size restrictions.

Under the current planning code, every new tenant in one of our units has to get a CU authorization.

It's around 2,500 square feet.

Used to be compliant, not anymore.

It's a real buzzkill when our realtor has to tell people, sorry, you've got to go to the planning commission.

Months of delay, loss of expense, hire some expensive consultants, you might or might not get your permission.

Our former tenant in one of our spaces left because he was so successful during COVID.

He sold a lot of stuff.

He wanted to open, he wanted to expand his space, and he looked at the planning code restrictions.

No way, I'm moving to SOMA.

Our unit's been vacant since that.

We can't reconfigure it to be smaller than 2,500 square feet because the building layout doesn't allow that.

We would question why you're restricting so much the small health care operations.

We have frontage on Polk Street and California Street.

It seems like your restrictions in note 3 of Table 723 are kind of targeting our building.

Not sure why.

Thank you very much.

The CU process is a real burden on small landlords and small operations.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

It has seemed that what I've seen thus far are special interests were at the table in terms of discussing this.

We, as residents and as many small businesses in North Beach, were shut out.

So we do ask for data.

We need to know what exists, what is needed.

Again, it's a population of 37,000 per square mile just in North Beach.

We have also the largest population of seniors.

We are primarily carless.

So navigating the hills, again, North Beach is flatter, and going up the hills is a little bit more steep.

So to have easy access to neighborhood serving businesses, which has been the lifeblood of our community.

So these small businesses that have served us and served us well, we need to keep the existing controls in place to keep a balance on what we as residents need and what tourists and visitors also would like to see.

Our needs are really important.

Again, the NCD went into place in 1987 as a community response to the speculation to the corporations coming in, buying up buildings, giving 300% rent increases to so many of our small businesses, and they were gone, as well as displacement.

So my neighbors around the corner from me, eight Italian families, along with their you know, second and third generation families in the buildings were evicted.

So these were corporations that came in and did this then.

That's why the NCD first went into place, and again the SUD much later in 2012.

There was another wave of speculation.

So protecting our small businesses and our housing was so important.

The spaces allow for many different varieties of businesses to be there, as well as a limit on the number of restaurants so that we're not flooded by restaurants, just as we had been flooded by banks back in 1986.

I lived through this.

I am anxious about another wave of speculation that is already starting up.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Lance Carnes.

I'm a resident of North Beach, District 3.

And I've known Danny Sauter since he uh moved into the neighborhood 10 or so years ago.

Could you speak a little louder, please?

Oh, sure, sorry.

Thank you.

So I've known Danny Sutter since he moved into the neighborhood 10 or so years ago.

Um one thing he mentioned in his opening in his comments was that he's been in communication for several months with stakeholders.

I'm a stakeholder.

I've been I've lived my neighbor for 30 years, and uh I haven't heard one thing about this.

Um, I asked some of my friends who are about to speak to you actually, also from my uh neck of the woods, and they haven't heard anything, Danny, about this, or very little.

Um, so I I would like to ask for a continuation of this matter to at least a month from now, so we have time to get into this legislat in this proposed legislation and see if it works for North Beach.

Um, so let's see.

Yeah, so that's that's basically it.

The um I also received a note from uh one of the members of the board of Telegraph Hill Daughters, which represents you know a large percentage of the district.

And uh she asked for a continuance and was told that they couldn't do that, but she said that two days notice is not enough to look over the legislation and the and the and the and the part of the neighborhood concerned.

So she also asked for a continuance.

Okay.

Well, thank you so much, and please continue this matter.

Good afternoon.

My name is Rhoda Schneiderman, and I am a resident of District 3.

I live at 550 Battery, and my apartment faces Battery.

I'm going to limit my comments to Jackson Square, even though I think there is some crossover and to the other communities that are affected.

Jackson Square is a gem.

It is one of the few bright spots in San Francisco that has actually made national attention.

It is a unique combination of residential, retail, and just the right amount of restaurants and bars.

The walkways are probably among the narrowest in the city.

It's my backyard.

I walk through there, I drink coffee, I buy croissants, I shop, I walk through there to North Beach to Chinatown whenever I possibly can, and that's often.

Wait, isn't that enough for you to either table this and remove Jackson Square district from this proposal or figure out a way to not have these mitigating factors that are going to completely destroy the fabric of the community?

In closing, while I do speak for myself, many of my neighbors were very unhappy by the lack of notice and transparency of this proposal.

They would have liked to attend or written a letter if the time had been afforded them or the opportunity had been afforded them.

So I encourage you to table this, and in lieu of tabling it, please vote no.

Good afternoon, President So and Commissioners.

My name is Lawrence Lee.

I'm a San Francisco native.

Spent my whole youth in District 1 and have spent over 20 years in District 8.

And District 3 is uh one of my favorites because of not just Chun Town but North Beach as well.

And I'm going to appeal to you on two reasons why I support Supervisor Souter's legislation.

One is one is for your heart and one is for your head.

And I'll start with something I've worked on as part of a group a couple years ago.

I was fortunate to be a member of the civil grand jury where we did a report on small businesses and we interviewed many, many small businesses.

We interviewed supervisors, we've ended a whole bunch of people.

We worked 30 hours a week volunteer time.

This group was all across different ideologies, all across ages across the city.

And we found that the main concern of small businesses is the number of ways that it's so hard to get things going.

It's not a question of just time, it's also money, it's also just understanding things.

And so we appreciate some things that are happening in terms of making first year free continuing, but this sort of legislation is needed for so many businesses that have expressed so much pain to us overall.

I can't get into any specifics.

A second thing that I want to talk about is I do a lot of businesses in other cities, and what's really important as I see other cities grow and thrive is understanding that they are encouraging businesses to continue to grow.

And this is something that we have to see ourselves being better in one year, in five years, and I think that this legislation is a start, and we should continue to think about this type of legislation across the city.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Teddy Kramer, and I'm a small business owner here in San Francisco.

I'm the former small business chair for the Russian Hill Neighbors, and in 2020, I co-founded North Beach Delivers with my neighbors as well as Supervisor Sauter.

We helped generate over 250,000 in revenue for over 50 unique businesses across North Beach, Chinatown, and Russian Hill.

I have the unique experience of listening to the challenges that small businesses face, especially in District 3.

My own personal experience of trying to open up a business in District 3 in North Beach was frustrating to say the least, and that's really, really talking about it lightly.

It was terrible, and it was personal.

I'm one of many who have tried to bring their businesses to District 3 in the last 20 years.

But we have been thwarted by arcane and punitive zoning, anti-competitive behavior, and unequal treatment under the law.

This ordinance is the beginning and the start to fixing that.

I've heard many of you in the past talk about the importance of equality and opportunity in our planning and zoning.

This ordinance aims to create both.

Every single business owner in San Francisco deserves the right to open their code compliant business regardless of how long they've lived here without the need of an expensive land use attorney or the need to make special visits to City Hall for individual consideration.

San Francisco is the city that knows how, but for some reason in the last two decades, we've become a city of no, especially when it comes to small business, and especially when it comes to district three.

There's nothing controversial about this legislation, it's common sense.

Why does North Beach need two commercial districts?

It serves no other purpose than to obstruct, to confuse, and prevent commercial progress.

Every single eating and drinking establishment in Knob Hill requires conditional use.

Is that the good use of the planning department and commission's time?

Of course not.

In fact, I respectfully believe Mr.

Supervisor Sauter has not gone far enough, right?

As this legislation will only permit rest limited restaurants in Knob Hill.

We should take it further.

Why should a simple coffee shop or bakery have to go through neighborhood approval to open in Jackson Square?

Again, more bureaucracy, costly hearings, and obstruction under the guise of community protection and historic preservation.

You've heard comment today in red letters about the maintenance of culture and small business character and a data-driven approach to this legislation.

These are all just synonyms for xenophobia, exclusion, anti-growth, and ultimately anti-competitive behavior.

All you have to do is look around the rest of San Francisco and see how small business operates.

The world is not melted, the sky is not fallen.

Allowing businesses to open without restrictive zoning is good for business and good for the city.

For the sake of fairness, for the sake of creating opportunities for all small business owners, and for the sake of San Francisco moving forward and being a place where we say yes to small business, I urge you to support this common sense legislation.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

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

to express our support for District 3 Thrives, particularly in Jackson Square.

We have been in Jackson Square since 2009, and since seeing our neighborhood grow, we believe this legislation will help our neighborhood thrive even more, and we look forward to welcoming more amazing neighbors to Jackson Square once this passes.

Thank you.

Okay, I'm gonna um pause public comment for a moment because given the supervisor's schedule, there may be questions from the commissioners directly to the supervisor before he leaves.

Thanks so much for for being here and I know that you have to depart soon.

So I just had one brief question, I think, which was um the expansion of places in which health services uses would be allowed.

I'm just kind of curious what the thinking is behind that use in particular.

Yeah, so on health services, we um they're not permitted on Polk Street and in the North Beach NCD currently.

And we explored um taking that away and allowing them as a conditional use for any size.

And in conversations, actually, both with people who uh support this legislation and those who have concerns, there wasn't when it came to health services, I think there was um universal agreement that we don't want large hospital-like settings.

Um, there's uh, you know, for example, there's a very uh particular example in North Beach where we have Luke's local, which is a wonderful grocery store now, but there was an attempt for a large radiation center to go in there before, and so that's kind of fresh in everyone's mind.

So respecting that and really our intention this entire time to be neighborhood-serving health care services.

We've in this amendment put in um a conditional use process for small and then not allowing larger health care services.

We looked with planning staff to see if there was any way to designate you know a hospital versus again, I keep using the example of a dentist, and there really wasn't.

So we're doing it by size.

Um I would also mention something that was spoken about, you know, from someone who doesn't support this, which is fine, but I think I want to use her example of district three having the most seniors of any district in San Francisco, and actually that being why we need to make these neighborhood-serving health services more accessible.

Um, this came to us from from someone else on the small business commission actually talking about her mom and talking about you know, for her to be able to have access to things in her neighborhood rather than always going to downtown for hospital visits uh for medical visits, um, and also you know, a lot of those uh a lot of those medical offices being on a second floor and that being difficult for people with mobility challenges.

So, all in all, I think we found a good balance with this amendment.

Again, small neighborhood-serving medical uses only.

Thank you.

Um, just one other question.

When in your opening remarks, you mentioned that there have been some past changes uh to the planning code and it sounds like to the SEDs and NCDs that you've worked on before.

And I'm just kind of curious if you um could share a few examples of sort of what types of changes have happened in the past and and how you've sort of see these those as being beneficial and this building on it.

Yeah, thank you.

Absolutely.

Happy to talk more about that.

I think the one that um that uh our organization, North Beach Neighbors at the time, really supported and then uh was able to have adopted by a former supervisor Peskin that has made a big impact is um and I might get the exact dates wrong, but uh at the time there was a um if if a restaurant went out of use, that space basically had a shot clock of 18 months at the time that it had to be a restaurant again, or else it would not be able to be a restaurant again ever.

And uh I believe we were able to get that expanded to 36 months, and so that's one specific example that um you know does make it more flexible specifically on restaurants, and and that's um something that I think has helped uh in the North Beach area in particular.

All right, thank you.

Those are all my questions.

Commissioner Williams.

Thank you, Supervisor Sauter, um, for your comments.

I'm I'm just curious.

We we we've gotten a lot of uh lot of letters uh from different folks in your neighborhood uh around concerns, and so I'm wondering what what the the rush is given um you know given all the concerns uh around the legislation.

Um why aren't you open to having some more discussion?

Um I was just wondering.

Yeah, absolutely.

I'd be happy to talk about that and a little bit more just about um communication and this entire process.

Uh as we noted, we introduced this legislation in June, and so it has been a number of months now.

Um, you know, we had to file an extension actually last week to to allow this to be continued because it is going on for so long.

Um we were a number of the organizations that are requesting a two-month continuance now.

They requested uh last week for continuance, which we did grant them to give more time.

Um there has been a lot of communication on this.

It has been um, you know, there were thousands of mailers sent out to areas impacted by the planning department on this.

Um, this has been on people's radars.

Um, you know, and again, I think in in I want to also just associate that comment with what this legislation itself does, which is I think make this process more transparent.

Um we are you know, we've seen in recent years, for example, that many of the things that are not permitted in the planning code currently, um, they actually can happen if special legislation is written.

You know, we use the example where currently storefront mergers are not allowed on Polk Street, and so special legislation had to be written last year for Bob's donuts to expand next door, um, which is fine.

I think we all love Bob's donuts, but the process is not fine when we're doing one-off legislation, and so in that example, we've suggested that that can be in conditional use, which brings that process into the light, a conditional use, as you know, because you're part of it.

It has hearings and it has notices that are sent out.

Um, and again, I think that's a much more transparent process to do that um with the public rather than having legislation written in the dark and night.

Um, and so I I think again the process we've tried to be as transparent as possible, and then this legislation as well.

Um you brought a conditional use, and I know uh could because some of some of the legislation as I've read it actually uh takes away or or gives gives permission uh without a conditional use.

Can you can you talk to me about that?

And yeah, we tried to do that um where currently there are uses that uh that require conditional use, and where we found through conversations that there was just very little disagreement that these should be principally permitted.

Again, um things like limited restaurants.

Um when we talk about limited restaurants, uh, you know, we're talking about small footprint cafes and bakeries.

We are not talking about four, five, six, seven thousand square feet restaurants which cater to tourists.

So we tried to look at things like that and make those principally permitted in many cases.

We tried to look at something like flexible use retail, which again is, you know, we are I think one of I think we have two or three two of the three NCDs in the entire city that continue to not allow that.

And um we're moving that to principally permitted.

Of course, the uses themselves have to be allowed, but again, I use the example of a coffee shop and a bookstore being allowed together.

We think that's pretty straightforward and uh should be principally permitted.

So we try to be judicious around principally permitted.

Some things again, um, you know, hearing concerns in Jackson Square, for example, around bars, we're moving that our amendments back to conditional use.

Um, we're storefront mergers at one point in North Beach, we allowed small ones principally permitted, we're moving that back to conditional use.

So I think we've we found a good balance on that.

Um I'll be I'll be honest, um, you know, as as it relates to the North Beach corridor, um I I've been down there quite frequently.

Um that's one of my favorite parts of town.

Yeah, and it seems like it's thriving, and I don't see, you know, I I don't see a lot of vacancies, especially as as it relates to North Beach, and you know, it kind of, um, and and I understand what you're you know, what your legislation is getting at, but I think many people in this city uh really value what's there at North Beach as it is now, and uh because of the um the protections that are in North Beach now, actually has um the result is what we have in North Beach.

And so, you know, one of the concerns I have as being someone who's lived here all his life and have many, many memories uh of going and walking down North Beach, uh and uh with family and friends and and everyone else that comes to San Francisco is one of the first places we bring them to.

Um I'm very concerned that um with this legislation uh there will be some protections that might jeopardize that, what we have now currently in North Beach.

And so, you know, and I think others have have that uh that same um concern.

And and I I would be, you know, I I think and I think that uh it would be advantageous to the you know to everyone concerned because this North Beach you know it's not just about the residents of North Beach this is this is someone at all San Francisco somewhere that all San Francisco residents really embrace and I think you know because of of that I think more consideration and more discussion you know would be appropriate and I I just I just want to put that out there um and you know hopefully this commission uh would feel the same way I think I think there's there's there's more there's room for for more discussion and there's more there's more things that need to be addressed uh and so I I just want to you know state that one of the other concerns I have is is about the second floor um the second floor um business uh uh could you could you because I I I know in and and I'm the reason I'm I'm mentioning that is because as you walk down through the neighborhood there's a lot of residences on the second floor along the corridor and I'm concerned about you know uh tenants being displaced and so could you could you kind of run us through yeah absolutely your your your thinking behind behind that there is nothing in this legislation that would impact tenants um you know there was at one point when we were looking at flexible retail as you know on a lot of these controls you have to make a decision of uh first floor and second floor and the different controls there and at one point in this legislation for flexible retail we had that as I think it was conditional on the second floor right because you have to come up with something um we checked multiple times with the planning department to confirm that that you know you cannot take it from residential to retail uh in something like this there's no threat to it um we continue to hear concerns even after confirming that multiple times uh and so we just took it out in the amendments that you have it just takes it out from the second floor that flexible use on both North Beach N C D and Pacific Avenue so there's no changes to second floor uh with these amendments in anything um and I would um you know thank you for your earlier comment um and I we share that love for North Beach um as someone who lives in North Beach raising a family in North Beach has started two small businesses in North Beach been the president of our neighborhood association North Beach I am thinking critically about this legislation and any concern that I hear um I think about it deeply and the amendments that we've put forward I think address um any of those concerns I will also say we have to balance you know concerns and skepticism with reality and the reality is we have a cafe that wants to open on Lombard Street in North Beach in a space that's been empty for eight years we have a bakery that you heard from earlier that wants to open in a space in Telegraph Hill that's been empty for four years.

We have a gelato shop that wants to open on Columbus Avenue in a space that's been empty for nine years those things would not be possible without our legislation so we have to balance that um and as I've committed to a few of the community groups that have concerns um I'm willing to continue to work on this in the future we do have again I think a lot of urgency around this thank you.

I I thank you so much I mean I hold on a second I'm not done we I I know but we have five minutes and oh commissioner light to ask questions.

I apologize but you might want to I I would like to if you don't mind to wrap up a little quicker because I think it will be nice to that's okay I want I'd like to give everyone finish I'd like to give you a finish to let you finish speaking I'm I'm finished I'm finished that's okay thank you.

Commissioner oh Vice President Moore would you like to ask him I had a few questions for you, uh Supervisor, but we're running out of time.

I'll follow up with you independently, but I strongly urge you to continue the item.

I think the respectful request I have followed your personal communication with uh neighborhood groups, strong, strongly pointed there are many questions that are unanswered.

I'm very interested to better understand your additional uh amendments uh summarized on the sheet you handed out today, and uh I think for the successful future of all uh I personally would appreciate if you would continue this item.

Thank you.

That's all thank you for your time, uh, supervisor.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, commissioners.

With that, we should reopen public comment.

Next speaker.

Afternoon.

Um, want to speak on a couple things.

One is corruption, but let me take a back step on this particular piece of legislation, which I don't know if I could support or not support because we haven't seen it.

Um I'm pleased that the supervisor talked to folks and made amendments.

I haven't seen those amendments.

I know he didn't talk to every all the organized groups.

I don't think I don't think we're ready.

I don't think the city is ready for this, and I don't think North Beach is ready for this piece of legislation.

Um want to echo other folks.

My goodness, it's a successful neighborhood.

Come down on a Saturday night.

There's no lack of humanity.

Um it ain't broke, so let's not fix it.

Um additionally, so changing the topic real quick, talk a little bit about corruption.

As we do the upzoning, as we do this business thrives, as we make a lot of changes, we are right target for corruption.

Offshore entities with ill gotten gains are gonna be the folks that buy these buildings, develop them, and become landlords.

They're not local, they don't care about the city.

We care about the city, we might disagree, but we care about the city.

We have no knowledge of the ultimate beneficiary for these developers.

Supervisor Sauter, you may or may not know this.

There's a son of a Russian oligarch who's developing a building on Sampson Street.

It's not illegal, but I found this out because I Google searched his name.

Um we better think this through a little bit, guys.

If we start six ten-story buildings not knowing who the developers are, what could go wrong?

