Okay, good afternoon and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, October 2nd, 2025.

When we reach the item you're 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.

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

Commissioner President So.

Present.

Commission Vice President Moore.

Commissioner Braun.

Here.

Commissioner Campbell.

Here.

Commissioner Imperial.

Commissioner McGarry and Commissioner Williams.

Here.

Thank you, Commissioners.

First, on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance.

Item one, case number 2025, hyphen 006246 PCA definitions, family dwelling unit, planning code amendments is proposed for continuance to November 6th, 2025.

We have no other items proposed for continuance.

So members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their continuance calendar only on the matter of continuance.

You need to come forward.

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

Commissioner Imperial.

Move to continue item one as proposed.

Second.

Thank you, Commissioners.

On that motion to continue items.

Item one as proposed.

Commissioner Campbell.

Aye.

Commissioner McGarry.

Commissioner Williams.

Aye.

Commissioner Braun.

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial.

Aye.

Commissioner Moore.

Aye.

And Commissioner President So.

Present.

I mean, sorry, I.

So move Commissioners that motion passes unanimously seven to zero, placing us on 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, 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 two, case number 2025, hyphen 004896, CUA 2031, Irving Street Conditional Use Authorization.

Item 3, case number 2025, hyphen 005967, CU8 1475 25th Street, conditional use authorization.

Item 4, case number 2025, hyphen 005662, CU8 2999, California Street, unit number 302, conditional use authorization.

Members of the public, this is your opportunity to request that any of these consent calendar items be pulled off of consent and heard under the regular calendar today or a future hearing.

You need to come forward.

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

Commissioner Imperio.

Move to approve all items.

Number two, three, four, and five.

Second.

Thank you, Commissioners.

On that motion to approve items 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, placing us under Commission matters for item six, the land acknowledgement.

I'll be reading the land acknowledgement.

The Commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramatish 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 Ramatush Alone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the 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 Ramatish Alone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples.

Thank you.

Item seven, consideration of adoption draft minutes for September 18th, 2025.

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

Seeing none, public comment is closed, and your minutes are now before you.

Commissioner Brown.

Move to adopt the minutes.

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 eight, Commission comments and questions.

Commissioner Williams.

Thank you.

It's been brought to my attention from a member of the public that we um have an adopted the schedule for next year.

And I'm just wondering.

We have a couple more meetings in this month, and then we have November.

Do you think that's well it's just the beginning of October?

We generally schedule the adoption of your 2026 calendar and the first hearing or second hearing in December.

In December.

I mean we can schedule it any time the commission desires, but I mean I'm not sure if there's any rush to adopt the hearing schedule for next year until December.

But again, if your preference is to schedule it next week, we can put it on the agenda for next week.

Makes no difference to me.

Yeah.

Um that sounds right.

I'm I'm not exactly sure.

What the consequence is, but I I thought I'd bring it up.

All right.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Brown.

I would just like to make uh an appeal to folks who are writing.

Um I can only speak for myself who are writing to me as the planning commissioner, you know, shortly prior to the hearing, sending messages and emails.

Uh I understand that sometimes it's not possible to send those earlier, but I know that I and many other commissioners have jobs that we are working at in the morning.

We're all volunteers.

And so I I know that I do my best to uh read every message prior to the hearing, but it does become very challenging when they arrive right before the hearing.

It means that maybe the time I'm looking at them is a handful of minutes prior to the hearing or on the way here if I'm writing transit.

So uh I understand that sometimes it's just not possible to send communications until close to the hearing, but the earlier they can get in, uh the more likely uh my fellow commissioners and I would have time to review them closely.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um Commissioner Vice President Moore.

Uh I like to support uh Commissioners Brown's request.

Uh on the day of the hearing, it is very difficult, particularly those letters will not be part of the record uh that is given to us uh uh when it's submitted in the top proper time frame.

Uh we appreciate your considerations, but I would fully echo the difficulties that Commissioner Brown described.

If I may just clarify that statement, all submittals will be made part of the official record.

They're just not provided to you in a timely fashion for you to digest them.

That's all.

That is a great way of saying it.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Secretary.

Okay, Commissioners.

If there's nothing further, we can move on to department matters item nine, director's announcements.

Thanks, Jonathan.

Thanks, Jonas.

Oh, thank you.

Just two quick notes.

One, uh, Director Dennis Phillips is out today.

Um, so I'll be sitting in for her.

And then secondly, um, I just wanted to take a few minutes um to acknowledge uh, you may have heard, but former planning director Lou Blaget um passed away earlier this summer.

Um, and his memorial is this Sunday.

So I was just hoping to take a few minutes to honor him and ask that we close today's hearing uh in uh his uh memorium.

Um so Lou was planning director from 1992 to 1996 and worked for the department for nearly 20 years prior to that.

Over the course of his career, Lou worked on a huge range of projects, everything from helping to craft the downtown plan to doing development review for major office and residential projects to eventually leading the department's development review function or today's current planning division.

Under his leadership, the department adopted plans for upgrading civic center and mid-market, bolstering the economy in the Bayview, shaping the development in Burnal Heights, and improving conditions for pedestrians downtown.

He also led the department through the AIDS crisis in the early 90s.

We had nearly a dozen victims in our office.

Uh Lou had been a San Franciscan for more than 50 years, and even after his directorship, he still helped shape the city through private sector work, and he stayed active in SPUR and other civic organizations.

And a final thing I wanted to emphasize, and something that Lou considered was his greatest achievement of his career is that he led the department's successful push to permanently demolish the embarcadero freeway and open up the waterfront.

This was incredibly controversial and unpopular at the time, but it is an undeniably wonderful legacy that he leaves us.

At the end of the day, Lou is a consummate city planner who gave his career to the city, and he will definitely be missed.

So, anyhow, just wanted to share those remarks and um hopefully we can close today in his honor.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh item 10, review of past events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals, and the Historic Preservation Commission.

Good afternoon, Commissioners, and happy Filipino American History Month.

Veronica Flores filling in for Aaron Starr today.

The land use and transportation committee had a very packed agenda this week, so please bear with me.

First up, there was the ordinance sponsored by Supervisor Chan that would allow existing outdoor hand washing, vacuuming, and detailing stations for automobiles in the Geary Boulevard NCD to remain in operation.

Commissioners, you heard this item on September 18th and voted to approve the ordinance with one modification.

That modification was to allow any automotive service station citywide to have the outdoor hand washing, vacuuming, and detailing as an accessory use.

There was not any significant discussion or public comments before the committee unanimously voted to approve the ordinance with Supervisor Chan's amendment.

As the amendment is substantive, the item was continued for one week to next Monday.

Next up was the landmark designation of the Mint Mall and Hall located at 951 to 957 Mission Street.

The historic preservation commission heard this item on September 3rd and voted to approve the landmark designation.

At the hearing, the sponsoring supervisor, Supervisor Dorsey introduced the item and spoke on the cultural significance of the mall to the Filipino community as a gathering place and hub for neighborhood goods and services.

The planning department gave the presentation supporting the landmarking as it did uh as did a representative of SomCam who initiated the landmarking.

Members of the public spoke in support of the landmarking, emphasizing the hardships the residents and business owners of the building had faced in recent years to prevent displacement to the dot-com boom, and the importance of the that the building serves for new Filipino immigrants who need a supportive place to live and work.

Supervisor Melgar asked to be added as a co-sponsor before the committee voted unanimously to approve the landmarking as a committee report.

The next planning related item was the ordinance sponsored by Supervisor Makmoo that would amend both the building and planning codes to postpone the collection of development impact fees for designated residential development projects.

Commissioners, you heard this item on September 11th and voted to approve it.

At the committee hearing, Supervisor Mahmood gave some opening remarks, noting that this purpose was to align with state law as well as solving a problem that has been identified locally by better aligning with housing element policies on fee deferral and collection.

One member from the public spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance before the committee unanimously voted to move the item forward with a positive recommendation to the full board.

Lastly, the committee heard the planning code amendments, zoning map amendments, general plan amendments, and other city code amendments related to the mixed-use tower and fire station project at 530 Samsung Street.

Commissioners, you heard this item on July 17th and voted to approve the various amendments.

Supervisor Sauter introduced the item before a representative from OEWD gave an in-depth presentation on the project.

Representatives from the fire department also spoke to emphasize their support and need of the project.

Supervisor Chen spoke to emphasize the city's responsibility in ensuring projects like this one to uphold high standards that achieve the most benefits possible for the community.

She felt that the time spent on this project and the fact that affordable housing fee has been doubled, along with other commitments, makes this project an asset to the community rather than another example of waiving community benefit requirements for a project.

She noted one concern, which was the risk of displacing small businesses either through this project or other large projects in the future.

She urged OEWD to activate grants, technical assistance, and loan programs for small businesses at risk of displacement.

Supervisor Melgar raised questions on why the landmark was removed on the existing fire station.

Staff explained that this was the only legal route to be able to demolish the existing building.

Supervisor Melgar also inquired about the displacement of small businesses.

Also spoke in support.

After closing, the committee voted unanimously to move the items to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Moving on to the full board, there were two items of interest to the commission.

First, the ordinance waiving certain development impact fees in the Market Octavia area plan was up for its first read.

As a reminder, the board previously amended the ordinance to only include projects that are currently in the pipeline.

And again, this ordinance passed its first read.

And finally, the mint mall and hall landmark designation, which was also heard at committee last week, passed its first read at the full board.

That concludes the board report.

Thank you very much.

I don't see anyone here from the zoning administrators' office for the Board of Appeals.

So I'll assume there is no report.

However, the historic preservation commission did meet yesterday.

They only had one item to consider, and that was uh to consider to draft and adopt uh a letter to the um commission streamlining task force, which met yesterday as well to consider the housing and economic development bodies, specifically um this body and the historic preservation commission falls under the planning and land use bodies and their recommendation for the historic preservation commission was to eliminate or to combine it with the planning commission.

Um the Historic Preservation Commission uh adopted a letter uh with strong arguments to retain um it as a separate commission, which uh we were able to print in-house, and then I walked it down uh to distribute to the task force.

Um ultimately there was was a packed house.

Uh they had multiple commissions to discuss, but later in the afternoon and early evening, the task force did vote to retain the historic preservation commission as a separate body.

My understanding is uh that would they did so unanimously.

Um they also appreciated some of the recommendations in the letter and from the recommendations to the task force in their staff report.

However, those will be considered again at a later date.

If there are no questions, commissioners, 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 this the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting.

When the number of speakers exceed the 15-minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda.

Thanks.

Georgia Shootish, uh good afternoon, commissioners.

Uh, I sent you the second email about the Whitney project, and um it'd be a year since you granted the entitlement by the end of the month, and um, I in the my first email earlier this year in July, I guess I sent it.

I I didn't focus on the sales price.

Well, they're asking 2.5 million, but they project what could be earned uh if someone buys their entitlement and builds it.

And I uh I think those numbers are extraordinary because um it's an example of what can happen under the densification under the local program, and the inability to resolve uh the affordable housing crisis, and that's really what we have is an affordable housing crisis as everybody keeps saying, and it's also with this the sale of the entitlement, it's that there's a commodification of housing that's been going on for years, and and it's been talked about here at this commission.

Uh I talked about Vicksburg the earlier week, you know, and that the problem with that and what happened there.

Um, but Whitney wasn't uh was an alteration originally, and that's where they got into trouble.

And um, I guess I want to take the the maybe it's a liberty that I shouldn't take, but I'm gonna take it.

That what role did the demo calcs play in this alteration?

Did they think they could get away with something?

Obviously, they did, but they got caught.

What was their goal?

The commission would never ever have approved a demolition of these three units.

Never.

That never would have happened.

And they had to know that.

Were they trying to make a single family home with a small unit?

I don't know.

Um, but a lot of other projects are like this and have gotten away with this.

Um, so as I said, I think it's really concerning uh going forward, most particularly for the sound housing in the excuse me, in the priority equity geography neighborhoods, which are protected.

Supposedly still, and that's why I keep saying the demo calcs should be adjusted in order to protect this housing.

If that's the goal to protect the housing in those neighborhoods, then given everything that's happened with projects like Whitney and other projects, then the demo calcs at least need to be considered being adjusted uh as you go forward.

So that's all there's my 150 words for the minutes, 150 words for the minutes.

Thank you very much.

Have a good day.

Hi, uh Robert Laget, Lou Blanche.

This is my.

Hi, Robert Blager, Lou Blager's son.

I just wanted to take a moment to thank you for acknowledging my father today.

Um I'm joined today with um my my mother, uh Rosalie Blager, sister, uh Nova Blager, uh Lou's uh sister, Tanya, and her husband Herb, and just really appreciate the recognition.

And I just wanted to also take a moment to thank all public servants.

It's the work that you do that builds the city that we live in.

It builds the schools and playgrounds that we inhabit.

It protects our air and waterways, and it helps to protect our homes to the fire department and our safety through the police.

And it really is through the efforts of public servants everywhere that we have these things to enjoy.

So thank you for the work you do.

And thank you again.

I know my father would be really happy to be standing here today and pleased that you continue the work that he started.

Thank you.

Last call for general public comment.

Again, you need to come forward.

Seeing none general public comment is closed.

Uh commissioners that will place us under your regular calendar for item 11, case number 2025, 500 7350 PCA conversion of medical cannabis dispensary uses to cannabis retail uses.

Good afternoon, Veronica Flores.

Again, the item before you is the conversion of medical cannabis dispensary or MCD uses to cannabis retail uses sponsored by Supervisor Fielder.

The proposed ordinance would amend the planning code to establish a process for the conversion of certain MCD uses to cannabis retailer establishments.

This is really to address an isolated permitting issue affecting a single cannabis business.

This business was unable to complete the transition from an MCD use to a cannabis retailer before the expiration of Section 190, which expired last December 31st.

This legislation proposes reinstating Section 190 of the planning code in a highly limited and targeted form.

The intent of this reinstatement is not to reopen Section 190 broadly, but really to provide a nailer, a narrowly tailored relief for one specific applicant who has been a longstanding operator as an MCD and had made a timely effort to comply with the conversion process.

To be eligible, the applicant must demonstrate that one, they hold a permit from the Office of Cannabis to operate as a storefront cannabis retailer issued on or before January 1st of this year.

And two, they have submitted a complete application to the planning department to convert to a cannabis retailer on or before December 31st of last year.

The department supports this legislation as a narrowly tailored solution to allow a single long-standing MCD to complete its transition to a cannabis retailer.

The business has been in operation since 2019 and has actively participated in the city's regulated cannabis framework.

Without this legislative intervention, the business would be required to cease operations due to the expiration of Section 190 and the inability to meet the current locational and entitlement requirements.

For these reasons, the department recommends that you adopt a recommendation for approval.

This concludes the staff presentation.

I am also joined by Mr.

Raylaw from the Office of Cannabis, and we are both available for any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

With that, we should open up public comment.

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

Good afternoon, members of the city planning commission.

My name is Dustin Go.

I'm here today on behalf of STISI and our store located at 3326 Mission Street in support of item number 11 for the conversion of medical cannabis dispensary uses to cannabis retail use.

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

Without this ordinance, long-standing compliant businesses like ours face unnecessary risk of closure, even though we hold valid permits and have invested heavily in creating safe, regulated, and transparent operation.

Beyond compliance, we invest in the city of San Francisco by providing local union jobs, sponsoring city events such as the annual gun buyback event.

We began participating in the city's Adopt the Street program to help maintain and beautify the city, and we dedicate self-space to verify social equity products.

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

We respectfully urge the city planning commission and the board of supervisors to adopt this ordinance to protect compliant businesses, preserve union jobs, maintain community benefits, and ensure equitable access to cannabis.

Thank you.

Okay, last call for general public, excuse me, for public comment on this matter.

Seeing none public comment is closed, and this matter is not before you, Commissioners.

Commissioner Braun.

I have just a small question for staff to make sure I'm understanding the timeline of how this business kind of got left behind with the prior legislation we had in the books about allowing the medical cannabis dispensaries to convert to retail uh cannabis retailers.

So as I from my reading of the packet, uh it sounds like the Office of Cannabis had this business did qualify for the conversion under the Office of Cannabis, but it was still kind of part way through the process with the planning department entitlement.

Is that essentially what happened?

Um yes, I can provide some detail and I may invite um a colleague to provide more as needed.

But this um this specific business did qualify for the temporary conversion program under section 190.

They submitted the initial building permit application, which is needed to officially convert to cannabis retailer, the cannabis retailer use.

So they had started that process, and then around the same time we were approaching the deadline, the December 31st deadline of last year.

So just amongst the different parties, both the on the city side and on the applicant side, um, we genuinely thought all had been converted.

However, we had since learned that that building permit application was not um officially and finally issued, and hence it actually didn't get through under that program.

Um I'll look to my colleague office cancer.

Is there anything else you want to add on the um your office side?

Or I think that covers it then.

Did that answer your question?

That does, yes, thank you.

Yeah, I so my thoughts on this are that you know, ordinarily I'm I tend to be opposed to legislation that's really targeted to a single specific business or instance.

But in this case, I just view this as being kind of a cleanup fix for what is in some ways a little bit of an oversight.

Um, and I think this is still in the spirit of the conversion to cannabis retailer that we were allowing previously.

Anyway, and then also I'll just say, you know, I walk by Stasia quite often, and um it appears to, you know, I've never had any concerns just seeing it from the outside at least, not a customer, but seeing it from the outside at least.

Uh, you know, I think it actually contribute contributes to that block of mission street, and it's helpful having their security out there as well.

And I've never had any concerns about this business just personally, but either way, as far as the legislation goes, uh I move to adopt a recommendation for approval.

Second.

Okay, seeing no further deliberation, commissioners.

There is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval on that motion.

Commissioner Campbell.

Aye.

Commissioner McCarry, Commissioner Williams.

Hi.

Commissioner Braun.

Hi.

Commissioner Imperial.

Commissioner Moore.

I move Commission President So.

Aye.

So move Commissioners that motion passes unanimously seven to zero, and places this on item 12 for case number 2024, hyphen 008053 CRV for small project amendments to the citywide design guidelines.

This is for your consideration to adopt.

Uh, good afternoon, commissioners.

Trent Green and Staff Architect.

Um, pleased to be here this afternoon to present the citywide design standards amendments for small projects.

Um, we were here just a couple of months ago to provide informational on this, so this should be pretty fresh.

And apologies if there's some redundancies here, but just to recap, Citywide design standards were adopted late last year, and they've been used for implementation of housing account of housing accountability act projects since that time, and these are projects that construct two or more new units.

Standards are intended to be a living document that will require updating over time, which is exactly what we're doing here today.

We're providing some new standards for small projects, but also updating some standards that were already adopted that we thought could use that based on lessons learned through implementation.

So the original standards were intended more for denser housing because they originally paired with the rezoning effort.

So they didn't exactly address small projects very well.

So without these new standards, there are no real standards for addressing smaller projects, which obviously have sensitivities going into smaller-scale residential neighborhoods.

For non-HAA projects, the residential design guidelines will continue to be used.

These, for example, are for single-family homes or addition to single-family homes that don't add two units.

And then, of course, the urban design guidelines will continue to be used for commercial projects and projects that don't have the majority of new housing.

We're proposing here that these small project standards apply to within residentially zoned districts with a lot dimension of 55 feet or less and a height of 65 feet or less.

And we had a very successful collaboration throughout several working sessions.

So today what we're looking at is if you look in the yellow, these are revisions to existing standards that were adopted late last year.

We'll go through them very briefly.

They're not substantial changes, but we did want to bring them before you just because they are content-related changes, and those have to do with modulation and light wells and side setbacks and roof decks.

The net new standards that we're introducing are for small projects for single building massing and multiple building massing and for parking.

And then finally, we inserted into the existing document, new standards for fenestration for small projects.

So again, very briefly modulation.

We felt it was necessary to add another standard for very long facade projects that we think should require more than one modulation move across that facade.

There.

Standards.

These are all within site design for small projects.

So the first is for single lot massing.

And as with all the standards in the document, we want we try to provide flexibility on how the standards could be achieved.

So in the rear, we're just trying to provide some modest massing reductions to respond to different existing condition scenarios.

So the first, the first option would basically provide pretty much like a pop-out, which is set back on the sides and extends up for three stories.

And then the other option that we developed along with the architects because it allows more flexibility with the floor plan is just to extend the entire rear wall out a modest amount beyond the 55-foot line.

Now of course, there are some instances where massing reductions will not be required.

For example, if the adjacent homes already extend out to the full property buildable area to the rear yard, then no massing reduction is required.

If one of them extends out to it, there's no setback required against that deeper property.

As well as corner properties, we want to maintain that street wall at the sidewalk, so there's no setback required there, but it might as a modest step back is required on the internal against the adjacent internal property to align with the mid-block open space.

As well as for shallow lots, we're suggesting that no massing reductions are required there as well.

Then multiple building massing, and this sort of captures some of what we had in the SB9 standards, which are going to be which are incorporated into this document.

Think of this document as sort of the master standards documents where all programs, HAA programs will be required to use.

A minimum of 20% and a maximum of 50% of glazing on these on these buildings in the front and the rear.

Additionally, we're suggesting that a very small amount of glazing should be provided on the ground floor of residential units.

This could be provided at the entry and the entry door, could be side light, could be transom, could be a small punched opening in the garage, but something to basically it.

So those are just a small handful of standards that we're um suggesting and asking that you adopt today is amendments.

Once they are adopted, they will become small project submittals, will be subject to the standards.

And just as we're doing today, we'll continue updates on the standards by community outreach and uh lessons learned through the implementation of the standards.

Thank you.

I'll be available for questions.

Okay, thank you.

With that, we should take public comment.

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

Hello, Georgia Schudish.

Um, I think they did a really good job, and I think what this shows is that the uh RDGs that we've had since 2003 or earlier uh translate well into objective standards, and I would contend that they were basically always objective.

Um, but unfortunately, some people didn't think so, because there's a lot of antipathy towards the filing of discretionary review.

And um there really weren't that many DRs overall in the general scheme of things and the flow of everything throughout the years.

Um, certainly neighbors needed to rely on them to they felt if a project was gonna affect their house.

Um, and there's a few notorious DRs, but that's really about it.

Um I was just want to talk about ambient light because I think a lot of times when a project goes in next door, people it's not just the sunshine, but it's the light that hits your house and comes into your house through the back mostly in the rear yard.

Um, and people are usually concerned about that.

And uh I just had this personal example.

Um I had to uh change my front door a number of years ago, and my entrance is recessed under the bay, and um it I had 15 three by three windows, and it totally lit up my my vestibule at the base of my stairs to my to my house upstairs.

And uh when I changed the door, it was reduced to one window.

So that's like a 93% loss of light.

It's very dark now in my vestibule.

So I think that's something, you know, that that may sound a little bit uh uh uh fussy, but I think that that's that issue that shows that there is an issue with some shade coming onto somebody's house from a rear yard expansion, and that it shouldn't just be discounted based on my little example.

Um I think uh I was just puzzled on these examples why there was a stair pinhouse in all of them, because I thought generally a stair pin house uh to the roof deck, the top roof on the tippy top.

