Okay, good afternoon and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, May 21st, 2026.

When an item is called that you would like to submit testimony for, 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.

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

When your allotted time is reached, there is a second chime indicating that your time is up.

And I will announce that your and take the next person cue 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, Commission President Campbell.

Here.

Commission vice president Moore.

Commissioner Braun.

Commissioner McGarry.

Commissioner Seo.

Present.

And Commissioner Williams.

Thank you, Commissioners.

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

There were no items proposed for continuance.

However, we did receive a somewhat late request for a continuance for item two, case number 2022, hyphen zero one-two-two-five four CUA hyphen zero two for the property at 2001 37th Avenue conditional use authorization under your consent calendar, requesting a four-week continuance to June 18, 2026.

I have no other items proposed for continuance, and so we should open up public comment.

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

Public comment is closed.

Your continuance calendar is now before you, Commissioners.

Commissioner Braun.

Just to be clear for anyone in the room.

This is the item that is the bike parking at St.

Ignatius.

So it's being continued by four weeks for a hearing.

I move to continue the item.

Second.

Thank you, Commissioners.

On that motion to continue item two to June 18th.

Commissioner McGarry.

Commissioner Seo.

Aye.

Commissioner Williams.

Aye.

Commissioner Braun.

Aye.

Commissioner Moore.

And Commissioner President Campbell.

Aye.

So move Commissioners.

That motion passes unanimously six to zero, placing us under your consent calendar for item one, case number 2026, hyphen 00, 2251, C UA 5238, Diamond Heights Boulevard, conditional use authorization.

Members of the public, this is your opportunity to request that this matter be removed from the consent calendar and heard under the regular calendar today or at a future hearing.

Again, you need to come forward.

Seeing none.

Move to approve.

Second.

Thank you, Commissioners.

On that motion to approve item one on consent.

Commissioner McGarry.

Aye.

Commissioner So.

Aye.

Commissioner Williams.

Aye.

Commissioner Braun.

Aye.

Commissioner Moore.

Aye.

And Commissioner President Campbell.

Aye.

So move.

Commissioners.

That motion passes unanimously six to zero, placing us on Commission matters item three, the land acknowledgement.

The Commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramitu Shalone, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula.

As the indigenous stewards of this land, and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramatouchalone 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 Ramatushalone community, and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples.

Thank you.

Item four consideration of adoption draft minutes for May 7th, 2026.

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

Again, you need to come forward.

Thank you.

Seeing none, last call.

Public comment is closed.

Your minutes are now before you, Commissioners.

Commissioner Brown.

Move to adopt the minutes.

Second.

Thank you, Commissioners.

On that motion to adopt your minutes, Commissioner McGarry.

Commissioner So.

Aye.

Commissioner Williams.

Aye.

Commissioner Braun.

Aye.

Commissioner Moore.

Aye.

And Commissioner President Campbell.

Aye.

So move commissioners that motion passes unanimously six to zero.

Item five, Commission comments and questions.

Seeing none, Jonas.

Very good.

Department matters item six.

Director's announcements.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Great to see you again.

I wanted to uh make sure your attention was called and the public's attention was called to an announcement by Mayor Lurie and Supervisor Mirna Melgar earlier this week.

A point near and dear to this commission's heart and a question that you have asked us repeatedly over the last six to eight months about how do we shore up funding for affordable housing in a sustainable and sustained way.

So the announcement was the introduction of a measure for the for this fall's ballot that will look to more than double, I don't know what the percent is, from 50 million to 125 million, the city's affordable housing trust fund, which is the annual amount that will be dedicated from our general fund to permanent affordable housing production or acquisition.

That measure will be funded through increased property tax revenue as we continue to see our property taxes go up post-COVID after the drop that we saw.

So that associated legislation will come before you in coming weeks, and we'll discuss that.

But the permanent affordable housing measure voters willing is I think a strong response to some of the questions that you've been asking us over the over the past period of time.

So thank you for your leadership on that.

Um the department uh planning department and DBI.

Uh, we we went in parallel to the budget and finance committee last week and this week to bring our budgets again separate budgets but jointly planned um forward and through the board of supervisors.

So we look forward to continuing that uh as the city approaches the July 1 deadline.

And then lastly, just to note that Monday is a holiday, the permit center and the planning information counter will be closed, but we'll be back busy to serve the public on Tuesday.

Thank you.

Okay, seeing no questions for the director, we can move on to item seven uh review of past events at the Board of Appeals and the Historic Preservation Commission.

I have no report from the board of supervisors for you, all right.

Good afternoon, President Campbell and Commissioners, Corey Teague, zoning administrator, the board of appeals did meet last night, um, and they heard a case of interest to the planning commission.

It was not a case that was before the commission, but generally of interest, and this was the emergency demolition permit for 659 Union Street.

Um, and the first hearing was held about a month ago for that.