Oh, nothing, right?

Thank you for your time.

Respectfully.

Thank you.

Supervisor.

This is happening to us, not with us.

So respectfully respectfully, I ask for a continuance as well.

We do need to face reality.

North Beach, around 5% vacancy, Jackson Square around 2%.

That's the reality.

What are we doing here?

Thank you.

Hey there, Romolin Schmaltz, long-term business owner and resident of North Beach.

Thank you so much for listening to all the presentations and our considerations today.

Um, we do really hope that you will um grant us a continuance because um, despite what um what supervisor has said, there is not actually um uh a sense that that that businesses have had a chance to review this, that neighborhood associations have had a chance to review this.

Now there are amendments, and I think a continuance would be a very easy thing to do and important for for goodwill and for faith in um the new situation in District 3.

So, what is that situation?

I mean, North Beach is for thriving.

Everybody who's come from here has said so.

And um I'm there every day, I live and breathe it.

I love it like nobody's business.

I even don't a gallery once that said that was called I Love North Beach.

Um, I have tat I have Tattooed on My Arm, Coit Tower.

You know, I've I've been there forever, and I ain't going nowhere either.

So I feel like we're being sold or force fed would be a better word, like these cures by a doctor with no experience for diseases we don't have based on symptoms expressed by a handful of hopeful North Beach business owners, future North Beach business owners.

And while that's all well and good, we're not sick.

We're doing great.

In fact, we are the bellwethers of success coming out of the pandemic.

I'm so proud of my neighborhood.

I love it, and I go around every day accidentally doing due diligence just by being myself.

You know, I work with bars and restaurants, cafes, um, bookstores.

Oh my God.

I uh you know so, and most of them haven't heard about this, which is pretty alarming.

Um, we love our special use district because uh we're a special district, and um I d we don't want to see it conflated, combined or um subsumed by um the NCD.

So the our special use district ain't broke, and not only is it working for us, it's working for everybody in San Francisco.

So we spent about 40 years carefully, you know, crafting that.

We have a 5% vacancy rate, which everybody keeps mentioning, you know, and that is incredibly low.

And that is because what we do works.

Our 40 years of getting us right got us right.

So um, you know, it's it's so beautiful to be able to represent and and and speak for a neighborhood that is thriving rather than suffering, and I don't want to see it undermined or it's will undermined by a doctor who still needs to do some homework.

So thank you very, very much.

Good afternoon.

My name is Donald Dubane.

I'm a resident of the city.

Uh, have lived in the District 3 for 26 years, adjacent to Jackson Square.

I'm a city employee, but I'm here on uh on my own personal behalf, and I'm on uh taking time off to be here from my city job.

Um I don't know much about this legislation, um, but I've uh I've listened to a lot of the speakers uh this afternoon and it appears that there may well be some benefits to this legislation, but what concerns me most of all is the process.

Uh as Commissioner Williams stated, I don't understand what the rush is.

Um I'm familiar with the efforts that five of these uh neighborhood associations have made to work with uh Supervisor Souter's office, and I've seen the email correspondence between them, and it does not look to me like there's been a good faith effort by Supervisor Souter to be working or listening to these five neighborhood organizations, um, and I would encourage him to do so.

Uh it would seem to me that as I said, there there may well be some substantial benefits to his legislation, but it has not, from what I can tell, been vetted um adequately with the community and especially with the residents of the district.

Um as I said, I've been living in this uh just adjacent to the North Beach and Jackson Square area in District 3 for 26 years.

I've never seen Jackson Square do as well as it is doing today and North Beach as well.

They're both very vibrant communities.

They're the reason I moved to that area of town is because there's such uh wonderful parts of our our city.

I don't understand what the rush is to fix a problem that may not exist, and I would encourage um that this matter be continued so that these other neighborhood associations can be properly heard and work with Supervisor Souter to come up with uh a better final product.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, President Sow and members of the Planning Commission.

Uh my name is Matt Stegman from the Jackson Square Historic District Association.

You'll hear common themes from all the groups that are here opposing this legislation, lack of due process, lack of communication, lack of community input, and a complete lack of data that should be the cornerstone of policy affecting San Francisco neighborhoods.

I have to say we're all kind of stunned to hear how Supervisor Souter represented the communication.

I walk Jackson Square.

I've been there 15 years as a community steward and volunteer.

I know the boutique owners.

One of my close friends owns 12 businesses throughout the city, including bars and restaurants in Jackson Square.

None of us had heard about this legislation.

I actually walked the district after proactively reaching out to represent Supervisor Souter uh earlier this year.

I walked him through the district to talk about Jackson Square.

And at the end of that walk, we shook hands and said, I hope we can count on working together collaboratively with you and having good communication as we have with the prior three supervisors.

And a few weeks later, he introduced this legislation with no communication to any of us.

So I don't know about these mailers he's talking about.

I don't know anything about who even knows about this legislation in Jackson Square.

As it relates to the Jackson Square Historic District, we're requesting that the land use controls for the Jackson Square special use district not be deleted or amended as they relate to the current cap on the high number of existing bar and restaurant liquor licenses in Jackson Square.

The legislation proposes allowing an oversaturation of liquor licenses with a conditional use permit, which we know from experience, conditional use permits are often a rubber stamp approval.

Does everyone here understand how small the city's first historic district is?

It's two blocks by two blocks.

The JSHDA works to preserve and enhance this tiny thriving district's unique historical character.

It attracts multiple tour groups.

It's a great mixed-use neighborhood.

The current controls enacted with the support of diverse community stakeholders and unanimously endorsed by the City Small Business Commission were unanimously approved by the Board of Supervisors in 2018, and they were designed to preserve a balanced mix of commercial uses and a sustainable residential community.

17 bars and restaurants already in a two-block by two-block area, and we've all worked hard to build that zoning and those controls, which has been covered by multiple media outlets as a success story for San Francisco.

I know I'm out of time, but I'll just wrap it up and say please don't obliterate our current balance and success.

Supervisor Souter's legislation is uninformed, secretive, and misguided.

The city has real problems to work on in other neighborhoods, and creating a new one that doesn't currently exist in Jackson Square Historic District should not be his focus.

Planning and zoning should be driven by balanced community input and especially by data.

This proposed legislation lacks both, at least as it relates to tiny Jackson Square.

Thank you.

Hi, uh my name's Ira Kaplan.

I live in North Beach.

I am uh building a life with my wife in North Beach.

Uh I love North Beach.

And uh I'd like to see more of it.

I'd like to see it thrive even more than it already is.

And I think uh this legislation does a good job of uh enabling more small businesses to open, um, enabling businesses that started in North Beach to grow.

Um, and I think from a good governance perspective, this is just obvious common sense, right?

Like, you shouldn't need a handshake deal with Aaron Paskin to open or run a business in North Beach or in D3.

And uh this legislation would uh help to fix that corrupt status quo that's existed for a long time.

Uh so uh thank you.

Please support it.

Hello.

Um I'm wearing these because I had eye surgery, so it's not I'm not on drugs or anything like that.

My name, well, sometimes I am anyway.

My name is Liam Hennessy, a native San Franciscan retired school teacher from SF Unified and a resident of North Beach.

And I'm concerned about lack of transparency from our supervisor.

When he spoke about that all these groups knew what was going on, so on and so forth.

No, we a lot of us did not know.

Uh it's almost as if we go back to the upzoning, which I was here for that meeting, that we were not on the map, then we're on the map, none of us knew.

Um, there was no communication.

We've tried to had meetings, uh, community meetings with uh our supervisor, he doesn't ten, or he just comes for a moment and has to leave.

So I really would like you to table this for a while until there's better communication to all of his contingent constituencies.

Uh and before I end, I would like to thank uh supervisor, Commissioner uh Williams and more and Imperial because I had to leave during the um upzoning, and I watched until 10 o'clock at night, and I really appreciate your statements, what you read, what you said.

Um it was really wonderful that the three of you continued on and gave thoughtful um comments about the upzoning.

So, with that being said, I'm Liam Hennessy, and I really would like this to be tabled and thought more uh talk about it before you vote on.

Thank you.

Hey, good afternoon, Commissioners Wood Turner from the Housing Action Coalition.

I'm here in support of Supervisor Sauter's ordinance.

Um I think consolidating and streamlining these rules uh is an important step forward.

It makes land use clearer, it expands opportunities for new housing above active ground floors, and it provides more space for restaurants and small businesses that we love.

Uh I'm a North Beach resident.

I'm really excited about this.

Um, I want it to be more vibrant than it already is.

I want more small businesses to thrive.

Um this proposal strikes the right balance between protecting neighborhood character and ensuring our communities can grow and adapt and serve future generations such as myself.

Thank you for your time.

Good afternoon.

My name is Thad Carhart.

I'm here as a resident of North Beach, Chestnut Street.

I have my office on Water Street in North Beach.

Um I request that the planning commission should require a review of this action under the California Environmental Quality Act to analyze the project's impacts and to consider mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce these impacts.

The staff report states that the action is not a project within the meaning of CEQA because it did not have does not have and will not have direct environmental impacts.

I respectfully submit that this is incorrect.

The action is a project because it is an essential step that may lead to environmental impacts.

I object to the city's decision to exempt the project, which is what happens when it's determined not to be a project from environmental review under CEQA.

The real question is how could this not be a project under the time tested definitions of CEQ jurisprudence?

It proposes to change the entire aspect of a cohesive neighborhood by altering permissible uses, heights, and volumes for a wide variety of business and private residents.

The fundamental question of environmental protection for citizens are called into question: air quality, water quality, traffic density, sidewalk crowding, sight lines, nighttime light pollution, noise pollution, access to the Bay Shore line, and a host of other considerations.

In short, we're what we are used to calling the quality of life in a neighborhood.

Why would you consider not giving these matters a full environmental review in accordance with the enabling legislation of CEQA?

And when I say that, I'm mindful that environmental review has gotten a bad name recently among many, and it's been thrown under the bus because it's regarded as blocking progress and uh keeping abundance from being spread into whole communities.

That need not be the case if an environmental review is purposeful, clear, and swift.

It can be and it should be.

I respectfully ask you to continue this so that that issue, among others, data-driven, can be addressed.

Thank you for your time.

Okay, last call for public comment.

Or no, yes, like a walking through the last call for public comment.

Seeing none, public comment is closed, and this matter is now before you, Commissioners.

Oh, I'm sorry, there is uh member uh reasonable accommodation requester.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Sue Hester.

I've been watching this discussion online and pulling up on my computer the history of the legislation, which is two by zero six A2.

It was introduced on Tuesday, June 17th.

It was sent to people uh for comment June 25th, one week later, right before the 4th of July.

And basically, I'm supporting a request for continuance because there hasn't been an outreach to it and involved people who have been speaking.

The planning commission took a break, as did the board of supervisors, basically at the end of July, and they came back after Labor Day.

You came back after Labor Day.

People that are in this neighborhood deserve some time to really meet with themselves and meet with each other, including the supervisor, and basically say, please can't you do this case so it can be well thought out.

I deal with a lot of, I have dealt with a lot of neighborhoods over a long time, and this is major changes, being forced on people and forced on this commission, and you're not getting you don't have the time to get informed decisions from the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Okay, with that public comment is closed, and this matter is now before you, Commissioners.

Well, first I would like to thank you, everybody today to take your time to give your public comments and particularly thank you our department staff creating this report and also supervisor Danny Souter's present.

I do have uh follow-up questions.

I see that Supervisors Sauter's office have uh legislative aid, Michelle, if you'd like to come forward.

Thank you.

Um I've hear a lot of um people had comment about public outreach and community engagement.

I'd like you to give us a little bit more of your um experience of how much community outreach and engagement you had.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, definitely happy to.

Um, I will speak to the community outreach that I know uh was made because I was a part of it, um, but I know that the supervisor has also had many, many individual conversations with constituents and business owners and groups.

Um, when we introduced the legislation back in June, we reached out to uh a wide variety of neighborhood groups and merchant groups in every neighborhood that was um affected by this legislation.

Um, and we set up meetings over the next few weeks.

We met with them throughout July, um, and then uh we waited to get feedback from them.

Uh some of the feedback came back in August when we were on recess and we started working on it right away.

Um, and some of the feedback came back as early as um I think it was about nine days before the hearing was originally supposed to happen, eight or nine days.

Um, and with all of that feedback, as soon as we got it, we immediately started working on amendments to uh address them, and we told the groups that we were working on amendments and we would be in contact um as they developed.

And as I'm sure you all know, working on amendments is um a complicated process.

So uh that's why that's why we were happy to do the continuance last week to make sure we got the amendments right.

Um, and again, the supervisor let the groups that were asking for a continuance know uh that we were going to grant the continuance and that we would love to meet with them this week.

Um, and the supervisor offered to completely re rearrange his schedule as needed to meet with these groups, and that meeting um did not happen with most of the groups.

We met with the leadership of one of the groups.

Um, besides that, um, I do want to highlight, I know that there are a few groups asking for continuance, thinking that um the outreach hasn't been enough.

Um, there are also several groups that you heard from today that support the legislation and uh that show that we did do outreach to a wide variety of groups.

Um beyond that, uh, we know that not everyone in D3 is a part of a neighborhood group or a merchant group, and so uh we really tried to reach as many D3 constituents in as many ways as possible.

Um the supervisor regularly over the last few weeks, especially, but um even as early as when it was introduced, um he would include information about this in his newsletter and his emails to all of his constituents.

Uh, we explained what the legislation does, ways to engage, ways to get feedback, and he also regularly uh posted on all of his social medias about the legislation, um, and we were really happy with the reach that we were able to get to D3 constituents um through that.

Um, and I do also want to say that uh we have been open to meeting with everyone.

If uh someone reaches out to the office, a random constituent who wants to meet with us about it, um we're always happy to have a conversation.

Um, but yeah, so we we have been open to having conversations with everyone.

Thank you.

Excuse me, sir, you uh you are out of order.

Um well we um one thing um I like to share that it's that one of I mean I I did not know that there's a civil grande report, and I actually read it through.

Um we have civil Jerry report, it's it is a really neutral party to really investigating what our city could done better and uh report 78 pages long listed out Prop H, and also how other things that we can do better to really help our small businesses to thrive in the city, and that was conducted the report was fully completed for 2023.

I really encourage everyone to take a look at that.

There's abbreviated version, by the way, if you don't want to spend hours to read 78 pages long, but um there is a reason why entity like that conduct an investigation on our city to help us make a much better informed decisions, and I also receive a lot of emails and also comments about supportive of this um or opposing of this, but I wanted to share some of these.

I thought it was really interesting.

We we often heard today people are talking about um formula retail is gonna take over.

Um we'll be okay the way it is.

But um the scale of things here to me doesn't appear to be formular retail or large um businesses gonna come into North Beach.

It was saying something like uh a coffee shop, wanted to move into a former bookstore.

They cannot do that in North Beach.

Um this person had a pet store, wanted to move into a former paint store, they cannot do that.

And then there is a children's clothing shop that wanted to move to a former cafe location, they cannot do that either.

A Pilates studios could not move into a space that wasn't a market for specifically Pilates use.

So I think Collie, today we're looking at something that isn't really about really big, big, big uh national formula retail versus our beloved businesses from our beloved um historic district.

And I think we're trying to really help here is to enable all businesses in San Francisco who can have a much more transparency to to know better how if they can actually afford to open a business in any part of our city, and in a district that is so much loved by everyone in the city.

So and I personally would support this.

Um I personally will support this, but I would like to hear my colleague what their comments are.

Uh Commissioner Campbell, thank you.

Um there was a public comment earlier that said district three is like the best district in the city, and I I do think it has some of the best commercial pockets.

Um North Beach, Polk Street, Jackson Square come to mind.

I actually lived in North Beach for a few years with my family when I first moved to San Francisco and agree it is quite magical.

And I don't think anyone here, there's a lot of love in this room around our neighborhoods, and I don't think we want to lose what's special um about any of them.

Um I also think it's really important we allow them to grow and thrive and evolve.

And um, and district three has had a lot of restrictive zoning over the course of time, and so for me I'm actually in quite I'm quite in support of the changes here, and I find them to be relatively modest.

Um, and I'm not hearing anything that threatens those neighborhoods or their character.

I see them as changes that support small businesses, and I mean, we're talking about expanding uses, increasing size limits, and really reducing the limitations that have been on a lot of these neighborhoods.

So I think that translates to things are gonna be less complex, they're gonna be more predictable, and I think just in general, across the city we want to do this more.

We want to be more like that.

We want to be more of that city of uh of yes.

So um I'm in full support, curious as well.

I loved the bread and crumble example.

I don't know if she's still here, but I um it was a great example to me of how um these changes are gonna really help our small businesses, and I know a lot of people that come across the bay to eat a bread and crumble.

So I wish that um I wish her luck.

Um so I would make a motion to adopt a recommendation for approval with the supervisors' amendments, um, and also open to hearing if there's any um thing that my fellow commissioners would like to amend.

Second, thank you.

Um Commissioner Imperial, thank you.

Um, I think all of us here, including me and also in the public, share that we recognize that North Beach is a very thriving, vibrant neighborhood.

And actually, when I do have family members or come to visit, the first stuff for me is to take them to North Beach.

Um, one funny story I have a cousin that came and went to North Beach and looking for a beach where it's the beach.

I told her it's in the north.

Anyway, that's why it's called North Beach.

Um, anyway, but um, you know, it is a very it's a jewel, it's one of the jewels of our city, and um looking into these amendments, and I also understand the history of why SUD and NCD is also regulated in this area as well, but we also see the success of this regulation in the neighborhood.

Um, for me, every time that there is amendments, and I think in the past, um, you know, every time there is changes in a neighborhood, I always look into the findings, what is the basis for the changes in these in these NCDs in these neighborhoods.

And we need to always have that tradition.

And yes, he, I mean it's a you know, it's it's the job to to listen and to respond to what to what to each of the constituents have to say as well.

Um but in it's in this term of like when we look into the complaints and the requests, we should also back it up with data.

And I think there are that's why there are times here in the commission, I would ask the staff as to what is the basis for this.

One thing that I um throughout the time that I'm a commission here, um there were some changes in terms of the landromets, and D3 was one of the actually districts where the landromets uses are also evaporating, and therefore there was a legislation.

And there was also study done by the planning around this as well, and I think there are some updates about the landromet uses, and I'm also curious as to what are the actually the trends on the landromet uses.

The reason that I'm um bringing this up, because um supervisor Sauter actually uh put up a you know has this um or it's not him, but there is an article where um I believe it's a shop that used to be a laundromat, uh, or there is a business of ones that is being proposed but used to be a laundromat service.

And so I mean, these are the things that for me, in my objective point of view, is like okay, where are we now in the laundromat studies?

And when we're talking about the vacancy rate, uh, what are the uses that has high increase of the vacancy on that?

I mean, these are studies that I would like to see in these findings in my packet in order to understand what's actually um an issue in the in the area.

Um he also brought up the health services, and perhaps that's also something that we also need to look into in the D3.

Um so this is where I you know uh there's there is this kind of like we're at the crossroads, I would say where there are issues that needs to be rise, um, needs to be risen, and we also need to create a study on those things.

Um so I don't know if someone from the staff um from Supervisor Sauter's office can also explain to me what is the basis for increasing the 2000 square square foot limit to 3,000.

What's this um what kind of survey or you know, what's the basis for that?