Because I thought the the ad hoc roof deck roof policy, roof tech policy was to not encourage uh stair pin houses, but I don't know.

It's certainly been in the residential design guidelines for years about how when and when you shouldn't do a stair pinhouse.

Um and finally, um I know in the constraints reduction ordinance you're allowed to have 30 percent rear yard.

I really think uh under the rezoning, especially if you're gonna densify and you're gonna have four units on a lot, you know, in one building, like I gave you that template a few months ago.

We have a three-bedroom, two bath with a dining room unit.

You could do that in the forty-five percent and still keep the rear yard as it has been historically, which would help the mid-block open space overall.

Um that was a real example that still exists on 28th Street.

Thank you very much, and thanks to them for all their work.

Thank you.

Last call for public comment.

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

Commissioner Vice President Moore.

Uh appreciate the uh formulation of small project standards.

We grant that we are losing the richness of residential standards uh as we all know them.

But let me go through a couple of questions, if I may.

Are they implied to be used in the section or is this a standalone?

You're referring to the modulation standard.

Yeah, that's that's a standalone standard.

We obviously have the articulation standards.

It speaks about how that larger volume is broken up through articulation.

So the modulation are sort of the very large volumetric moves, where then you would take that volume and apply the articulation standards, which would be things like bay windows, balconies and sunshades and everything else that enlivens the facade.

Thanks for saying that.

Perhaps a footnote referencing those other articulation, modulation standards would be good because ultimately I assume modulation articulation are related expressions for giving a building interest.

Are 300 by 430, and south of market, they are five uh five sixty-five by eight sixty.

Obviously, in any of those blocks, a large contiguous building could appear.

Uh, under upzoning, I think that is a very good possibility.

It is a model of uh large buildings all over Europe, Paris, Berlin, or whatever.

So my question is, are we boxing ourselves in an interpretation when we're using a numerical reference when indeed the finer grain of the block that would require modulation would occur at a different rhythm?

Um yeah, I think 200 feet, I think we were trying to be pretty liberal on how long of a facade you can have before the modulation agains.

And um, you know, on the west side, obviously the um you know the blocks are shorter, so we um sort of irrelevant a block size.

We just sort of thought about what length of facade could continue without a major um you know modulation move or subtracting from the facade.

So that's how we we developed that standard.

I I I just like to uh uh throw that out as a thought to potentially rethink or make it slightly less abstract because 200 is a uh is a very specific number.

Uh uh when it comes to light to light welds, I'm delighted that you are uh uh leading us out of the uncertainty of previous uh rules by which uh people could choose uh uh 100% matching light well, 75 or offset light wells.

I think giving clarity to it in the way that you do, I think is a very, very important and very positive move.

Uh I'm a little bit on the fence about uh your roof deck standards.

Uh uh previous commissions had spent an ex an extremely long time of being more clear about the sensitivity of one, the size of roof decks.

Uh roof decks that occupy the entire roof area can be extremely intrusive to adjoining neighbors.

So at that time we were talking about a percentage of the oval roof uh surface to be dedicated uh to a roof deck, including and more importantly, a distinct offset of a roof deck from the edge of the building.

Uh previous commissions felt very strongly that we did not want to read roof decks uh as the extension of a perceived building height, together with the intrusive appearance of people doing whatever they're doing up there and holding them back to create a certain amount of privacy looking at and looking from roof decks.

That doesn't that seems to be lost in this particular guideline, and I am curious if other commissioners also felt that at least the minimum interpretation of privacy at the edge uh was important.

We also had a um writer who spoke about uh the rules regarding the the parapets uh at the edge of the roof.

Uh I think those two considerations may help each other to consider setting back from the public edge.

Uh I uh actually left a copy for you uh you have to.

I did receive it, thank you.

Yeah, we saw that.

We saw that in the way.

Uh uh the uh I think the massing adjustments are very positive, and I think very informative.

The only thing I regret is that they were not applied to examples uh in which adjacencies are not just at the edge of the adjoining property, but show to some of the irregular irregularities that we often encounter.

Um I think that is all.

Uh I'm uh glad to see the addition of these standards.

Thank you.

And if I may, Commissioner Moore, just to on your first point around the 200 foot, um, I just wanted to chime in.

Um I do believe one of the reasons we selected that number is there's already a planning code provision at section 270.1 at special bulk limitations and horizontal mass reduction for large lots in eastern neighborhoods.

And in that section of the code, it does talk about four um uh streets or alleys that have frontages greater than 200 feet in length.

Um, there are certain building controls and requirements to break up the massing.

So that was already a standard that we had of defining a 200 foot segment as being a segment where it needed to start having mass uh mass reduction and breaking in eastern neighborhoods.

So I think that was sort of the genesis of taking that dimension and applying it to these smaller scales.

So just there was some thought to it.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you for the um clarification, Les.

Um Commissioner Braun.

Yes, uh Mr.

Green and I'm uh to Vice President Moore's last point about the roof decks.

Would you mind just walking me uh back through how the standard that's in there what the approach is take as what approach has been taken to ensuring privacy when there is a roof deck, versus versus a possible difference from how this might have existed in the residential design guidelines.

Yeah, I mean, first I mean I think it's important to note that you know roof decks or something, it's are difficult to standardize because there's always different unique situations that the um design guidelines allow us to look at for each you know unique situation.

So we have to come up with basically one size fits all, right?

Um so that's why you know five feet is a point where if you're you know you step back, you don't generally have sight lines into your neighbors, and that's why we sort of added um different standards for lower buildings and taller buildings, because if you're you know you're very tall building, there's not gonna be any privacy impacts of looking into your neighbors because the site lines just don't allow that.

Um so that's why we provide a little more flexibility, and also for those large buildings, you know, they may need that open space on the roof to meet open space requirements, right?

So there's a little more flexibility there.

Um but the five feet is sort of a general rule we've used for many years that you know generally prevents um, you know, uh privacy impacts.

There still will be impacts, obviously, at certain times, but that was sort of uh a general uh rule of thumb that we've been using for some time and we're standardizing.

But it is difficult to sort of apply standards universally for roof decks.

Okay, thank you.

I appreciate that.

And I I didn't have a reaction when I thought uh I think it's it's an interesting point that's been raised about the roof decks, but yeah, I'm I just came at it mostly thinking, you know, this seems to match the basic standard that we have.

So I didn't personally have a concern about it.

Um so moving on, um maybe the other commissioners have comments on the on the deck issue, but moving on, uh thank you first of all for making the very tiny grammar and language changes that I asked for.

I saw it in the in the presentation.

I'm being too uh I don't know, paying too much attention to the attention to that maybe.

Um I also appreciated seeing the changes in the multi-multiple building uh standards, the clarification around the balcony and bay projections are what's allowed in the space between the two buildings.

Um and then also we had a chance to connect about the the fire access issue that was raised by uh Commissioner Moore and I was also talking about kind of that rear building and the multiple building massing, you know, being able to go to the side property lines.

I thought the answer, the response about you know the situation in which it can go to the side property lines is very interesting that you would shared with me.

I'm just wondering if you could restate um the um the circumstances in which that rear building can extend to the side property lines as the guidelines show.

Um sure.

Um obviously with a typical 25-foot wide lot, once you start to set back that building on both sides, it has huge impacts to what you can do with the floor plan, and not only that, sort of meeting minimum unit sizes.

Um, so you know, this is something we felt had, you know, even though it's a few feet on each side, we previously had an SB9, that extra dimension gives you tremendous amount of flexibility.

So there, you know, to Commissioner Moore's previous comment, um, that you may need to have fire access, and that's excellent point, you know, if there's bedrooms in the rear.

So we're basically describing a maximum building envelope that may need to be reduced based on building code or fire, but there are instances where that full volume um could be accommodated and utilized.

So we wanted to sort of describe the you know the building potential back there, and then you know, have it be reduced if necessary for other code.

Sure.

And I as I recall it's if if you have the bedrooms in the front portion of the building, then it doesn't need to be pulled back necessarily under the building code, at least generally speaking.

I know every circumstance is unique.

Yeah, I thought that was that was uh I learned something, so I appreciate that.

Um I guess my my one question that I have that's sort of outstanding is I noticed in the slides you just showed when you're showing the standards about garages.

Um, they included very subjective language.

Was that just a summary for the purpose of the slide?

It was very different from the actual percentage numbers on sidewalk warping and that information that was in the actual standard.

So was that just for convenience in the slide, or have you changed the standards?

It's just for the presentation.

Okay.

So not to get into the weeds too much, but the standard is subjective.

Thank you.

Okay, yeah, I just want to double check because I saw that and like got concerned.

All right.

Um I think you know, I so I don't have any concerns with the standards as they are.

I know that we have to kind of test drive these and see um how they go.

We might have to make some adjustments, but I'm I'm glad to see the changes and adjustments that have been made so far in response to Commissioner Comments.

So I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um Commissioner Campbell.

You can stay there.

Yeah, yes, please.

Um I'll just start with a few very brief comments, which is that I love that we're already talking about amendments because we talk about this as being a living breathing document.

And so here we are already kind of making some adjustments, and I think um it's encouraging to hear that we can continue to look at this and see how it plays out, but still maintain these objective standards.

And then I loved, of course, hearing that we continue to socialize this with the community, especially the AIA.

I don't work on these small residential projects, so it's always really great to um get their way in on this.

Um, and then I of course continue to be comforted by knowing that there is a little bit of flexibility up to 10% with some of these numbers in terms of giving jurisdiction to um the director of of the department.

Um so my comments are generally I think these are fine.

Um I think where it gets a little bit overly prescriptive is the new section, um the fenestration section.

Um I think one thing that stands stay close to that and see how it plays out in real life.

The one that caught my attention was the three-inch thing.

And I'm just curious how much we looked at that in terms of what we think is too much.

So that 50% and this too small, which is 20%.

Like, did we did we can you talk a little bit about how we landed on those numbers?

Sure.

I mean, you know, by looking at you know different contexts, you know, historical buildings and more contemporary.

Um, you know, older buildings would generally have a much, much lower finestration percentage than 50%, right?

Be more in the 20 to 30 percent range.

So we wanted to provide a pretty good range, right?

Because you know, like with all the standards, we're not trying to be guide style whatsoever, right?

So we want to allow for a lot of different architectural expressions.

So, you know, 50 percent is what we felt was a pretty generous allowance for amount of glazing on a facade that yeah, we do we do get projects in that have about that much.

They tend to be very contemporary.

Modern, yeah.

Um, but you know, what we're trying to avoid is, you know, basically completely glass facades in residential neighborhoods, which you know, we're on a you know, a mixed use corridor, that would be fine.

Um, and again, we need these are one size fits all, right?

So we don't have the ability to look at each project in its context.

Um so you know, looking at different projects, different context, different, you know, existing buildings.

That's sort of the range that we, and you know, modeling them up and you know looking at different percentages on different uh facades, we arrived at that.

So nothing scientific about it.

Yeah.

Well, let's stay close to that one too and just see how that ends up playing out.

Um, and then it just a comment that was made early on in um I don't remember what section that is when Commissioner Braun mentioned we got a lot of letters last minute um today, which is always difficult.

Um, but there was there was a letter um that we received from the West of Twin Peak Central Council, which represents a handful of neighborhoods on the west side, like St.

Francis Wood, Forest Hill, West Portal.

Um, a few of these kind of caught my attention.

I think some of them are handled by code, but if you don't mind, I'm just gonna share a few of them with you, and maybe you can speak to this.

Protecting privacy and scale.

There's concern around um property line windows and the 20-foot cap on rear buildings are essential protections against backyard crowding.

Without them, deep lots on the west side could quickly become overwhelmed by oversized secondary structures undermining privacy, character of long established residential districts.

I believe that we that's dictated by code, and we we don't have to address that here.

Is that correct?

Well, we specifically don't allow in the standards property line windows on the rear buildings.

Is that I guess they're concerned that that it's an oversight.

We recognize existing relevant planning code, we recognize the city's obligation to implement objective design standards.

We strongly urge the commission to adopt these amendments as we've met and engaged with planning.

Are is that specifically called out then?

And they're just celebrating.

The property line windows?

Yeah.

Yeah, I mean, planning code would that's in the planning code that's not something that we're capturing in the design.

They're not disallowed in the planning code.

They would have to or building code, you know.

And standard C 7.5 specifically calls out the property line windows are not permitted on rear buildings.

Okay.

So that's already there.

No amendment would be necessary to mandate that.

And then one other one was around um supporting environmental and historic landscapes, soil depth requirements for planting and permeable surface mandates, reinforce the west side's long tradition of garden neighborhoods.

These standards not only align with climate resilience goals, but also sustain the historic landscapes designed to complement our architecture.

Um again, are we are these things that and that was within the front?

I presume the front of property properties, not in the backyards.

That's that is a planning code requirement.

I believe one section 132 already mandates landscaping and permeability in the front setback.

Sorry, yeah.

Here it says affirm that side set setbacks and oh, sorry.

Sorry, these this is what happens when we get things last minute um so the ass are ensure that rear yard standards recognize and preserve the historic mid block open space system that unites many west side neighborhoods extend privacy and wind window placement standards to protect both neighbor livability and visibility of historic homes and gardens and affirm that side setbacks and light well protect are essential to maintain the rhythm and spacing that characterize historic residential parks these are concerns that apparently are not represented here um in open comment but something that caught my attention in this letter so okay let's let's move on um let's see I think and then we have this other one okay I just it's too much two last minute I'm sorry yeah um so I'm gonna make a motion to um adopt I second it and um commissioner campbell you that's it thank you completed and um commissioner Williams you want to add some comments yeah I just had a an additional question about the roof decks.

Sorry yeah no worries um so what what what typically what small projects are are roof decks allowed just curious is um potentially on any structure on any structure except in our multiple buildings the rear structure may not have roof decks okay I I'm just looking at the illustrations and um so am I correct by saying that or assuming that from the property line there's a a three foot setback or is that five feet because I I've I've heard you mention five and so what what is it now and and what what is the change on the roof deck.

Currently in the in the standards we have a five foot blanket setback right um what we're proposing now is that for taller projects that the setback be uh three feet and when you say taller projects that how many stories how many over sixty five feet over over sixty five feet.

55 right isn't that 55 in the standard 55.

Yeah if you look in your packet um page sorry I'm missing the page pagination here but it's standard C.5.3 it's the one that has a big building with step downs right it's the last standard highlighted there in yellow so it calls out um some standards.

For the the separation gotcha yeah yeah and and just to add further thing what Trent said was relating to the existing standards have a five foot setback in our residential design guidelines right now which is what we typically use for smaller buildings that you know that's the other tool that we've had for small scale buildings in the past there is no objective standard right now for any setback it's been commission and the department's general policy that we basically apply what we're putting in here that's kind of been our rule of thumb when it's smaller building and you know we tend to look because we have the ability in a discretionary context to look at the adjacent neighbors but we usually require either no setback if the neighbors are right at the property line and there's another building right there and there's not going to be a privacy impact or three feet or five feet depending on the context.

So those have usually been the levers that we've pulled um historically and and to affirm what Trent said roof decks are allowed on any building and there are certain allowances to go over the height limit for certain um roof deck type features like you know railings and things of that nature.

Thank you, Squaddy.

I just have just just wanted to voice a concern about about the safety um of roof decks especially, you know, buildings that are are are tall, 55 feet.

I just have this uh um this vision of children playing uh on a roof deck and uh there not being sufficient um safeguards in place.

And so um I just wanted to voice that I'm not exactly sure um you know how this applies to to the to the standards, but you know, the close the closer we get to the edge of the building, even though there's a plan, you know, there's there's a planner, there's a safeguard there.

You know, it it it it's to me it's it's troubling.

It's just you know um there could be a safety issue.

And so um, you know.

Again, I'm not exactly sure uh what the solution is, but I just wanted to voice that uh that concern.

Yeah, I mean, building code would require 42-inch railing at the edge of the roof deck.

Right.

Yeah, building code would require 42-inch railing to define the roof deck.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you, Trevor.

Sure.

Thank you for the presentation.

I think we're ready to vote.

Yes, if there's nothing further, Commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt the uh proposed amendments on that motion.

Commissioner Campbell.

Aye.

Commissioner McGarry.

Commissioner Williams.

Aye.

Commissioner Braun.

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial.

Aye.

Commissioner Moore, and Commissioner President.

So I.

So move commissioners and motion passes unanimously seven to zero.

Commissioners, that will place us on items 13A and B for case numbers 2024, hyphen 002 799.

C UA and VAR for the property at 906 Broadway.

You will be considering the conditional use authorization, and the acting zoning administrator will be considering the variance.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Michelle Langley, department staff.

The project before you is a request for a conditional use and variance to permit general entertainment within a landmark building.

To facilitate the conversion of the church into an event space from an institutional use.

The project includes exterior and interior alterations, including a new rear yard, new rear exterior stair enclosure for required egress, which requires a rear yard variance by the zoning administrator.

These alterations were approved by the Historic Preservation Commission on July 16th, 2025.

While the neighborhood is a mix of residential and institutional uses like churches and schools, a provision of the code allows for additional uses in landmark buildings.

Per planning code section 186.3, a designated landmark within the resident within residential zoning districts may seek a conditional use authorization to authorize any non-residential use or commercial use characteristic that is allowed on the ground floor in the NC1 zoning district.

After extensive community outreach, the project sponsor filed an amended application with the department to establish general entertainment use from the initially proposed nighttime entertainment use.

General entertainment is not permitted in the RM2 zoning district, but is permitted in the NC1 zoning district.

The hours of operation permitted in the NC1 zoning district are 6 a.m.

to 11 p.m.

The proposed hours of operation are 8 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

daily, and the revised packets include these hours as a condition of approval.

These approvals will allow for the reactivation of a San Francisco city landmark known as Our Lady of Guadalupe Church as a multi-function event space.

A nightclub, restaurant, or bar are not being proposed.

According to the project sponsor, they will not be seeking a liquor license for the property.

Rather, the property will be available to rent for daytime and evening catered events, such as corporate retreats, lectures, fundraising gallas, private receptions, and weddings.

When an event is not booked, the space will not be open to the public.

The department received three letters of support from the San Francisco San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, the North Beach Business Association, and the Russian Hill Neighbors Group.

They outline their support for a new use that would reactivate the historic church and ensure its care while contributing to the city's economic recovery goals.

Twenty-three letters or phone calls of concern or opposition regarding the project as initially proposed, requesting the change of use to nighttime entertainment and the extended hours of operation were received along with two petitions of opposition, one from 39 residents of two Fallon Place and another from 74 residents of Lady Shaw Senior Center.

These letters and phone calls of opposition from neighbors raised concerns about events occurring past 11 p.m.

including issues with noise, parking, and general nuisances of observed at the property.

The Chinatown Community Development Center and the Lady Shaw Senior Center, managed by Self-Help for the Elderly, co-signed a letter chronicling this history of outreach done by the project sponsor.

The letter describes some of their initial concerns about noise and parking and praises the project sponsors' effort efforts in addressing those concerns.

Subsequently, Self-Help for the Elderly, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, and the Chinatown Community Development Center co-signed a letter of opposition of the proposed project, mainly concerning quality of life for seniors residing in the area, including issues with noise, parking, and general nuisances observed at the property.

The Upper Chinatown Neighborhood Association also sent the department a letter of opposition, also citing quality of life concerns for seniors residing in the area.

Several neighbors requested that the project be continued from the July 31st hearing to allow for additional outreach.

After revising the project, the project sponsor held a community meeting at 906 Broadway on September 10th, 2025, with approximately 35 attendees to discuss the revised scope and any outstanding concerns.

The project sponsor also held an on-site sound mock-up with several neighbors.

The department received three letters of concern since the project revision.

Self-help for the elderly sent a letter concerning operational hours beyond 10 p.m.

The department has found the project to be on balance, consistent with the general plan and recommends approval.

Religious operations ceased over 25 years ago, and the building has been unoccupied since the previous school tenant, St.

Mary's Chinese Day School and Chinese language school, relocated in 2011.

Several unsuccessful attempts have been made to find an appropriate use for the long dormant church.

By establishing a new general entertainment use, the event space will reactivate the property and provide a steady income stream, allowing for ongoing maintenance and restoration of the landmark property.

The project sponsor is sensitive to the concerns of neighboring residents and is committed to being a responsible and engaged neighbor by adhering to the noise ordinance and the entertainment commission's good neighbor policy and keeping open lines of communication with neighborhood residents and associations.

Lastly, I would like to note that the project sponsor will also seek a limited live performance permit from the entertainment commission, where entertainment-specific considerations like sound limits and hours will be evaluated.

At that hearing, neighbors will have another formal opportunity to share input on these entertainment specific concerns.

This concludes my presentation, and I am available for questions.

The project sponsor is also in attendance and will follow with additional details.

Thank you.

And I have a professional disclosure to make.

I have a professional relationship with the executive director of the South Hell for the Elderly, based on the fact that we're both community members, and I once appear on her TV show, but I do not have any financial relationship, and it will not affect my ability to give fair and impartial consideration to the proposal before the commission.

Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

Thank you, Jonas.

Thank you, Commissioners.

It's Tara Sullivan from Reuben Junius in Rose here on behalf of the property owner.

As Michelle mentioned, the item before you is 906 Broadway.

The building, known as Our Lady of Guadalupe Church, is designated as both an interior and exterior landmark under Article 10 of the Planning Code.

Religious buildings, particularly large churches, are very hard to adaptively reuse.

Oftentimes the outside forms retained, but the interiors are usually obscured through renovations.

Typically, we see them being converted into residential uses, with the interiors being chopped up to accommodate that use.

Here, 906 Broadway's interiors are designated, limiting any adaptive reuse of the building to something that can utilize the current form of the building's interior spaces.

That is, there cannot be any alterations on the interior of the building that would damage or obscure the character-defining landmark spaces and features.

There are few businesses that end uses that can go into this designated structure due to the strict parameters of the Article 10 designation.

Because of these limitations, this landmark has largely sat vacant for well over 10 years.

The current owners, the Massamore family, purchased the building in January 2024.

They fell in love with the structure and willingly became the current stewards of it.

However, they need a business that will enable them to fund the rehabilitation and upkeep of this landmark.

Since it's been vacant for so long, there's a lot of deferred maintenance that has to happen.

It also needs to be upgraded to current fire and life safety code, which requires a new second means of egress and sprinklers.

The request before you today is to authorize the change of use of the landmark to an event space.

Planning code allows Article 10 buildings to utilize the NC1 controls so that these significant structures can be repurposed to a new use, thus enabling them to continue their lifespan as useful buildings.

Without this provision, the church cannot be used for anything other than religious services.

The proposed event venue falls under the general entertainment use category, which is permitted as of right in the NC1 district.

The families partnered with an event company that will be in charge of the day-to-day businesses, including booking, setup, breakdown, security, and all other aspects of events.

Typical events are nonprofit summary, nonprofit summits and charity gatherings, corporate symposiums and conferences, panel discussions, private cocktail receptions, small trade shows, intimate gatherings, and community gatherings.

Note that the building is going to be open is opened on an as reserved basis with catering being brought into the space by third party.