There was an emergency demolition ordered order issued by the director of DBI, um, the structure became so unsafe.

It was an imminent safety risk.

Um that permit was issued um per that order and it was appealed.

Again, the Board of Appeals heard it a month ago, had some concerns about what led to the state of that situation now.

Now there had been an original fire in 2013, a second fire in 2018, and the building has not obviously been um uh redeveloped in any way since that time, although there have been a lot of process with the with the community and with the department working through that.

And there were also questions about whether or not the demolition, if it went forward, would have any impact on a legal right of return for any of the tenants who were there previously.

So the Board of Appeals originally continued that hearing for about a month to last night to allow all the parties to provide more information on those questions, and uh that happened through new briefs, new testimony, new QA.

Um the board generally, you know, still expressed some concerns with kind of how things got to where they are now, but ultimately did vote unanimously to deny the appeal and allow the emergency demolition permit to move forward.

But I'm available for any questions you may have.

The historic preservation commission also met yesterday uh where they considered a slew of uh landmark designations, uh the first being the House of Latin Rock on 25th Street, um, which included the Casa Bandito mural that pretty much envelops the entire house.

Um, then they took up about 20 uh landmark designations for district eight in response to the family zoning plan.

I won't go into those individually.

Um, but that was their day yesterday.

Uh commissioners, that will place us under general public comment.

At this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items with respect to agenda items.

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

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

Hi.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, George Shutish.

Um, I sent you the email about that case.

It's one of my favorite things to read, and I'm just so sad that it was never published because public case, if it's not published, doesn't mean anything except if you'd like to read it.

And I suggest people read it because I think it gets to the heart of so many matters.

And thanks to uh agency counter and uh Mr.

Cabreros helping me get on to agency counter, I saw that the subject of this court case uh has come back to life.

And um, I saw the uh permit application of plans, and uh there was an LS act eviction there of the the gentleman who lived there who was involved with this case back in 2007, and um when it was decided that it was a demolition, uh not an alteration, but uh the case uh the subject uh site is back.

And when I looked at the application, I thought it's ironic that it doesn't ask anything about if their tenants living there.

Now I know the gentleman was gone and he was ellist since over 10 years, so I guess they didn't have to, but it just seemed to me that every application other than say the SB 330 application, which has an at request information about tenants, and the SB9 application, but all those other applications, and there's a whole bunch of them now, including like the one for this site on San Jose, small residential project application, um, streamlined multifamily pursuant to SB 423, housing choice SF, even variance applications, and mixed use project applications.

They should have a little box to say, are there tenants there?

And I think that would be very helpful for um for the staff when they do their job.

It'd be helpful for the public.

It's certainly helpful for the tenants, and I don't think that it would be um uh a constraint on or a hardship for a project sponsor to have to fill that in.

So um I know as I said it's on the SB 330, and sometimes people also fill in another application, and I don't see why it couldn't be on every form.

I don't think it would be duplicative, and um I think it's really important now, given um, you know, the frenzy we're living in.

And I'll just give an example of a project that didn't have that box, and that's the Carl Jensen flats.

And we only found out about that because of the neighbors.

So that's one example.

There are others that I've come up with recently that are concerning, uh, that I think uh it would be nice for the the project sponsor to put on there that there are tenants, oh, there were tenants there.

And so I'll leave it at that.

Um again, just please fix the forms.

I mean, they're online.

I would think it'd be pretty easy to fix that you could just add that little box to all the applications.

Are there tenants or have there been tenants in any time, even if it doesn't apply to any of the rules?

Just to know that there are tenants there.

And there's my hundred and fifty words for the minutes.

Have a very nice uh three-day weekend.

Thank you.

Take care.

Okay, last call for general public comment for items not on today's agenda.

Seeing none, general public comment is closed.

We can move on to your regular calendars.

Excuse me, your regular calendar, commissioners for item eight, case number 2026, hyphen 002589 PCA hotel uses in RH districts.

This is a planning code amendment.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Joseph Zackey, planning department staff.

Uh, the item before you is an ordinance introduced by Supervisor Mandelman that would increase the maximum number of guest rooms uh for hotel uses in RH2 and RH3 zoning districts from five or fewer rooms to eight or fewer rooms.

Uh, prior to staff's presentation, a representative from Supervisor Mandelman's office is here to introduce the item.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Renewal Bajoi.

I'm a legislative aide for President Mandelman.

Thank you for having me today.

I'm here on his behalf.

Uh, as was just mentioned, he introduced this ordinance earlier this year.

It makes a relatively modest change to the planning code.

Uh, under current rules, small hotels in RH2 and RH3 districts are conditionally permitted only up to five guest rooms, which is a threshold that, as was noted in the staff report, um, traces back to a building code definition and hasn't been revisited uh in a planning context.

This legislation would increase the number of rooms that are conditionally permitted to eight.