Um I will speak to our thinking and then I'm gonna ask planning staff to confirm.

Um I believe that that puts us more in line with some citywide limits.

Um and we also know that 2000 is pretty small, so we just want to give a little bit more flexibility to businesses.

Uh we found throughout the process that the city doesn't do a great job of tracking the square footage of storefronts.

Um, and so unfortunately we don't have city data on how many storefronts might be um in between those two, but the goal with that is to give a little bit more flexibility and a little bit more room for growing businesses.

I mean, I'm just remembering through um with a conversation that we had in family zoning plan that when it comes to small businesses, and that's why there's also some provisions in the correct me if I'm wrong in the family zoning plan about the small businesses use size where it's um that there is that study.

Um perhaps someone needs to remind me on this, but or correct me on this, but the 3000 square foot, or um, you know, it also when it comes to rent, that is something that is um unaffordable for small businesses.

I'm gonna look to planning staff to speak more on the family zoning plan as a whole.

I can tackle that for a moment.

I I don't um I'll get back to you on the limits including the family zoning plan, but I think one of the things that I mean spaces charged by a square foot.

So I think what we generally find is the nature of the business dictates the size that will be appropriate for that business.

Some businesses um can quit fit quite well in a thousand square feet, two thousand square feet, um, and it it works that way, and and often food services can go quite small, but other types of businesses and some of the ones I think we talked about today, particularly in terms of neighborhood services require larger.

So I think affordability is just based on the nature of the business and what the size they require.

Yeah.

Um yeah, and you know, I think that's also like when we're looking to this use size limits um 3,000 square feet, like what type of uses.

And it looks like it may serve the health service uses on this.

But again, um I think for the public trust and for for good governance, we need to we need to be ready with data when we're um when we're changing something.

Um, it's I just feel like that's that should be the cornerstone of good governance in creating legislation is to back it up with good data.

Um, so um I uh I'm not sure who is the um which association or neighbor association that is doing a survey.

Um I don't know if anyone in the public would like to talk about that the survey that um it's being in um it seems like that's also the reason for continuance is that the survey is not finished yet, or it's still in the works.

Okay, can you come up and talk to me about the survey that's being conducted?

Peter Stevens, vice president of Telegraph Hill Dwellers.

We are currently updating a survey that we've been doing since the 1980s or so that um surveys every vacant unit and every business, um, takes pictures, either uses everything like that.

Um we're finishing it up maybe a couple more weeks, um, but we are currently working on updating a whole survey of North Beach, yes.

And um when it's um when will it be done or or how is this communicated as well with the supervisor's office?

Yeah, um so we have been emailing the supervisors.

We are one of the groups that did request to speak to the supervisor, and we're not able to this week.

So we are of course requesting continuance, and one of the reasons is we want to present that survey to them.

Yeah, okay.

And if you don't mind me asking, um, what does the survey um what's the content of the survey?

What are the questions in there?

Um so I do not have that information.

I'm currently not working on it and apologize, um, but my understanding is it should be done in the next few weeks where wrapping it up.

Okay, thank you so much.

Um yes, um, so yeah, so I think for me, I you know there are I mean there are very specific things here that I also not feel comfortable in um putting amendments or recommendations because I don't have the data yet.

Um a lot of it is per context in a way, but um so for me I would I mean I would like to see that survey.

Um I would I would like this to be more um actual in continuance and for the commission to really look into the um to the data and to the survey that's being implemented and also um or being conducted um in order for us to really weigh in in all of these amendments in these four districts or four neighbor NCDs.

Um so those are my you know I cannot support this legislation as it is, and I I'm concerned that there's too many amendments to tell the truth.

And I spoke this to the supervisor himself that there are too many amendments in these um in these areas.

So I would vote to continue for this.

Okay, thank you, Commissioner Williams.

Thank you, Commissioner Imperial, for your very thoughtful comments on data.

Um I think that's kind of what's missing from the conversation here.

It feels like there is a few uh vacancies here and there, but you know, I just want to point out that last two weeks ago.

Two weeks ago, we had a 10-hour hearing, and there was a lot of concern and actually fear from the public uh around the family zoning plan.

And we still we still don't know how the family zoning plan is gonna affect this area of North Beach.

We don't know what the impacts are gonna be.

Um, and you know, this could this legislation kind of it adds a layer of uncertainty and fear.

I you know, I that's what I read into these letters and to the comments of some of the business owners along these corridors.

Um, and you know, I I would just I just want to say that you know having extra conversation, having time uh to work some of these things out, alleviates some of that fear.

Even though everyone doesn't get their way, uh, it's better than being forced on you.

And I think that's the feeling that a lot of people have with the family zoning plan because it's come down from the state, and it's and it's been forced on us as San Franciscans.

Um, and there is a lot of uncertainty and fear.

This legislation, well, it's not quite the same, but it feels like there is a disconnect.

There's several community uh organizations and business organizations that feel like they had no uh there was no contact to them, they didn't have a chance to engage in conversation with the supervisor, and I think you know in the end, that was probably one of the most important things that a supervisor can do is actually have these conversations with the constituents, even though they might not be um it's better to have the conversations than not to have the conversations, and I think that's my point.

Um, and um, you know, again, just because we have the votes here to pass something does not mean it's good for this neighborhood, and I'll say that again because I see nothing wrong, especially with North Beach.

I see nothing wrong with North Beach.

There's there's no vacancy.

I I I don't know, you know, what what the supervisor is getting at.

There's other places I'm sure that um his legislation would uh would address, but be honest with you.

Uh I have a real hard time as someone, you know, that goes there a lot to really understand what this legislation is actually doing.

Same with Jackson Square.

And so, all right, folks.

I'm gonna ask that you guys refrain from clapping and cheering and speaking out of order, please.

I I just want to you know end by saying um that um obviously I'm I'm not gonna be in support of this.

I would be in support of a continuance.

Um I think that our voices are being shut down all over the place.

And it's this isn't doesn't feel right to me as somebody that is a San Franciscan and someone that believes in in an open process.

I'll just leave it there.

Uh Commissioner Vice President Moore.

Uh for those of you who do not exactly know which district we live in.

I'm a D C resident for the last 52 years and have enjoyed the benefit, the surviving community that no speech offers for us in the joining neighborhoods to no speech for this entire time.

And success always attracts competition.

Success needs to be protected in a way that I believe no speech and the legislation that is we are currently considering uh has done throughout its time.

Uh nothing is constant but uh but change, and I do believe that uh supervisor Sauter as a new supervisor who has lived a certain amount of lengths of time in our speech uh has the ability and the need to re-examine what is.

However, I do not believe that the speed by which it's done and the lack of broader communication is really ultimately working well for him.

Reason is I very carefully looked at a large exchange, spearheaded under the signature of Mr.

Ferris, president of uh telegraph field dwellers and Mr.

Sauter over the last three or four days.

And that communication uh is basically lost in translation.

There's the speed or the lack by communication back and forth, never really met the point of a de weing waste shows to me that emails are indeed only a potential sign of the communication and the conversations that never were had face to face.

And I do believe that the five neighborhood organizations which were behind this communication, telegraph Phil, Noah Speech Business Association, Jackson Square Historic District, Noah Speech Tenants Committee and Pacific Avenue Neighborhood Association are the largest, most well-known neighborhood organizations in District 3 who have carried a heavy load of protective and supported legislation and community engagement throughout the last 20 years.

And I believe that those people need to be at the table, and I'm not saying that questions couldn't be answered or differences couldn't be worked out, but nothing was no effort was made to have these people come together, and that is where my problem lies.

And I do believe personally that at the beginning of this hearing, five amendments were made under consideration that I'm supposed to accept.

I personally cannot do that.

They are not written down, they have not been discussed, there is no legal language to it by which I can just say that sounds good.

That is personally unfortunately not enough.

What I strongly support is a continuation, and and I said that to the supervisor leaving the room.

I think he can only win uh opening up a broader con uh communication and having broader feedback in order to create consensus, consensus is never a unanimous vote, but consensus is having the larger constituency in support of what you do.

I do not see based on everything I've heard and read that we are at that point at this very moment, and I support a continuance.

Thank you.

Commissioner Braun.

Well, I think by my second on the motion to support this, it's kind of clear where I stand.

I but I do have a couple of um questions before I share a few thoughts.

Um and these are more questions for staff, and they're gonna kind of get into the weeds a little bit, but not too much.

Um the first one I just think I just want to confirm is that the formula retail controls are not changing with this.

Is that correct?

Um correct.

The formula retail is not being touched in this legislation.

Okay, thank you.

Um my other question is um, so you know, obviously this legislation moves towards being closer to having consistency across um with several of the other neighborhood commercial districts and the controls.

Um, this you know, the the elimination of the SUD for North Beach, for example, this doesn't change the ability to still have some customized um changes to the NCD in the future.

Is that correct or so the North Beach NCD, that's still the zoning district for the area.

Um future amendments can still be made within the North Beach NCD, and that's really again the um the most effective tool since we have this named NCD to be able to make those specific controls for this region.

Thank you for that.

And I think it's I, you know, I I'm supportive of the idea of trying to create career um because this is across the NCDs, but also recognize that there is a balance to be struck there, and that there, you know, at times do need to be some customized controls for the different CDs.

That's why we have different NCDs.

And so, you know, I just want to make sure that by um, you know, having more reliance on the NCD, we're not sort of losing some of that local responsiveness in the name of sort of streamlining the process and clarifying the process for applicants.

So it's helpful to hear, you know, there can still be changes.

Um, there were two issues raised by staff that were a little tangential to the legislation itself, but issues for potential follow-up or or reconsideration in the future.

Um, and they were both about use definitions.

And I'm just sort of curious to to hear a little more, and maybe other commissioners might have um, you know, I'm I know for me it'll be educational.

Um so the flexible retail definition, it was stated that there's only been two applications that have come in under the flexible retail definition.

Um, and I guess I would just say, you know, what are I would be supportive of trying to figure out how to make that definition function more effectively, especially given that that's sort of an emerging business model in which multiple small businesses are able to thrive by being able to share space or resources that without having just a single type of retail tenant in the space.

Um is there what's sort of the next steps on trying to look at that definition and are there any preliminary thoughts on what some of the challenges have been?

Um I see the supervisor has rejoined us.

Um but regarding flexible retail, just to provide a little more background, there are a handful of very specific uses like arts activities, an example, limited restaurant as an example where the business can come forward with one application and be able to have these different uses in the same space.

If the specific zoning district does require a conditional use for, I'll use arts activities in this example.

The applicant would still need to go through that conditional use authorization process first, and then afterwards, they would have the ability to freely move between these different uses without having to come back for uh a new permit each time.

Um I don't think this process is really well known, um, and we're trying to um publicize it more.

Um I also want to clarify that right now you are able to have multiple uses at the property, but you do have to go through those separate applications, so that's one aspect that flexible retail is trying to respond to.

But this is something that we realize not many businesses are taking advantage of it.

Part of it might be um just not knowing or being aware of the opportunity, and then also um, you know, there are questions of how can we make it more effective.

I do want to see if um Director Wadi has anything to add to this, but those were the big um, you know, high-level comments for flexible retail and next steps.

Yeah, just saying flexible retail, I think we all thought it was uh great in spirit and just in execution.

The reality is in a lot of the districts where I think people want to take advantage of it, it may not all of those uses may not be principally permitted, so it's not like you can just seek it and be able to use all those uses.

So I think people just experience that they would need to go through the same process as if they chose any one singular use, and couple that with the fact that you're already allowed to have multiple uses.

If you know if they're two things that are principally permitted, you can seek those two things as principally permitted uses at the same time.

So there's not a constraint to doing it right now.

So I think we've just struggled with finding the right use case where somebody would choose to do that rather than just identifying you know a couple of the principally permitted uses that they seek to have sort of co-located the same space.

Okay, thank you for that explanation.

And uh, you know, it's like I said, tangential to the legislation before us today, but I would be a curious to kind of if we look at that a little bit more in the future and how to um reassess on the flexible formula or the flexible retail um definition.

And I'm I'm not gonna dive into arts activities, but I also saw that there's there's the um possible interest or need for sort of better defining arts activities uses in the future, again, separate from this legislation, and I I would support that too.

Um so just to um, you know, broadly speaking, when it comes to the legislation itself now, uh, you know, I I think that uh like I said, you know, having some customization of the local controls for an NCD is uh an important thing and a helpful thing to have, but at the same time, broadly speaking, you know, clearer alignment with other controls throughout the city makes a lot of sense to me for businesses and also simplifying and clarifying processes for for our local businesses.

Um we are talking local businesses because of the formula retail controls, you know, that that is a helpful um uh aspect for these businesses too uh to open up.

You know, I I think that this legislation is it makes some modest adjustments that enable flexibility and make it possible for more business owners to to expand and to have the ability to just make a run at it to not be dissuaded by um processes that create great constraints on businesses or or require huge amounts of investment just to sit on a space and hope that you can be approved.

Um and you know, I also see that the alternative path here for some of these businesses could have been basically spot zoning one-off legislation um for some of the spaces or to sort of target um an individual business, and I just I would favor an approach that kind of creates a more level and fair playing field for um the businesses in a in a community and and new business owners.

Um I when I looked at this legislation and when I looked at all the comments and the great detailed comments and feedback we've got.

There's a lot of passion in the room and and all the emails we've been getting.

Um I was struck by the room for compromise on a lot of issues because you know some of this comes down to me to matters of degree.

I know that people will disagree with me on that sometimes, but uh, you know, changes from uh 2,000 square feet to 3,000 square feet for um for certain uses.

Uh you know, it's is there a precise right number in there?

That's very difficult to say, and I appreciate comments about data as part of that discussion.

But even so, um, you know, there's room for compromise and and some adjustments in this, and I'm seeing I think the supervisor's uh amendments to this uh really reflect that and reflect kind of taking into consideration some of the comments with the changes in North Beach for um storefront mergers and for health services, and so I think that this and then also Jackson Square and Pacific Avenue with the the uh greater limits on bars.

You know, I see that that process is happening.

Um so that's why I'm generally supportive of the legislation with the amendments.

I think that to me it seems like there's still some room for working on this and some tweaks and matters of degree.

We don't, you know, we don't pass legislation, we state a position on it.

Um, and so I just hope that that conversation can continue, and that you know, this isn't this also isn't a last word, like I said, for an NCD that's still in place, these controls can still be tweaked if it's discovered that there is a problem with them.

So thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Braun.

Um, uh Commissioner Vice President Moore, you have a question, and then I have a question to Supervisors.

I don't I don't have a question, I have a comment and uh uh the supervisor actually thank you for coming back.

Uh you missed a number of important exchanges here.

But uh what I'm coming away with is that the numbers of unanswered questions still outweighs uh clarity and comp uh I know agreed upon understanding both of what the real extent of the legislation is.

There are more questions than answers.

And particularly with the newly introduced amendments in draft form that you handed out today, uh I would be asking for continuance.

Uh and that could be like a two-week uh time frame, but I'm making a motion for continuance.

Second.

Thank you.

And um I've been hearing a lot of uh comments or questions about my colleagues and also some general public, in regards to um communications from our supervisors to the um local interest groups, and I in the last week or so or two.

I wonder if uh now we have our supervisors back to our room.

Um supervisor, would you like to share with us on the record of what was the efforts like from your office?

Yes, um, thank you, President.

So the the question again, please.

The question was that what was your communications with the parties and the groups that basically said that they are not aware of this or they have not heard from you, and some of my fellow commissioners also shares uh some concern about that sentiment.

So I wonder if you don't mind share with us on the record of what was your communication efforts and how was the response and reactions from them.

Sure, sure, absolutely.

So I'll go very quickly just back to the beginning and then more recently.

Um, thank you.

Um as I uh stated earlier when we introduced this legislation in June, you know, between our contacts and and the planning department's um community organization list we sent out um notices basically saying, hey, we're doing this, and you know, we want your feedback on this, we want to share more about what this is, get your take on it.

And you know, from that process, um, what it looked like with many organizations was one or two meetings, and and that's where you know a lot of the support again just very quickly from North Beach Neighbors, Jackson Square Merchants Association, Golden Gate Restaurant Association, Chamber of Commerce, Knob Hill Association, Discover Polk CBD, Chinese Chamber of Commerce, and Russian Hill Neighbors, that's where that came from.

Um, we did see pretty early on uh significant concerns from um most notably probably two or three organizations uh from the Telegraph Hill Dwellers and from the North Beach Business Association from some homeowners in Jackson Square.

Um, and so we spent more time with them trying to work on this legislation, hearing their concerns.

Um, I think uh most recently uh having a conversation with uh leadership of Telegraph Hill Dwellers.

The request was for a continuance last week.

Um we uh my um colleague Michelle Andrews, of course, was here last week asking for that continuance um a few days before that continuance.

We let Telegraph Hill dwellers and a few of the other organizations uh know about that continuance.

Um we didn't hear back from them, but we uh asked for scheduling.

Um our anticipation was to schedule a meeting, you know, end of last week, early this week to go through amendments.

Um I understand that's quick.

I understand it's a lot for volunteer organizations to schedule.

Um, and so we were not able to schedule everyone together.

Um, you know, but I made very clear I'd be happy to clear my schedule.

Um, I ended up having a uh conversation with the presidents of Telegraph Hill Dwellers late at night on on Tuesday and then Wednesday morning we met with uh the president of North Beach Business Association and shortly after uh sent out the full uh amendments.

Um, and so that's a quick summary of things.

Thank you, Supervisor.

Sounds like you did really clear all your schedule and actually attempt to talk to them and some of them did talk to you.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Commissioner Vice President Moore, you have heard our comments.

No, okay, and Commissioner Imperial.

I have a question to the supervisor, Supervisor Sautter.

Um I think in the emails correspondence and um and I also earlier um while you were not here, I asked about the the survey that it looks like it's the telegraph field dwellers that is um conducting it.

Um are you are you waiting for um are you going to wait for the survey to finish um you know and also in put that in consideration in amendments for distal legislation?

You know, we um I think it was probably maybe maybe six or eight weeks ago when we met with um telegraph fieldwellers, they mentioned the idea of doing this survey.

Um the survey has been you know done sporadically through the years in North Beach, and it's been a volunteer effort.

Um I participated in the most recent one in 2017-2018.

Um, and I think, you know, doing an updated uh version of it is fantastic.

Um it was, you know, that was an idea a couple months ago.

We didn't learn until a few days ago that there actually is a survey being conducted, and it's just very unclear to us when that will be completed.

Um so I don't think, you know, I don't think we want to wait for that.

I think that would delay things a few more months.

Um, so but of course, when it's completed, we're happy to look at it.

It's important, and we're happy to, you know, come back with any uh follow-ups or you know, anything else, any other insights that this provides.

Um, but I think you know, between uh the experiences of small business owners, between what we hear, between so many of the folks who are small business owners that spoke in support of this today, I think we have a really good grasp, and of course, from your commissioners and from your department and all their work on this through the years.

Um many of these things are things that they've looked at in the past, things you've passed for the rest of the city.

Um so I think we feel confident.

So you're um so that's my concern, actually.

It's not um earlier I spoke about having um the data on the on the amendments and or you know, in terms of amendments and changes on in all of these NCDs.

And um, you know, even I am, I mean, I think I yeah, I've told this to you before that I'm concerned about with so many amendments, even it's got me at the last minute to us, um, but it's also not based on um, you know, and the data that for me that would give me some objective um analysis on this um on these changes because at the end of the day um what we've mentioned here is that there is a low vacancy rate in the new um in North Beach and also in the Jackson's Jackson Square.