As Michelle noted, the original proposal here was to have a 2 a.m.

stop time seven days a week.

After hearing many concerns from the neighbors, the owner has modified the project to operate from 8 a.m.

till 10 p.m.

seven days a week.

And I want to reiterate the stop time for events is now 10 p.m.

These hours align with what Lady Shaw, the self-help for the elderly, the senior residence that's directly across from the property has conveyed to the owners as being acceptable for their residents.

The owner's intent has always been to be a good neighbor and partner in the community, and as such, they are requesting that the commission place these hours of operation as a condition of approval on the final motion.

We hope that this shows the intent of the owners to be a respectful neighbor in business.

In addition to these reduced hours, the Melody, the event venue business, has a series of good neighbor policies and security measures, and Jonas, I do have them outlined if you can pass them out, please, that are built into all their contracts that help regulate issues before, during, and after the events.

Each event is required to coordinate with the Melody at least 14 days in advance their loading and unloading plan, provide a full list of vendors, identify equipment, staging, and other details for full approval.

They obtained a weight curve for loading and unloading, they stagger loading times, and they have a mandatory stop time of 8 p.m.

for large vehicle loading.

Event breakdowns typically occur the following day to avoid late evening noise.

There's also a detailed security plan in place with each event staffed by a minimum of six security personnel at various points throughout the property, with a minimum of three at the front entrances.

For noise, all doors are required to be closed during events.

Amplified sound is set at a maximum level that meets the city regulations.

Further, the Melody has an in-house PA system with limits on volume controls.

No outside systems or percussions are permitted.

Lastly, for guests arrivals and departures, they partnered with local garages for guests to use with maps to all the events to the guests.

They valet staff for car share, ride, drop off, and pickup, and guests are monitored when outside during departures.

Approximately 30 minutes after the conclusion of events, guests are encouraged to leave the property.

All of these efforts have been made to ensure that the events held at 906 Broadway will have a minimum impact on their neighbors.

In summary, 906 Broadway is an individual landmark designated on the interior and exterior.

Repurposing this building is not easy, but the code allows for you to approve this, approve this.

The Massamore family is dedicated to ensuring that the building will not fall into further disrepair and want to bring this landmark back to life.

To make that happen, they need the conditional use authorization with a stop time of 10 p.m.

that is included in the conditions of approval by you today.

We respectfully request that you approve this project.

I also want to note that there has been um some questions about events being held on the property till 4 a.m.

There have never been events held at this property until 4 a.m.

Um till 1 a.m.

or anything like that.

They've had a few events there over the past year, running mainly until 11 to 12 p.m.

But they have records showing that there's never been anything held to 4 p.m.

4 a.m.

So I just want to put that on the record.

And then lastly, Noah Massimore, who's the owner of the property is here.

Alex Tatum, who's the manager of the Melody can speak on the events.

Thank you, but that is your own.

Okay, thanks and thanks.

Okay, members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter.

You need to come forward.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioners.

So Judy from Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Kit Fong from the Lady Shaw, also director of our housing department will join us.

I think we will use uh less than three, four minutes the most.

Good afternoon, President Sou, and also members of the Commission.

I'm Annie Chong, and I'm the uh president and CEO of Self-Help for the Elderly.

So with me again is Kit Fong, who runs the Lady Shaw project and works very, very closely with all of our seniors.

Uh and also Julie, our partner, and also uh supporter for a long time.

So we brought along 13 residents who live right at Lady Shaw with us today.

And they are a total of 76 residents that lived in that project.

And many of them moved in since we opened the project in 1990.

For 35 years, Lady Shaw has been an excellent neighbor and providing lots of uh direct senior services from food service to transportation to health care and also recreation and educational project.

So Kit runs a very robust senior housing project, and for seniors who are lucky enough to move into Lady Shaw, they usually would tell me that moving into this project is better than winning the real lottery, because in this project they get almost 24-hour really care and loving support from Kit and his staff.

So what brought us to this hearing today, and first I want to apologize that it could be us that sent in our comments pretty late, like yesterday, Commissioner, sorry.

And I know that you know, like addressing the issues and concerns and um that Noah and his team has brought to us many many times.

Um is a very challenging uh subject matter for us because after all, self-help is a direct service provider, and we provide services like food service.

Again, you know, uh classes, recreation, healthcare, making sure that our elderly are okay.

So if we respond kind of late, we apologize.

And next time, if we have to appear before you again, we promise to send in our current uh our comments earlier.

But our position on the melody project at 906 Broadway has been clearly stated from day one.

All night events must end no later than 10 p.m.

And 10 p.m.

actually is pretty late for our seniors already.

Uh sorry, I will speed up my my remarks a little bit.

We spent almost a year listening uh to the arguments put forth by the owners as to why they should be allowed to run their events till 11 p.m.

or sometimes at the earlier uh application when as late as 2 a.m.

We are somewhat glad to learn that the owners have now agreed to a 10 p.m.

stop seven days a week.

I did say somewhat, commissioners, because 76 seniors live right across the street from the project.

Their bedroom uh on the third floor and till the seventh floor, third to the seventh floor.

40 to 45 units already, you know, are right there listening to all the activities and noises.

Maybe then Kit can maybe you could continue.

Yeah.

So Kit could continue.

I just want to say that what we would like to see is to ensure that all events stop at 9 p.m.

period, and also to approve a one-year conditional use permit to the owners for now instead of a three-year permit.

So maybe it could continue.

Yeah, as um, as Annie actually mentioned it.

Um we actually are concerned about the residents' health condition.

And so we want to make sure this actually um the proposal is a countable that um we actually can monitor the progress you know because if the events stop at 10 o'clock it doesn't mean everything stop.

It only means more than 100 participants may exit the event and get there right.

And that is the noise coming from and then people will talk people will actually wait for their car or those um the the owner of the uh the 906 boardway they said they will actually have people also monitoring that but in a way it may not be that easy to handle for more than 100 people so um I have a picture on the uh apartment across the street of the um 906 boardway and this is just right across the uh 906 Broadway you can actually see the window actually can easily see the people getting out of the events and that is the noise that majority of the time our residents complain about you know people will actually talk loud and you know so um I would like to actually uh see that um we can actually put some limitation on this uh to make sure we have um monitoring uh this event time to avoid any disturbance to our residents good afternoon commissioners I'm Judy Lee with the San Francisco Chinese Chamber of Commerce here to express um serious concerns with the 906 Broadway project uh with these types of conditions the chamber sees this project as a valuable opportunity to reinvest in Chinatown at a critical time our neighborhood continues to face deep economic and social impacts from the pandemic from declining foot traffic to small business closures projects like this can help breathe new life into our streets and support the long-term resilience of Chinatown but that being said we believe that this development in Chinatown must be balanced and must serve the needs of both current residents and future users of this space we respectfully request that this commission include two community based conditions on this project first of which you heard from Annie Chung from Self Help for the elderly that the project owners establish a working relationship with the self-help for the elderly one of the most trusted and impactful nonprofits in our neighborhood they have decades of experience supporting Chinatown's senior population as you can see behind us today.

A partnership could include shared programming access to this community space and future opportunities for these seniors this is an important step to ensure that the benefits of this project extend to our elders who are often too often left outside of these conversations secondly we ask that this commission require all events at the site to end no later than 10 p.m meaning hard stop at 10 p.m.

Many of these neighboring residents are seniors and families late night noise and disruption would be unfair and harmful to their well-being setting this firm curfew will help maintain the peace and residential character of this part of Chinatown.

Thank you.

Hello my name is Nicole and I am a Russian Hill neighbor and though I don't speak on behalf of them I'm very proud to say that we um supported this endeavor and I want to echo um this the comments that you made um I have only known no and the guys from the Melody through my relationship with Russian Hill neighbors we are looking to do some events we love having events in our community in uh places where we can um celebrate all the beautiful spaces and this is one of the one of the places that we're looking to have host an event in the future and I was really taken by my conversations with Noah because he and um his team really want to be cut be a part of the neighborhood build community be one-on-one with the neighborhood and I think that that's something that's really important to think about is sometimes we think that people if we give people an inch they'll take a mile or maybe they'll take advantage of the different uh ways that permitting goes but I know from my interactions which are purely business related um that I can say very um strongly and can and firmly that um I I knowing I know that they want to be part of the neighborhood they want to work with everybody and I think it's true to have um nonprofits involved in the space I know that they want to give they would they would host an event for us for free and with that which would be a huge um a huge boon to to our organization because we are just a small nonprofit as well so um echoing what other people have said I would say that I think that the the sponsors and the owners of the melody would be great stewards of the space and good for our community to build neighborhood um camaraderie which is what Russian Hill neighbors is about and what I believe the melody is about as well okay last call for public comment seeing none public comment is closed this matter is now before you commissioners Commissioner Williams I want to want to want to thank uh everyone that came out and and um so what I heard I heard a few things and this is the second time around uh that we've we've heard this project and and um me I'm I'm person sensitive to the concerns of the seniors um and um and so what I've heard is that they would like a working relationship with um with the folks um and at the church and so I I think that's that's a that's positive uh I I would hope that uh the project sponsor would be uh willing to to have and keep keep those folks uh in the loop they are seniors and they live across the street so I don't think that that's um anything that uh can't you know wouldn't wouldn't be agreed to also what I heard is uh the idea of a one-year conditional use permit um and I I think you know I think it's not a bad idea I think that uh there's some concerns that um about accountability and I think that um to build build that good working relationship um a year of um time maybe what's needed uh to develop that trust um and so I I would be willing actually to to consider that also um let's see also that the um there was something brought up around af after 10 after the hard stop at 10 p.m the people that are exiting the venue um and the additional noise and and issues that can that can happen at that time you know I I think it would be helpful to monitor that as well um and I'm not exactly sure how uh you know maybe it's as simple as mentioning to folks as they exit the venue we have seniors across the street you know could you please respect the neighborhood or or something like that but but I think it's it's it's worth um you know, understanding um that that can be an issue.

Um after an eventful venue, uh sometimes the energies are still kind of kind of high.

And so I I could see I could see that.

Um so those are my comments.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner McGarry.

I would echo everything Commissioner Williams said.

Um I think it's a win-win situation.

There's seventy-six uh residents across the road uh across the road, and there's the people who will accompany them.

That is basically an event in its own right.

Uh coupled with the lady from Russian Hill neighborhood.

Uh basically other events you're off to, you can be off to a very good uh camaraderie with the neighbors here.

Uh I would agree with the concerns of the hard stop at the 10 a.m.

I think that is uh that is a very good a.

Oh, sorry, 10.

Yeah, I keep I wrote that down three times, so I meant to copy.

Yeah, those days were over.

10 p.m.

I'm in bed by 10 p.m.

I got three kids.

So that's that's uh going.

So but yes, I would totally I would totally agree.

It's really neighbors are the most important part of society, and one must always get on with one's neighbors as my mother would always say.

They don't go away.

Uh I would definitely um ask the planning department to come back with a review in a year to make sure that everything is going the way things have been promised.

The 10 a.m.

or the 10 p.m.

Did it again?

The 10 p.m.

and uh and then you recorded uh nuisances.

Uh I it is a really good idea.

It's very small, but just telling people as they're exiting uh to just be mindful of the neighbors that are around really does work well and it speaks volumes, but it's very, very small thing to do.

So what I encourage that all your staff, which apparently is gonna be family and neighbors, so they will actually uh uh pull that off uh because it's really important to be a good neighbor.

Uh but this has the possibility of actually being an anchor within the neighborhood, so uh I wish you well with it all.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Um Commissioner Braun.

I uh first have a question for the project sponsor.

Um you mentioned that there have been some events held at the facility.

One can go online and see that the melody has been holding events um for some time now.

And I am curious to hear more about um, it seems like those events may have not been uh permitted at the time.

I'm unclear on that.

And then also the hours, it I mean, honestly, it sounds like the sponsor may not have done themselves any favors by potentially holding events past you know hours that were acceptable to the neighbors in the first place.

So would you mind just to explain a little more about the situation uh coming into this?

Thank you, Commissioners.

I'm actually gonna have uh the owner Noah come up and Alex come up and discuss that since they have been um working on the property for a while.

Hello, Commissioners.

Uh my name is Noah Massmore.

My family owns the Lady Wadalupe Church.

Um, yeah, so you know starting a small business in San Francisco.

It has been a steep learning curve.

Um, one would think that you know, for an event, you go to the office at Van Ness, you pull your temporary place of assembly permit, and you're good to go.

But as we have been moving forward with this process, we haven't learned that there is more complexity to it.

Um and so we have made changes accordingly.

Um I can comment on that.

So my name is Alex Tatum.

I'm the operator of the melody and kind of boots on the ground there.

So yeah, as Noah said, the events that we hosted, you know, that was our mistake where you know we went to 49 Van S, pulled a temporary perm of assembly, had fire marshals at every single event.

Um, and so that was the process since we started this conditional use, I believe, probably a year ago.

So that was that's what we were doing in the midterm while we were going through this process.

So those are the events that we've held.

The moment we you know came to aware of us that there's more to that, we ceased operations um and we're here today to to move correctly.

And then I guess other comments about things going later.

You know, most of the events were ending before 11 p.m., 10 p.m.

We had a conversation with Lady Shaw earlier, probably about a year ago about how we wanted an X number of events past 10 p.m.

Because that's a way for the event venue to re realistically be competitive to win some of the other contracts for other venues around.

If we're going till 9 or 8 p.m.

people it's hard, you know, people won't decide on this venue.

So we were talking about okay, a handful can go past that.

Um and then we operated, pulled those permits, and really actually we never heard anything about it until a day before the last hearing in July.

So we we're here to have conversations, we want to do this right, and uh we're excited about the opportunity to be an anchor in the community.

All right, thank you for responding to my question.

I appreciate that.

Um and also, you know, I I I want to say I actually really appreciate the constructive conversations that seem to have been happening, both by the owners and you know project sponsors, uh 906 Broadways and of course the neighbors at Self Help for the Elderly and the many organizations who have been paying attention to this.

Um I'm really it's great to hear you even owning up to some of the mistakes and oversights that you did on your own your part.

We have an experienced team now who can help navigate this process, and so that's that's really good to see.

Um thank you.

I don't have any other questions for you.

Appreciate it.

Um, all right.

So that that answered that question.

Um I have one question about the outdoor space.

There is a small outdoor space adjacent to the building, and I see on the plans it's marked as not being a place that event attendees can go.

Uh, but is that correct, or what's the thinking for the outdoor space?

It's to the side of the building behind the neighboring property, looks like.

Correct.

Tara Sullivan from Ruben Genius and Rose, if I can have the overhead, I'll put up site plan.

Here's a site plan.

This is the church property.

This is the former rectory on a separate lot, and this is a rear yard.

This is kind of all developed at one time.

Um, and so there is a rear yard back here.

There is excuse me.

Currently, um, hold on, let me make sure that's existing.

Right now, there is a structure back here that has restrooms, and that is uh to date to where the people in the church and the events were going outside to use these restrooms and being able to congregate in this very small backyard area.

Um the HPC has approved, and we're hoping the acting zoning administrator will approve a rear yard variance to remove those outdoor restrooms, this structure, uh, put them inside, and so that will therefore be um closed off to customers during the events.

It is currently though, the rear yard space for the tenants that live in that rectory next door.

Um it's kind of an unusual setup just given the history of the development here.

But yes, I hope that answers your question.

Sure, yes, that does.

Thank you for that.

So I'm yeah, I'm kind of following up on some smaller issues that have come up.

I know that in the last round of letters in July that um there were some references from neighbors to that outdoor space, but if the events are gonna be held indoors um with the doors closed, then that um that satisfies my question about that.

The uh okay, let's see.

So I would just say I like I said earlier, I appreciate the constructiveness of some of the discussions that have been ongoing throughout this process, especially since the continuance from July.

I honestly would have pushed for the hours to be restricted to 10 p.m.

And I was also surprised when the packet was first published on Friday to see that the hours were not even included in the conditions of approval.

Um, but since that has now been added to the conditions of approval with the 10 p.m.

cutoff, and everyone's talking about that hard 10 p.m.

cutoff, and it's it's in there.

Um I'm really uh happy to see that.

I think procedurally, um there's been discussion.

There's been a request from the community and discussion in the commission about coming back to uh the commission um with maybe a short-term conditional use.

I don't know if I'm I'm in favor of a just a conditional use authorization that has a one-year cutoff or expiration of some kind.

I am curious to hear from department staff uh what the sort of I I'm happy to have a hearing again to find out if there have been any complaints or concerns or to allow people to bring those into the commission, but uh what I'm trying to figure out how to sort of put that into the motion.

Sure, Michelle Langley, um department staff.

Um instead of an actual timed limitation on the conditional use authorization, what is typically done is to have the department um issue a memo to the commission after a set period of time, so in one year, year and a half, whatever the case may be, um, to report on operational issues, if any haven arisen or um any sound complaints.

Okay, so I think um I I don't want to make a motion just yet to hear other commissioner comments, but I would be in favor of including a requirement that the memo be published that summarizes any complaints or concerns.

And I would also be in favor of holding a hearing uh to to discuss that memo in a year.

Um but I would I don't want to put a time limit on the conditional use authorization.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Brown.

Well, um it's now I'm gonna make my some of my comments and um thank you for everyone who show up here to to speak and also support um your stand and some four, guys I, you know, okay, those are they like uh I just speak a little Cantonese to recognize people who are monolingual here, uh my colleagues.

Um I live in San Francisco.

I live in an area where it's a lot of entertainment and I understand how noise um could really um disrupt communities, but then I also because I live in San Francisco, I also understand that we also uh like San Francisco to be vibrant and have that type of uh diversity and vibrancy we have.

But however, though, um this cannot be successful unless we have neighbors and communities actually work together.

Like you have to build trust, and the trust is not you build it by earning it.

And um I'm really happy to hear the operator and the owner here, um, these two gentlemen mentioned that um they could learn from their recent past and make it better.

So I really hear really highly encourage you to um continue to hurry up and be a much better neighbors.

Um the heart stop at 10 p.m., it's uh amicable compromise, but that is also right now the trust has not been restored, right?

So it's now we're asking a lot of community wondering is it really truly gonna happen if that is the case?

If not, then what can they do, right?

So I highly encourage um our community to learn and also express the knowledge to people that there is a noise code, it's under the police code for noise violation in anything, not just this conditional use or could be that house next door that is um control and monitor by the police.

So again, I'm speaking here on a record asking our central station police to keep a really eye good eye on the noise control that this church that you operate and also other properties that you either occupy or operate adjacent to it.

And then um with the 10 o'clock hard stop, there is a real concern about is it all gonna get wrapped up by 10 and or is people gonna linger?

Well, so these are kind of uh hard to say one way or the other right now because we can all say yes, we will do it and it really have we need to look at time would tell.

So I am um I I keep thinking about some of the suggestions some of my colleagues have mentioned.

Um I thought that um one plausible solution is really is having a monitor um conditions, like Commissioner Braun was mentioning, to monitor a having having a department staff to um issue a written memo within a year that to overview whether overall if your compliance performance and the recorded noise complaint uh with the San Francisco police department is actually um consistent with what we're discussing.

You agree to do today, and then I'm open to also have a hearing back into our chamber for this recording uh for this reporting, if it's acceptable by my fellow commissioners.

But um, lastly, before I move on, I keep hearing um quite a bit of just I wanted to be on a record.

I keep hearing quite a bit of um confusions from the community.

They're confused of where the noise comes from, or some of the recent incident that happened that is an entertainment party that happened nearby, right next to this applicant, this application address.

So I think it's on 908 Broadway that happened that has like parties that spill out to 4 a.m.

Can any of you speak to that?

Do you own the property?

Do you live in that property?

Yeah, so um I um I can't speak to what's happening in 908 because my brother manages that piece, uh, but I can say that it's really helpful to have like an open line of communication with the um with the neighborhood and Lady Shaw, because like being able to get feedback helps us look at, you know, when events are happening and what's what has happened um and like figure out and be a partner with the community and figuring out um what's the cause of that noise.

Um I have heard I have heard people mention of like parties happening around um the 908-906 Broadway property.

Um, but again, having that line of communication and getting that feedback from self-help um and other neighbors will help us in being partners and figuring out what is um the root cause of this noise.

So, okay.

Thank you for that explanations.

So again, I we think that uh having a um working relationship with self-help um would be super uh pivotal for for this moving forward um and also respect the seniors and our neighbors, please.

Um and that concludes my comment and um leave it to um Commissioner Vice President Moore.

Thank you.

Thank you, President.

So uh I appreciate the sensitivity that you specifically spelled out for our elderly neighbors.

Very much appreciated.

Um I am glad that we are trying to create a dialogue and find a middle ground.

Uh I have seen the church being empty with various uh people attempting to revitalize it over the year.

Uh and it was always disappointing when it never took off.

So the building indeed needs somebody to take over.

Uh and uh I hope that what we heard today is a beginning of a constructive relationship.

Uh on that note, I believe that the commission asking for one year re-reporting and review is appropriate.

Uh I am a little too hesitant to put a one year condition on this uh in order not to break the process by which this can construct constructively develop.

Uh I need to ask that the motion that in front of us exhibit A be expanded to include what Ms.

Sullivan actually mentioned, the particular hours that are now being agreed to, 8 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

Uh Monday through Sunday, is not uh uh spelled out in the motion.

And I believe when we make a motion, the motion needs to be complete on that.

That is on exhibit a page 22 of the motion.

There's there's a little bit detail missing and uh as to whether or not the uh request for this project to be reported on after a year and coming back to behood needs to be in that particular paragraph as well that goes a little bit beyond of what I know, but I could ask city attorney uh Mr.

Yang to perhaps opine on that.

I'm sorry, could you just repeat the last part?

Uh I was wondering, aside from adding the comment about operating hours as to whether or not the project has to has to have a memo a memorandum to the commission was being heard that does that have to be repeated in this particular section of the motion as well.

Oh I see about having um report or a look back from the commission.

We can add it that can be a condition of approval for the project sponsor to come back with it on a date certain or within one year or following one year I guess it can also be just something that the department can bring to you and um can be a little bit more informal um which could be flexible if you needed to accommodate for schedule or otherwise so I think anyways thank you so much uh Mr Young um my own comfort would be to have a part of the motion so that indeed it is clearly visible to everybody uh and it's just basically a note and I see uh Secretary I own and also uh to nod to that so if we could amend the motion to include those particular two elements I don't think that that is an intent of a motion that is basically a clerical addition of of these two facts correct well I believe the maker of the motion would need to add them as conditions of approval.

I will make a motion to add these two particular points as addition uh as condition of approval uh that is a statement of the hours of operation uh together with a statement and I am not good in verbalizing it that the commission uh would uh get an annual report uh and uh a hearing to to reaffirm the operation uh of the venue commissioner braun you might want to may I ask a clarifying question we can do better well I'm just curious if uh I was thinking they'd just come back after the first year but do you want annual reporting?

No, come back to first year.

Thank you for catching that that is actually correct.

Uh and the other note is we we do have a there was a revised motion sent by staff that does include the hours of operation as stated by the sponsors so um we can use that and then also append and add on to that it's the hours that go till 10 pm it's it's in the revised motion but either way yes second.

Thank you and uh Commissioner Imperial yeah thank you I also second that but I know Commissioner Brown already um I just um for me I just have a question just to make sure that there is a line of communication.

Um I'm wondering um who is the committee liaison on the from the Melody SF.

Okay I can speak to that so both Alex and I uh we have provided our cell phone numbers at the community meeting that we held um and so you know both Alex or Alex and I are always available to um to to receive any be back feedback from the neighbors.

Okay.

One um one thing also I noticed in the letter of self-help for the elderly is around around regular check-ins um and whether you know and I'm assuming also or that's what I'm also expecting as part of the report in after a year um or within a year um yeah or after a year that those check-ins should also be part of that report as well um just to again build a relationship and and to you know to hear it seems like the self help elderly would really want to have well and also other neighborhoods members as well in terms of having shared access to facility if needed as well so I um it's good to have and I'm it's good to hear that Melody SF is willing to to have this line of communication and for us to really assess um after a year regarding the noise complaint um regarding noise and also um the good neighborhood policy um I would like to hear as well how effective this good neighbor good neighbor policy that's um being proposed uh by Melody SF.

So yeah, so thank you so much and yeah, supportive of this.

Thank you.

Thank you um Natalia, you might want to say something yeah good afternoon, Commissioners.

Natalia Fatsi, Acting zoning Administrator.

I'd like to just comment on the variance aspect of the project.

I'm generally supportive of the variance.

It's reducing the existing footprint of the obstruction pretty significantly, and it's providing an egress there that will facilitate the reuse of the building.

So I intend to grant the variance.

And then in regards to some of your conversation, I'd like to just point your attention to the community liaison condition, which is one of our standard conditions in the draft motion that requires the project sponsored team to identify a contact for the community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Williams.

Just real fast.

So I'm I'm I'm in agreement with with everything that I've heard so far.

Thank you, Commissioners, for addressing it the way you do.

I just have a just a thought and uh I hate to play devil's advocate, but I will.

Um what happens um if for you know whatever reason things don't work out, and this comes back to us.

What what um what actions can we take to rectify it?

And so that that's a concern of my common staff, maybe.

Well, I'll just quickly respond after the one-year compliance performance memorandum and informational hearing.

If you find that they are not in compliance and they are not good neighbors, then you can schedule a revocation hearing.

A revocation hearing?

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's that's all.

Commissioner Campbell.

Thank you.

Um, it's I think the project sponsor said it's hard to adaptively reuse a church, and so um I I just commend the sponsor for taking this on.

It's a um it's a really lovely uh story, and I and I'm so pleased to hear that the community has come together in this way and found a compromise.

And I hope your business is still successful and competitive in light of the of these hours.

So I just wish everybody good luck and look forward to hearing the report in a year.

Thank you.

There is a motion that has been seconded.

I just wanted to clarify with the maker of the motion if you were okay with the friendly amendment that uh commissioner imperial suggested, which was simply to include the good neighbor performance evaluation as well, yes, and the second or very good then.

There is a motion that has been seconded, commissioners, to approve with conditions as have been amended and submitted uh to include the updated hours of operations, but more importantly, adding a condition uh to submit a memo regarding compliance, um, and good neighbor performances in one year and schedule an informational update hearing for the same purpose.

On that motion, Commissioner Campbell, Commissioner McGarry, Commissioner Williams, Commissioner Braun.

Aye, Commissioner Imperial, Commissioner Moore, and Commission President.

Soye.

So move Commissioners that motion passes unanimously seven to zero.

Acting zoning administrator would say.

Thank you.

I'll close the public hearing.

I intend to grant the variance with standard conditions.

Great, thank you.

Commissioners, that will place us on item 14 for case number 2025, 003933 C UA at 620 Jones Street and 560 Gary Street.

This is a conditional use authorization.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Michelle Langley, Department staff.

The project before you is a request for a conditional use to modify condition of approval number 14 from planning commission motion number 19270 to extend the hours of live entertainment in an existing outdoor activity area to till 8 p.m.

Sunday through Thursday, and to and to 10 p.m.

Friday and Saturday from the previously approved limitation of 7 p.m.

daily at the subject property doing business as 6 20 Jones.

There is no change in the existing restaurant and nighttime entertainment uses.

No physical work is being proposed.

The project has qualified for review under the planning commission's community business priority processing program.

A restaurant use was established at the basement of the Gaylord Hotel and on the rooftop of the garage building fronting Geary with a conditional use in 2008 with a closing time of midnight and no amplified music.

An allowance of two monthly events with outdoor entertainment until 7 p.m.

was granted.

In 2013, previous conditions of approval were amended to extend the outdoor activity area hours until 2 p.m.

on weekends, New Year's Eve, and Gay Pride Sunday.

Under this approval, amplified outdoor entertainment was also allowed until 7 p.m.

daily.

It is important to note that a request for a restaurant and outdoor activity area at this location today would not require a conditional use.

The sponsor hosted a department facilitated pre-application meeting on April 9th, 2025.

Management representing adjacent hotels attended and expressed some concerns regarding noise.

No other members of the public attended.

The department received 19 letters of support 17 letters of support from nearby business owners, community leaders, and neighbors highlighting positive impacts of the business, along with 22 letters of opposition from the public, one request for more information, and a petition signed by 79 neighbors.

These letters address noise and quality of life concerns from nearby residents.

Should the request for expanded outdoor entertainment hours be approved, the project sponsor will return to the entertainment commission to ensure that entertainment specific considerations like sound limits, hours, and days of outdoor sound and special event frequency can be evaluated, and additional specialized conditions can be considered.

At that entertainment commission hearing, neighbors will have another formal opportunity to share input on these entertainment specific concerns.

Planning staff finds that this project is necessary, desirable for, and incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood, which includes high-density residential, hotel, and institutional uses with abundant ground floor commercial uses, and is on balance with a general plan and use district.

The operators have made efforts to mitigate undesirable undesirable consequences and negative effects of noise by installing a new outdoor four-point sound system in an effort to better contain the volume of the music within the patio.

The project sponsor is sensitive to the concerns of neighboring residents and is committed to being a responsible and engaged neighbor by adhering to the noise ordinance and the entertainment commission's good neighbor policy and keeping open lines of commission communication with neighborhood residents and associations.

Conditional use approval to extend the permitted hours of entertainment in the outdoor activity area would allow the existing restaurant to maintain a viable small business in the post-COVID environment, create more job opportunities, and support the support the cultural vitality of the tender line and contribute to the ongoing economic recovery of San Francisco.

This concludes my presentation, and I'm available for questions.

The project sponsor is also in attendance and will follow with additional details.

Thank you.

Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

Thank you, Commissioners.

My name is Pete Glickstern.

I am a 45-year-long resident of San Francisco.

We have been operating at our location at Jones and Geary for almost 15 years.

We are a neighborhood anchor in the tender line.

We stayed open and kept all of our employees working all through COVID.

We support 25 employees, most of whom have families.

Almost all of our employees live in the city of San Francisco.

We cannot stay open with things the way they are.

People simply are not coming to the tender line.

If we shut down, those 25 people and their families will lose their livelihood.

Out of every four entertainment businesses in San Francisco.

Um, one out of every four entertainment businesses in San Francisco has an outdoor element.

One hundred and forty-three of them in all.

They all go to at least 10 p.m.

All we want is a level playing field.

Pardon me.

Um we actively manage our business.

We changed our format, complaints went up.

We engaged with neighbors, and with sound experts, complaints went down.

Uh we're doing everything we can to stay afloat, just keep our heads above water.

We renegotiated our lease to be percentage only.

We cut salaried staff down to a bare minimum.

We are both working out the business day in and day out 15 years later.

We still can't meet payroll most months.

Jordan and I are personally funding this business right now.

We can't keep that up.

Commissioners, please hear me.

A vote against extending our hours until 10 PM is a vote to shut down Jones.

Jordan.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Jordan Langer.

Uh President, so Vice President Moore, thank you for for being here.

I started at Jones over 15 years ago.

I started as a laborer and I worked my way from bar manager to general manager.

And Jones is the grandfather of everything that I've done in San Francisco since then.

From taking over the Palace of Fine Arts and the old San Francisco Mint on behalf of the city and county of San Francisco to creating Portola, one of the largest music festivals the city has seen, and most recently activating Ellis Street in the newly formed entertainment district.

We are good operators.

We are good stewards, and we love San Francisco.

I want to talk a little bit more about the community engagement and why Jones is an anchor in the neighborhood.

Just last week we hosted Dish's annual bash for the tenth time.

Altogether, through the support of Jones, Dish has been able to raise 2.2 million dollars to provide how high quality permanent housing to San Franciscos who suffer from serious health issues.

We have raised millions of dollars for local LGBTQ organizations through fundraisers, events, and awareness campaigns.

With the city's NRG grant funding, we created San Francisco's first queer arts and music festival in the tenderloin.

This festival included over a dozen queer locally owned legacy businesses that over the past four years have seen a sharp decline in their business.

Since day one, oh excuse me.

I am proud of all of the good that Jones has done over the past 15 years.

As Pete mentioned, we changed our format to reflect the new reality.

We actively worked with the entertainment commission to control the sound, address issues, and mitigate neighborhood impact.

We've been given a new sound limit based on our updated sound plan, and since have not received any citations and have been in complete compliance while still continuing to host events.

This is another good example of our dedication to be good neighbors and the fact that we have been doing it for 15 years.

We will absolutely continue to work with the entertainment commission once we have once we have amended hours of operations.

For the last 15 years, we have welcomed oh excuse me, for the last 15 years, we've welcomed open communication with residents on our block and have engaged with everyone.

Everyone who is willing to have productive conversation with us.

That will never change.

Most of these folks, most people have my number, have Pete's phone number, or certainly has the management that is there every single night to be able to speak with them directly.

There are possibly some people here who emailed or who would rather excuse me.

There are possibly some people here or folks who have emailed to Joe to and want for Jones to close permanently.

We all have different beliefs about what a better San Francisco means, but the San Francisco that I know, and the San Francisco that is currently being championed by Mayor Lurry is one that welcomes small businesses, encourages entertainment, and is a city that is being rebuilt by culture.

Thank you for your time.

Please, I ask you to consider this for the betterment of San Francisco.

Okay, with that, we should take public comment.

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

You need to come forward.

Can I go?

Sure can.

Well, thank you.

Thank you for listening to me.

Look, I just found out about this yesterday, and I live in the neighborhood.

I have had no time to prepare for this, but let me tell you something.

This place in my neighborhood, there have been nights when it has been so loud, it has felt like it's rattling the windows of my apartment.

I go in the back of my apartment.

It is still loud back there, and it goes late, and people in my building feel that way.

I live in that apartment on a rent control basis.

I uh have fixed income, I can't move, but whatever I'm paying for rent, whatever anybody's paying for rent, it is a high density neighborhood.

There are studio apartments all around this place, and it is so loud at night, and the people that go there, the music they play.

You know what it is it's like this base like thump thump thump thump.

Gary, it's like Gary and Jones.

You want to allow, you know, Gary and Jones is world famous for every kind of urban problem.

It's like ground zero.

You know, people all all over the place read about Gary and Jones and the news.

I know people are trying to make an effort to work with community, but nobody has tried to work with anybody in my building.

And I I just want to get some sleep at night, you know.

Uh I I want some rest.

I've worked in the bar and restaurant business, I've gone out late at night, that's fine.

But look at this.

It's out of doors, it's out of doors in this bad neighborhood, and it's a lot of urban problems.

I'm a senior citizen, there's lots of senior citizens around there, and uh with the limited time I have had to prepare, that's about all I can say.

Thank you.

Hello, everyone.

It's great to see you all today.

I'm Juanita Moore.

I've been doing drag in San Francisco for the past 33 years.

And I've been part of Jones since they first opened.

I've been having my annual pride party there for the past 11 years, and with their help, I have helped to raise over a million dollars for some of San Francisco's most impactful nonprofit organizations.

Youth programs, senior programs, those are things that I super, super really care about.

Um I also ran the restaurant at Jones for a year with the sound ordinance and everything having to stop at 7 p.m.

and me running the restaurant and trying to serve dinner.

My guests weren't coming in after 7 p.m.

because there was no no music for them to hear in the patio.

Um it's been a special place for me and my community to celebrate what we do and who we are in San Francisco.

So I'd consider, please consider passing this.

I I want to make another million dollars for our community.

Thank you.

Okay, I'm gonna remind members of the public to please silence your mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings, and please refrain from clapping or any other kinds of outbursts.

If you want to show support, you can wiggle your fingers and hands in the air, okay?

Thank you.

Hello, commissioners, how are you?

Um my name is Bobby Friday, and I am a drag performer, host MC, event producer, and have served as Grand Duchess 48 of the Grand Ducal Council of San Francisco.

Excuse me.

Um, I'm here today to speak in support of 620 Jones as a queer performing artist in San Francisco.

Too many of our spaces are disappearing, and with that, the livelihood of many, myself included.

I've been so grateful and honored to have been part of the cast and a rotating host at 620 Jones for Saturdays and Sundays, our drag brunch for over two years now.

620 Jones, many other artists and myself have worked very hard to create a space that has become known throughout the city and beyond as a destination for drag art.

Not only do San Franciscans come regularly for shows, but we also draw in crowds from other parts of the Bay Area as well as tourists visiting our beautiful city.

I humbly ask that you please support 620 Jones and the work that we are all doing to revitalize downtown and restore San Francisco to its pre-pandemic glory as a place for people to come from all over for entertainment and culture.

We can encourage new businesses and work towards boosting the economy in downtown without supporting the businesses that are already there.

620 Jones can't survive without the ability to provide the programming that continues to invite all to find community and belonging in San Francisco.

620 Jones has become a space that the queer community calls home and gathers from weekly drag brunches to Juanita Moore's famed uh annual pride party.

What makes this space so special is that in addition to it being a haven for the LGBTQ plus IA community, other groups also frequent and combine and find community there as well.

Truly making for a place where all folks, regardless of sex, race, sexual orientation, et cetera, are able to gather, representing perhaps what makes San Francisco the most beautiful and magical place that it is, a place where everyone belongs.

Thank you so much for your consideration.

Please support 620 Jones.

Good afternoon.

My name's Carmen Guzman.

I'm one of the managers at 620 Jones.

Um I just am speaking in support of 620, obviously, because I am one of the managers there.

Um I haven't been a manager for very long, but I have been in the area for a very long time.

I've been part of it.

I'm going to interrupt you just because as an employee you have a financial interest, and so you're sort of part of the project sponsors team.

Gotcha, I cannot speak.

We get you're in favor.

You've got a financial interest.

Okay, if you if you would like me to moment to step down.

Yes, please.

Thank you.

I understood.

Thank you.

Good morning, good afternoon, commissioners.

Thank you for having us.

Uh, my name is David Hutton.

I'm general manager of Hotel Adagio.

Uh, we sit directly adjacent to 620 Jones.

Um our beautiful hotel has been part of the community for 95 years.

We have contributed millions of dollars to the city's tax base since our inception.

I feel that we have been a very understanding and flexible neighbor to 620 Jones.

We have turned the other cheek for many years and rarely, if ever have called the police or fire department for assistance.

The past 12 months, things have changed.

The music has become louder, the bass harder, and guest complaints have become substantial.

Hotel Adagio has always done our part in keeping the neighborhood clean and attempting to provide a safe street for hotel employees and guests alike.

The noise disturbance from 620 Jones has cost Hotel Adagio tens of thousands of dollars in the past year due to guest complaints, compensation, cancellations, and most devastating, our online presence with social media reviews, which hurts future bookings.

Our request for them to turn down the music has fallen on deaf ears.

My employees, all 70 of them, have been affected by this in one way or another.

Whether it be a front desk agent at the desk being screamed at because the guests cannot sleep, or a housekeeper whose hours have been cut due to reservations being canceled.

I want to be clear.

I don't want to harm 620 Jones or lose another business in Union Square.

We are simply asking that they operate within the scope of what it's licensed to be: a restaurant and a bar, not a nightclub.

Allowing them to expand their nightlife operations in this location is reckless, unfair, and harmful to our community.

I respectfully request for you to deny the request for them to expand.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Alex Bashin.

I'm the president and CEO of the Hotel Council of San Francisco, and I'm here to stand in solidarity with David in the Hotel Adagio.

You know, this industry has been through so much, and uh the industry uh has contributed roughly 400 million dollars of direct tax revenue to San Francisco in the good years.

And you know, the hotel industry is now finally making inroads into getting to a place that's better than last year, and uh we have to stand in solidarity with our hotel partners.

Uh and the reason for that is because when the hotels do well, the city does well.

And in fact, when you think about it, San Francisco is a business partner to the hotels because the taxes that come from that industry feed the coffers of the city.

There's got to be a way to work together to put our city first.

David himself, I believe, has been a club owner or club manager, I should say, in the past.

So when we talk about these things about uh common sense and collaboration, there's got to be a better way.

And when I hear the adagio having an issue uh next door, I really feel obligated to come here and speak to all of you, and I just ask that all of you kind of consider all the factors here to make the right decisions for San Francisco.

Thank you so much.

Hello.

Uh I am uh uh here in response to the proposal to extend the hours of 620 Jones near on Geary near Union Square.

Uh it's an open-air establishment, and please keep that in mind.

No, it's very different from 906 Broadway, which I understand as a roof and walls, somewhat insulated.

I would like to say that I'm extremely opposed to the extension of the hours.

My reasons are that I must frequently visit a friend who resides at 535 Geary, uh, Caddy Corner across the street from 620 Jones.

We can barely hear ourselves talk when 620 Jones is having a rave show festival, DJ celebration or other outdoor event.

You can feel the throbbing beat of a drum machine that sometimes rattles the windows.

So I can uh agree with the gentleman that spoke earlier.

Patrons shout and scream at the top of their lungs, often in call and response style, out in the open air.

The MC or DJ for the event uses an amplified microphone similar to a bullhorn.

This can go on for quite a while.

My friend even bought noise canceling headphones, which do not work because you can still feel the throbbing.

I used a noise level app while there.

The reading was between 70 and 80 decibels, which, according to the chem.purdue.edu Purdue University website is the equivalent to a garbage disposal, food blender, diesel truck at 40 miles per hour, or a diesel train going 45 miles per hour from 100 feet away with possible damage after eight hours of exposure.

Uh it is very loud, and I can only imagine people trying to sleep throughout the day that like work at night, or like guests at the hotel adagio.

These ordinance there are ordinances for noise abatement for this mixed-use residential area that define limits and levels of acceptable use.

If this were just a restaurant, uh it might be acceptable, but it is not just a restaurant, it is an open-air, big space event like Coachella.

Please do not extend the hours.

I do not want my friend to be forced to move and leave San Francisco.

Thank you.

Hi there.

Uh my name is Dudley Emmert.

I'm a long-term resident of uh the Tandernab or Lower Knob Hill.

I've lived on post between Jones and Taylor for about 25 years.

Uh I'm here to oppose the conditional use the conditional use authorization for 620 Jones, which would extend the hours of live entertainment at 620.

First of all, I'd like to point out that the site plan that was submitted with a request for a CUA does not accurately represent the true physical layout of 620 Jones.

For the sake of clarity, 620 Jones has a wall of windows from the Gaylard Gaylord apartment on the north side.

It has the Adagio Hotel on the east side, and it has the State Pineapple Hotel on the west side.

620 Jones is literally in the courtyard of a high-rise apartment building.

The noise from 620 Jones is bouncing all over the neighborhood.

I live over a block away and to the north, and my home literally vibrates from amplified sound at 620 Jones.

To my understanding, no appropriate environmental impact study has ever been done to understand how the amplified noise from 620 is impacting the surrounding area.

As my neighbors are describing today, both residents and businesses have been negatively impacted by the noise generated at 620 Jones under their current business parameters and would be further impacted by an extension of outdoor entertainment hours.

For adjacent hotels and businesses, noise from 620 Jones is already leading to repeated guest complaints, cancellations, and lost revenue.

Hotel managers are reporting measurable declines in guest satisfaction from bookings tied directly to 620 Jones noise disturbances.

Vulnerable neighborhood residents are already consistently subjected to disruptive conditions that therefore with the comfortable that interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life and erode an already fragile social fabric.

Please take a note that these troubles exist today under the existing uh uh mode of doing business.

It is unthinkable that outdoor entertainment operations would be extended to 620 Jones.

Pete, one of the uh principals at 620 Jones just described his business as an entertainment venue.

However, when 620 Jones opened in 2010, it presented itself and was permitted as an intimate patio restaurant offering a seasonal French California menu, craft cocktails, and a capacity of approximately 125 patrons.

Today it has morphed into a large-scale alcohol first nightclub, drawing up to 1,200 patrons.

This dramatic shift in character and scale is problematic on its face and raises serious questions about compliance with both the spirit and the letter of its existing permits.

Taking all this into consideration, I respectfully urge the planning commission to reject the proposed conditional use authorization at 620 Jones.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Isabella, and I'm here on behalf of over 90 neighbors who signed a petition opposing 620 Jones' request for an extension.

As of um three hours ago, we had 83 online petitions signed and uh 10 paper petitions on not counting duplicates.

Um we are asking you to deny this request and to recognize the uh that the entertainment commission must review the existing permit as soon as possible.

What surprised me uh most in reviewing the petition comments is not just the noise, but serious mental health impacts.

Neighbors describe panic attacks, trauma, and loss of peace in their own homes.

One resident wrote, it cost me headaches every single weekend, and it agitates my 86-year-old grandma to the point where she has panic attacks.

Others describe the physical toll of excessive noise.

I can feel the bass pounding in my chest.

My walls and windows vibrate, and closing them doesn't help.

It literally feels like the music is playing inside my unit.

This isn't just a mild nuisance, it's unbearable.

Um, and to put this in uh relations, this comment came from somebody uh, this is the setup of uh 620, which I'm sure you're most many of you are familiar with.

Um, but this comment came from someone who isn't even living in any of these uh immediately surrounding uh buildings.

It comes from across the street diagonal diagonally.

Um people are being forced to rearrange their lives.

Um one quote is on weekend I just leave most of the day to avoid the overwhelming base.

On my days off, I cannot even be at home.

I have to pack up and go.

Um, the same goes for people who work from home, and we have people that work on Sundays.

And the neighborhood impact extends uh further.

Trash, disorders, strangers taking nearby buildings uh for the mistake in nearby buildings uh for the bar, and even reports from hotel staff that guests refunding cancellations are costing them 10,000 of dollars.

In short, these venue has a long history of disregarding limits and disturbing its neighbors.

Extending their hours would only make an already intolerable situation worse.

The good neighborhood policy and police code both prohibits unnecessary and offensive noise that disturbs the peace.

620 has shown repeatedly over numerous years that they're not a good neighbor.

On behalf of all these residents and businesses who signed, I respectfully urge you to request to deny their request.

And just a quick comment.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is David Peterson.

I'm a 35-year resident of the Tenderknob.

And I live three blocks from Jones.

In full transparency, I want to let you know I'm a shareholder in the a business, another business with these sponsors, Pete and Jordan.