So what so my you know I I highly encourage, I mean it's your district, but still to really listen to the to the associations, and also to look into the surveys.

The service I believe has been happening in the last 10 years.

Um, and so I mean, this is something that is neighborhood driven and voluntarily driven that was that deserves some respect to be heard.

Um so I mean that's you know, um, I mean, as a commissioner, um, it's good to um look, it's good to create legislation that is based on data and with neighborhood backup as well.

I'm not saying that the other associations that support this are not, you know, are not near are not support, you know, are not neighborhoods as well, but it needs to be put in it at this point now where there is good data.

Um and uh, you know, there are things that perhaps there are uh things in here that I may support as a commissioner, but again, I don't feel comfortable in that when there is no data.

And when we're talking about use size limits, that's also one thing that also sprang up to me.

Um so anyway, so that's my opinion, and um, you know, I I just highly encourage to listen to the neighborhoods that is actually going forward with you on this.

So thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Um I will say that um, you know, the the amendments proposed are again out of conversations with those that express concerns on this.

Um the vast majority of organizations that we spoke to on this are in support of this.

Um, you know, this is being driven by a few organizations, which is fine, and we've um you know really made these amendments to listen to those concerns as someone that was involved in the last time that this survey happened in the neighborhood.

Um I will say what happened after that survey is that the three groups that worked on it kind of went in separate directions, right?

And the five recommendations that my organization at the time brought forward to the then supervisor, one or one and a half of them was adopted, right?

So to have a survey, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to uh point you uh that doesn't turn into legislation that is actually uh backed by data.

Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor.

Um Commissioner Williams, you have further comment?

I do.

Thank you.

Thank you, President.

Thank you.

Um I just could I want to push back a little bit on you know uh this idea that all areas are the same, and that we need to uh um legislate uh like a citywide uh idea.

Um I come from a neighborhood that has been ravaged by gentrification, the mission district.

And because of the protections and the creation of a cultural district, do we even have Latinos still in the mission?

And so I I need to just say that you know clearly that each neighborhood is onto itself, has its own uh characteristics and it and the SUDs that are in place are protections that have come from uh consequences of not having protections.

They just didn't come out of anywhere, and uh I've heard a lot of talk about future businesses.

What about the businesses that are there?

What about the businesses that have been investing in San Francisco that have been here?

We need to look out for them as well.

As a matter of fact, those are the businesses that uh are actually supporting uh the city now.

And so um I just just want to you know push back a little bit on this notion that uh one thing fits all.

Um it's just not it's just not true.

Um and we need to understand that each district has its own uh problems and considerations, and we need if we want to be a city that looks out for our our folks, then we need to take all that into consideration.

Um, and so I I just wanted to leave um leave that as a thought.

Thank you.

Okay, commissioners.

If there's no further deliberation, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval with amendments.

However, there was a subsequent motion made to continue two weeks to October 9th.

Mr.

Um That has been seconded, and as a procedural matter, we'll be taking up that motion first.

Um, so on the motion to continue to October 9th, Commissioner Campbell.

Aye.

Commissioner McGarry, Commissioner Williams, yes, Commissioner Braun, no, Commissioner Imperial.

Aye.

Commissioner Moore, and Commissioner President Seo.

No.

That motion fails three to four with Commissioners Campbell, McGarry, Braun, and so voting against.

Um we will now take up the motion to adopt a recommendation for approval with amendments on that motion, Commissioner Campbell.

Aye.

Commissioner McGarry, Commissioner Williams, Commissioner Braun, aye.

Commissioner Imperial, Commissioner Moore, and Commissioner President, so aye.

So move Commissioners, that motion passes four to three with Commissioners Williams, Imperial, and more voting against.

Commissioners, that will now place us on item 11 for case number 2025.

Actually, uh why don't we let these folks leave and those persons standing or blocking the doorway?

Uh you need to find a seat, please, and it looks like a bunch have just been vacated.

For those folks that want to stay in the room, please find a seat.

Okay, Commissioners.

Item 11, case number 2025, hyphen zero zero five eight six one PPS for two twenty-two Cap Street.

This is an informational presentation.

Afternoon, my name is Steve Perry with Perry Architects.

Excuse me.

Um I'm here to present the program and a brief description of the exterior design of our project.

So the project is located in the mission.

Um it's an inline project uh on an inline site.

It's on Cap Street, close to the corner of 17th Street.

It's approximately 85 feet.

It has eight stories, 70 residential units with a mix of studios, ones, and two bedrooms.

The projects located, or the project here in the center image is the surface parking lot.

And so we're taking uh much underused property and creating housing with this.

The surrounding neighborhood is a mixture of residential and commercial projects.

The ground floor is, we have a residential lobby, utilities, parking, and bike parking.

The upper floors are configured in an H shape, which creates a small courtyard allowing for light and air.

And for the exterior design, as I mentioned, the neighborhood has a mixture of commercial and residential projects.

The residential projects are basically traditional residential lots in San Francisco with 25 foot widths.

So with this, we've broken down the project into three bays, which works with the context of the residential projects.

And then we've introduced a uh a deep grooved metal panel for the exterior cladding and excuse me, and that's uh that works with the frames that go around each bay, and then we have projected windows for all the windows that are similar to the projected frame and allows for small Juliet balconies.

And then at the rear elevation, we have a very similar uh facade pattern to the front, and then on the ground floor, we also have metal panel with a slight shift in color, and then an asymmetrical design allowing for a base of the ground floor and the compositional design.

And then this shows as we turn the corner and look to the north, uh, we're able to add finestration to these elevations also and provide corner windows for the project.

And this is just a more detailed conversation about the materials with a deep groove panels up on the upper left, and the projected windows you can see on the bottom in the center.

And then a very simple strategy for the sidewalk with street trees.

And very simple strategy for the rear yard, allowing for C3 stormwater retainage.

So it's a very simple presentation, but I'm happy to answer any questions on design.

Okay, if that concludes your presentation, we should open a public comment.

Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item.

You need to come forward.

Seeing none, public comment is closed.

Again, this is an informational item.

Commissioner Moore.

Is that this project would well be uh would be uh better understood if in your ongoing work you would uh reflect on the context in which this project occurs.

That is somewhat an understanding of the three-dimensional surroundings, the type of uses next to it, and in the general vicinity, just to give people a better understanding about the decisions you are making taking this project forward.

Um the drawings for the SB 423 project in comparison to others that we have seen here are very simple.

They are kind of barely blocking diagrams.

I think there's a minimum need to understand units, type of units, units layout.

This is just a suggestion.

That is nothing I can uh ask uh to explain in the moment.

Uh unit plans.

Uh I I talked about and generally I think uh uh I raise this question each time.

Uh I am not quite sure why uh uh SB 423 projects are even coming to the to the commission.

Uh I think they the type of work we normally do is thoughtful and reflective uh on the neighborhoods in which they occur, and none of that is allowed here to be discussed.

Uh the architectural descriptions are barely adequate given the fact what else is missing, and uh uh I'm not as much criticizing what you are doing, but I'm deploring uh that the commission has to spend time with SB 423 projects.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Commissioner Brown.

I think that my one comment on the project design, you know, I can see that this is uh it's a state density bonus project as well, and and that you've already begun to identify some of the concessions and waivers they're anticipated in order to build this project.

And so again, you know, not a lot of control over that, and the planning department will review it to make sure those are appropriate.

Um however, I would just say, not coming from architecture and design background, even to me it looks like you know there there might be ways.

There might be a need to sort of adjust the project in ways that could uh sort of reflect the tightly packed context of the surrounding buildings of this lot.

There are windows on buildings basically on at least two sides that face towards where this project would be built.

This project would end up with windows that are facing directly, you know, just a few feet away from those walls.

And while you know, perhaps that would be allowed, perhaps it wouldn't, after it undergoes review.

Uh my point is simply that you know I think that's for folks who end up living here or are trying to decide if they want to pay rent for a building to live in this building.

Um, some sensitivity to the experience of living in these units that are facing existing buildings might be might be a helpful consideration.

That's that thank you.

Commissioner Imperial.

Thank you.

This is not a design question, but more like um observation question.

Um, I think we've asked this before in terms of the information that's being put to us around the affordable affordable housing units.

Um it's not uh it's not here in our um the um in the blueprint.

Usually there would be some description of how many units are going to be affordable, yes.

Yeah, you yeah, can you um I'm happy to answer that question.

Mark Loper Ruben Junius and Rose on behalf of the project sponsor.

Um the project has 70 units, eleven.

We think eleven will be uh affordable.

That's um 15.7%.

Uh will obviously confirm with staff.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

And just to um, yeah, I I just want to bring that up just to be consistent with other projects that we see when there are inclusionary units on um, you know, included that I think it should be traditional as well to include those um information.

And just to um, you know, with Commissioner uh Vice President Moore, uh we you know, with all due respect, I would um you know disagree with that, and I think SB 423 should still come to the planning commission just in case any of the member of the public would like to um provide feedback, comments on the design and how it might impact that.

I think that that still will play a valuable, this body will still play a valuable role in that outlet and where the planning staff can actually still work on that.

So um, so yeah, so that's only my comment.

So thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Williams.

I just just a couple comments.

Um I just want to remind everyone that this isn't a uh priority equity geography, the mission district.

Um that has um, as I mentioned before, if you were here in the chamber, uh, experience a lot of gentrification, uh, which means the the the removal of poor people.

Um and doesn't this isn't you know a reflection of your project in particular, but I just want to comment that this SB 423 and other state bills uh don't take any consideration for the existing conditions of uh in in the neighborhoods, and um as well intentions as as you you uh you uh gentlemen might be um the fact of the matter is uh this it this uh this type of project in my opinion is not conducive uh to creating affordability and what's missing in in our city right now is affordability um and uh these are mostly market rates that you know there's there is 11 units that thank uh thank goodness that uh there'll be eleven families uh able to live here uh but low-income families uh but um that that's my only comment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um I um I don't have any more further comments, but I thought that um I agree with Commissioner Imperial that it is though our staff report table shows what is your project dwelling units mix of affordable units versus a market rate, but it will be super helpful for the architect's drawing set to actually delineate that so for consistency, same as all the other projects that are going through the SB 430, 423 program.

They have been also showing that is more of a transparency than anything else.

I do believe that you will uh comply to that.

Um I live in the mission, so I really looking forward to seeing more um more things that are in the mission that help to help us feel safe on the street and more people living there, um, more vibrancy, and I believe that hopefully when you design the building, you put uh light and some kind of safety measurements on the on the street level, so then you will um be one of the good players on Cap Street.

So okay, all right, thank you for coming to us today.

And I do see that my two other fellow commissioners like to give further comments and start with Commissioner Campbell.

Well, I just wanted to say something positive because I think this is a really great little infill project.

I think it's exactly what SB 423 was designed to do.

So um I wish you a lot of luck with this.

I appreciate that we've got some affordability mixed in.

It's a nice blend of unit sizes.

Um it'd be nice if there are a couple bigger ones, but I get it.

Um, but yeah, I wish you luck.

Maybe one small design comment would just be being mindful of potential bird nesting there on those little um outcrops there, those little protrusions, right?

Just but other than that, I wish you luck.

Thank you.

Commissioner McGarry, again on a positive note.

Uh SB 423 is a continuation of SB 35.

So it's been around a long time.

Uh 11 new affordable units is 11 new affordable units.

Uh, it is a great uh in fill product uh uh project in an area that basically needs those 11 new uh affordable units.

So eleven, eleven, eleven.

We need to get we need multiple.

We need to keep going.

And I am torn.

I I believe Commissioner Moore is right.

423 comes ahead comes in front of us, and basically we do uh we we can comment on it, but we can't uh stop or alter our uh halt.

Uh but it's nice and other going on, and that eleven units uh we found out today.

There's eleven more affordable units, and that is a possible uh positive polish.

Thank you.

Okay, Commissioners.

If there is nothing further on this matter, we can move on to item 12 for case number 2025, hyphen 003879 CUA 2201 Alamaney Street conditional use authorization.

Hello, Commissioners, Heather Samuels, planning staff.

The item before you is an application for conditional use authorization to establish an electric vehicle charging location use, doing business as Iona.

This is being proposed on an existing vacant lot located within the Excelsior Outer Mission Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40x heightened bulk district.

The subject lot is 10,000 square feet and has been vacant for more than 30 years.

The project would activate the slot and feature 16 charging stations for general public use, comprised of 12 standard and 480 stations, an elevated canopy accompanying electrical infrastructure, including a transformer, an ornamental fencing and landscaping.

To date, the project has received two comments in opposition, one common in support.

Additionally, we have had correspondence expressing concern over the entrance location and public safety and conduct.

The sponsor has hosted two community meetings, one on August 12th and one on September 19th.

The department recommends that the commission approve the project on the basis that the proposed EV charging site will fill and activate a vacant lot to propose a service to the public, thereby enhancing the economic viability of the surrounding neighborhood commercial district.

On balance, the project adheres to the policies of the general plan and is in general compliance with all applicable requirements of the planning code.

This concludes my presentation.

I will now hand it off to the project representatives for their short presentation after we will be available for any questions.

Thank you.

Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

I can get the computer screen, please.

Uh good afternoon, Commissioners.

John Kevlin here on behalf of the project sponsor, Iona.

We're very excited to present to you this project that will construct a new public EV charging facility at 2201 Alamini Boulevard.

I think this might be the first time a public charging facility has come before the commission.

So uh this is one of Iona's first sites in the city.

Uh is a long vacant corner parcel located along two corridors.

Uh Iona is a joint venture uh made up of a number of traditional car makers that now make EVs in order to create an alternative public charger network, but will be uh open and available to all EVs.

You can see that Iona provides clean, comfortable public charging sites that are easy to use for EV owners.

The sites do not have attendance, they have security cameras running 24-7, uh, and helpline phone numbers posted throughout the site.

The charges are high speed, and the average charge time for a vehicle is 15 to 25 minutes.

The site includes eight chargers providing capacity to charge up to 16 cars at a time.

Stormwater retention areas and utility areas are provided at the exteriors of the site.

And here's just a view uh with the the canopies uh as well.

This is just an image of the chargers again, nice looking and clean.

Um, these are class three high speed chargers.

The project is subject to the planning code screening and greening requirements.

A high quality iron fence will be installed and a five foot deep permeable surface will line the frontages of the site.

Uh this will enhance both the security and the aesthetics uh of this site from its existing condition today.

Now we've had some really positive conversations with the community, uh, in particular Outer Mission Merchants and Residents Association as well as the new mission terrace improvement association.

Uh, we've committed to continue to working with these groups um moving forward in particular developing good neighbor policy signage as well as designing the screening and landscaping with these groups.

One issue that's been raised uh is the location of the uh vehicle driveway to the site.

Uh the commission received an email from uh Joel Keneally with the uh merchants and residents association this morning um at requesting a right-hand turn only sign coming out onto Geneva.

We're more than happy to accommodate that.

Also happy to include that as a condition of approval if uh the commission uh sees fit.

Um to the degree there is any questions.

I've I've got uh an analysis of why we put it on Geneva versus Alamani.

I'm gonna just leave it at that for now because we have the support with the right-hand turn lane, um, but please ask me questions uh during your time if you do have questions, because I have um an image that I can walk through that that decision.

Um so in closing, Iona is enthusiastic to open this public EV charging station in San Francisco.

Uh Governor Newsom did issue an executive order in June of this year reaffirming the state's commitment to zero emission vehicles uh and building the infrastructure to support them.

Uh the San Francisco Environment Department also has support for electric the electric vehicle transition uh as a key priority.

So with that, uh we respectfully request that the commission approve this project, and we're here if you have any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We received a request for translation services.

So I'll ask for those persons who need translation services to please come forward first.

Ken, if you could speak into the microphone.

So you also have a lot of uh family talking provider.

I live in on I live on Geneva.

I'm also a family care provider.

So every day we have uh a dozen family coming uh in and out of uh my area.

So I'm concerned about uh traffic safety around my area.

Uh you go little hazardous uh hanging with the how little we have a sidewalk.

So with the addition of the charting station, it would definitely increase traffic around my uh block.

So there's a high school and middle school and I'm here, so you know the the student come with uh with the tra uh on the traffic in the section.

So you look at so car coming in is uh in and out, say you know, it's concerned for her.

Uh myla uh go home, like I do.

So uh Geneva is a uh pretty heavily uh traffic area.

Yeah, so the charging station there will increase uh traffic conjection for the uh vested names.

So uh the closed proximity of uh a resident uh it will uh it will cause uh noise kind of concern for you.

Uh you mocha hope, I go to come we uh we can walk to how you call you my title.

Um, you have a little change up.

So I'm concerned about uh homeless people coming in and out of the facility.

Okay, I can thank you.

That's it.

Any other public commenters in need of translation services?

Uh yeah, okay.

Uh, so I moved to Geneva and been living there for two years.

So I have seen a couple car accidents over there um for every month.

So from Ingozai Police Station report and I went with report, it shows serious injury in those accidents.

If these accidents occurs every month, it doesn't suddenly just appear.

It voteingly happen.

It's a traffic uh hot spot, especially during the uh morning and afternoon.

Okay, because a lot of caught up blocking the intersections.

So you go EV charging station.

I go to go out.

Yeah, so if if an EV charging station is over there, it will increase the traffic uh congestion.

Yeah, like the last comment there, and there's a there's a high school and middle school elementary, and then a couple uh uh family care uh unit.

Also a lot of senior coming in now.

So you uh, okay.

I'm not sure how the uh project sponsor is gonna prevent those um hassle.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, let's open up to uh any other public comment.

Hi, Commissioners.

I'm Tim Halty.

I own 820 Geneva.

It's the house that's gonna be right next to the EV station they're proposing.

The first concern is child safety, and if you put a if you put an access point for this station on Geneva, it's gonna be high traffic, and it's gonna be higher yet, and you got kids that are getting dropped off and picked up uh along this street along Geneva between mine and my next door neighbors.

So my next door neighbor is the one that's taking care of the kids and that's an issue.

We would hope since it's being called 2201 Elamani Street, that entry and exit would be on Alamani.

That way we'd have improved parking and drop-off and less safety hazards.

If it's possible, it would be great.

Um if the station's gonna be put in, if it has to be, we're hoping for a retaining wall between our house and the station, of course, for uh privacy reasons.

The other issue is um the storm drain, which is a minor thing, but not to us.

In the back of our house, um, on the side that faces the EV station.

There is a fence, a wooden fence with graffiti on it.

That uh is blocking our storm drain.

We'd like that to be moved a little so we can get storm drainage because it's been the water's been piling up back there.

Thank you for your time.

Last call for public comment.

Um good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is David Hooper, and I serve as the president of the new mission terrorist Improvement association.

Uh, I'd like to thank Joel Keneally of the Out of Merchants uh Outer Mission Merchants and Residents Association for facilitating the conversations with Mr.

Kevlin.

Uh the concerns that I want to bring to your attention have to do primarily with the access on Geneva as opposed to on Alamani.

The lot is a hundred by a hundred square street.

But Geneva Avenue is different from Alamani.

In fact, you would have to remove three parking spaces on Geneva, but you wouldn't have to do that presently on Alamani.

Geneva Avenue has three major bus lines.

Alamani has its own conditions of heavy traffic, but it isn't quite the same.