But I have no financial interest in Jones.

And to tell you that Jones is an anchor of the community for us.

I will watch my community.

Really go through some beautiful flourishing moments, the late 2000s, mid-2000s, when we all hit quote COVID, all of us kind of got hit hard.

Many of the neighborhoods here in the city have shown much resilience in the recovery efforts.

But I'll tell you something.

Thought to release, to laugh, and to have community.

Hello, commissioners.

My name is Steve.

I live at 520 Geary, which is right down the block from Jones, and I just want to reiterate with some of these other folks who said that the noise is ridiculous.

I didn't really know what type of business is run there.

I don't want anybody to lose their business or their employment.

But it does literally vibe.

The sound reverberates off the tall buildings.

And I would also like to point out that there are probably over a thousand units or dwellings within a block radius of this place, so it disturbs a lot of people.

And you know, you can't hardly hear yourself think or hear your TV or your stereo.

So I just want to know why they can't dial down the noise a little bit.

That's that's really the major complaint that the people who live in the area have.

Thank you.

Okay, last call for public comment.

Hello.

I'm sorry, I'm nervous.

English is not my native language.

I just came here.

I live exactly.

My name is Landa.

I live exactly in 620 Jones.

And all the neighbors who I know in my building, they are tired of this music.

People just, they didn't come because they thought like, oh, I have work today, and it will not help.

Like nothing will not change.

Like we are like, can't to do nothing.

And I just wanted to say, like, uh people was complaining in police.

Especially they was put some paper in elevator, but they was measured the sound level of the sound, and it was not 91 decibel.

It's level of rock concert, if you understand.

It's not healthy.

For mental health, all my room is vibrating of the music.

My window is vibrating.

So and I working from the home, my work became to nightmare.

I'm overstressed.

I I I will happy to move out, but I have problem with my work, and I have problem with my money.

I will become homeless.

It will if it will be more music.

I'm trying to understand, like explain because it's not my language, I don't know how to say it.

This restaurant have uh c uh capacity, thousand people, thousand, two hundred.

Technically, this restaurant, it's are using as a nightclub.

Because in the basement of this building, it's nightclub who is working until 2 a.m.

And the music of this basement we can hear on until four uh peace level.

So it's it's it's not bar, it's not small bar when you can come and drink beer.

It's technically open rooftop nightclub.

Even if music is finished, then drunk people they they are yelling until midnight because they don't want to stop.

They are staying in the street.

In the morning, I don't know.

Someone of you, if you live in this neighborhood, in the morning we have construction working, so it's noise.

In the night it's homeless area, they are yelling.

At what time I need to work and what time I need to sleep.

And yes, it's affecting my mental health.

I also I I I support uh people who who told about panic attack about everything.

Look at me, do I look healthy?

Do I look what I slept well?

Thank you, ma'am.

That is your time.

And most what I saw yesterday was a peer paper.

Ma'am, I'm sorry, but that is your time.

The commissioners may call you up for clarifying questions.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Peter Young, and I live at 620.

See, the restaurant and the Gaylord Hotel have the same address.

Uh I live on the top floor, and I can tell you as uh I wrote to you in the last couple of days, and I should my letter I'm sure is included in the documents for this.

It's bad.

It's real it's like living in uh an auditorium.

Um I wanted to uh just have a few quick notes.

This was attached to my door last night, and it's an offer from 620 Jones.

Show your support, come here today, 12 o'clock, and we'll give you a voucher for a free appetizer or drink or a special discount for your next visit.

I don't see anybody from my building.

I think that says something.

When you offer people free drinks and they don't take it, I would also like to point out that in exhibit E on page 10 of your packet from March 13, 2008, it says there shall be no general amplified music to the outdoor area.

That was the original conditions, and that would have worked just fine.

But the Camel got its nose into the tent a little bit at a time, and over the next couple of years, the music has been getting louder and louder.

I'm concerned that first of all, the general plan does not designate this part of the tenderloin for nighttime entertainment.

They're asking you to violate that part of your plan.

Um the other thing is that there's kind of a trust me aspect to this.

I would want to see that that's working before I've said, sure, come on, let's extend the hours.

So I would ask that the commission either delay action until the property owners can guarantee that the sound reduction works or reject it entirely.

Thank you very much.

Okay, last call for public comment.

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

Thanks.

Thank you, everyone for coming.

This is not a I always say this is not an easy meeting to get to, so appreciate everybody um voicing.

This is obviously a very complicated situation in these cities.

We're all living on top of each other.

I live in the Castro, and um I appreciate how you know we're always trying to balance like individual well-being and um and the and the greater good here and supporting businesses and arts and entertainment, and so it's it's a lot to consider, and um I I often look at these as though a little bit more trying to trying to balance like more predictability and transparency and sort of what is permissible and what are the rules of the road, rather than us up here, because I'm never really comfortable with determining these hours here.

Um I kind of wanna make things a little bit more predictable.

Okay, and what what are the norms, right?

So, and um I may need Ms.

Langley to come up because I think I'm gonna have more questions than I am um answers here, but uh I'm curious about um I called you earlier today and we chatted um uh to really understand kind of what's before us and it's we're here today because there's a there are conditions of approval associated with a a CUA here and they have to do specifically with the hours.

And one thing that was mentioned in public comment that I think is really interesting is that if 620 Jones today came and pulled a permit for an outdoor entertainment venue, it's principally permitted and they could get a permit without a conditional use.

Is that correct?

Michelle Langley department staff.

Um that is correct.

Um both uh restaurant uses and um entertainment uses are principally permitted in the RC4 zoning district.

There have been many legislative changes since the original permit was issued in 2008.

And they were one of the first establishments to pull a permit like this.

It was sort of trailblazing in a way.

Correct.

I've been in conversations with the entertainment commission um because of obviously this has a lot to do um with what they they tend to regulate as part of their purview.

Um but they did mention that uh t 620 Jones was one of the first establishments to have an outdoor entertainment component, um, which is likely why the hours were so um restricted at the time.

Um and I do want to reiterate that um in my conversations with with the entertainment commission that they did say that there are 25% of the the um entertainment permits have that outdoor entertainment component, and they do typically allow them to be open till 10 p.m.

Sometimes even later.

Interesting.

So since they've done this conditional use with these conditions, there's actually been many more um outdoor live entertainment spaces throughout the city that we have permitted without and in many cases without conditional use author uh uh C UA pro you know, right?

I can't speak to the the um the percentage of that those permits that came before the commission or not.

Um, but I do know that uh entertainments commission, entertainment commission's outdoor entertainment component has ramped up significantly in the past couple of years, particularly with COVID and businesses having outdoor activities more frequently, as well as Oracle Park wanting to host concerts.

But this would be principally permitted if it was to be pulled today.

Correct.

Um the nighttime entertainment use was added via a planning approval letter, an over-the-counter planning approval letter in March, because it is principally permitted.

So the establishment has two principal uses.

They have the restaurant use and the nighttime entertainment use.

I'm looking for, you know, what are the norms?

What are we doing in other places?

You mentioned almost all of these establishments are allowed to be open until 10 p.m.

seven days a week.

That is my understanding.

Okay.

So I guess where I'm going with this is oh, and we have the entertainment commission.

There's actually like the reason I'm not comfortable with this is because there's actually like a group that regulates and permits all things related to entertainment and in venues in the city.

And I'm just wondering, I'm wondering if they're if it's possible to kind of liberate this CU from the conditions of approval so that we're not up here dictating their hours of operation, but rather allowing a commission that we've empowered to deal with these things, handle those hours so that they're following more of the norms that are aligned with what other venues are doing across the city.

Sure, I'm happy to chime in.

That's absolutely something that this commission could do, and to reinforce the entertainment commission does regulate and impose limitations on hours of operation, that is within their purview.

They do regulate and check.

They have the staff who actually go out actually on my elevator ride on the way over here.

I ran into one of the folks who does the sound checks for the city for entertainment venues.

So they have staff that will go out on a complaint-based venue, uh complaint based on complaints or both uh proactively, sorry, um, to check on sound um and decibel levels.

So if anyone is experiencing those, they should be calling.

Um, either 311 or the entertainment commission, and they will go out and check and make those corrections.

They also deal with operational plans and a lot of other more operational related components of other entertainment that are really outside of land use to make sure that they are um good neighbors.

Great.

Thanks for that.

Um so that would be I'm interested to hear what other commissioners have to say, but that would be um, that would be my uh preference here is to to actually separate the that condition of approval from this CUA and leave it up to the entertainment commission to to dictate the hours.

Commissioner wrong.

That was interesting.

Let me make sure I'm understanding uh so um so right now the only reason we are here to approve the COA is because we have a prior condition of approval if this if this were a new business opening today in this space, they would not need planning commission approval related to uh any of the uses we're approving or hours of operation, is that correct?

So when this commission reviews a project and applies a condition of approval, that condition effectively runs in perpetuity with that land use and approval, regardless of whether regulations at sort of more a policy level at 10,000 feet throughout the city are changed.

So we're actually grappling with that quite a bit on a lot of different projects right now, as more land uses have been made principally permitted.

There are a lot of old projects that you know thankfully are still in business.

Um, but the downside of them still being in business is that they're um held to those unique conditions of approval that may have a more macro level been removed for people who are going into a vacant storefront proposing the same business model.

And so that's the situation that we have here.

There's a unique speci uh condition of approval applied based on you know the need for conditional use for a restaurant um back in 2008.

Um but if a business, if they had if they went out of business and waited for three years, which is the abandonment provision in the planning code and reopened the exact same business model, it would not come before you and they would be allowed to operate um to the hours requested.

So they would be allowed to operate nighttime entertainment with live performance until 108.

And I believe, and staff can correct me if I'm wrong.

I believe in the RC district, there is not an hours limitation from a land use perspective.

Again, it does not mean that the entertainment commission will not impose our limitations.

But in this district, it would not be a constraint of the zoning.

Did I get that right, Steph?

Okay, great.

Michelle Langley, department staff, that's correct.

There are no hours of operation limit limitations in the zoning district.

Okay.

Thank you for.

Wait, sorry, say that again.

There are no there are no limits on the hours of operation in the zoning in the zoning district.

So certain zoning hours of operation are regulated differently in different zoning districts.

So for example, if you were to take an NC1 zoning district, there will be hours of operation limitations in that zoning district.

In this zoning district, there are not.

So it is a 24-hour allowance.

Now we know that the entertainment commission is not going to allow that, but from a land use perspective, there's not a limitation of hours of operation.

Okay.

And that's true for outdoor activity areas as well.

Do you know?

I don't believe there's a nuance and and it I don't believe it's parsed in outdoor entertainment.

Yeah, direct.

Okay, thank you for that.

Um, okay, so that that was helpful.

I I have a few questions for the the project sponsor.

So you referenced that the sound system has changed.

There's directional speakers.

Well, in the packet I read there are directional speakers and decibel limiters.

Um when did that change happen?

And could you just explain a little bit more about how it is supposed to be helping with the sound situation?

Uh in the last month or two, and um what we get.

So we actually own and operate the biggest um nightclub in San Francisco, the biggest independent nightclub in the country, the midway down in Bayview.

Um, and so I've brought all of our tech staff, um, and I've leveraged all of our resources down there to try to alleviate things here.

Um the I this is a very rudimentary explanation.

I'm not a technical person.

Um but we had speakers going two sets of speakers going in one direction, which requires that they be louder and then they just throw with four corners.

What happens is there's more speakers, they can be quieter, even though the effect on the floor is still just as loud, and also they cancel each other out.

So there's not as much noise waves going out.

But we're gonna continue to play with all of that.

This is a relatively new thing.

We operated as a bar and restaurant up until COVID and through COVID and after COVID.

We just can't stay afloat without entertainment and events at this point.

I see.

Um then, you know, I guess it's part of those changes.

I mean, what how are how is the fact that you're kind of closed in on three sides?

I've been to the venue, you know, before.

How does it help to address that issue?

Yeah, Commissioners Jordan Langer.

Uh so we were able to work with the entertainment commission specifically on this plan, looking at a four-corner system to again to allow more infill of sound as compared to blasting sound.

Um, part of what people are saying is sound is directional uh for the most part.

And as you know, three sides, it can bounce.

So what we're trying to do is shoot sound into the middle, into people that is then absorbed through the people.

That's what we went through with with our sound tech.

And then most recently, we were able to get a new sound limit, a decibel limit from the entertainment commission.

And that was only a few weeks ago.

Uh we've had events since then, and we have been 100% in compliance and had the inspectors come out and and check since then.

I see, okay.

Thank you for that explanation.

I and I really appreciate the work that you're doing to try to help with the sound situation.

It's certainly the main concern everyone's raising, it's the concern that I have.

And I've lived in the middle of pretty nightlife centric areas and know what it is to to sometimes deal with that.

And on some level, when we live in these places, we we accept that there's gonna be some issues, but you know, there's a there's a limit, right?

Um, the uh and of course, you know, the base transmission is always one of the bigger, you know, harder challenges to address, and so I appreciate all the work going on, but it's difficult to imagine that the base transmission is not still an issue for folks.

Um, so then the my other um question to you is that there's a reference to the community hotline that exists.

And I'm curious um where is that community hotline posted?

How do people know about it?

What is that number?

Uh the front desk at the Gaylord Hotel, which is the building we occupy with the basement of the Gaylord Hotel, and then the rooftop of the garage, the fronts geary.

It's a funny elevation on our block.

Um, but the front desk has our number or my number, it's been a few years since Jordan's been there.

Um so he's just back, but they have my number, they have the the manager's number.

Um we're also also always there.

Um of all of the people that spoke in opposition today, the only one that actually engaged with us, reached out, engaged, and met with us, uh, is I don't remember his last name.

His first name is Dudley.

Um so i i everyone else just kind of comes out of the woodwork.

We don't we don't know that they have an issue because they've never reached out.

There's several people that were very vocal in opposition, and we've reached out to them multiple times.

Hey, when can we sit down?

Hey, wait, can we have a conversation?

No response.

And it's one of those things where if you're not gonna come to the table, how do you expect to be heard at the table, right?

And it's so it's i it's it's kind of like I don't know, bushwhacking, I guess.

I'm sure you show up to the hearing, but we've been there 15 years.

Where have you been?

There's also multiple loud venues on our block.

Most of that noise that people are describing is not us.

We haven't been open past 10 in any capacity since COVID.

TL's been getting killed.

Like that we were not making that noise.

I'm sorry for the people's suffering, and I'm sorry that people are having a hard time.

But literally the stuff that's being described ain't us.

Okay.

Um there's also a reference in the uh materials provided that there's a monthly outreach calendar.

Could you mind explaining a little more about um how that is being shared, with whom that's being shared?

So we share it with the management of the the Gaylord, and then we have a list of anyone who wants to be on it, who is asked to be on it, we include that.

Uh the entertainment commission is shared on it, and I'm not sure, but I believe that police is as well.

Um we can ask Carmen or or one of our our staff to come up and clarify that.

But it is a robust list that anyone that wants to be on it, we're happy to add.

One of the the main things that we have found over uh at least for me, two decades of doing this and being in the entertainment industry is being responsive and being there is categorically the most important thing.

So if we get a complaint and someone calls the entertainment commission on a Saturday night, we will find out about it Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday.

There's nothing that we're able to do about it in that moment.

If they're able to call us, call our management and call us directly, we can engage with it right then and there.

We mean we've gone into people's apartments, we've brought sound meters into people's apartments.

I think that we we had a very short period of time to be able to talk, but over the past 15 years, we've replaced dozens of folks' windows in the 620 Jones building.

We have bought countless sound curtains.

We have been there to be able to be active in working towards solutions.

Because as you've all said, we are in a city.

This is a city where we need to be able to.

And that was just from crowd noise.

That was before we were doing DJs.

We just acknowledged the fact that back then in 2010, 11, 12, we're the new kid on the block, and we don't want to mess up people's daily.

And so we did all that, and we're gonna continue to do all that.

One of the other important notes, and I hate I mentioned it briefly, but um we've been that we've said it a a number of times up here.

We've been there for 15 years.

But I think that what is really important to also note is that Pete and I just re-upped a 10-year lease at Jones.

So rather than it turning into another lost business, another desolate space on Geary Street, we recommitted.

And we're recommitted.

We're here, where we're recommitted with the neighborhood.

We recommitted with all of it to continue to operate successfully and in a good neighbor policy over the course of the next decade.

Okay, thank you for that.

I appreciate your responses.

Um the you know, so I'm trying to balance here the fact that this the venue has had clearly there has been an impact and and uh I think there's no getting around.

Like there's gonna be a lot of noise from this venue, and and there has been an impact enough that there have been a number of people who have raised concerns and spoken about how it affects their quality of life.

Um but at the same time, you know, I uh it really does strike me that this would be a completely different situation if the venue was coming forward today under our our current zoning, and that's an interesting point that Commissioner Campbell raised.

Um I kind of wondering, I don't have a I'm not ready to make a motion or anything like that at this point, but I I'm kind of thinking that rather than just completely stripping out the conditional use authorization, there is a between those two paths of of rejecting this and or stripping away the see the conditional use authorization.

So this reverts to the underlying zoning, there is the path of what's before us, which is the more limited hours of operation, it is still an expansion of the hours of operation uh and what is allowed to happen at the site, but you know that it's starting to seem like sort of an in-between um option here, but that's where I'm at right now.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Um Commissioner Williams.

Yeah.

Thank you for everyone coming out here.

Um and thank you for commissioners for pointing out that uh, you know, the obvious thing that if if this this business were to come come before, wouldn't wouldn't even come before us.

It would just be uh permitted.

So you you know if it sounds to me like it's more of a sound issue than anything else.

And um I want to be sensitive to the folks that live there.

Uh I mean I appreciate uh the business and all the all the you know wonderful things that you do.

It's obvious that you that you guys are are are you know a community asset, and I appreciate that as a San Franciscan.

But I also appreciate the fact that uh that people gotta, you know, they they have their residences and they they need a level of uh um of peace um in their residences, and so I I'm you know, I don't know what this commission can do.

Um is as far as you know the sound issue, but uh but I would just you know I would just say uh as somebody that's concerned that you would maybe double down and and you see there's a lot of people, there's a lot of letters that came out uh against the sound.

I don't think it's it's your business.

I don't think it's uh anything personal.

I I think it's just there's an issue with the sound, and I'm not sure, you know, uh if that's the entertainment uh commission that needs to deal with that, but there's an issue there, and so you know, I I'd like to highlight that and hope that as good neighbors that you guys would um you know would would consider your neighbors have issues, right?

Um, and um that that's that's basically where I want to lend my voice to.

Um and so thank you for coming out.

Okay, Commissioner I'm Cario.

Thank you.

I um echo with other commissioners, it's also a tough a tough um um project that or um item that we are in as well.

Um I'm I'm also um uh I find um Commissioner Campbell um comment um interesting in terms of the the entertainment commission and again from you know from the perspective of, you know, here in the planning and with the zoning, many of the issues are being raised are around operations, right?

And the sound studies.

So I guess my question around this um Ms.

Wadi, is that can the commission, can the planning commission um, you know, uh put a condition in terms of the sun study, or that's more of the entertainment commission really to put to get to get into that?

That's really the entertainment commission's purview.

Sounds like we don't have technical expertise in the planning department to do that enforcement or do those sound um like we don't have sound meters in the planning department.

So that's that's really what their job is within the city family.

Okay.

And in terms of so I'm just trying to see how could this I'm not sure how is this really gonna work out here at the Planning Commission.

Um if let's say this is rejected, this is not that this is not gonna go to the entertainment commission in talking about the hours or so it has so in order to change the hours.

Um the commission has to approve it and then go to the entertainment commission to implement that.

How how yeah, how is this gonna play out?

So it there's sort of mutually exclusive actions.

So no matter what, the entertainment commission will review this, no matter what.

So if this commission chooses, you know, uh an option one, as Commissioner Campbell proposed, of just removing any reference to hours of operation, and that gets approved.

So in theory, any hour is allowed.

The entertainment commission will still review this and and impose our limitations to the project.

Okay.

If this commission, though, this commission does still through its land use powers have the ability to add hours of operation limitation.

That's very much within an, you know, that is within a land use purview.

Um typically it's in the context of when people are asking for extended hours.

So, for example, the last item you had before you at a certain point they had an application request to have extended hours.

That's in a zoning district where there are as of right hours and those hours that require conditional use.

So it's typically in that context when the planning commission limits or can stricts hours, but the commission does have the ability to apply them.

We just don't typically see the commission doing that within the principally permitted window.

But what the commission can do right now is perhaps within our jurisdiction around good neighbor policy.

Is that that's also can be part of the you could.

I mean, I think a couple suggestions that the entertainment commission does that as well, because again, the entertainment commission's focus is operational matters.

So they're looking at things that go way beyond land use as it relates to good neighbors.

So they're looking at you know security um plans, right?

Where they have security people posted, they have they have a whole slew of different um obligations and requirements and conditions that they impose when they issue an entertainment um permit, and they can revoke those entertainment permits and sort of through different powers than then the planning commission's, you know, revocation of a conditional use.

So they just have they have different purview, different jurisdiction, and actually the director reached out earlier and said maybe it's a good time for a refresher on you know, entertainment commission 101 at the planning commission, so we can all get on the same page.

So that's uh a teaser coming soon.

Um I would say I think with what this commission can certainly do, and it I think it sounds appropriate again.

I was listening in on the last item, a report back in a certain amount of time of how things are going, um, some direction around um good neighbor policies, and you know, maybe a uh request that we get a report back on what the final entertainment commission's um good neighbor policies that they adopt are so that that's sort of closing the loop with the commission to understand what those are.

Um I know in the past on entertainment venues or bar venues, the commission has required, you know, that you know, signs be posted, sort of good neighbor things of you know, let's be, you know, respectful of your neighbors when you leave the establishment, um, things of that nature, but really it sounds like on this one the noise is the primary issue.

It's a little less of how people are behaving, but more the noise, and that really is um uh regulated by the entertainment commission.

Yeah, um, yeah, I think it will be great to have the entertainment commission and planning commission have perhaps a joint hearing sometime and discuss the the good neighbor policy.

Um I think it will be worthwhile to for the commission as well to for us to be verse on what is their good neighbor policy and also what we've been seeing in this commission when it comes to entertainment uses or act or activities.

Um you know, I don't um uh the the issues with the with the residents still reverberates to me and also the nearby hotel and also um, you know, so this is something that is you know um I am really taking a lot in consideration um in terms of extending the hours.

There's part of me that I am not in favor of extension.

Um if all of the commissioners would like to, you know, uh if majority of the commissioners um would like to approve this, I think it's really good for us to have a report back, or perhaps more a monitoring system about this of the outdoor activity.

So I'd like to hear what other commissioners have to say.

Thank you, Commissioner Vice President Moore.

Uh thank you for everybody who came out.

I think the message I hear from this commission, which I think is a pretty unified message, that we are hearing the neighborhood and the issues related to noise, but we are also supporting the venue to be there, and it's actually in the interaction between the two parties where the problem lies, which is not ours to solve.

Uh and while I think a good neighborhood policy, and the applicant's knowledge of that policy is extremely important.

We all need to sometimes remember that we are not living on an island, but that there are neighbors who feel differently about noise and think differently about large uh people gatherings, particularly in residential neighborhoods.

There is also the notion that we are living in a city where all of the next to each other in some form or another, and I'm expanding the emphasis on all things next to each other can happen.

You heard us earlier regarding the church with seven eighty-four seniors with operable windows living literally across the street.

Here the situation is a little different.

Here we have tall buildings amplifying noise and making it more difficult.

I want to ask actually uh our planner, Miss Ling, your question.

Is there any record of any direct complaints to the entertainment commission or to the police department that have been logged with you or which you could talk about?

Sha Langley Department staff.

Um I do have that somewhere here.

So I did get um some information from the entertainment commission, um, and they have received some complaints.

Um they received 66 sound complaints um since September 2024, and the entertainment commission has responded 25 times, um, which they have told me is not unusual for for a venue or an uh um an entertainment venue with an outdoor component.

So while it does sound like a lot, um that is my understanding from the entertainment commission.

And I should note they also have um a special events permit.

Uh to they're permitted 10 permit uh 10 activities monthly with a louder uh noise allowance.

Um and that's something that is generally um issued by the entertainment commission.

Um no police uh reports that we know of.

Not that I know of.

I I believe that the entertainment commission has handled those reports uh those those noise reports complaints.

Do we know the occupants occupancy load for this particular venue?

I do not.

Uh would the applicant be able to tell us that.

Our legal occupancy is right around 600.

So the the claims of thousands of people, we don't do that.

So it's 600.

I can get the exact, but it's somewhere.

I'd have to look at the fire code, but it's somewhere right around.

Between the inside and outside.

Thank you.

Again, it has never been a hundred and twenty.

We didn't grow this business.

It's always been the exact same size.

And it's always been right around 600.

Thank you so much.

I was basically only making a reference to uh other venues uh of similar kind.

Anyway, uh I believe that the only opportunity we have as a commission is really putting an emphasis on an interaction that is more productive in terms of what we do with the base.

The base is indeed, no matter where it is, extremely annoying, be it you're downstairs neighbors having a certain record with as a base or base anywhere.

And uh I I am prepared to support the expanded hours, but I need to see us formulating some guarantees or some mechanism by which the interaction between this particular venue, including the hotel that is impacted by it, becomes a more positive, less adversarial kind of info interaction.

Uh I did not feel that interaction is basically happening at this moment.

I felt actually that the applicant seemed to be uh I'm not putting words into it, I don't have a better word.

You seem to be kind of like excusing yourself more than accepting that other people were impacted, and you are not in their apartments, you don't hear it, but I didn't feel that you were particularly recipient uh uh uh receiving of what uh of what was said.

No, I I'm just observing, and I may do you complete injustice in in what you said.

Either way, uh uh this interaction has to change in order to uh adjoining hotels, adjoining residents, residents within a block of radius are not coming and saying it is not working.

I'll hand it over to somebody else to be more creative of what to do, but that was my position.

Uh Commissioner Campbell.

Uh great hearing everybody's input on this.

I don't know if you've waited in on it yet, but um Ms.

Langley, I have a question.

Um if we were to approve with conditions today, can you walk us through what happens next in terms of the entertainment commission?

Sure, Michelle Langley, department staff.

Should uh these conditions be approved um today, the applicant would go to the planning commission with our place of entertainment permit request, which would then be heard by the entertainment commission, um, where they would be weighing all these different concerns that we've been talking about today, operational noise limits, things like that, um, hours of operation, uh frequency of events, and that's something that they put onto their permit.

May I suggest one thing?

Kind of out of the blog box here, hearing all our hearing all of our comments today, from my fellow commissioner and also from a lot of general public, and also citing over close to 100 letters of oppositions, and uh some really emotionally draining remarks today um and on both sides too.

What I think what we might be helpful to do, our secretary might like to chime in on this, is we could continue this to put it on a joint hearing with the entertainment commission.

Yeah, I know that you would shake your hand.

I I feel um, well, that's just my okay.

Well, I also genuinely like to hear what um there is that lady who wanted to share as with her piece of paper that she ran out of time to talk about her, I think it was the lady who um English is her second language.

Did you have a piece of paper you would like to share with us when you were run off?

It was the same paper, but I can actually go with the right here.

It's okay.

You need to come up and speak in the microphone.

It was the same paper with uh suggesting drink, but I have video from any party or if you want to hear five seconds.

It's it's I'm I'm okay.

I think I understand the magnitude of your concern.

I just thank you for validating your are showing us the same thing that gentleman did show us.

Thank you.

Um place, but it's not true.

It's from this place.

Is it noise?

I've completed my question.

Thank you.

Um, do you mind if I just finish my I I don't mind at all?

Yes, please.

Thank you.

So um if if it were then to move on to the entertainment commission and they weigh in on everything else, um could they uh is what we say in terms of the hours like the holy grail, or can they tweak it?

Going back to sort of norms and predictability and transparency, like can they it do they have the power to change the hours we determine here, or is it set and then they weigh in on the other aspects?

Michelle, the commission staff.

My understanding is that they can restrict the hours further, but they can't change what the commission, the planning commission puts limitations on.

Okay.

Um I was gonna make a motion to remove the conditions of approval that dictate the hours for the conditional use authorization and have that be dictated by the entertainment commission.

I'm wondering if we could do both what I'm hearing from my fellow commissioners, which is possibly to approve the hours and remove the condition of approval from the conditional use authorization.

So should they want, should the sponsor be interested in revisiting hours in the future, it just goes straight to the entertainment commission?

Michelle Langley department staff, I'm not exactly sure if they can put both limitation on the operation and I mean that from the condition, either you have a condition that has hours in it or you have no condition with hours in it.

Okay.

I don't I don't think there's a way to both worlds.

Yeah, I don't know how we would manage both.

Yeah.

You can you can put a condition of approval to clarify to folks that the hours of operation will be set for the outdoor activity area by the entertainment commission.

Um I mean that's just re- restating the process, but if that gives folks greater comfort, that's certainly um something that can be put in there.

Um I will make a motion to approve with the conditions and also provide a memo that summarizes in one year's time um how the venue is performing, um, and that will be shared at a hearing in one year time.

Scroll down.

Was there something else?

Was there something else?

Yeah, I had something else here.

I have an additional question.

Nice commission of vice president more.

Uh the question I have uh for staff, uh, I heard you say that in addition to the uh hours that they're operating, they also have 10 uh days a month for special events.

What are the conditions surrounding special events?

From my discussions with the entertainment commission, um the uh conditions for special events allow for a louder decibel limitation.

Yes, so I've I have a copy of their entertainment um permit right here, and so typically their sound uh abatement for external the sort of outdoor activity is limited to 80 decibels.

Um and it specify from specifically what part of the property they measure it from as it relates to the 10 special events per month, which are limited to the same hours that the commission's already granted, it's allowed to go up to 88 decibels.

So it's it's a deviation from 81 decibels to 88 for those 10 special events.

Um I I have to be very honest, but that sheds a slightly different light uh on uh what we are approving here, because 10 days a month, that is a third of the months by which it's even louder.

And that's kind of like hard for me to swallow because we all know that uh uh the base uh the base will never go away.

However, it will for 10 days be allowed to be to be loud.

And I think there's something pulling me in the opposite direction here, because there's already a lot of permission, was 10 days, and now we're on top of that saying that we're expanding the hours.

That's somehow contradiction for me.

And just the one other thing I will add that the entertainment commission has shared is that following the planning commission hearing and prior to their entertainment commission hearing, um, they will hear all of the neighbors' complaints.

So everything you heard today, they will also hear, and they actually do mediation.

So that's where they operate a little bit differently than the planning department and commission does.

So they'll host mediation leading up to the hearing to see if they can find some middle ground between both what the um project sponsor is looking for and what the neighbors' concerns are.

So just adding that additional color that that is a part of their typical protocol and process to sort of mediate between neighbors and um entertainment venues.

Well, that gets me full circle around.

Thank you for explaining that as thoughtfully as you did, Ms.

Wadi, uh, to what uh Commissioner Campbell said early on.

Uh, is a time for the planning commission to basically uh hand this entire chapter over to the uh entertainment commission.

I think I feel completely out of my wits because we are not mediating, we're creating conditions, and conditions may not be what it needs, but it needs mediation, it's a behavioral uh and uh can we do that uh as uh a reaction to what's in front of us today.

Can we basically abdicate our responsibility and asking the planning commission as an entertainment commission to take over for me?

I think the way to effectively do that is to strike the conditions of approval that have hours limitations because that basically just says this use is permitted without operational conditions, and then you're handing over the operational condition determination to the entertainment commission.

I do think though it would be helpful given all this discussion to the condition that you suggested of a report back and a year of an informational presentation, and as was mentioned in the last hearing, at that time if things are not going well and things haven't worked out, there is always the ability to still you know revoke the conditional use.

Again, thank you with that explanation.

I would ask the maker of the motion to amend our motion to reflect what uh uh Miss Wadi just summarized.

That seems to be the best and most supportive and most productive way of finding something to move it into the contemporary responsibilities of the entertainment commission.

It addresses entertain uh expanding entertainment use, but protecting residences, expanding entertainment use without harming the hotel industry and reputable hotels in the area, so it becomes a uh it goes away from the rigid interpretation of what we're doing here.

I love it.

I would like to amend my motion.

I didn't think I was gonna get the support for it, so I'm so glad.

I'm gonna amend my motion um to separate the condition or to remove the condition of approval for the CUA that had the times attached to it.

Can you do that even though that's not in the question?

And then add the request for in one year's time to get a report out.

And then there are a few other commissioners.

I'd like to second that motion.

Commissioner McGarry.

In the meantime, this is a quality of life issue.

So the people who are actually running this venue.

Uh I'll ask you, it's noise, noise, noise.

It's not just the sound, it's the vibration of the sound.

Uh, this is your business, uh, you basically are looking at the entertainment system, uh, to basically reflect back into the crowd.

So the crowd itself absorbs the sound, but that's like a modern way looking at it.

We still have walls here that are basically bouncing off that sound.

So I would definitely ask you not just to look at whether it's a flagging system of material or whatever that can go that can uh can absorb some of the base of that sound up the buildings.

Do it because your neighbors need it.

Also, your neighbors through the entertainment commission uh really have to get involved here in the mediation because I don't think today is a good place to do it.

Uh, but you have neighbors and thousands of neighbors that are literally right beside you, and you're you know, they're on top of you.

You've got hotel business, and then you've got local businesses, people coming in.

So everybody has to, it's an ecosystem, and this one is everybody's on top of everybody.

So everybody has to work together.

We can't have just one winner 10 nights a 10, 10, 10 special extra decibels a month is every weekend.

That's your neighbor's time off if they're not working in your venue, you know.

So they say everybody has to work the hotel next door.

That's basically when they have it's probably the height of your business as the weekends.

You know, so it's so everybody has to work together, and I hope uh everybody here, and more importantly, those who are not here uh get the opportunity to come from mediation and utilize the entertainment commission for that because as everybody's saying here, and we're kind of slightly punting.

We do not have the ability to resolve this situation because the real situation here is basically neighborly conduct and cohesive neighborhood.

So I do like the idea of us getting a 101 with the entertainment commission.

Uh, because I think we can learn a lot here because I'd love to know the nuances of basically uh mediation in these situations.

So, but I do ask that everybody get connected, the signage goes in, uh everybody has everybody else's number, and basically you need you know each other like neighbors do, you know, and because one's problem is the other one's problem, and the other one should be there to solve it.

So please do that.

Thank you.

Yeah, it's really easy to say it's not us, but it's actually we're all us.

So I really hope that the the venue um the bar operator really thinks about you really do live up with um it's really easy to say is really not not you, but you are one of the reason why everyone show up today to oppose it.

So please do not point fingers, and we all need to be good neighbors and work together.

Um we haven't one more commissioners or one of the comments thank you, Commissioner Braun.

Yes, I just want to say I um I'm not playing to support the motion, but I don't want that to be taken as anything against this business or its success.

I do wish you well.

I think it actually is a great venue.

Um the only reason I'm not supporting the motion is because I I don't think that we should abdicate our our sort of um role in this process and the inclusion of the limits on the hours of operation, which you know sets sort of a boundary for how far out the entertainment commission can go.

Uh I I don't want to just remove that condition entirely and leave it entirely up to them.

So I think that we have still have a role to play here, and that's why I'm not going to support the motion if it does end up getting approved.

But again, I wish the business very well.

It's nothing that's not intended uh to be anything beyond just the fact I think we should include the original limitations of the hours.

Thank you.

I am with you on that, Commissioner Braun.

Okay, Commissioners.

If there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions lifting the specific uh operation hours, our restrictions, and adding a condition for a one-year look back memo to the Planning Commission.

Um, and I think there's lifting the hours, there's an including acknowledging the entertainment commission's purview and mediation measures.

It's basically striking the first sentence of condition number three.

On that motion, Commissioner Campbell.

I Commissioner McGarry, Commissioner Williams, Commissioner Braun.

No, Commissioner Imperial.

Aye, Commissioner Moore, and Commissioner President.

So no.

So move Commissioners that motion passes five to two with Commissioners Ron and so voting against.

Commissioners, that will place us on item 15 for case number 2025, hyphen zero zero six three nine five CU8 1034 Valencia Street, conditional Use Authorization.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Okay.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Good afternoon, President.

So, Commissioners, Gabriela Pantoha of Department Staff.

The case before you is a request for conditional use authorization, pursuant to planning code sections 303, 303.1, and 762 to establish a formula retail use, gym use, doing business as club Pilates at an existing approximately two thousand four hundred sixty-two square foot tenant space that is located at the ground floor of an existing mixed use building.

The subject tenant space located within the mission neighborhood, the Valencia NCT zoning district and 55X High and Bowl district, was formerly occupied by a clothing store and is currently vacant and has been for uh since approximately April of 2024.

So prior to the seminal of the listed conditional use authorization, uh the project sponsors did complete a pre-application meeting on July 10th, 2025, which was not attended by any public members.

Um to date the department has received over 30 letters in opposition of the project and a position signed by more than 100 public members, members of the public expressing opposition of the project, state the lack of community outreach and potential impacts that the formula retail use presents to the neighborhood as reasons for their opposition.

Um the department has also received over 30 letters in support and a petition signed by 58 public members for the project.

In accordance to planning code section uh 303.1 when evaluating formula retail uses, um, consideration should be made towards the vacancy rate, availability of similar similar uses in the area, and the number of formula retail uses in the area.

Um the area being a 300-foot radius from the subject property.

Um, as it relates to this project, a vacancy of approximately 26% exists with five vacant spaces, including the subject tenant space, and no other formal retail uses or gym uses are present.

Thus, thus the proposal before you all um establishes the first gym use and the first formary retail use and would decrease the vacancy rate by two percent.

The department does recommend approval of conditions and believes the project is necessary and desirable for the following reasons.

The project will provide a gym use that both enhances the range of services and reinforces the neighborhood's existing commercial corridor.

And while the project will establish the first formula retail use in the neighborhood, it would only increase the concentration of formula retail uses from zero to one point four percent.

Um additionally, the project would not displace an existing neighborhood serving retail use and would rather provide a new business and job opportunities to the neighborhood and fill a vacant tenant space.

Um this concludes staff's presentation.

I'm available for questions, and the project sponsor team does have a presentation for you.

Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

Okay, good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Carrie Wool, and this is my husband CJ Lu.

This is our landlord, Molly Fawn.

I discovered Club Pilates after the delivery of our second child when I was searching for find a way to feel strong again.

It transformed my recovery, my confidence, and that experience inspired us to start our own business.

We chose to franchise with Club Pilates because we believed in their proven model.

We invested our savings and it even took out a home equity loan.

For us, for us, this is not just a business.

It's our family bet on a better future, rooted in health, community, and hard work.

We've successfully opened two studios in the Bay Area, one in Mountain View and one in Diamond Heights here in San Francisco.

Our Diamond Heights neighboring retailer has offered letters of support, testifying how our studio has enlivened the area and benefited their business.

We want to be in mission because this is where our current and future members live.

Out of the 500 active Diamond Heights Studio members, 125 live in a quarter mile of 1034 Valencia.

Opening this new location will reduce car trips and an increase foot traffic on Valencia.

We already have over 946 residents expressed interest in joining the Valencia studio by signing up on our website.

This indicates a strong demand in this area.

Our business can benefit the community in the following ways.

We will partner with schools and nonprofits through sponsorships and wellness programs, as we have done that in Diamond Heights.

We will pledge community merchant group event sponsorships and donations.

Our members regularly visit nearby neighbors, cafes, restaurants, or shops before and after classes, creating direct spillover benefits.

Through the One Pass Medicare program, seniors and eligible residents can attend up to four classes a month at no cost.

At Diamond Heights, about 15% of our members are part of this program.

Our proposed use is desirable and consistent with the character of the corridor, and it will bring long vacant space back to life.

Specifically, the storefront has been vacant for over a year and a half.

Our studio will bring daily use and safety back to the area, which is facing a lot of challenges of high vacancy rates.

There's no heavy equipment, no amplified sound.

Each class is kept at 12 participants.

The morning through early evening use of our schedule will reduce the impact on residential neighbors.

We are accountable to our community, not accountable to our corporate office.

Second, the space will be designed by us with a storefront that blends in with the corridor rather than standing out as a chain.

The only change to the storefront will be paint and adding a modest awning was a painted Club Pilates name.

Number three, we have tremendous respect for the legacy business EHS Pilates.

While opposition has stated they are in close proximity, they are in fact located half mile from the proposed site.

The mission has more than 55,000 residents.

Will be less than 1% of that population.

Clearly, demand far exceeds the available supply.

By opening at 1034 Valentia, we are expanding access so more residents, including seniors using Medicare program, can benefit from the safe and affordable Pilates.

Number four, we took outreach seriously.

We follow all steps required for COA process, and our mailing notification for pre-application meeting was correctly prepared by Radius Services.

There was no attendance.

We held two more meetings on September 23rd with three attendees.

On September 29th, no attendees.

A notice was posted on the storefront, and emails was sent to merchants, individuals, and groups who had voiced opposition at that time.

We are also out on Valencia Street on July 10th, September 24th, September 29th, October 1st, speaking directly with residents and neighbors about the studio.

For over 18 months, the storefront has sat vacant, attracting graffiti and loitering.

Molly has turned down offers from cannabis, vape, and the massage tenants because she wanted business that could elevate the corridor and then bring back positive energy.

Molly also visited our Diamond Heights studio, seeing full classes, welcoming atmosphere, and positive impact on the nearby merchants gave her confidence that Club Pilates would bring the safe safety, stability, and a vitality to Valencia Street.

Thank you, but that's if we weren't that is your time.

Okay.

They may have questions for you later.

Thank you.

With that, we should open up public comment.

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

These are letters from all of the merchants associations and the petitions.

It wasn't delivered electronically.

It wasn't delivered electronically in eight days, which was posted on the website, so we went ahead and printed them to bring them to you for distribution.

So good afternoon.

It's been a long day, I'm sure.

My name is Tracy Sylvester, and I'm here as the owner of San Francisco legacy business EHS Pilates.

I'm about four blocks.

I know uh that seems like a long distance, but four blocks away from the proposed site, and we've been in operation for over 30 years.

We've trained hundreds of instructors through our vocational training school.

We have supported their neighbors through raffles and fundraising.

We have partnered with other independent wellness businesses and microbusinesses to keep our corridor strong and thriving.

And it's not about a franchise, it's about one franchise.

It's about Valencia Street, one of the longest truly independent corridors in the nation.

What's at risk here is the character and the economic ecosystem that makes Valencia unique.

Section 303.1 of the planning code requires that formula retail not duplicate existing services, not disrupt neighborhood character, and harm small business.

In this case, those findings cannot simply be made.

I've spent over 15 years advocating for small business in San Francisco.

I'm on the board of the Mission Merchants Association for the past 15 years.

I'm an active member of the Valencia Corridor Association, an active member of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

I am a graduate from Leadership SF 2024, and I'm a steward of this city.

I have served for four years during the pandemic through the Council of District Merchants and worked to get gather all of the independent fitness studios so we could survive the pandemic together.

Protecting small businesses in my DNA.

This isn't about a David and Goliath story.

It's not about Pilates versus Pilates.

I never even reached out to anybody in my Pilates community or my clients to ask for letters of opposition.

I wore my hat as a community leader and fought for what I fought for for the last 15 years of my life: independence on the Valencia corridor.

Protecting small business is important.

The policy and precedence, approving one chain on the Valencia corridor clears the way for others.

Duplication is not needed.

Local Pilates and Fitness Studios already meet those commands and demands of the community.

Marketing effectiveness chains don't grow the piece of the pie, they only siphon business from small mom and pops.

Rents and comps, franchises and leases inflate landlord expectations and drive small businesses out of our communities.

And a talent drain.

We are already desperate for Pilates instructors in the city, and many, because I run a school have looked to me to fill the need of these employees.

We've developed through our vocational training center, and we place them with other independent businesses.

Weak outreach, a flyer in a window is not true communication to the neighbor.

I know that this organization met the minimum requirements, but in such a sensitive cultural dynamic corridor, exceeding those inquire requirements should have been something that was the bar to be met.

Valencia's strengths is in its independence, and what draws people onto our corridor, and what is in the code is meant to protect is not being met.

So for that reason, I respectfully ask you to deny this application.

Thank you.

And anybody here, too, that's in opposition, please stand up and speak.

Hello, commissioners, meet again.

I actually, this is uh I live in the neighborhood, and one of my neighbors is here in opposition.

Uh I've also owned a business in the mission for two decades, uh, coming up on three.

Uh and I would echo, I I practice at Asta.

It's a tiny little studio, the classes aren't full.

Uh, a franchise coming in is probably not great for the neighborhood, not great for local businesses.

So, as much as it pains me to speak in opposition to another business person, franchises aren't there, they kind of take away from the color, so it's my neighbor.

Um, please please excuse me, I have a traumatic brain injury, so I may stutter and stumble.

I apologize in advance.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Andrea Scarabelli, and together with my partner Andrew Oglesby, we have proudly called the mission home for almost 30 years.

As founder of the Central Mission Neighborhood Association, I feel a deep commitment to our community.

In 1996, we moved here from Atlanta seeking something truly special.

Tired of strip malls and fast food, we long for a vibrant community filled with culture.

Securing our apartment just off Valencia sparked an immediate sense of excitement.

I found a job managing a restaurant on Valencia and 23rd Radio Valencia, and quickly became immersed in the colorful fabric of this rich neighborhood.

When the opportunity arose to buy, we couldn't imagine leaving.

The uniqueness, independent businesses, and rich diversity of the area captured our hearts.

As you know, Valencia Street is the America's longest independent business corridor, where countless small, passionate businesses have flourished through dedication and community support.

Our mission has always been to nurture and protect the identity of this beloved area.

And I firmly believe that a formulaic national change like Club Pilates does not align with our community values.

Many of my neighbors who have signed the petition, you are presented today, share my concerns about this pos this business, excuse me, uh potentially undermining the protections already in place.