Someone exiting the lot on Geneva would have to take a right turn.

If they could take a left turn, they would be going across a double yellow line into the left-hand turn lane on Geneva that goes left south on Alamani.

It's complicated.

But if you do take a right turn on Geneva, you have to go to Mission Street before you can turn right.

Heavy, heavy pedestrian traffic.

And you can't take a left turn going east on Geneva at Mission.

Past that, the streets are also very complicated.

I suggest that if you have it, Geneva does give them access, the point of access is that you could come from either direction on Alamani making a turn or from eastbound Geneva.

Nice.

But when you leave the site, you enter into a traffic palstrum.

So my suggestion is that Mr.

Kevlin revisit the idea and explain why 16 charging eight charging machines, 16 charging stations rotated in one direction on 100 by 100 square feet, wouldn't be able to use Alamani.

Harder to get into, much easier to leave.

So thank you.

And I hope the lot is activated.

It's been decades.

Thank you.

I'm going to ask those people standing to please find a seat by blocking the doorway.

You're causing a fire hazard.

Last call for public comment on this item.

Okay, seeing none, public comment is closed.

This matters now before you, Commissioners.

Commissioner Campbell.

I'd love to have Mr.

Kevlin come back up so we can talk a little bit more about.

Traffic.

I'm we're not traffic engineers.

We're going to rely on the report that you can maybe share with us to enlighten us on.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Yeah, clearly it's something to be discussed.

Uh if I could get the computer uh again, please.

Okay.

So here's an uh overhead of the site, the the sites at the the bottom, uh, the bottom corner.

And uh we've got two frontages on the left is Alamani, and on the right is Geneva.

And so in looking at uh first at Alamani and why that was not chosen.

Uh several uh factors.

Um, first, the entrance would be located at the entrance of the intersection, meaning where we would expect cars to be queuing up, and so uh certainly more conflicts entering an intersection than rather in Geneva.

It's it's the exit of the intersection, not where uh cars would queue, not where we would see those conflicts.

Um the Alamani frontage uh is a right, excuse me, red zone right now, and that's because the entire frontage is a right hand uh uh only uh turn lane, right?

So again, conflicts with the the current operation as it is.

Um then um finally Alamani has a center line divider on uh uh between uh going both directions.

So people uh unless you're on Alamaney, you know, coming towards the site, you're gonna have to take an extra uh drive around j and kind of do a U-turn or however you would do it to get back to the site.

So a number of reasons why Alamani didn't make sense to us.

Um again on on Geneva, we're located at the exit of the intersection.

Um, there is uh, and then the the key is is that the site's access is there today, and so we're actually taking a 35-foot curb cut, we're shrinking it down to 25 and just shifting it closer to the center of the site.

Um, and so we won't even lose any on street uh parking, right?

So, least amount of impacts to the existing uh uh situation uh uh in in the neighborhood.

So that those are the reasons why we why just w Geneva we feel is the is the better location.

There's always also this issue of um and I think uh Mr.

Holty is uh this is his home right here.

There are some improvements that have are encroaching on to the property.

Looks like there's been some access back there.

We're not really exactly sure what what the history is of that, but part of the idea of of uh the the in addition to the Geneva Street side, Geneva appside being the better location.

If we had to flip it around, we'd need to occupy this area, and we're concerned about what type of conflicts we'd have there uh with Mr.

Holty and his property.

We want to be as least impactful uh on him as possible being being the neighbor.

Um this uh he had brought up the idea of a retaining wall.

I know that's something that we can uh work with them on.

Um so those uh thank you for the opportunity.

Those that those were the considerations that go into account for the selection of Geneva versus Alamani.

So this is my microphone on now.

Okay.

And this was a traffic study that was done, or this was just no.

No, just uh kind of analysis we did based on conditions.

Um, so the other question I had was around the fencing.

I had assumed the fence like two fence or not two fence.

Like I had assumed that the fence was a request from neighbors to maybe shield visually what's happening there, but then we also are seeing some concerns around fencing in terms of safety and it catching debris, and can you expand on that a little bit for us?

Absolutely.

Yeah, so one, it is a planning code requirement.

So um because this is a vehicle use area, we do have to do a fence.

Uh and it's not just any fence, it's not chain link.

This has to be a high quality iron fence.

Uh, and so what we've gotten there is kind of a placeholder right now.

That's kind of the standard iron fence black line.

Um, this has been uh a big part of the conversation we've had with the the neighborhood groups and the community members that have been coming to the hearing, sorry, our meetings.

Um they're very they they just worked on a project nearby that really um beautified another site and the fencing around it.

So they already have some momentum in the neighborhood, so they really want to be involved with the design of this fence, and that's something that we really you know want to work with them on, right?

So not it there the concerns about um I I guess what I would say is I would characterize the conversations with the community groups that we've had is that they're all supportive of the fencing and that it's gonna be an improvement.

Um, and because we have the permeable space too, we have some ability for actual landscaping too, not just the fence.

Right.

And it's required by code.

Yeah, absolutely.

I should have known.

That helps.

Sounds good.

Um, my uh uh there was another um comment from some letters we received around um signage and a request for you know numbers to call in the case of an emergency and sort of rules and regulations around the space.

Can you expand on that?

Uh sponsor's willingness to do something like that.

Absolutely.

Yeah, and that's something we've already committed to the to the community groups about.

Uh, if you saw in the earlier image, uh you can see on the right side there, um, below the computer screen, there's a uh a phone number for a helpline.

That's like their standard sticker.

So we showed that, and obviously there was a desire to expand beyond that.

And and beyond just having a helpline, also kind of reminders of what people how to be respectful while they're on the site and not bothering the neighbors.

So that's something that we are going to work with the community on to develop those good neighbor policies so that we can create custom signage for this site so that folks that are charging here are uh are reminded of of those rules.

Perfect, right?

Thank you.

Um, I'm I'm in full support of this.

I'm I'm sure a charging station was never anybody's dream, but you know, the only thing worse than a station of any sort in my mind is an empty lot.

So I think it's great that we're activating it and delighted to hear that we're working through some of these issues that um that the community has.

And I guess my only very personicity comment would just be that the everything is so um symmetrical in design in in the plan, and it would just be so lovely to align the canopies because they're like off, and that's just the the designer in me.

That that's a that's a little annoying, but not a requirement.

I I uh would make a motion to approve with conditions.

And knowing that you're working out all these other issues in terms of and then the in terms of traffic I want to just make sure that that's we do the safest thing.

And that causes the least amount of congestion.

Those are all my comments.

Thank you.

Commissioner Braun.

Yes I I I'll echo those comments that uh you know maybe not the the first use I would have wanted for the site but I yeah I've seen this for a long time this this property and now it's been vacant to you know I run down Cayugo a lot and on the slow street there.

And this is quite close to that.

Um I I appreciate the answers to Commissioner Campbell's questions that were shared.

I just have a couple of more sort of along similar lines uh likely for Mr.

Kevlin I assume but um I am curious about I I say the hour the allowable hours of operation are I believe it was until 2 a.m.

Just sort of standard planning code but um do you have a sense of what the anticipated actual hours of operation would be for this or what's typical I think it will likely be open 6 a.m to 2 a.m.

And the reason is is that it's it's simply that there's no attendant and so it's a site that can just be made available to the public for charging at various times.

In talking uh with most of their sites are open 24-7, right?

Obviously we have these restrictions here.

Um it's not like there's a ton of charging going on between 2 a.m and 6 a.m anyway um so uh the most of the the charging activity is anticipated to happen uh during the day that actually leads me to my second question you answered my question about whether it's attended or not and then my next question after that is uh when the site is closed at night will it be gated off because especially with the fencing I could anticipate this being a little challenging to see in or if it's not going to be gated what's the sort of uh approach to security for the site when it's technically closed.

Yeah when it's non-operational that'll be a gate okay that's that's good good to hear that could be a real a real concern.

And and that was I'm not to interrupt Commissioner but that was a concern both of Iona and of the neighborhood kind of a primary concern is how do we make sure the site doesn't start being occupied by folks that or cars that are not EV chargers, right?

That are using a preview charging yeah.

Yeah okay okay um and then I think let's see lastly on the turns okay so your your explanation about uh why the Geneva side was selected um you know I it made sense to me um and then I'm hearing that the project sponsor is willing to put in a sign and a requirement you can only make right turns out of the site is that right absolutely yes okay and then for the entry into the site uh I don't know how far things have gotten this might be something that has to be assessed um later at permitting but um for people entering the site are they able to turn left if they're heading uh what direction would be if they're heading eastbound on Geneva are they able to turn left into the site as well crossing the WL line?

Presume I mean you know there's no there's no median there if there's a left hand turn lane that's going into the intersection so you could take a left out of the the left hand turn uh lane.

Okay.

Yeah.

As as appropriate yeah yeah.

So I think that that you know there's probably a subsequent step in this to look at you know the turn movements and what would or would not be allowed and that's sort of beyond the commission um for our entitlements approval but um yeah I would just uh echo concerns about sort of what those those uh turn motions might be and if it's gonna be a right turn uh solely out of this out into Geneva I think that that community concern made a lot of sense I'm glad to hear that there would be a restriction to make right turns only out of the site.

And so I I guess so those are all my my questions thank you.

You know I I do support this I I think one of the challenges with the transition to electric vehicles has uh long been the challenge of people who don't have any way to charge at their own home or property.

And saying this is uh a renter who's never had a car or a garage in the city.

Um, however, if I think about what it'd be like to try to have electric car, uh if I was so inclined, uh it would just be impossible to charge unless more facilities like this, as well as the other ones are scattered around the city, like grocery stores uh were in place.

So this is again not my favorite use, but but it is an important um step towards a lot of our um environmental goals.

And so I guess my one question would be to Commissioner Campbell.

I I didn't immediately second the motion because I'm wondering if you might include a requirement um that the sponsor has raised that there be signage for right turns only out of the site, and that that be the you know the only allowable turn motion out of the site.

I'd like to add that to my motion.

Okay.

With that, I'll second the motion.

Thank you.

Um commission commissioner McGarry.

All good stuff.

Uh signage, uh helpline site maintenance to 6 a.m.

to 2 a.m.

Uh I'm sure cameras everywhere to make sure that are monitored to make sure that basically uh uh nothing nefarious is happening outside those hours.

Um I assume grading has to be done here, and with that, your neighbor next door, uh Tim Holty.

Uh basically there's a storm drain issue on the property, your shared property, and is there a commitment to actually help out with that?

Yeah, thank you, Commissioner.

As you can imagine, national company trying to open dozens and dozens of these around the country were the the focus right now has just been can we get the use approved, right?

They have control of the site, but they don't own it yet, right?

Um so uh the the answer to your question is absolutely, as I've said, there's already some structures along that portion of the property seemingly encroaching, so there's still some issues to resolve there.

Um, but no question, Iona doesn't want a storm drain problem adjacent to its property either.

So what I'm saying is on behalf of Iona, absolutely the conversation to continue with uh Mr.

Holty at 820 Geneva.

That's great.

Yeah, thank you.

Commissioner Williams.

Um my commissioners did a great job covering all the concerns.

So I appreciate that this is uh I live in this neighborhood.

Um but I wanted to where what did Mr.

Kevlin go?

Oh, there he goes.

I I want I wanted to uh to thank Mr.

Kevlin uh for you know um working with the community.

Uh and uh I think um, you know it's it's uh refreshing and it's in and so I I just wanted to personally thank you uh for that.

Um I this is a an interesting use for this this uh particular piece of uh land.

Uh it wasn't something that I thought would ever go in here, and I think a lot of people uh that live in the neighborhood are gonna uh be um surprised about.

Um I I don't see any real opposition uh to this, and I and I think that uh it is needed.

Um I happen to own an EV myself.

Um and so um I um I'm all in support of this.

And again, uh thank you for my to my commissioners to paying attention uh to the details of this uh traffic safety and uh the other concerns that the community um presented.

So I I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um there's a lot of comments my fellow commissioner have been questioned and all that.

Um I do wanted to ask something specific to um safety.

So um John, do you mind to come up here again and always have to ask you to come back here?

Um there are um uh public comments today, especially the one that needs a language translation, they repeatingly emphasize that their children's and their schools nearby.

And yes, I I do notice that there are park uh there are gas stations within literally the three blocks.

So um is there any um traffic calming mechanism that your client um plan to provide to make sure that people who walk when there's gonna be not just cars, but there's gonna be also um pedestrians and um whatever all the other people who choose to roll um in bikes or scooters and something like how I mean it's really clear for me uh how you try to uh work with the constraint that you have with um some interesting Eastman that is in your clients' lot and so you had answer pretty eloquently about why the entrances had to be in certain street uh but I wanted to know I've seen I've not seen any other um elements in your plan that actually suggest to me that if there's any traffic calming or any more like pedestrian safety kind of more like that uh approach, it's less of a proactive approach, but it's more like preventive.

Yeah.

Absolutely.

And what I'll say uh to you, Commissioner, is that we're gonna need to work with the SFMTA because we're moving the curb cut anyway, and I think uh the SFMTA more than probably anyone in this room and certainly more than myself and Iona um understand what appears to be pretty complicated traffic uh situations in in around this block.

And so I think um we don't have any affirmative uh preventative measures to propose right now, not because we don't want to do it only because we don't know what would be appropriate at this location.

And so working with um SFMTA, both through the the curb uh cut process and the and the the change of the color curb, um we can work with them to try to incorporate anything that would be appropriate on site um to help uh uh benefit that.

And if to the degree the commission has any ideas themselves, we would certainly uh entertain them as well, but I think that that makes a lot of sense.

Okay, thank you.

I mean, if you don't mind, Commissioner Campbell, I would like to uh maybe add a comment to the motion that's like uh strongly recommend the sponsor to work with SFMT to provide above and beyond traffic calming measurements like blinking lights and crosswalk um highlighting people really trying to really you do need to slow down your traffic, um stuff like that, yeah.

I'm I'm comfortable with adding that to my motion.

Okay, thank you.

Sure.

Yeah, I think uh can you don't unless you like to go back and forth?

Yeah, I get my steps in it.

Just stay here because uh commissioner vice president won't talk to you soon.

Um I mean I've I done quite a bit of experience.

I try to charge my car on my row, you know, and sometimes safety is a real issues even for the customer themselves.

Um most of these sites have no attendance, and some of them they don't really need to because they leverage a shopping mall or a grocery store that they in of itself already have uh attendance to it.

Am I looking at your operating hours as pretty long and extensive and I'm really familiar with that neighborhood too?

It's kind of continue to um I I don't know what to say about uh I just felt like sometimes you might want to like I would like to to hear from you about what beyond the the the the big signs that this is the number you can call us that is more like a when something happened then there's something that you can call.

Is there any proactive measurement that you can your client is preventing any crime from happening?

In other words, like um what what can I feel safe to use this to charge um my car, or how can we um not overburdening SFPD?

So please.

Sure.

Um so one, as you can imagine, it's in Iona's direct interest to ensure that you are comfortable coming to the site and feel safe in order so that you will come and charge your car there, right?

So Iona operates stations throughout the country.

They've got best practices that they've developed at all of these locations.

So I I just want to emphasize one, the very the the priority point for Iona is that they want their customers to feel safe on the site, right?

So their the interests are aligned here, right?

So we have the um the helpline, we've got um, you know, community uh developed uh good neighbor policy signage that we're gonna work on.

We've also, again, another great result of this community outreach that Iona was willing to do.

We've already been in touch with the police captain for this beat, and um we're already coordinating in terms of how do we work with them to make sure uh that um uh we have as efficient a process involved in terms of uh uh getting uh SFPD involved if there is an issue.

Um I don't wanna uh the it was a conversation between me and the police captain.

Uh he had not uh expressed major concerns about security on site.

In fact, his concerns was mostly about traffic as well.

Um so uh what I would say is it's an Iona's interest to make sure the site is safe too.

We're gonna keep coordinating with the SFPD uh to make sure, and and of course we have the twenty-four hour security cameras, so we do have monitoring uh of this site.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Commissioner Vice President Moore.

This is a pretty obvious comment.

Since electrical vehicles are hardly audible, particularly exiting from a site that is otherwise unoccupied by buildings, some audio notification would be helpful, particularly if people expressed concerns about a high school and students be nearby when they chat with each other and just walk.

That interface, I think is an issue that is particularly complicated when uh the cars are approaching being very quiet.

That's the only thing I would say.

Okay.

Okay, Commissioners.

If there's no further deliberation, I just want to confirm that the maker of the motion and the secondary were amenable to both friendly amendments.

Yes, great.

Uh then there is a motion that has been seconded um to approve with c conditions as amended to include um a right turn only sign and encouraging the sponsor to work with SFMTA to install traffic calming measures on that motion, Commissioner Campbell.

Aye.

Was that right?

Yeah, I think we got it right.

That's correct.

Yeah, I mean, the the sponsors committed to working on the good neighbor percentage as well, but um I'm comfortable with them continuing to just do that.

Great.

Um Commissioner Campbell.

Hi.

Commissioner McGarry.

Aye.

Commissioner Williams.

Aye.

Commissioner Braun.

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial.

I.

Commissioner Moore.

I.

And Commissioner President So.

I.

So move Commissioners that motion passes unanimously seven to zero.

And we'll place this on items thirteen A and B for case numbers twenty twenty-four, hyphen zero zero four three one eight SHD and C UA for the property at three fifty Amber Drive.

This is a request to adopt shadow findings and conditional use authorization.

I think I just take one out.

Is there anyone else?

Perfect.

Okay.

I don't want to quite break down this time.

Yeah.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Uh John Dacy for Planning Department staff, the item before you today is a request for conditional use authorization and adoption of shadow findings for the installation of a new ATT macro wireless telecommunication facility on the property located at 350 Amber Drive.

350 Amber Drive is currently developed with multiple buildings that serve the San Francisco Police Academy.

The project site is located within a P-Zoning District and an OS Height and Bulk District in a Diamond Heights neighborhood.

The project site is adjacent to two recreation and park properties, Clint Canyon Park and the George Christopher Playground.

The project proposes the installation of a new unmanned macro wireless telecommunication services facility on approximately 104-foot tall monopole located at the rear parking lot of San Francisco Police Academy.

The installation includes 12 panel antennas, nine remote radio units, three tower mounted DC9 surge suppressors, one GPS unit mounted on a proposed outdoor equipment cabinet, one walk-up cabinet, and one 30 kilowatt DC generator with a hundred and ninety gallon diesel fuel tank on a concrete pad.

The ancillary equipment will be surrounded by an eight-foot chain link fence.

The project requires conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections uh two eleven point two and three oh three to allow the establishment of a macro wireless telecommunications services facility within the P-Zoning District.

The project also requires that the Commission adopt shadow findings pursuant to planning code section 295, determining that shadow impacts on RPD properties will not be significant or adverse.

Under section 295, a building permit application for a project exceeding the height of 40 feet cannot be approved if there is a shadow impact on a property under the jurisdiction of the recreation and park department, unless the planning commission, upon recommendation from the recreation and park commission, make a determination that the shadow impact will not be significant or adverse.

A shadow study was prepared by a qualified consultant, FastCAS, that analyzed the potential shadow impacts of the proposed project on George Christopher Playground and Glen Canyon Park.

The study determined that the proposed project would result in uh new shadows falling on George Christopher Playground, increasing the shadow load by 0.02, 200th of a percent above current levels, resulting in total annual shading increasing from 6.59% to 6.61%.