Having managed small businesses for over 35 years, 27 of which have been on Valencia.

27 years I've worked on Valencia, leading small businesses.

This experience has given me a nuanced understanding of the challenges small businesses encounter in a landscape increasingly dominated by national chains.

So when both American Apparel and Jack Spade try to move in, I fought.

And I fight this as well.

I think that it's bad faith argument saying that that's only three chain three locations.

Because there are 1,200 locations of Pilates, 1200.

Think about that.

Allowing um I'm frankly, I'm un I'm really unclear as to why this application is even being considered, given these formulaic retail protections.

They were intended to be waived only for community needs, and I do not think they have proved there is community need.

In addition to our uh Pilates studio four blocks away, there are exercise studios up and down Valencia that this will also affect.

And in the mission at large, there are multiple, multiple exercise, yoga, bar studios that will also be affected.

I think that Valencia should remain a sanctuary for independent businesses that embody.

And it's also Yompik Kippur, which is a bummer because a lot of our people couldn't come.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

Uh, my name's Rochelle, and I'm here on behalf of my husband Jeremy Paul.

Um, he's been a permit consultant for about I don't know, 30 years.

Um, uh working on conditional use authorization in San Francisco NCDs.

So uh Jeremy regrets he could not be here today for religious um religious, it's a religious holiday.

Anyway, so he's asked me to share with you his unique experience that Valencia Street commercial district has um has fought the intrusion of formula retail for decades, and it's been 100% effective for a reason, successful.

The San Francisco Planning Commission has always recognized the unique place the Valencia Corridor plays in the San Francisco economy, cultures, and international appeal.

One could say that protecting what is special about Valencia Street is the very reason that they have formula retail controls.

Um it's not in any way necessary or desirable for our community for this formula business to be in this location.

I mean, around the corner on Mission Street, there's plenty of formula retail, just the thought, but uh the required 30 3031 findings can't be made, and it is the obligation of this commission to deny this application.

So, on behalf of all of our favorite San Francisco neighborhood retail districts, each with their own strengths and characteristics.

Thank you for doing your duty today and saying no formula retail on Valencia Street.

Buenas tardes, good afternoon.

I'm Carlos Alorsano.

I'm the CEO of the Hispanic Chambers of Commerce in San Francisco, and I've been a small business in the mission district since 1989.

I see a lot of changes, I see a lot of intrusion coming into our businesses.

In the mission district, small businesses are the lifeblood of our community.

EHS Pilates is not just a studio, it's a community partner.

It's a partner that invests in health, wellness, and opportunity, offering grants so small business owners can take care of themselves while they work hard to take care of others.

This kind of commitment doesn't come from a franchise.

A chain may bring Pilares, but not the spirit, not the soul, and not the culture of labor that define the mission.

The Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of San Francisco stand proudly with EHS Pilates because we know that when we support small local businesses, we keep our neighborhood alive.

We protect our identity and we make sure resources stay in the community.

As we face rapid change and displacement, we cannot afford to lose what make the mission strong.

Supporting EHA Pilares means supporting the mission, supporting San Francisco and supporting our future.

Please, we stand with EHS Pilares, and we want to make sure that we just keep that out.

So do not provide permits to anybody else, no franchises.

Thank you.

Hi, good afternoon.

My name is Carrie Sobel, and I have been a resident of San Francisco for 25 years.

I live in the neighborhood nearby neighborhood of Bernal Heights, um, mother of two children, and um we bicycle often around the city, often down Valencia Street, and um frequent a lot of the businesses there, and I would just like to see the um the local small businesses being held up and and no chains or franchises moving into the neighborhood.

So I stand in opposition of the um of the business um proposal here.

Thank you.

My name is Francis Cossack.

I live at 10 30 Valencia, above 1034.

I support Club Pilates.

I'm tired of looking at the vacant storefront and the graffiti.

It goes day in and day out, you know, like they come out, clean it.

It's covered in graffiti again.

That's what I've experienced.

I've lived there for 37 years.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name's David Quinby, and I'm the owner of the Riptide uh music Venue and bar out on Terravel Street, as well as Amato's uh music venue on at 998 Valencia Street.

And also a member of the Valencia Merchants Association Mission Merchants.

I was the Terravel merchants vice president for five years at Onteravel Street.

And Valencia, I think even the staff member that brought this in front of you said it will only be bringing uh whatever it's called, the uh retail.

The uh yes, thank you.

Formula retail from zero to 1.4.

The problem is we've worked we've worked so hard.

I've been on the street for 40 years, and it used to be uh 82, 83 was when I first started seeing underground shows down there on that street, and it was it was not uh it was a really rough neighborhood back then, about 40 years ago, and we've worked so hard.

I've lived at Shotwell on 20th for 35 years, and it's nothing personal against this application.

I think we all agree it's just the fact that once we let formula retail in, you know, I have a it's just a bar, music venue, and a restaurant.

And I know Ruby Tuesdays wants my spot.

I know uh TJI Friday's wants to come in.

We built up the street so beautifully over 40, 50 years, and it's really the merchants that have done that in a big way.

And um, yeah, it's so I don't think it's anything personal against the applicant.

I think it's just the fact that uh we will be allowing it will be the first time uh and we've been fighting formula retail for for so long when American Apparel tried to come in and that type of thing, and being the longest independent merchant corridor in the United States, we have to remember that's the longest independent uh merchants corridor in the United States.

And um, as soon as we start allowing in uh chains, especially one with 1,200 locations.

Uh it just opens the door for other applicants to come.

Um we've really went through a lot with the Valencia bike lane.

Uh we got through the pandemic.

Amato stayed open throughout the pandemic, cocktails to go, performances on the sidewalks, Riptide did the same thing.

And then we were hit with a bike lane uh that everybody knows.

It was torn out.

It was a terrible idea.

We lost between two to three dozen, uh, including Audrey that was in this location before.

And she was there uh with a clothing store for maybe 24 years.

These guys might know how long she was there, but we've just been through so much, and we're just really scared of uh opening the door to formula retail.

Thank you.

Hello, I'll do my best here.

I don't like speaking in public.

Um but my name's Sean Quigley, I'm a longtime mission resident.

Um, I have uh I own Paxton Gate on Valencia, San Francisco Legacy Business.

We're in our 33rd year.

Um I've also been on the VCA VCMA board since its founding.

I was a president for seven years, and I've been uh an officer for the last five years since.

Um I'm here to talk about what brought me to Valencia 25 years ago.

Uh Passing Gate opened in an alley off an alley near Goffin Market after about six years of trying to learn how to operate a retail store for the first time.

I um and an aburgeing uh gardening business.

I we outgrew the space and I started walking neighborhoods looking for places to relocate for more space.

I walked around um Fillmore, Noe Valley, all sorts of established shopping neighborhoods, but I kept coming back to Valencia way out there in the mission, um, and I was attracted to it.

At the time I made the conscious decision that I would rather build a neighborhood than move into an established one.

Um, and so like many businesses on Valencia, Paxton Gate's unique, it's one of a kind.

Um, and I wanted to build help build that kind of neighborhood.

Um, so I moved there in 1999, uh, not far from bars that I worked at for a long time, Casanova, Kilowatt.

Uh blondie's still working while opening the business.

Um, and then now, 25 years later, with the help of scores of other business members or business owners, owner operators, um, we've created an incredibly unique shopping experience in anywhere.

I was gonna say San Francisco, but I'm gonna say anywhere.

Um we need to protect what we've done.

We need to protect the small businesses and the character of Greater San Francisco by by keeping Valencia independent.

Um, as a footnote, I also say that uh I run two businesses on Valencia, the gardening business split off.

So I've got Paxton Gate and its sister company Rearfield Design Build.

Between those two companies, I employ over 30 people, all of them live locally.

Some of them are part-time people going to college, some are full-time career people with families and mortgages and everything that comes with that.

Um both companies currently are at risk of losing our lease or business or buildings up for sale, and I don't cherish the idea of uh hunting around for a new space that's been uh whose rents have been increased by uh a chain moving in.

So I'd ask you to oppose this request.

Thanks.

Hello, my name is Zileen Ronaldi, and I'm the owner of Ritual Coffee.

We're celebrating our 20-year anniversary this week.

Um, and I have been here many times first to get a conditional use for my own business, but also to um be a voice for Valencia Street and for you know what many people have spoken about is that it's a very special destination.

Um, my business is right next to Club Pala, the proposed um Club Pilates location, so I have a unique perspective.

I would like my business would likely benefit in the short term if Club Pilates open next door.

People are gonna go to Pilates, they're gonna get a coffee.

My sales are gonna go up.

I would love for my sales to go up.

The mission has not recovered from the pandemic.

However, I know what formulated retail does in the long term, and I think there are two things that stand out.

One is the neighborhood loses its destination status.

Right now, people come from all over the world to the businesses that are on Valencia Street.

I hear it all the time.

We have a name, Ritual has a name uh in coffee, and people come from all over the world to come have coffee at Ritual when they're in town.

And something I hear from those people is how is this neighborhood like this?

How is it so special?

And I, as a San Franciscan, I'm very proud of the formula retail legislation, and I have told people about formula retail legislation who live in London, who live in Lima, who live in Tokyo.

And this legislation is unique, and it protects the delicate ecology that we have on Valencia Street.

Besides Formula Retail turning Valencia Street into what any strip mall can offer, my other concern is what it does to commercial rents.

San Francisco is a city of booms and busts.

As you know, commercial rents, we do not have rent control.

So formula retail is something that can protect our legacy businesses, can protect locally owned businesses, independent businesses, mom and pop businesses from the booms and busts of our rent cycle.

And so when formula retail comes in, you know, and this is a great example.

This many independent businesses have proposed coming in to 1034 Valencia.

They have proposed photo businesses, they have proposed other businesses that would not have a negative impact on the residents upstairs or the neighbors.

They would bring something unique, and the landlord has not been willing to negotiate on the rent.

And uh my fear is that if we allow formula retail in, more and more landlords will know they can hold out for a chain business that can afford more than the independent businesses.

Thank you for your time.

Oh the pre-application meeting.

No one on the list got the notice.

I have checked with 12 of my neighbors.

Not one of the residents, businesses, or neighborhood organizations confirmed with me that they got the notice.

That is very concerning.

Thank you.

Hi, I own a business on Valencia.

I've been in business for uh 23 years.

I own needles and pins.

It's a small business that allows people in the community to sell their handmade goods, their jewelry, and zines and like publications.

So my business helps for like the community and the art community and especially.

And the only way that I've been able to survive in this area is because of these restrictions.

And allowing Formula One retail would destroy my business and a lot of businesses because we cannot compete.

And it also destroy the community in the sense that these landlords will wait for uh someone that has more money.

So there'll be like vacancies.

You if you allow this, there'll be more vacancies.

Go to Mission Street.

Look how many vacancies they are because they allow it.

There's so many spaces they can rent a block away.

And I know a bunch of people that'd be interested in your space.

So if if you want to come and talk to me, I could totally help you.

It's not a matter of no one wanting this space.

There's a I bet you there's a bunch of people who would love to rent this space.

It's just if you allow one, you allow everyone.

I know Urban Alfred's has been itching to open up there.

I know that, like, you know, Chevy's would open up there or something awful would open up there and just ruin the community and San Francisco at whole, because San Francisco is a very unique place.

Imagine if North Beach had a bunch of like olive gardens, like how awful would that be, you know, like no one would want to go there.

And so it's just uh, it's really important for the larger scheme of things, the the city at whole to keep it unique, keep it special, keep it a place where people would want to go visit.

There, I mean, like there's a lot of cities that just have chain stores, like no one's interested in that, you know.

So if you keep the community and you keep it unique, you'll keep people coming to the city, and you'll keep the community alive, and I um I'm strongly against it, so thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Elizabeth Zittran.

I live in the Liberty Hill Historic District around the corner from the site being discussed here today.

I've lived in the mission for 45 years.

I know I don't look that old, but I've and I've lived in Liberty Hill for 26.

This store front is also in the Liberty Hill Historic District.

That doesn't give its special zoning restrictions, but it is there.

Um you've been reminded perhaps that today is the 10th day of Tishra in the year 5786.

That's the Hebrew calendar.

It's Yom Kippur.

It is a day on which on which Jesus Christ himself would not have come to this meeting because he would have been in synagogue.

It's the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, and I'm looking forward to December 25th of this year, which is also a Thursday to the meeting that you're gonna hold at that time.

Uh I want to say that about the franchise situation, that uh the franchise um say that they're independent because they're part of a franchise.

And that is clearly not true.

As you've heard, they have 1300 Club Pilates has 1,300 locations around the world, and on its own website, Club Pilates.comslash franchise, bills itself as quote, the largest Pilates brand, close quote, in the world.

It's a subsidiary of another corporation that owns more gyms, uh pure bar, cafe bar.

This is not local.

They tell you they're local because they're own their franchise.

That is not local, not on Valencia Street, not in San Francisco.

This is a chain.

McDonald's on their corporate website, corporate.com slash franchise, they say they have 44,000 locations around the world.

And they say that 95% of them are franchises.

If you believe that McDonald's is not a chain, then you can believe that Club Pilates is not a chain.

If you don't, if you do believe that McDonald's is a chain, then you must also believe that Club Pilates is a chain.

Because the model is exactly the same.

And has been said, as has been said, their size and economic power give them an unfair advantage over truly local businesses.

They price them out, as you've heard, and the neighbors want the businesses that are being forced out by chains and franchises.

Please, for us, for the neighborhood, for the merchants, for the independence of this extraordinary strip of San Francisco.

There are plenty of gyms.

Do not permit this intrusion.

Thank you very much.

Twelve, actually.

I'm the mother of a Pilates studio owner.

And I'll read what, well, she wrote a lot of other things as well, but this is the first thing she put out, which I quite like.

She said, I am a neighborhood merchant who opened my business in 2013 at 312 Valencia Street.

At that time, that corner had a liquor store.

It had four barrel coffee across the street and not much else.

In the past, it was not an area that was of interest to visitors.

Over the next five years, the corner began to thrive.

More small businesses opened around mine.

We were an anchor that drew walk by traffic all the way up 14th Street and along Valencia.

As my neighbors installed themselves, we created a captivating part of the street with novel offerings from business owners who had creative dreams.

It is not by chance that Valencia Street became a destination and a place where vision could spend their days, where visitors could spend their days with delight and surprise.

The curated offerings of each storefront, which started with the seed of imagination, are transpirational, and these diverse environments provide passerbys unique and curiously inspiring experiences.

A single formula retail business installing itself on Valencia Street may not be in itself a massive hindrance to the charm and experience of the uniqueness of the street.

It is the precedence that approving the formula retail model will set.

Merchants and visitors aren't out adverse to change, but a stream either slow to build or an increasing steady stream can choke off the opportunity for future small businesses and their owners' dreams of continuing the magic and allure of the inmitable street.

I also want to say just that these owners have passion and put a lot of expense into their businesses and mentor their trainers and build community.

Thank you.

20-plus year resident off Valencia Street near 18th, and I have the pleasure and unfortunate desire to open a restaurant at 1432 Valencia.

We've been there five months just one business owner operator and myself.

And it's an uphill battle.

You have to build everything from scratch, you don't have national branding, and there's all these things, and there's something powerful about succeeding on that level.

It's about building a brand on Valencia and taking it out into the world.

It's not taking a national brand or an international brand and bringing it to Valencia.

So I feel like it's an unfair advantage to the for these formula retails to even be considered.

Because we work so hard as an independent business, and it's already so against us to succeed that this would be the camel breaking or straw breaking the camel's back.

So that's all I really have to say on that.

I hope I can read a letter from a neighbor who could not be here.

Let me find it.

Uh oh.

Where did it go?

Sorry.

I don't see it now.

Blowing up.

Let me look.

I don't know where it went.

So I will not read it.

Thank you.

Okay, last call for public comment.

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

Commissioner Williams.

Thank you.

I want to um thank all the business owners of Valencia Street.

Um for coming out here and showing us like what a community looks like.

I couldn't agree more about what was said, and I think this is great to see people come together and come all the way out here.

You you small business folks have put your life, you you put your heart, your soul, and everything else into your businesses, and people um and the community really benefits from that.

And um as someone who frequents Valencia Street, I appreciate the diversity of small business.

Verbalized, and as a San Franciscan, I'm I'm very sympathetic to the issues that you've brought up today in the commission.

And I think this speaks to a broader issue that this commission has been dealing with over and over again, um, and it's the idea that um, or not the idea, but it seems like there's some trend that we should make changes to our small business corridors that have been there for a long time.

I happen to disagree with that.

I think that the uniqueness of our small business corridors like Valencia, like North Beach, like others in our city are actually the strength of our city, the uniqueness of our city, it's what makes San Francisco special.

And you remind me of that today, and I want to thank you because not enough people are standing up, and it's important because there's a there's a fight going on right now.

And so, I feel a little passionate about this, and so I'm just going to leave it there.

But thank you for coming out.

I'll ask again from members of the public to turn off your mobile devices.

Commissioner Imperial.

Thank you.

I have a question to staff.

In terms of the formula retail, this is within the Valencia Street NCT.

And, you know, I'm looking at in terms of the, you know, this is the first.

This going it seems like this is going to be the first proposed formula retail in this in this corridor.

Is that correct?

Gabriela Panto, Department of Staff.

So this would be the first within the radius.

We analyze a 300 foot radius from the subject property.

And I think there's an MIXT salads as well.

And Salvation Army, but I don't think that's subject to retail.

So there's a couple, but uh within this 300 foot radius, this would be the first.

And I guess this my question is the 300 foot radius usually the um the measurement in looking into in terms of the you know the flow of the of the of the corridors.

Is that typically the what we look into?

Correct.

Okay.

Um and within the um, because this also within the mission I'll I'll call restrict SUD and is this also under the CAE 24 or American Indian SUD?

It is not.

It is not, so there is no um but in the Valencia Street NCT, um can you elaborate on the formula retail restriction?

What's the restriction on that, or if there is, you know, what what is the what is the ratio for formula retail?

So any formula retail that has a formula to be anything with 10 or more locations would be considered a formula retail use and only certain uses representative to our formula retail controls.

Um and then given that uh that is what then triggers say this conditional use authorization to come before you there are some zoning districts in the city where it's principally permitted to do formula retail, so regardless, um you can do so like C3.

I want to say is one of them where if you had formula retail, you wouldn't be before the commission to get that approval.

But there is no cap.

I guess that's what I'm wondering.

If there is a cap on formula retail for Valencia Street and CT.

There is not correct.

There is not.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

So I guess that's something to think about.

Um thank you.

I mean, that's you know, my question is around again around the zoning, and um I'm I'm also very compelled of the this the in terms of the the small business that come here and pride in terms of the um being the longest independent corridor, and what um, you know, and thank you for the presentation as well, sponsor.

Um what compels me in the in about this is that um, you know, in terms of the the circumstance around this, is that um it seems like there are other businesses that the landlord has in a way not accepted.

Um, and that of course I cannot, you know, um make my decision around that, but that's still a very it's a good indication of um, you know, that there has been other businesses um in perhaps other independent businesses that were proposed, but declined by the landlord and and chose this as a formula retail.

I think that's where the the fear of the committee is coming from that that the landlord would prefer a formula retail than um a small business or a local owned business.

Um and so that's also ways in my mind in terms of what it could um impact.

I mean, we already, I mean, these are the conversations we already had actually as part of the family zoning plan in terms of what could mean of the um, you know, when you do the rezoning and what it could um kind of like the um domino effect of the surrounding neighborhoods and we've seen that happen as well um you know um in the previous years before um and so that's you know that's also ways in my mind that in terms of this um I find that more compelling of what it could impact to the community um and so I'm I don't think I will support the COA um for this formula retail.

Thank you.

Commissioner Braun.

So I do want to acknowledge something about this you know this is undoubtedly formula retail it is undoubtedly a global chain.

I also want to acknowledge that I really appreciate the speakers who who noted it's not about the business owners it is a franchise which means you are small business owners and I want to appreciate and respect that and that you are investing in San Francisco.

And it's just unfortunate that the way um you have found your model for business to work is a way that is very you know being opposed by the community and really in many ways in opposition to what we've what is sort of unfolded over time with the community support on on Valencia Street.

But I do want to just acknowledge that we are not I want to be sensitive to the fact that we are talking about a small business owner.

You know on the the one the bet the upsides I see to this is that this would fill a prominent vacancy on a block that has struggled with vacancies.

I'm on Valencia many times a week and I used to live about a block away from Valencia as well and uh so I've seen kind of the evolution of this block over time.

So I want to acknowledge also that that is a positive that would come with the business.

There are no formula retails within the 300 foot radius right now there are very few in the entire Valencia corridor and I'm I uh really appreciate how that came to be and all the effort that's been put into that over the years.

And that you know by starting to allow informal retail businesses in this corridor we're starting to diminish the uniqueness of that area.

And you know one of it it's striking to me as well not only the just magnitude of people of people and organizations that have come out against allowing in a formula retail business.

That's very striking to me.

I want to also acknowledge there were letters of support provided by the product sponsor but even so you know all the local voices are really almost to OT you know they are are opposed to this and still trying to maintain the protections against formula retail here including even the next door neighbor who when I first saw this and I was thinking about the item I thought well this this is certainly going to help out ritual coffee and even ritual coffees owners is opposed um and so uh I I just I don't think I can support this this item.

You know one of the findings that we have to make for formula retail is related to the concentration of formula retail uses within the 300 foot radius and right now that concentration is zero percent and going from zero to anything else is a really big jump it's it's you know this we're not talking about moving the needle a little bit here we're we're talking about a complete change to a situation which there was simply no formula retail in this in this area right now and so um you know for a lot of the reasons I I don't I can't uh support the application and I'd be happy to talk further through um you know motion intends to deny or or findings we could make today, but um I'm not in support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Vice President Moore.

I will be joining my fellow commissioners in not supporting the application.

I am in support of small business.

This is small business.

And there are neighborhoods in San Francisco which do support small scale formula retail.

This is not one of them.

This particular neighborhood has proven for the many, many years where it came from nowhere to somewhere that standing with each other in support of small business and non-formulated uses is the way to go.

And it is for that reason that I have in the past supported non-for uh the uh denial of formula retail, and I would do that today as well.

Thank you.

Commissioner Campbell.

Thanks everyone for coming.

I also lived on Valencia for many years and um live close by, so it's one of my favorite corridors.

Um I always go back to sort of what the rules of the road are.

Um, like what is this project applicant working within the rules as they're set forth right now?

Um, this is a district that allows for formula retail.

And I'm looking in the code right now, and there are there are commercial districts that do not permit formula retail.

And I think it could be interesting for us to look at that for Valencia, um, that we don't allow formula retail there, but right now we do, and there are certain rules around what we do and don't allow.

And my understanding is that it is has to do with if um if what percentage of formula retail is already there, and then is there is it a need within a certain radius?

Is this correct?

Within is it within this 300 foot radius or whatever dedicated area we determine.

I'm happy to jump in.

There's a handful of different criteria that are used for the commission to evaluate.