The proposed project would result in new shadows on Glen Canyon Park, increasing shadow load by 81 hundredths, 100,000ths of a percent, resulting in an increase in total annual shading from 13.276% to 13.277%.

On June 9th, uh 2025, the recreation parking commission, in consultation with the general manager of the recreation parks department, conducted a newly donated uh public hearing and recommended through resolution number 2506-002 that the planning commission find that the net new shadow cast by the project would not be adverse to the use of George Christopher Playground or Glen Canyon Park.

The sponsor hosted one meeting with the community on April 20th, 2023.

The department has received 13 letters in support and 42 letters in opposition to the project.

The correspondence expressed support for increased cellular coverage to improve emergency response times for residents and visitors.

The letters in opposition to the project expressed concerns with the project's proximity to parks and residential properties, the aesthetics of the structure, potential negative impacts on nearby property values, and possible fire and safety risks.

The department finds that the project is on balance consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan.

The project will enhance the ability of the city to protect both life and protect from the effects of a fire or natural disaster by providing communication services.

The department also finds the project to be necessary, desirable, and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and not to be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity.

Based on the site's zoning and land use, the proposed wireless facilities at a location preference, one site, publicly used structures, according to uh our adopted wireless telecommunication siting guidelines, making it a desirable location.

Therefore, the department supports the proposed project and recommends approval with conditions.

This concludes my presentation, and I'm available to answer any questions.

I will now turn it over to the project uh sponsor team to present.

Thank you.

Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

Okay, I'll be quick.

Uh good afternoon, President.

So and uh members of the Commission.

Cami Blackstone here from ATT.

I'm the director of external affairs, and I'm here today to respectfully ask for your support and to address any questions you may have regarding this project.

Joining me today, we have several key members of our team, Eric Lentz, who's been the project manager who can answer any questions about the application, the process or the design.

Vikram Singh, who's one of our network engineers who can answer questions about the network, and Bill Hammett, who's a third-party telecommunications and safety and compliance engineer who is available to answer any questions in those subjects.

This project is to address a huge coverage gap we have in that area.

I don't know if you've ever driven up market to Portola and lost calls, but I do it almost every day.

And over the years, we've explored several options in this neighborhood to address this gap.

Unfortunately, none of them materialized.

So we were thrilled when the San Francisco police department offered up their parking lot to go ahead and design our site.

Also the fact that it's a preference one location.

As part of the planning department's requirements, we did hold the outreach meeting.

We had about 10 participants online and in person.

During the meeting, we did hear a lot of feedback, and we did try to address their concerns to the best of our ability.

This site is critical to addressing a long-standing gap in coverage in areas such as Diamond Heights, Glen Canyon, Mariloma, Glen Park, George Christopher Playground, Upper Market.

We receive complaints all the time from public safety officers, merchants, parents, residents, elected officials, and commuters about the lack of reliable service in this area.

So with your approval, we hope to build this site and meet the growing demand for service there.

ATT is committed to providing reliable and consistent coverage for all our customers, including those on FirstNet, which is the national first responder network.

The project is an important step towards filling that obligation.

So we appreciate your time and consideration, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have or the team.

Thank you very much.

And here's Eric Lentz, our project manager.

Thank you.

We just have a couple minutes left here, so I just want to run through real quick the need for this site just to kind of orient this one.

I guess I got to get a few more seconds back.

Okay.

Um, like as Cammy mentioned, this is a long, this project has been going on for quite a while to try to find a suitable location to close this gap here.

I wanted to show you real quick the issue that we're having, the reason why we're here.

Um, the map you see up there is our coverage objective map.

This is in your staff report as well.

As you can see, the green and that yellow is an existing micro site nearby.

That's something you would see on top of a pole, like a utility pole.

And the yellow is what was considered reliable outdoor coverage.

You see, it's very spotty.

That big gap you see in the middle, that's Glenn, that's Glenn Park.

Miraloma is sort of across the across the way.

So you see the gap that is that is uh where the issue is here.

Uh, this with this site on air, this is how that gap closes.

So Glenn Park Canyon, Miriloma, and several neighborhoods around the Diamond Heights neighborhood.

Um, we'll will have sufficient service, including first net for first responders.

Um, this is the existing sites around, and the two closest sites to this are are micro sites, or small sales, they're on polls.

Um, and the on towards the west, there's a the closest macro facility is on Portola.

I just want to show you real quick.

We did look at some alternative sites that we look at by going through the city's WTS guidelines for the preferences one through seven.

One being the best, seven being the least preferred.

Um, we did find there are quite a bit of preference one locations in this zone in this area.

What I have here in orange, or it's everything that's that would be considered a preference one.

The one on the top is a subject location.

The other ones, there's three churches, and then there's uh there's Glenn Park itself, which would also be a preference one.

We did reach out for many years to different property owners.

Um, some churches just were not interested.

Um, some of the locations just didn't provide the viable location to cover this gap.

Although they're we all know Diamond Heights, it's very hilly.

There's a lot of topography.

There are some locations that seemingly could be nearby, but they are not going to close this gap.

The one in the red there, that's the Safeway area, which is a preference for.

So, preference one location.

If we were to go somewhere else, I I may be here explaining why we're not going to the police station if we're on an apartment building or something nearby.

Um, and so this is sort of I plotted them on the map here.

You can see there's a group of locations that are around Safeway.

There is another church across Glenn Park that could would have also worked.

The property owner was not interested.

So I just want to kind of give you a brief rundown of why we're here.

Thank you.

Okay.

With that, we should open up public comment.

Members of the public.

This is your opportunity to address the commission on this item.

You need to come forward.

Line up on the screen side of the room.

Catherine Dodd, point of information.

Is this on 13A or 13A and B?

13A and B.

So will the will the organized opposition have an opportunity to respond?

They were told they had 10 minutes to respond to the presentation.

I apologize, it was continuous.

So yes, organized opposition, uh, you have 10 minutes, but no more than three as an individual.

And you must have at least three speakers present.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

I know I have a mask on for various reasons.

If you can't hear me, please let me know.

My name is Fred Randolph, a seventeen-year resident of Diamond Heights, San Francisco, and I'm speaking to you about the memorandum you have received in opposition to the application of ATT for conditional use authorization to erect a 104-foot 10 plus story monopine cell tower at 350 Amber Drive San Francisco.

The memorandum was submitted to the planning department on the 17th of September on behalf of multiple homeowners whose homes are situated adjacent to or in close proximity to the site for the proposed tower.

This memorandum definitively refutes the items in ATT's plan as described in the executive summary.

This project includes 12 new antennas, nine remote radio units, and the equipment required to run this behemoth.

The tower would literally tower over nearby homes, which are at most four stories, and over trees the tallest of which are 80 to 90 feet tall.

The only camouflage would be paint.

Nothing will hide this eyesore.

It will loom over nearby homes, sticking out like a sore thumb and will forever change the unique character of this community.

The proposed tower will not be compatible nor harmonious with the community, resulting in a severe negative aesthetic impact, together with a substantial decrease in property values.

We are not against cell towers, just the irresponsible placement of them.

We are against unreasonable adverse impacts.

We are for smart placement of cell towers.

ATT has not submitted any actual probative evidence of a gap in service.

There is no evidence there is a need for this tower.

Without that evidence, the commission has no way of knowing whether the proposed tower would actually remedy any alleged gap or provide any benefit to the community.

If they are allowed to put up the tower and it doesn't actually remedy a gap or provide any benefit to the community, ATT will come back in six months and apply to put up another tower.

What ATT should be doing is to determine the minimal signal strength necessary based on the local topography.

They should do a series of drive tests to record actual signal strength in the area.

The drive test will show where signal strength drops too low to provide reliable service.

This will show if there are any gaps and if so, where the boundaries of those gaps are.

If and only if the board is given this data, can they make an informed decision as to whether the proposed cell tower is actually necessary or whether ATT will come back again to request another tower?

In fact, a drive test was undertaken by Hammett and Edison and Engineering Consultancy, which concluded only that there were areas with slightly weaker signals, not no signals.

This is far from a significant gap in coverage.

Installation of the tower goes against the planning code.

Is that three and a half?

Oh, that's three.

Thank you.

I hope you read the memorandum.

It's all here.

May I submit this?

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Just leave it.

Just you just leave it right here.

I'll give it out right now.

Um good afternoon, commissioners and staff.

My name is Bet Sietti, and I'm the former president of the Diamond Heights Community Association, and I serve as the coordinator of Resilient Diamond Heights and the Diamond Heights Boulevard Median Project.

First, I'm presenting findings from uh Evelyn Rose, who's the founder of the Glen Park Neighborhoods History Project, who can't be here today.

The map published by ATT showing the Christopher Playground sits on top of Gold Mine Hill is wrong.

The site sits on a 90-foot deep ravine filled with two million cubic yards of landfill from dirk and rock pushed over from adjacent gold mine and red walk hill by the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency in 1960.

The landfill created a flat area for the development of the Diamond Heights Shopping Center, George Christopher Playground, and the Diamond Heights Elementary School, now the police department.

Therefore, the proposed monopol would stand on 60 to 90 feet of landfill, not bedrock.

ATT is completely silent about the geology of the site and how the 104-foot tall tower that may weigh up to 10 tons would be constructed and anchored into the ground.

The landfill is uh historically unstable.

In 1976, nine-year-old Diamond Heights Elementary School was to be closed because it was sinking and sliding down the hill and would be unsafe in an earthquake.

Soil engineers said the landfill was sinking by 1.5 feet per year.

The last document in the memorandum opposition, which I hope you got, because it had 73 opposition letters.

So I'm what um I would like Mr.

Dacy to address that, because overall we have 83 plus letters of opposition.

Um this memory and and also in your packet, which I hope you got, was a soil study by the San Francisco Unified School School District that said um that the land was sinking.

Um, and let's see, the recent 4.3 centered earthquake in Berkeley is a reminder that for over 30 years, studies have shown that the Havard and San Andreas Faults are due for a 6.7 uh earthquake.

And so third 12 of our 83 letters of opposition mentioned earthquakes.

And this is this next one is important.

This is what was from the San Francisco Real Estate Division.

Um the power source.

They said the power source has not been found for the tower, and that it might take one to two years, or not at all, for a solution to be found by the SFPUC and PGE.

Real estate said the tower is on hold.

How can you approve a plan that is unhold and there's no identified power source?

That is your time.

Okay, I just want to say that um, because of the landfill.

Everybody gets three minutes.

Well, we do get 10 minutes altogether.

Yeah.

Online.

Hi there.

My name is Daniel Sherrick, and I'm the president of the Diamond Heights Community Association.

Uh I would like to mention that our association did vote to oppose the monopole.

Uh, but today I'll be reading uh reading excerpts from a letter submitted by Dr.

Kent Chamberlain to the planning commissioners on June 21st, 2025.

His bona fides are listed in the letter itself.

I'm writing to you as a former member of the New Hampshire Commission, a formal state body established to evaluate the impacts and safety of cell towers.

Our findings are highly relevant to the proposed cell tower now under review.

The proposed tower will be approximately 350 to 400 feet from homes and a children's playground, far closer than the 1,640 feet setback recommended by the New Hampshire Commission.

The telecommunications industry now cites towers near neighborhoods that show no verified coverage gaps.

Their own public facing coverage maps, as well as those filed with the FCC frequently indicate strong existing service.

Emergency communications are often cited to justify towers.

However, cell networks can fail during high traffic situations as well.

They're also more susceptible to hacking and jamming than wired networks.

There are also physical dangers associated with the towers, collapses, fires, and falling debris all pose risks to residential zones.

Property values tend to decline near tower installations as well.

Keep in mind that cellular lease contracts are often long-term, 15 to 30 years or more, and legally binding throughout the term of their duration.

Thankfully, there are other superior options, and I encourage you to consider fiber optics as an alternative.

It's safer, more secure, faster, and more energy efficient.

I strongly recommend that you do not approve the proposed tower at 350 Amber Drive.

I also urge you to thoroughly establish the need for a tower in that area using all appropriate data sources, drop call logs, drive tests, propagation models, carrier maps, and FCC broadband maps, which often show 100% or excellent coverage, even in the areas targeted for new installations.

The evaluation of such sites should be backed by solid evidence, including signed affidavits, individual site reports, and testing methodology provided as reasons for their dismissal.

When towers are installed in neighborhoods, the telecoms profit while the community pays the price for fire risks, security threats, property value reductions, and aesthetic disruptions.

Speaking on my own behalf now, I'd like to invite everyone present in opposition to raise your signs and stand up, be seen and heard.

A couple closing words here.

Over 90 letters of opposition have been submitted to the planning department, along with a memorandum listing all the many ways ATT did not follow San Francisco ordinances and planning requirements.

Those letters and documents, those letters document the real estate values will likely decrease.

The geotechnical investigation was also included.

In conclusion, for many of us, our homes in Diamond Heights are our nest eggs and long-term care plans.

It is not right, it is not fair that this proposed and unsightly 104-foot tall monopole should be allowed to affect our long-term financial security.

Please listen to our voices and please see us today.

Thank you.

I was waiting for you to call public comment.

My name is Catherine Dodd.

I'm a registered nurse, and I'm a great I'm grateful to have the opportunity to address you.

My letter, which replies to all the staff findings and refutes them, is uh in the morandum you just you received on September 18th.

I served as a health commissioner, sitting in the various seats you're in.

I also served as the director of the health service system.

So I've had both a staff and a commission experience, and I realize that listening to public comments is tedious, but I want to thank you for being public servants working to preserve the beauty and character of our city and our neighborhoods based on the general plan, and thank you for carefully considering our public input on our neighborhood and its parks.

I'd like to point out two letters in the memorandum you received.

First, from former supervisor, former supervisor assembly member and state senator Mark Leno, who described the intricate considerations that need to be addressed when citing wireless telecom facilities.

He concludes his memo, and I hope you've read it, his letter by saying clearly, this is not a good location for a macro tower facility.

It will ruin the unique aesthetic of the parks and the harmony of the neighborhood.

I urge you to reject this proposal.

The second letter was from Supervisor John Avalos, who in 2010 introduced the San Francisco Personal Wireless Service Facility Permits Ordinance.

It required antenna applicants to consider the visual impact of any installations that would diminish the city's beauty.

A telecoms telecom filed a suit, but a unanimous California Supreme Court decided that facilities must comply with local ordinances that enforce aesthetic guidelines.

That was upheld by the Supreme Court unanimously in 2019.

And so here we are today.

Here you are today.

And that's why Super Avalos' letter urges the planning commission to reject this telecom structure because it will dramatically change the aesthetic nature of the neighborhood and parks.

This will require that I look out onto a 550 square foot electronic structure.

Lastly, the ATT packet, their document of visual elements, case law requires that more than just public street level views be presented.

It requires that views seen from residents' homes.

There are none.

There definitely isn't mine.

I hope you will vote against this.

It will ruin our neighborhood.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Maggie Hoppy.

I live in Diamond Heights, Glen Park, Nowy Valley area.

As stated in our memorandum in opposition, I believe that ATT's application should be denied because ATT has failed to establish that granting the application would be consistent with the applicable provisions of the San Francisco General Plan, the San Francisco Planning Code, and the federal law, including the Telecommunications Act.

Granting the application would violate not only those applicable provisions, but also the legislative intent upon which they are based.

ATT has failed to establish the proposed facility is actually necessary for providing personal wireless services within the area.

No significant gaps have been demonstrated, as in our exhibits D and E, and the exhibits in opposition clearly show.

ATT has further not provided that it is necessary that the facility be built on this proposed site, nor have they shown that a meaningful inquiry was made as to whether the proposed facility is the least intrusive alternative.

These facts, along with a negative aesthetic and the financial impact this monopole would have on the residents of the neighborhood, can only result in one thoughtful denial of ATT's application.

Glen Park Canyon and Christopher Field and the playground are active, dawn to dusk, daily use parks.

Glen Park Canyon is unique.

It is one of the remaining few areas of acreage in San Francisco that allows residents and wildlife to celebrate the natural features of the land with trails, massive rock formations, a creek, and dozens of hundred foot trees.

This precious open space should not be treated as a utility hub for commercial use or a wasteland to be developed.

We are counting on the city planners to recognize and safeguard parks and open and open space by discouraging misuse of San Francisco land that for decades has provided necessary safe outdoor space for families and nearby neighborhoods and for wildlife too.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

I'm Todd Elkins.

I'm a 22-year resident of Craig's Court by the Crags Trailhead into Glen Canyon.

My wife Chris runs the Craig's Community Garden, which is also sliding it a foot and a half every year.

And we're in the canyon every day.

My biggest concern about the macro tower is fire.

Fire risk is real, it's ever present.

And those of us who live by Glen Canyon are always vigilant about the risk that fire entails.

It's not just a small eucalyptus grove by the Academy.

It's all the trees and the scrub, pines, cypress, maple, willow, all the surrounding neighborhood that will burn.

As we saw in suburban Sonoma and in the Southland last fall, devastating fires can start from next to nothing and rage uncontrollably in short order.

Cell towers sparked the Woolsey fire in 18, Silverado in 20, even in Brooklyn, New York in 21.

In Glen Canyon, the winds howl most afternoons, which can fan any small flare-up into an instant fire torm.

Diamond Heights planners recognize the risk for power lines in densely wooded areas like our canyon and undergrounded power and cable throughout the area, both for beauties and especially for safety's sake.

Additionally, the macro tower includes a 190 gallon diesel fuel tank.

Diesel emissions would roll down onto the NOE preschool directly below the proposed site.

The IARC classifies diesel exhaust as quote, carcinogenic to humans.

These fumes will especially endanger young children playing in the park or anyone visiting Christopher, shopping, hiking, or walking in the neighborhood.

In the event of a fire, evacuation of Christopher Park and its preschool, Glenridge Co-op in the Canyon, and elementary schools in Glen Park, the shopping center, not to mention the entire neighborhood, will be chaotic at best and potentially deadly.

The proposed macro tower will cause and contribute to a disaster, not mitigate it, as is claimed in the commission's summary of findings.

The tower also presents a financial risk to Diamond Heights and Glenn Park residents whose homes ring the canyon.

We're all touched by the state's insurance crisis, and every homeowner's insurance is on shaky ground every renewal year.

If this project moves forward, our rates will go are guaranteed to go up.

Many of us will have our renewals denied because carriers will not write policies for homes situated next to a fire hazard.

Our housing values will promote because those pardon me, because those potential buyers who aren't scared away by the fire disclosures can't get a policy, and people who do not want to live in a laborhood neighborhood dominated by a giant power.

There are over 2,000 homes in 3,000 people in our neighborhood whose lives and homes are being put at risk for what?

Some minor transient signal boosts for ATT customers and ATT profits.

Who'll cover the cost of rebuilding after a major fire and replace our home values, not AT.

We in Diamond Heights have a long tradition of fighting fiercely for its natural beauty from the gumtree girls to the proposed freeway through Glen Canyon and the A.

That is your time.

We ask for you to vote to protect us once more.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Commission Commissioners.

My name is Shay.

I'm a second-generation San Franciscan.

Born and raised and have been a proud resident of Diamond Heights for 17 years.

I am here to strongly oppose the proposed 104-foot monopole at 350 Amber Drive.

Diamond Heights is more than where we live.

It's a peaceful, close-knit community surrounded by nature.

A 10-story industrial tower would permanently scar our landscape.

Block beautiful views, hurt property values, and a neighborhood where many of us have invested our lives.

But beyond that, it's a safety issue.

This site sits in a grassy, wind-prone canyon in a high wildlife risk zone.

Adding a diesel tank and an electrified structure here is dangerous and unnecessary.

We support better service, but not at the cost and safety of safety and neighborhood character.

There are smarter and safer alternatives, like co-locating on an existing structure.

Please protect what de protect what makes Diamond Heights so special and reject this proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for letting me speak on behalf of my family and my neighbors.

I'm a longtime San Francisco resident, an immigrant, and I recently moved to Diamond Heights just a few months ago.

We choose it for the use for proximity to nature, for being close to Glen Canyon Park, Christopher's playground for our daughter to play in turn.

And quite frankly, we would not have bought this house if it's faced the monopole that's proposed by ATT.

And this is why I'm here to urge you to vote against it.

Diamond Heights is quite a special neighborhood, sitting on top of the canyon and built out by world-recognized architects.

All of San Francisco Eichler homes, about a hundred of them, are in Diamond Heights.

Building this will permanently destroy the character and uniqueness of the neighborhood.

And we should not allow that.

I am myself ATT customer.

I choose it because they have actually the best coverage in Diamond Heights.

This is not a joke.

I did my research.

Um the coverage is absolutely fine, but the point I'm making is that I would never ask for the better coverage at the expense of families living in Diamond Heights or any other community in the city.

I'm urging you to vote against it and reject the proposal by ATT.

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Holly Newmark.

I'm a 26-year resident of Diamond Heights.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today, and I'm here to ask you to strongly oppose ATT's proposal to build a monopole in our neighborhood.

I apologize for some repetition, but please consider first and foremost is the destruction of the scenic views we currently enjoy.

I, like many of my neighbors, chose this location for its character, its natural beauty, and views that would permanently be marred by this looming structure.

If that tower goes up, this would be my view.

Seriously.

Diamond Heights was designed to preserve views and a zone for buildings up to four stories.

I understand that given this proposed location, that wouldn't necessarily be true.

But the proposed structure would be 10 stories high, where everything else is four stories or less.

Equally concerning is the proposed tower will have a direct and negative effect on property values.

Numerous studies and real estate experts confirmed that visible cell towers can reduce home values by 20%.

For those of us who have invested our life savings into our homes, this is a major financial and personal concern.

We stand to lose equity through no fault of our own, and especially for us seniors, we simply don't have the time to recoup this loss.

Imagine that you were able to buy your home, albeit a small one-bedroom condo with basically one window, and for 26 years you've had a view that looks out in the sky and greenery.

And all of a sudden, this simply put, ugly structure is proposed to be to be built right in your view, directly in your my view.

What if this was your home?

What if this happened to your mother, your brother, your grandparent?

What if this was negatively affecting your nest day, your home, your view, your financial future, and your safety?

I realize my remarks might seem self-serving talking about my view and my finances, my situation.

But please know there are approximately 3,000 residents in Diamond Heights, many of whom would be negative negatively affected by the monopole.

I speak on their behalf and um uh on behalf of many neighbors who couldn't come be here today.

ATT says that this monstrosity would not adversely affect the use of George Christopher Playground in Glen Canyon.

I'm there nearly every day, and that is simply simply simply not true.

Would totally affect the whole environment.

Lastly, I urge the community I urge the community to consider the impact it would have on our community.

Certainly there are alternative locations and technologies that can be.

Please vote no on this proposal.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Hello, commissioners.

My name is Jay, a longtime resident of Diamond Heights, San Francisco.

And I'm adamantly opposed to ATT's installation of a 104-foot monopole at the site of one of the most significant parks in San Francisco.

I think that Joshua and Cohen effectively describe the negative impacts this monopole will have on our beautiful neighborhood and park.

Ms.

Cohen is a certified arborist, a co-founder of the San Francisco Tree Council, and a former member of the Urban Forest Council, which continues to guide our mayor, supervisors, and other agencies in promoting a balanced and healthy urban forest.

She states San Francisco has one of the worst tree canopies in the country with only 13% overstory.

Glen Canyon holds a unique place in our city supporting important wildlife and flora.

The park should not be developed for a cell tower or any other human-centric intrusion.

Our natural areas in the city provide much needed relief from the ever-present concrete, roads, noise, towers, electric poles, street lights, and high-rise buildings.

Glen Canyon Park holds an ecological, geological, and archaeological place as a haven from the built environment and a place that feels of deep nature for the health of humans.

Science studies show nature generates positive emotions, including calm, joy, and creativity.

Cill towers do not have a place in our parks, and it sets a dangerous precedent for our open spaces, which are dedicated to the nature, and provide a much-needed natural ambience for us humans.

Destruction of the earth to dig this hole is deadly to the roots of the trees.

I agree with Ms.

Cohen and I urge you to reject fully ATT's application.

Thank you.

Hi there.

Yeah, I think first I wanted to thank you for your time.

This is quite the afternoon for you all, so really appreciate it.

Appreciate the patience.

I'll be echoing many of the things you've already heard, but appreciate you taking all that in.

We bought our first home after working quite a while to get to a place to be able to do that in San Francisco.

We love San Francisco and wanted to live in a neighborhood that had access to that natural space that felt really calm and peaceful and beautiful while still having the advantages of everything that the city has to offer.

So we're worried about the impact to home value that the construction of the monopole would have.

We definitely do not want it to be put up and are really saddened thinking about the impact, the visual impact that would have to the natural beauty of Glen Park and to the, you know, the aesthetic architectural charm of the neighborhood.

It's my understanding the pole will be painted brown, but it's obviously going to be towering above the tree line, and I think is clearly gonna you know be a visual blight.

Um I'm also worried about safety and the other things that my neighbors have raised.

Um, so really would just encourage you to oppose this particular application, consider alternative sites, and thank you again for the time.

Hi there.

Um, my name is Kira Bronston.

I don't have prepared remarks, but I do live in Diamond Heights.

I have lived there for 25 years and raised my children there, and I feel very passionate about this.

As has mentioned, as others have mentioned in the past, we have put our life savings into our home.

Our home, you know, we're now getting to the point where we might retire soon, and definitely don't need our home to devalue by 20% because ATT wants to stick a big pole in the middle of our neighborhood.

But even more importantly than that is the safety concern that I have, as Todd mentioned before, the fire danger.

We are absolutely vigilant in our neighborhood because of the canyon and the wild grasses that grow there and the wind.

And you know, we have seen over the years.

Literally, my son is a little boy saw smoke in the canyon one year because somebody had dropped cigarette butt in there.

So it's very alarming, incredibly panicky as a resident to have any kind of fire danger, and the notion that there's going to be a tank that could potentially catch fire or anything that could spark fire in our canyon is terrifying.

Additionally, the fact that the land itself is unstable, which I can tell you just from my own.

I have a big retaining wall in the back of my house, and I can see the land sliding down beyond the retaining wall daily.

I mean, every time there's a big rainstorm, we lose a piece of our, you know, land behind our house.

And we are literally just maybe two blocks from.

I mean, we're literally a tiny little walk right through on Craig's Court from the uh police station.

So I know it's happening there.

I see it on the walk all the way up there, and anytime I go, which is daily, and it's it's dangerous.

It's I can imagine having a gigantic pole that on unstable land with that can cause fire danger among this beautiful community that we have, destroying our property values.

So I urge you to, you know, vote no on this.

Um I feel that there are many alternatives, and that a giant pole for ATT is not necessarily the best way for our neighborhood to handle uh phone coverage or low phone coverage, which may or may not be the case anyway.

Thank you for listening.

Hello, commissioners.

Thank you so much for your attention to this matter.

Uh my name is Nancy Hillen.

I've lived in San Francisco for 40 glorious years, and I am currently a homeowner at Diamond Heights Village, which is directly adjacent to the proposed site for the new tower.

Diamond Heights is a densely populated area with many apartments and condominiums as well as homes.

Our neighborhood was planned in the 1960s by the redevelopment agency using landfill to create a playground school, which is now the police academy, and a rec center, which is now a child care center.

Christopher Playground provides a much needed respite for those of us with no yard of our own, and especially for children living in the neighborhood.

Lynn Canyon Park, which starts at the edge of the playground behind the police academy, is a place for hikers and wildlife watchers to enjoy open space.

The proposed tower will overshadow these open spaces, towering over the trees and creating an enormous eyesore.

Such a tower should not be built in a densely populated high-use area where it will be experienced as an ominous overshadowing presence, casting a pall over the neighborhood.

I implore you to vote no on this proposed tower, and thank you very much for your consideration.

Hi folks, my name is Zia.

I'm going to keep it short.

Please vote no on this.

I've got three points.

The first one in the memorandum which you received, you'll see that it has 83 letters.

Amongst them, six are from real estate realtors, who have stated that this will decrease the property values.

I hope that you've seen that.

The second point, there are other technologies which can do the same thing, which this tower will do, which do not require such a massive structure, impeding views and all the other points, which I agree with that people have already shared.

And number three, the gentleman from ATT said that this is not even their first proposed location.

It's their second one.

The previous one was a church, and even they said no.

So yeah, if the house of God doesn't want it, I don't know who else would.

Thank you for your time, folks.

Hi.

My name is Diane Key Foffer, and I'm speaking on the final finding of the resolution before you.

It reads the project would contribute to the character and stability of the neighborhood and would contribute a beneficial development.

This project will not contribute to the character and stability of the neighborhood, nor is it a beneficial development.

Excuse me.

This project will result in what one resident called aesthetic degradation in one of the 57 out of the 83 letters you received mentioning aesthetics.

The residents expressed their concern using phrases like losing the neighborhood charm, harmony, and the balance of both residences and nature, which were specifically part of the initial design of Diamond Heights by mid-century modern architects like Eichler.

It would be an intrusion upon the prized visual open skyline and have a shocking impact on the character of the neighborhood.

Twine people made a point of commenting on the beautiful views of the park and canyon from every direction.

Residents who look out from their homes would have their views of the park and canyon ruined.

Safety concerns were cited in 44 letters.

Fire was mentioned 38 times.

Earthquake safety has been emphasized, and as we have learned, Diamond Heights playground and shopping center and police academy are on landfill.

This is a major liability for the city.

This does not foster stability.

Commercial and business sustainability is important.

The merchants in the shopping center rely on this neighborhood, but as six real estate experts commented, and 29 letters emphasized the property values will drop and homes will stay vacant longer.

Research documents that people do not want to live near cell towers, and this one is only 350 feet from some residences.

Moreover, it is 20 feet from the park and playground that the neighborhood was built around and that makes it attractive to families.

The sky above the park will host an industrial electrical structure measuring the size of a studio apartment, not the trees and sky.

Adding to decrease in value, increase in insurance costs will increase rents, making the neighborhood less affordable.

Zoning limits the height to four stories.

This will be 10 stories, five times the height of the police academy.

It belongs in an industrial area, not a residential neighborhood, directly to Jason, adjacent to a playground and park.

This visual disruption will be an environmental imposition on the community.

Carriers are charged with finding the leadership.

That is your time.

Okay.

I'm just saying this.

This is not the only available viable option.

Thank you very much.

Steve Zeltzer United Front Committee for a Labor Party.

I think we have to look at why this thing is happening.

Why is San Francisco becoming a blighted city?

Why are we destroying the beautiful sites that we have in San Francisco with industrial buildings?

Why is ATT getting away with this?

Well, it happens to be because San Francisco, billionaires, and those who represent them, Scott Wiener and the mayor, Lurie, want to develop this project.

That's why they've limited CECOA.

So the residents of San Francisco have to understand this is a coordinated political campaign by the corrupt billionaires to take away our rights in San Francisco and to build projects like this.

The Planning Commission says we have to do this because we are required, it's not required that they go under CEQA.

CEQA has been under attack by these same developers.

They're not protecting the people and the communities in San Francisco.

That's what is really behind this.

So we have to remember that as this these projects are being pushed forward in every area of San Francisco.

And we have to organize a campaign against it, and we need a political party in San Francisco that represents the working people, not the billionaires who are driving the gentrification and the destruction of the working class in San Francisco.

I'm an environmentalist commissioners.

Some 25 years ago, and we had issues like this, we fought to have an expert on the planning department.

Do y'all have an expert, a real expert, full-time expert, to address the electromagnetic field, to address the issues that the citizens have brought before you?

Why are you stressing us that y'all are not fundamentally doing your job?

Now I have sat down there and listened to three or four agenda items.

You'll create problems for people to come here to waste their time kicking the can down the street.

Glen Park is a beautiful place.

And I have seen it for the last 50 years.

Every aspect.

And let me tell you, as representing the Moach Bologna tribe, each and every inch of this land was stolen.

And we have some privileged people, they call themselves privileged people.

You know, we can do whatever you want to.

You can do nothing.

And we can see this, what's happening to our nation?

Soon you can see how we are losing our freedom.

Commissioners, this is San Francisco, named after St.

Francis.

Do the right thing.

Use your brains.

Don't let these people come in the door offering a lot of money and fall fall in the trap.

We have to have standards.

We have to have morals.

We have to have ethics.

We have to do it right.

Thank you very much.

I wasn't here to speak on this item, but when I saw it, I felt compelled to throw my little two cents in.

Thank you, Francisco, because I want to underscore his remarks.

But in addition to that, as my name is Shirlita Holmes Box, and I am I've been I'm a native of San Francisco, been here all my life since 1957, born here.

I had a crush on Chapito, who was one of Santana's keyboard players.

And if you know the history, I mean Tabali, Tabales.

And sorry, Tabalis.

And he lived right up there in Diamond Heights.

That space where he lived, you know, was just always iconic.

But then I ended up having two nieces that moved up there because they have people that look like me up there.

And there's a they're renters.

So their voice was not heard today, but I'm here to tell you that they are up there, and they support not having that eyesore.

And it's possibly a dangerous zone, just like they throw up in Hunness Point.

And you won't know till later on the health impacts.

So I want to say no to ATT for that eyesore.

But then I want to leave you with this.

You know, we need to stop destroying the beautiful land.

We the San Francisco Police Department, and I worked with the mayor's office of gang prevention.

We used to take young people from Baby Hunners Point.

And one of them was a kid.

This young man right here was a kid.

He was one of the ones.

And we used to take him to the wilderness program, right there to the canyon, to the parks, everything, so that they could get away from the toxicity over there in Baby Hunter's point.

And brief, and now you want to take that away.

So I urge the commission to do the right thing and to say no on ATT.

Go somewhere else.

Thank you.

Hello, Commissioners.

My name is Bart Fisher.

I'm a 25-year resident in Diamond Heights.

I just wanted to say, um, appreciate the time.

Uh commissions are for community to to give to be able to give their input.

And I'd just like you to consider today, uh, people have waited around four and a half hours to talk to you today from the community, taking time off work, taking their valuable time to come here and give you their input, and I really hope that you listen to the community, because if you think about it, all the public comment has been against this proposal.

You haven't heard one member of the community that came here today to say, I want better self-service.

Uh, the cell service up there works.

It's not the greatest, but it does work.

And I really hope that we'd listen to our community, uh, the people that live there telling you very strongly they don't want this, and I really hope that you take that into consideration and vote no against this proposal today.

Thank you.

I am a long-term resident.

I wasn't gonna speak because I'm terrified of speaking in public, but here I am.

I don't know, commissioners commissioners, if ever any of you have been in Glen Park.

I know that I take one step in and I'm transformed.

It's wild.

There's a stone's throw from the proposed area is uh a tree where now owls nest every year.

There are hawks.

There are, I mean, it's wild, and um this tower's gonna blow it.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you so much.

Last call for public comment.

Need to come forward.

Seeing none, public comment is closed, and this matter is now before you, commissioners.

So I lived in Glen Park for seven years.

Randall and Whitney there, so I I know the neighborhood well.

Hiked it all.

I'm torn.

The it's beautiful up there.

Uh a hundred years ago, people used to go up there to hunt lots of very tiny.

The houses, their back gardens are like little slivers.

You won't get a car in there, you might get a bike in there, but it's just it's quaint, it's beautiful.

Uh, but it's also very we do live in a an earthquake city.

We live in a disastrous city, and we do need communication, and we need communication instantly when things go wrong.

And as it was said here today, we are overdue for something going wrong, and when it does, we need communication to get everybody safe.

Uh I'm torn.

I want to hear my fellow commissioners.

Uh I did hear that last person who summed it up saying that basically uh uh not one person has come up here uh basically for uh for a tower or a pole in the middle of their park, and it's not a park, it's it's a canyon.

It's it's um I wanted to hear about alternatives, possible alternatives.

Uh, but I do really understand that basically we we do need a communication system that works when it needs to work, because if one person not getting out for today's comments, uh it it would it just break everybody's heart here.

So I'm eager to listen to my fellow community commissioners.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Williams.

All the residents for coming out.

Uh it's uh it's sometimes it's a long time to uh to sit down and and um wait for your turn to speak.

Uh but I heard you just to let you know.

Uh I uh happened to be up there um at St.

Christopher Park or Christopher Park yesterday in the AM.

And um I've been I've been through the canyon many times myself walking the dog um with Jackie.

Um it's it's a beautiful park.

Um the one one thing that troubles me uh about this location is the proximity to a children's playground.

Um, and yesterday I saw at least 50 children in that new park.

Um that that was alarming to me.

Um, and so um I'm I'm not in favor of this location for this uh tower.

Um I think it would like I'd like to see um if there's any other um alternative locations, but where it's at in terms of proximity to the park, the trail, the um the children's playground, which were there was nothing but very small children.

There were like preschool children there, there's a school there.

There's a uh like a daycare school there, and and so I've noticed uh that there's children there all the time.

Um so um that's that's about all I have to say about it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um I wanted to share some of my personal experience here as a mother of um uh child that I born as she was born and raised here, and we always frequent Glen Park and we loved the park and how the racket center has become so nice now that she always practice there, and uh while she does that, and I usually tend to take a hike up in the canyons, and it's a really great place, and a lot of history, and everybody is so friendly then, and there's like little neighborhood book sharing little kiosks, and then we always kind of take some usage of that, especially during COVID, that felt like something that we connected there.

Um, I just like Commissioner McGarry, and I really think that this is a very special place, and we felt that a lot of my friends live in your neighborhood and welcome us to be there, and then it's really a germ, you know, it's really a gem.

Sorry for my accent today.

I have an allergies.

So this is I can feel that a lot of you take your entire day to be here today and share your opinion, very understanding your concerns it, and also we've been also receiving a lot of other emails that are supportive of that too, in addition to opposing it, and also for the reason that some of them specifically say that they aren't able to make themselves available to be here, and I want to honor those comments too that we have received.

However, though, like recent years, my experience with my child had become she's getting older now.

She has trying to be more independent, so I also let her to be a little more independent, and so she can practice in the wreck and park herself, and I was just gonna see if when I can pick her out.

This is during the time where it's getting dark.

I see so many of you know what I've been talking about.

I realize that it's not Christmas time, but all the doggies had that little glowing ring on their head, on their neck, because there are coyotes in there.

So I as a mom myself, and I was like, where is my child, you know?

Because she loves pets, you know.

I don't think she really can figure out which one is coyote, which one is the big dog, right?

So that kind of a moment of worry really kind of brings me understanding like what what can we do better?