One of them is the concentration of other formula retails and similar uses within 300 feet, and then there are a slew of other criteria that are around sort of neighborhood compatibility, aesthetics, um, things of that nature.

Again, as part of the formula retail rules in San Francisco, it's not um a decision around competitiveness, it's a it's a decision around sort of aesthetic compatibility, right?

The idea that chains often are you know more less unique and all look the same, and so it's more about sort of visual character of our corridor is the um impetus, sort of the policy rationale behind our regulation.

So the interesting um findings are in 303.1.

If you're curious, I'm happy to read through that right now.

Um it's subsection D, I believe, the conditional use criteria.

Um excuse me, let me just scroll to it.

Um so the first one, subsection one is the in existing concentration of formula retail uses within the district and the vicinity, and so that is where it talks about what how they define the fist vicinity is 300 foot radius.

Um I won't go into all the nitty-gritty details there, but that's the gist of it.

Um criteria two, availability of other similar retail uses within the district and vicinity.

So it's kind of breaking it up, district and smaller 300-foot um area, compatibility of the formula retail within the existing architectural character and aesthetic character of the district, existing retail vacancy rates within the district, and the vicinity of the project, existing mix of citywide serving retail uses and daily needs serving retail uses within the district and the vicinity, additional any additional um relevant data that might exist relating to a project.

Those are um and then the other criteria are not applicable to a business of this size.

Interesting.

So, you know, there's things in here that uh and based on the rules of the road, right?

We allow formula retail, and then we're now we're looking at it through um this very specific list of criteria.

Um I think architecturally, visually, this is going to have a minimal impact um on the corridor.

So for me, I don't take issue with that.

Um there is 25% vacancy on this 300 foot stretch of Valencia.

I think that we can't ignore that.

Um, unless there is a long line of other, somebody's mentioned that in public comment.

If there are other folks, it seems like there's a lot of space available.

Um 25% is not insignificant.

Um, it feels I feel irresponsible almost turning down someone that's willing to take that spot based on the rules as they're written today.

Um and then what was the other one you mentioned, Ms.

Wadi?

Needs the needs of the neighborhood.

Um, and it sounds like there are some comparable studios that offer yoga, but is there within the vicinity that we're looking at for this particular?

There's not.

Okay.

So based on the way the rules are written today, I feel that I am actually in support of this particular applicant.

However, I do think if formula retail is not something we want to see on this corridor, then we should add it to the list of districts that do not allow formula retail.

And change the rules of the road.

And that would be my recommendation.

Thank you, Commissioner Campbell.

And I think I wanted to take this moment to thank everybody for being here today.

And some of you actually stay for many hours now.

Appreciate the applicant coming in.

And I myself is a minority small business owner, so I felt for you.

And also this is a very tough decision day for me as well.

I live in the mission, and actually my daughter's first real book was purchased from Paxton Gay.

So I also honor a lot of the effort and perseverance for our Valencia merchants associations to keep our community and businesses, small businesses vibrant throughout all the thick and thin that we gone through.

I live in the mission for now over 20 years.

So it is a really particular tough decision for me today to make.

So it's it's really tough for me.

Like my heartfelt for both side.

Personally, I felt like I wanted to support an Asian women-owned small businesses, but also I live in this neighborhood.

I've seen how we gone through the trenches together through thick and thin, really thick and thin for many different economic cycles.

And my my daughter bought her first bike in Mission Cyclone and row it all the way back home.

And it just there's just so much charm and memories there that everyone's just give her candies along the way.

So it just is different.

I want you to feel like don't get despair, you know.

Um there are a lot of places in San Francisco also had um welcome and also has a lot more of these really big formula retail that has established somewhere.

I would I would highly encourage you to not uh felt despair and um we're not um personally against your business.

Um we're really have a really tough call to make today, and so um that's what my um personal perspective on this is a really tough one, tough one for me.

I I like to support businesses on all uh on like I am pro small businesses.

I'm seriously due.

Uh right now we're we're having to choose a different circumstances here that we have to pick.

Um so um with that, I would like to pass my uh speaker to my colleague Commissioner McGarry.

Oh, sorry, sorry, Commissioner Braun.

So I'm sorry.

That's okay.

You know, if Commissioner Campbell raised a good point about maybe we need to revisit the the land use controls and the one C N C D if um you know clearly we don't uh we're not likely to support formula businesses here.

Uh I'm going to make a motion of.

Well, actually, I have to work with staff on this a little bit.

Um, sure.

Please do you have something brief to say?

One of the things as a so this is our third uh formula retail application.

So we have one in Diamond Heights, it's approved here.

We have one in LOPA that's also approved.

So therefore this is our third applications uh within uh the city of San Francisco.

Uh we're have strong conviction of investing here.

We also you know hear all the comments, oppositions for the city.

Uh so we'd love to ask for uh continuance.

What would you seek to achieve during that continuance or what conversations or actions would you take during that time?

I think a lot nothing we can do with the with the with the merchants uh nearby.

We have we have done uh quite a bit of reach, but I think we can do a lot more with that to uh to convince folks.

Uh a couple of things also uh we're looking to uh do with community events and so forth.

Um one of the reasons why we want to open in the mission is that our Diamond Heights studio is out of capacity, and a lot of uh there are a third of our members actually live in the mission.

So we want to kind of find a spot in mission so that they can walk to the studio instead of taking a bus.

A lot of a lot of those members actually do public transit to the diamond height studios, and that makes a lot easier for them to go to our studio instead.

Uh so that's you know, one reason we we choose the mission district.

And and to your point, um we we only apply for areas that conditional use uh formula is allowed.

So I did all the size selection because you know we're small business, I do customer support.

She does she does sales.

Um I look through the Valencia Street, and there are formula retails along the street.

There are from T-Mobile to mix salad to reformations and so forth.

So it's thank you for this.

I wanted to try to run them.

I can you can you can you can you can you can try to uh um try to run this meeting uh consistent with everybody else's hearing on everybody's case?

This is not a moment of like kind of rebuttal cases back and forth, and also definitely not also yelling off a chair.

And we our my fellow commissioners will ask bring you up to ask you for questions when when we feel we need to uh for clarifying and questioning and you have a lot of time of your moment to actually uh answer Commissioner Braun's um uh brief question.

I I think if if you want are you, thank you for for providing that perspective, but that's all thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

Um so I I still am going to move forward with the um motion to deny.

I think that um I'm trying to figure out the best way to to do this uh from staff's perspective.

Um is this something where between section 303 necessary and desirable and uh uh the planning commission's assessment regarding the the concentration of formula retail, is that sufficient for for can for the motion to deny, or do you want to work on it and come back with the the denial um motion?

I mean I think if you guys can put findings in the record for sort of the rationale for why it doesn't meet the either the 303 or the 303.1 findings, you can do it on the fly and we can write those down and sort of refine them, or we can continue it for two weeks with sort of general bullet point guidance and we can drop something up for you and um probably a minimum we would need a minimum of two weeks.

The packets have a one-week lead time.

So we would need at least two weeks.

So which whichever you feel more comfortable with.

If you can put some findings on the record, we can do it that way.

But um, we would probably need you to articulate the findings if it concludes today as opposed to giving us some direction, in which case we'll continue it out a few weeks for the intent to disapprove.

Okay.

I think I'm I would be more comfortable if uh staff was able to draft the the motion.

Um and so I think that I know that for me um the you know it's the this relates to the concentration of formula retail going from nothing to, you know, the 1.4%.

In this case, um that's uh a big part of the reason for denial.

And if any other commissioners have um anything to add to that.

Thank you.

Commissioner McGarry.

And then Commissioner Perl.

I would agree with Commissioner Brong.

I also agree with Commissioner Campbell.

Uh this is not listed as a uh or zoned for an area for no con uh formula retail.

Um but nineteen ninety-five till two thousand and one, two thousand two.

I lived in this district and I know how the people are.

Um back then, ritual bec would be considered a uh a formula retail, even though I did spend the day yesterday in the neighborhood because I wanted to see it and I wanted to experience the feel of it from back in the day.

I don't think this is this is gonna work.

The the neighborhood, the neighborhood is gonna see they see you as a chain within a chain.

It's 12,000 uh 12,000 stores, but you're three of the twelve thousand stores.

So that it's I can't see how it's going to work.

Uh I can say that I had the best cup of coffee that I've had in about three months, that ritual yesterday.

Uh thank you very much for that experience.

Uh this the store next door, I can see how you will you would benefit, but the fact that your next door neighbor will benefit, but they still don't want your what you do there is is a tough one.

Uh I can't see it, I can't see myself actually I can't approve this today, so I will be seconding the motion.

Um, thank you.

Um and then Commissioner Inperu, you have some comments?

Yeah, I would add to the findings or um to the motion intent in terms of um this um the the formula retail is not um desirable and for me one of the the um you know is the preservation of the um preservation of the the independent um entity within this three hundred foot radius um within this corridor or three hundred feet foot radius.

I don't know if that would um help in terms of the the language in itself, but in terms of like the preservation of the the identity of that corridor.

That I'm happy to include that in the motion as it relates to the criteria that you would need to um determine for the denial.

Okay.

I I'll second the motion.

I think Commissioner McGarry, but do you do uh support the the addition?

Commissioner McGarry, do you second that?

Thank you, Commissioners.

Uh Commissioner Campbell, I just I just want to add before this closes, it seems like we're moving towards a denial.

Um, but I do just want to put out there again, um I I would love to see us have more transparency and more predictability for the community, for businesses, for small businesses, for people like these two project sponsors who are trying to do the right thing and they're working within the rules as we've set forth.

Um and now it just gets kind of squishy.

So if Valencia is not going to have formula retail, and we're I don't want I'd hate to see this happen over and over and over again.

I'd much rather see us codify that and change it in the code.

So if there's a way we can do that, and I don't know what that process is, I would urge us to do that.

That's very good point, Commissioner Campbell.

Uh Commissioner Vice President Moore.

Briefly say that within the type of approvals we give, one being a DR, which is discretionary and exceptional, extraordinary, and CU conditional use necessary and desirable, it is up to our judgment, not to every written rule of how we see something.

And it's basically in the refined way of hearing of what the community says, together with our own judgment, where we don't have every rule to be written down that includes a consideration about formula retail.

So I like to basically put emphasis what that what's in front of us is conditional use of authorization, which requires that something is necessary and desirable, and that is the highest bar in the approval process of this commission.

Thank you.

Commissioner Williams.

Just want to add my thoughts on I know there's a there's a motion here, but there's also some things that were brought up here that I think could be part of the motion.

And that's but I'm not gonna ask to for it to be part of the motion, but it's some of the things that were mentioned by some of the small business owners.

And I think it's important to highlight um some of the things that formula retail has represented, and that is when they move into a neighborhood or a commercial quarter like this, that the rents tend to get higher.

Um favorable to small business.

And I think that's kind of gets to the crusp of what a lot of these things, a lot of these um protections do.

There's there's reasons why there's protections in San Francisco, there's reasons why um these protections have gone into these areas along these commercial corridors.

And what I've seen is systematically, we're just we're dismembering, we're dismantling a lot of those protections.

And we heard today from the small business community on Valencia that they're concerned, they're concerned about these types of businesses coming in, these formula retails and what they do these communities.

I think it's my responsibility as a as a commissioner to understand that and to protect small business in that in that sense.

And so I I just want to highlight what I heard today, because I think there's a lot of noise out there.

Um there's a uh what I see is the dismantling of protections, um, and you can point to um the recent family zoning plan.

You can you can r you know you can point to just a bunch of things that I've seen recently.

And I would just say that there are real concerns, and I think we need to understand what those concerns are.

And I think today they were they were verbalized very well.

And just wanted to lend that thought.

Thank you.

Okay, Commissioners, if I understand correctly, there is a motion to deny um directing staff to craft findings um associated with um citing increase in concentration of formula retail, that the use is not desirable, preservation of independently owned business character and the corridor identity.

On that motion, Commissioner Campbell.

Aye.

Commissioner McGarry.

Commissioner Williams.

Aye, Commissioner Braun, I.

Commissioner Imperial, Commissioner Moore, and Commissioner President So.

Aye.

So move Commissioners that motion passes six to one with Commissioner Campbell voting against.

Commissioners, that will place us under your discretionary review calendar for the final item on your agenda today.

Item 16A and B for case numbers 2019, hyphen zero one five seven three for DRP and VAR for the property at two Dunsmuir Street.

You will be considering the excuse me, the discretionary review application, and the acting zoning administrator will be considering um the request for variance.

Uh please be advised that we received a request for translation services for the benefit of the interpreters.

I ask that we speak clearly and slowly for translation in real time.

When public comment is called, I will ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right, and I will now ask that this information be translated into Cantonese.

And for the DR requester, there are headsets for your use.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Mr.

Winslow, I apologize.

I know it's just a formality, but greetings, good afternoon, Commissioners, President So, and Commissioners David Winslow, Planning Staff Architect.

The item before you is a public initiated request for.

Oh, I'm sorry, slow down.

My name is Felix.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Let me slow down.

Let me start over and slow down.

Thank you.

Good afternoon again, President.

So and Commissioners.

David Winslow, Planning Staff Architect.

The item before you today is a public initiated request for discretionary review of planning application 2019.

IFN 015734, VAR.

To legalize a one-story edition and a detached building at the rear of the lot at two Dunsmere.

The DR requester, Sandy Wang of One Colby Street, the immediate rear neighbor to the west is concerned.

The proposed project did not consider the retaining wall between two Dunsmere and One Colby Street.

And the project had has disturbed the foundation and weakened the retaining wall between the two lots.

Additionally, the proposed project does not meet planning code sections 134, which is open space.

To date, the department has received no letters in opposition and no letters in support of the project.

The staff's review and recommendation of this claim, the DR requester's claim and issue about the retaining wall is out of the scope of purview of this permit and beyond the planning department's jurisdiction to review, resolve, or remedy.

The project sponsor bought the property with the addition, which is evidenced, evidence of this addition appears in satellite imagery as early as 1995, and is seeking a variance to legalize it.

Although the one-story rear addition extends into the rear yard, it retains a side setback and extends to the same depth approximately as the uphill adjacent neighbor to the south.

The project therefore complies with the residential design guidelines related to scale at the rear due to the setbacks in height relative to grade and to the extent of the adjacent neighbors' buildings.

Therefore, staff deems there are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances that merit taking discretionary review and recommends approving.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Winslow.

DR request here, you have five minutes.

Good afternoon, members of the Planning commission.

My name is Felix.

I'm the designer of record.

And with me here is Grace.

Well, you're the representing the project sponsor, right?

Correct.

I'm asking for the DRS discretionary review request to go first.

Good afternoon, Commissioner.

My name is Wei Wing.

And I'm the owner of one Cobis tree.

Since uh 1970 uh 1997, I'm moving this property.

Okay.

When I'm moving that property, okay, two thumbs tree is the building they require to build is only the broken mantle shell.

Okay.

The bed yard is very higher compared with now condition with the big tree.

The situation now is the bed, all the big tree removed, and the dust removed.

They didn't uh build up stronger the uh retailing wall, end up the retailing wall, you lean back when I see in the scenes, they use the strong wood to support the retailing wall.

End up is not collapse.

Okay, I try to communicate with the owner twice.

They didn't, they said no money.

Okay, but the point is, okay, then the new owner has to have a key painting, you know, the the right obligation, okay, for the PS1.

Okay.

And I showing the picture, the retaining wall is cracking.

Cracking.

And one thing I want to remind the commissioner is.

Electricity post in there.

And the foundation of the post, the break is loose up, try to collapse.

This bring up the public safety issue.

I notice, I also notice EGND lady years, already you know, fix the elitist post twice.

Okay.

And I further notice my bed, yes.

Uh cement is a cracking tool, because the pain wall is collapsed.

It's a collapse.

Okay, and with your later years, and my bed yard will be, you know, slide down, you know, the so based on this, I come here to oppose the oppose the uh the regular proceeding.

Okay, conducting pie, two dust ministry.

And furthermore, they have to fix the retailing mall and the bed, yeah, the fence of my house.

And I furthermore uh urge the commissioner to pay more attention because this is not only you know the two houses problem, but is the safety issue.

Okay, the public safety issue now.

So uh thank you very much for your consideration.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

With that, we should hear from the project sponsor.

Sorry about that.

Um my name is Felix, the uh designer of record for this project, and here with me is Grace, the owner and project sponsor of two Dunsmir.

Um as mentioned by the uh the zoning ZA.

Uh this this application concerns uh a single family residence seeking approval for legalization of a one-story uh rear edition.

Uh it's approximately 360 square feet.

It extends about 18 feet six inches to the rear and seven and a half feet into the required rear yard.

Uh many nearby properties do contain similar rear yard encroachments, uh or other modifications to non-compliance structures, and the proposed project will align with the established rear yard datum.

In doing so, it would enhance the property's utility efficiency and overall design consistency of the neighborhood.

Accordingly, a variance from planning code section 134 is requested.

The project fully complies with planning code section 133 regarding side yard side yards, maintaining approximately five feet on each side.

In addition, the roof of the addition is proposed to serve as a roof deck to satisfy the open space requirement of section 135 for RH1 zoning.

The standard requires a minimum of 300 square feet of usable open space.

And the top of rich measures ten feet high.

Okay, if there are no immediate questions from members of the planning commission, we should open up public comment.

Um we will now have public comment.

Cantonese interpreters are present.

If you are in need of translation services, please submit your testimony in short intervals to allow interpreters to translate your testimony.

Each speaker will have two minutes, and when you have 30 seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up.

I'll ask the interpreters to translate.

Good afternoon.

My name is Sandy Wen.

I oppose the project of uh for the uh uh two uh street.

Okay.

Um the reason I oppose uh this project uh because uh I think uh the project is uh illegal.

Uh uh because uh at my uh back yard, uh there's uh electric uh electricity uh post and also um there's a tree.

Uh they remove the tree and and the dust.

But because uh uh uh because uh of uh this project and make uh the retaining uh retaining wall uh is kind of slide uh to uh our back yard and also uh make the uh infrastructure uh is uh weak and uh uh make uh the electricity uh post uh kind of um kind of uh collapse and it's uh safety uh public uh safety uh problem.

And at uh the year of uh 2021, I negotiate uh with um uh the uh owner, and the owner said that uh we need uh yiff uh we uh need to uh run away uh the retaining um retaining wall, we have to pay half of the price, yeah.

Oh my you go, you know, yeah uh okay.

Yeah, uh uh because uh they want me to uh want us to pay half the price uh to uh uh to maintain the retaining wall, I don't think it's fair, but because uh of this project, make the retaining wall kind of uh slide uh on our side.

Uh but we shouldn't to pay the uh for the price, and this is not fair to us.

Okay, ma'am, can you explain to her?

I'm gonna pause her right now because it sounds like she's part of the discretionary review team.

Sounds like she lives on the property.

And so the discretionary review presentation had a little bit of time left, so we're gonna we afforded her that time, but at this point she needs to complete her testimony under rebuttal.

Okay.

That's it.

That's it.

We afforded you way too much time already.

Okay, um, again, members of the public who are not part of the discretionary review team or the project sponsors team.

You don't live there, sir.

Okay, come on up.

So my name is Kenneth Wang.

Thank you guys for being here so late to the evening.

The decolor brief.

If you go into the backyard or looking at a satellite, uh you could see the retaining mall is actually on their property line.

And they've considerably excavated a lot of soil and removed trees and shrubs.

That's potentially disturbed a lot of the foundation that supports the retaining wall.

This means is it should be their responsibility because the retaining wall has now curved and is approaching what looks to be like a collapse.

Them coming at around 2021 to negotiate a deal to potentially pay for the repair of the retaining wall while they were excavating.

Seems kind of snakey.

It is their responsibility.

They've touched it, it's on their property line.

They should prepare it.

But because it's a utility pole, that could cause unwanted fires in the neighborhood and some sort of a matter of black outages, which could be devastating.

And that's what I have to share.

Thank you.

Okay, last call for public comment for people who are not on either side of this issue.

Okay.

Now you have a two-minute rebuttal if she wants to continue her testimony.

No, sir, you have to come up to the microphone and speak.

I just call it the interpreter.

No.

It's not our side.

Does she want to say anything else?

You've got another minute and a half.

So um hi-ling hai got on that, why you see on retaining wall.

Could you see the one retaining wall high damage?

Uh in uh 20 uh 21, uh I talked to the uh owner and um uh the owner uh won as to pay uh half the uh price.

Uh but uh at the time uh they already know the retaining wall is uh damage.

Uh I don't understand why at the time uh they don't uh talk to the uh city.

Yeah, uh because uh at the time they already know the retaining wall is uh damage.

And I think uh this is uh uh illegal.

Uh uh be honest, I don't trust uh I don't trust them.

Uh even uh the uh engineer, uh I don't trust them.

Uh I only trust the uh the city uh the panel here.

Yeah, I don't trust them.

Okay, project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal.

Uh we believe this to be a civil matter.

Um this does not uh affect the decision of the planning commission.

Um I do have some pictures of the retaining wall, but I don't think that serves any purpose in the in the decision for approval of this um the decision here.

Okay, if that concludes your rebuttal, we're done with the public hearing portion and this matter is now before you, Commissioners.

Commissioner McGarry.

I'd like to know if the retaining wall uh was intact.

Number one, is it on the property line?

And number two, was it disturbed and basically eroded because of activity on one side of the property line?

So I have some pictures here.

The addition was performed by the previous owner.

We have no idea how it was it was uh it was prior.

Uh we do have an inspection report from the what at the time of purchase that show that notes that there is some damage to the rear retaining wall.

And this was back in 2014.

And you're on lower ground and your neighbors on higher ground, so correct.

And it's bowing towards our end.

So it's it's basically leaning towards our side.

And have you had activity have you had work done on that?

Your side of it since?

Uh sorry, let me just show you your phone over on the overhead.

You can put your phone underneath the overhead.

Actually, would that help?

Okay.

So the structure was the storage structure was built to actually prop up the retaining wall in 2019.

Um right after that, I believe that's when the owner uh Grace went to the owner of Kobe uh to ask if they're willing to split the cost for repairing the retaining wall.

It looks like it's hiding the retaining wall or the damage, not propping it up.

Yeah, it was built uh the the damage is right right here.

Let me see if I could find it.

Right.

That piece right there.

Um, and uh uh we do have that record from the inspection report from 2014 that notes crack crack uh let's see where's that?

Right there.

Backyard cracks on wall, so on the cinder block wall.

Uh they didn't they weren't really specific on that, but there is a there's a note in the inspection report for that.

And again, I think our position is that this is more of a civil matter.

Um the addition is nowhere close to the to the retaining wall.

If anything, it's probably a good 10 15 feet away from that.

And the Commissioner McGee, did you ask, would you want to clarify the question whether this retaining wall was within the property line of the Well, I didn't so I asked that is the is the retaining wall on your property or is it on next door?

It falls right on the property line.

It's right on okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And uh Natalia, you have a comment?

Good evening again, Commissioners.

Natalia Fassi, acting zoning administrator.

I'd like to clarify the scope of the project that's uh under the review by the planning department, and then I'd like to offer some comments on the variants.

Yes, of course.

It's on.

Yeah, thank you.