How can we do a better job in maintaining a better flow of communication, but then also understanding communities' concern about these what we what we what we have to do to bring our city and bring some safety back into areas that um is identified that is needed with our police enforcement.

So I I felt that my um my heart really felt for the community for the neighbors that actually show up and with an organized opposition to this.

Um I felt for your concern, and I also want to share with you just like someone like me as a mother actually have a child and all her classmates' friends are also frequently using the neighborhood's um Glen Park as practicing volleyball and basketball.

We do have some and playing in the playground, we do have concern that we couldn't get hold of them at all.

And it's not an area where you can see it all because it's so nice, it's very um hilly and it's really beautiful, and it's the safety is a really big issue.

Um, we're not talking about safety with other safety concern that we would consider like it's if if we're in the mission, but this is a just normal safety, right?

Like if my child and encounter a coyote, I did not know it's a coyote.

Um, and so I just want to share that with you.

I felt for you and also wanted to make sure that parents like me and with kids that are like my child or even younger, feel there's a sense of assurance that uh it is a safe place for my for my kids to be there and continue to enjoy there.

Um so, so with that regard though, um, I do want to share information that I think most of us know of, but if not, it's um it might be good to put it on the record that um we do our commission has a certain level of limited jurisdictions because this um telecommunication tower is heavily regulated by the federal commun communication commissions, um so it has preempt some authority over our local jurisdictions, like our department, over in in specifically in regulating wireless sites.

Um there is a lot more uh you can read more about that online.

I just want to lay that out there.

Uh one last thing I might wanted to comment is that um perhaps if the visual aesthetic is a really big concern.

I can hear it right now, and I see some of the exhibits that um I've seen that ATT had done amazing job in other locations that we seen in the previous applications.

Um I wonder if someone from the ATT can uh come up and speak for it too.

I'm gonna bring up the whole team just in case because I can't answer the question, but go ahead.

Okay.

Um I'm just curious or wondering um some other previous application that you have has uh some really intricate tree-looking um tower versus the one that you have.

The monopole, sure.

So um I I think Eric can speak a little bit about this, but I'll just try.

Um we we did propose a tree initially, um, we were sort of guided against that just because it would add more bulk, and as part of the shadow study, we were really trying to streamline it.

Um, this this poll is in between trees, so we thought maybe it's better just to do the poll, but we're open to whatever the commission wants to recommend.

Okay.

Yeah, I'll just add you you may be referring to so Palace of Fine Arts was something we brought to the Planning Commission.

It's been a few months, right?

That was a 90 foot tall eucalyptus tree.

And that was Reckham Park asked us to do a eucalyptus tree in that in that case.

It given the this this was like a it was a line of eucalyptus trees, and then a pole.

So eucalyptus tree in that point, in that respect, it sort of continued this sort of like row of trees.

This location, um, I'll just say two things.

One, Cami mentioned the the shadow study.

So we have we have a slimmer pole, it's painted brown, similar to if you go to the presidio, they're hard to see.

You're there there's brown poles in the presidio.

The pole itself blends into the you could see it from some angles, but other angles it's a lot slimmer.

Um the other issue is when you start doing a tree, then you sort of have to add fake branches and leaves.

So if we're at a hundred and four feet, you need to think adding an extra 10.

At least at least 10 feet to that for a a canopy to make it actually look like a real tree and not like a flat top.

So, and this this site, I mean, we're ATT's here to build a network out and to provide service to its customers and for FirstNet.

If the planning commission wanted a tree, we would do a tree, it's just there's other factors at play here, and the shadow study was probably the maybe the the bigger one, but also because the height too, more shadow, more bulk.

Okay, hope that makes sense.

Thank you so much for your response.

Thank you.

I I don't think we can do that.

It's our line of our sequence of conducting, I have expertise.

I I ask the sponsor, but I appreciate though.

And um that I I'm done with my comments, and I think I'd like to hear some of my commissioners have further comments.

Commissioner and Vice President Moore.

I like uh I like to remind us that uh the approval for the ATT installation falls under a conditional use authorization.

Conditional use authorization, which requires a high bar that something is necessary and desirable.

Uh I have personally not heard any large number of residents speaking about uh impaired service or non-existing service in the neighborhood.

In addition to that, we have other wireless uh companies, i.e.

Verizon, etc., competing for the same market.

We all know that.

So if I would live there, which I don't, and I have an ATT which doesn't work, I may switch to Verizon because my neighborhood is more important to me.

That said, necessary and desirable uh allows the commission to use the visualization of this project to determine as to whether or not it's impacting to the neighbors.

And 83 letters seem to be saying that for various reasons, other than just simply the aesthetics, this particular facility in its current configuration has issues.

Those issues which are of concern to me is definitely the idea of the geology of the site, that being significant fill, that is a safety issue, that is an issue that looks way beyond just the functionality of a cell tower.

Further to that, uh I I heard that since the uh backup for the tower has to be a diesel fuel tank, that potentially adds a fire hazard, that together with the uh foundation for a tower like that being in question, the power source for the uh pole is apparently not even established.

So that leaves a lot of technical questions, simple technical questions unanswered.

And I'm going over this in a very practical manner, aside from fully understanding the concerns and the fear you have of how it affects you.

In any natural environment, uh one of these towers that we now have deemed to be necessary or desirable uh is a for for me personally a visual intrusion.

Driving up to Tahoe, I see a couple of these fake, they're either palm trees or they're trying to be pine trees.

You see them from afar, and whatever you see, they all look a little alien.

Uh and that's what they are and what they will probably remain in the future.

Uh since we are in a neighborhood uh of uh uh four-story buildings, I believe that the sheer presence of a hundred and four foot tall uh four hundred and four foot tall pole is highly questionable for me.

Uh I just cannot imagine for that to being comfortable for anybody.

And in the past, uh and I've done um I've looked at quite a few uh ATT applications, uh, we have come to negotiated and acceptable solutions that ATT was looking at alternative sites.

And in a number of cases, the commission denied something with a specific instruction that they cannot categorically vote against having additional facilities.

However, alternative locations and the examination of those is essential to supporting uh communication and expansion of communication in all and every form.

In uh I've speaking for myself in its current form and giving the numerous shortcomings uh of the of this proposed facility, I will not support it.

Uh I am asking ATT to come back and please show us alternatives, alternative locations in order to achieve safety, communication that is sufficient in case of emergencies.

However, it needs to be in a different form and in a different location.

Thank you.

Commissioner Braun.

I have a couple of questions for the project sponsor about the locations that were explored along the way.

Then before concluding landing on this one.

So my first question, well, first of all, is there a map that you're able to pull up from the presentation on the computer?

If the computer can pull up.

There we go.

Okay.

There you go.

Can you see the dots?

I know my text from my voice is kind of covering the one on the left, but you can see the primary search objective is the area around the the shopping center.

Um where you see a cloud kind of a cluster of spots in the church across the canyon because it has it had a tower would have been viable.

I should mention talking about preference location.

This is a number one preferred location in the city's code.

So we the first thing we do when we search for sites is we're all the preference ones.

So we go out and we go, where are all the churches in the neighborhood?

Because there's a lot of churches in San Francisco that have that have sites.

We had a you know, St.

St.

Nicholas, for example, was right next to the police academy.

They were they were interested.

There it's there's the various reasons why things fall off.

Usually it's come it's terms, leasing terms.

It's also a very short roof, so it wouldn't really help ATT very much to go on that roof.

It doesn't really do and also Vikram Singh is actually from ATT is here.

He's the he's a design design engineer for ATT.

So he can answer the very detailed questions about heights and where we need to go.

But these are locations in this area that uh were the most viable just from a uh a code and sort of like a logical standpoint, because in San Francisco you can do wireless on single family zoning, you know, apartment buildings that have that it's on single family zoning, as long as it which could be a preference seven.

I've done sites with this commission on preference seven sites.

We just have to demonstrate what preferences one through six are not viable and explain that.

So there's a yellow one off to the side to the right, which is uh right across the street from the safe way, that shopping center.

That's a co-location.

T-Mobile's there.

T Mobile has a micro site for ATT that co-locate on that rooftop, that's an over-the-counter permit as a co-location.

I don't have to come, we don't ATT doesn't have to come to the planning commission to build a macro site on top of that facility because it's a co-location.

This is actually a great point.

I'll interrupt you just for a second there to say that that was one of my questions too.

I'm I am curious to hear about the co-location sites that you explain.

Yeah, so so that's the only co-location in this area with the exception of there's uh those small cell sites, which are not really co-locatable in this, and they're actually ATT polls.

So that site right there, also with T-Mobile is slightly downhill.

There's if we were looking at a topography map of this era, we all know behind Safeway, it goes up the hill.

This it's pretty steep.

There's there's no line of sight from that apartment complex and into Clint um to the into the canyon or the rest of the neighborhoods there, really kind of after the police academy to the west, it drops down.

So the other ones, there's a you see a church on the bottom right.

That one's for the same reason.

It's uh it's lower in topography, it's kind of starts to go down the hill on the other side to the to the east.

The shopping center, which is the where Safeway is, and there's some other buildings there too.

Uh the leasing folks had reached out to them.

Um, it's two things.

First, most importantly, they they were not interested in doing a rooftop.

It's pretty it could be pretty invasive doing rooftop sites on buildings.

So they they declined to work with ATT in that aspect, but they um they that's that would be a preference for location.

The uh so similar to some of the other churches, the roofs, it's also a little bit lower, so it the coverage would have been a little bit um harder to get, you know, into into the canyon.

But just for the same reasons I mentioned before, it's that's a preference for location.

The police academy is a preference one location, so uh we're we gear towards the preference one locations just because that's what the city has um directed the carriers to do.

So um, but yeah.

Um my other thank you for that explanation of of what was explored.

Uh my other question is about the backup diesel generator.

Um I just to verify for my myself.

That's just backup power, is that right?

It only runs if there's a blackout?

It's backup power, correct.

Okay.

Okay.

That's that's helpful to hear.

Um, I think those are all my questions, thank you.

Yeah.

Uh so uh you know, this is an area that I know I'm not like I live in this exact area, but I I I'm in it probably at least once or twice a week.

Um the entrance to Glen Park Canyon via the George Christopher playground is my primary entrance to Glen Park Canyon on foot.

Um, and so, you know, it's a place that I've given a lot of thought to as well.

And um I think that the one of the issues that uh really is kind of sticking with me is about a lot of the visual impacts of this tower.

Now I would say the the that's been explored about um whether or not it can be concealed with one of those fake trees.

And I'm generally not in favor of that approach, um, just because again, as it's sort of noted, um, it looks pretty fake, and also if the concerns are about wind and stability, um it just worsens that.

And then also our shadow findings would be even worse.

And so, you know, I d I don't find the the artificial tree approach appropriate in this location.

Um so I sort of understand that um as far as uh you know the the color of the tower, the brown color, I think that does help to conceal it a little bit.

Um at least it stands out less than a gray tower.

Um I would say I'm still actually a little on the fence about this one.

And so I am I'm still giving it more thought.

I have a few more minutes left at this point.

But you know, I uh the on the plus side I see to this with the location of the tower, it is as listed, you know, one of the highest priority sites that we give um that we kind of push people towards uh in terms of uh public institutional location.

Its location is um such that you know most views into Christopher Playground and into that park where the T ball field is.

Um, you know, when you're looking into that space, the tower is not as looming over that space.

The shadow impact in the analysis is pretty modest.

Um and then looking into Glen Park Canyon, this tower sits at the rim of that, not you know, like directly into the view lines into the Glen Park Canyon.

Um at the same time, I I am uh sympathetic to the to the many issues and concerns that were raised um by the community.

Um and so I'm I'm still thinking this over and still want to hear from the commissioners who have not weighed in yet.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Brown.

I do want to also share with everyone that we have received the um our um sheriff Paul Miyamoto's in a letter sent to our commission to express his strong support for this um uh for public safety citing that his department relies heavily on the first net is a dedicated network for the first responders and public safety agency across California and the nation.

So currently there are significant coverage gap affecting the Diamond Heights, Glen Canyon, Upper Nowy and Upper Market neighborhoods.

So the establish the establish the establishment of this site will address that gap.

Um I just want to share it to everybody that we what we have received.

And uh Commissioner Imperial.

Thank you, President.

So um I have not received that letter from the police um from the police academy.

Um perhaps if you could forward it to us.

Um but I've not received it yet.

Um so I'm also um, you know, just like uh I think with other commissioners here, you know, um, but I I'm in defense as to like, you know, there um as we were just talking about data earlier, and then you know, you know in a way, what's also the needs for this.

Looking at the page 93 of the document in our packet here, you know, one one thing that strikes to me here is the ATT forecast forecast customers' growing demand for mobile data services to continue.

Um, and it looks like there's going to be a 38% increase.

Um, there's already a 38% increase from 2021 and expected to increase more by 2028.

Um and that FCC has partnered with ATT in terms of um FNET or in terms of the disastral um, you know, disaster emergency.

So we're we're left on that.

Um, and again, this is from the A T and T um, you know, A T and G rate of frequency statement.

But I'm also um weighing on uh I cannot under you know underestimate the the voices of the neighbors as well, that very much as of today, no one really spoke um in favor of it.

Um and I have not read also any kind of um um proponents for this as well.

And so there is that, I mean the reason you know so there is that kind of like the heaviness that um the the magnitude of okay what is being, you know, whether this is desirable in these neighborhood, and then we have pretty much a hundred percent of the neighborhood coming saying no, and also at the same time looking into what ATT needs.

It seems like to me that this is more in the um the growing needs of ATT services, um, and perhaps and that's also with FNET.

The the one thing that perhaps I can you know weigh on this is perhaps really consider a co-location for me as a commissioner I would you know weigh in on the on the neighborhood's needs and also what our city needs is in terms of disaster air um disaster um events um and um you know so that's something that I would always weigh on and um in terms of the you know I appreciate Commissioner Braun asking about alternative locations and you mentioned about the co-location with T-Mobile that is pretty much on the lower um on the lower slope.

Can you expand on that?

Um in terms of like considering that and or you know yeah, this is the one I don't know if you can bring the map up again, but this is the the yellow over there.

It's uh it's an apartment complex.

I think it's three stories tall.

Um team all has one antenna on a on the facade of the of the building.

So it's technically well on one of the buildings, there's multiple buildings, but it's technically a co-location.

But the location of that building in respect to where the top of Glenn Park is.

There's a there's a pretty dramatic slope from the shopping center and where we're and where the apartment complex is up the hill to where there's there'll be essentially no line of sight.

So the rooftop is so if it's like a three-story building, you know, the with the code, and you know, typically we can go with 6409 10 feet above the roof deck.

There's other elements on this rooftop as well that would prevent us from putting equipment on the roof.

It's it's a flat roof and it has a bunch of different little articulations, too.

And there's some trees right in front of it.

So with 6409, we're limited to 10 feet above the rooftop.

We couldn't go 30 feet on the roof to clear trees or the clear the hillside.

So we're really limited with 6409.

Um it would be an over-counter permit.

We wouldn't be here today if I was going there, and this would have been done done 10 years ago, which is when I started looking at the site.

So we've exhausted all these candidates and uh thankfully, police academy came around and they were amenable to doing a location on their site, which is a preference one, which is better than the the co-location.

Okay, thank you so much.

Thank you again for reiterating your um response earlier.

Um, again, I in terms of the I I think I would uh you know um share the sentiment with Vice President Moore in terms of looking into alternative locations.

Again, for me, this is a high bar where 100% of communities ask is supposed to no to this.

Um well um except I guess it looks like there is a um a letter from the the police academy.

Actually um I would like to put on the record, I don't think it's a hundred percent, but I think 100% attending today is we have received um I have not received any emails.

We have received um a lot of support letters throughout this month, but maybe it's kind of like John Daisy planning staff.

I just want to clarify we have received 13 emails and letters in support uh that were sent to me and sent to the commission secretary.

Okay, I I I apologize.

Yeah, I apologize.

I want to be factually correct as well that there are proponents on DIS, and and today we have um 83 letters seems like it, that is opposed to this.

Um, so yeah, so uh I'm more um uh um leaning toward continuance if anything around this, um and yeah, and that's my where I where I am in right now.

Thank you.

Um Commissioner Campbell.

My assumption going into this was that coverage is desperately needed in this area.

Um with that in mind, knowing that we have this grow growing reliance on having cell phone coverage, and like to Commissioner McGarry's point in the case of emergencies, um, that we need to fix that.

Um so it I think for me it would but then we're hearing public comment that's saying, oh no, that's no problem, we're we're good to go.

So I'm a can we just get that map back up and talk quickly about how the coverage for ATT compares in this zone that we're trying to fix compared to say other areas of the city.

Thank you, because I know you presented this already, but is this the map you wanted up?

Yes, please.

Okay, yeah, this is the existing coverage map.

Okay that was in just to let you know, Vikram Singh, he's been here, he's the ATT's design engineer.

He would know way more about how to explain a map like this if you have like a really detailed question.

But this map generally will show you that there's there's a very significant gap in the coverage here, and it's been like it's been this way for quite a long time.

Actually, the gap kind of extended to go north towards Market Street as well, but we can't get every every neighborhood with one cell site in San Francisco.

So the gaps are areas that are not shaded in blue.

Correct.

So the way the map reads, so so green.

So the little dot to the right, that's a small cell site.

It's on a on a pole, like in front of your house, you'd see a pole.

Um the green would be the very reliable, like the best.

Yellow, you think it had you would it would have really good indoor outdoor coverage.

Where it gets to the purple, you can kind of it's hard to see on the screen, and maybe you have screens in front of you, but on the left hand side, there's a little bit of yellow.

That's coming from the Portola site.

So you get a little bit of coverage over there from that site.

Um, but you can see where it's very spotty as the hills you see you could really see those the um the spottiness in the in the purple or blue or whatever you want to call it.

That's that is uh reliable, reliable outdoor coverage, but not reliable indoor coverage, and anything that doesn't have either a green, a yellow or a blue or a purple is very limited.

So that's why you could we can make out the outline of Glenn Park here pretty pretty easily.

Then Mariloma is a neighborhood across, you can kind of see a little bit of coverage there.

Thank you.

So it seems to me like it's desperately needed in this area.

Yeah, just to mention too, because I it came up before, and since we're on the map, where the green dot is the apartment complex we'd been talking before, is just out just next to that existing green.

So it's very close to that site.

You can see how that site on the poll doesn't cover, even though it's close by, it doesn't cover the area that we're trying to cover.

Or if I was hiking in the canyon there and I had 182, which I do, I I would have a hard time making a call.

Well, I mean that's my experience too.

If you're coming down O'Shaughnessy, if you're in Safeway, I've I do a lot of sites in San Francisco, and sometimes I have to jump on a teen's call, and I do it for my car.

My car has ATT service as well.

So I try to find a parking lot to pull into, and I've been stuck in this area before.

I go, I need to leave Diamond Heights and find a location on Portola to be able to do my team's call.

I mean, I've done that quite a bit in the city.

You tend to know where the where the gaps are.

Thank you.

Excuse me, folks.

Okay, you're you're all out of order, all right.

This is just a question period between the commissioners and whoever they're posing the question to.

You've all had your opportunity to submit your public comment as well as your written submittals throughout the week.

Those are all my questions for you.

Um, Sylvia, I think I have my next question is for you.

Um could you expand a little bit on the federal laws that might be coming into play here in terms of what's before us?

Sure.