The immediate catalyst for this legislation was a constituent in Noe Valley who's here today.

Um it's a we have a long-standing bed and breakfast that's really beloved by the community uh called Noe's Nest.

It's operated with eight guest rooms and a lot of community support.

Um, but there's currently no pathway under existing code to legalize that use.

As we dug more into this issue, we realized that uh the issues facing Noe's nest were by no means unique.

Um there's several bed and breakfasts around San Francisco.

We have a large stock of historic properties that are costly and I think especially in light of our housing crisis, potentially inappropriate to maintain solely as single family residential uses, allowing modestly larger small hotels, importantly still subject to conditional use authorization.

We believe would allow for more expansive activation of these properties in a way that would unlock both economic opportunity as well as add to neighborhood vitality.

Uh planning has staff has also made uh several recommendations.

I think three recommended modifications to this ordinance.

Uh, we are fully supportive of all of them, and we think that they make the legislation much stronger.

So we appreciate the department's careful work on this and the strong community support that this legislation has generated.

Um, and with that I'll pass it back to Joe and respectfully ask your recommendation for this item.

Thank you.

Uh good afternoon again, commissioners.

Uh so as mentioned, the immediate context for the legislation is uh related to a specific case, but the ordinance would apply throughout the relevant zoning districts.

Uh and again, just to clarify, the proposed ordinance applies to hotel uses as they're defined within the planning code, which are retail uses.

Um, it does not apply to residential hotels, single room occupancy hotels, which are residential use and are unaffected uh by this legislation.

Um under the planning code's definition, there is functionally no difference between a hotel containing five guest rooms or eight guest rooms.

Uh, there are potentially implications under the building code, but the complete recitation of those are outside of my expertise.

Um the residential districts affected by the proposed ordinance are generally characterized by residential buildings that are limited in scale and suitable for family occupancy with limited residential uses.

So hotels in the RH2 and RH3 districts are small scale and most likely to be located in converted residential buildings.

The ability to establish these hotels provide property owners a revenue generating opportunity, while also allowing them to maintain the property as a permanent residence.

The proposed ordinance would increase the allowable number of guest rooms for hotels, but would otherwise not affect the permitted locations or the approval processes for hotel uses.

In terms of public comment, the planning department has not received any direct public comment, but the supervisor's office did forward approximately 50 letters and signatures submitted in support, which positively endorse the expanded opportunities for these small-scale hospitality uses that advance preservation and maintenance of historic properties while contributing to local economic activity.

So staff do have some recommendations.

So the staff recommends that the commission adopt a recommendation for approval with modifications of the ordinance.

The department supports the overall goals of the ordinance because it would modestly increase the potentially permitted intensity of hotel uses while still retaining the conditional use requirement and ensuring that each case is considered in context.

The proposed ordinance could be further enhanced with the following recommendations.

The first is to modify the ordinance to apply a consistent standard across the residential zoning districts that currently restrict restricts hotels to five or fewer guest rooms.

So for example, the uh RM districts, the residential mixed districts, and some of the RTO districts also impose this five room cap.

And generally RH districts are the most restrictive in terms of allowed uses and intensities.

So we think it just makes sense to apply a kind of uniform standard across the residential districts.

The second recommendation is to increase the maximum number of guest rooms permitted from eight to ten.

Although the legislation applies more broadly, the number eight uh kind of is generated by this specific case.

And our thinking is essentially if a hotel use came in with nine guest rooms, it would make sense to potentially remove the need for further legislative process and just kind of preemptively up it to 10.

Uh and then finally, for the third recommendation, we do recommend amending the hotel and motel findings of 303G to include a criterion for cases where a hotel use is established within a single family home, specifying that the planning commission consider the effects on the existing home's quality and viability as an independent dwelling unit.

This is not a new situation introduced by the ordinance, but it could potentially be exacerbated, where a single-family home converts a portion of the building for hotel use, leaving only a very small portion of the home that qualifies as a dwelling unit.

And under the planning code, that would not count as a full residential conversion, requiring a conditional use authorization for the conversion or the removal of a dwelling unit.

But I think among discussion and staff, we just uh want to make sure that the kind of viability of the routine dwelling unit is considered.

Uh so that concludes my presentation.

I am available for any questions.

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, everyone.

My name's Carol Yenny, and I'm a former president of the Noe Valley Merchant Association.

Currently I'm the treasurer.

Also, I'm on the executive board of the Council of District Merchants.

Uh, this wonderful bed and breakfast is in our neighborhood, Noah's Nest.

We love it.

It's the only one like it, and we are here to support Sheila Ash and also the request of Supervisor Mandeman to change the code for this.

It's a wonderful addition to our neighborhood, and we have many people that come to visit families with children, need a place to stay, love the convenience of the bed and breakfast in our neighborhood.

So we'd like to ask for your support for this.

Thank you very much.

I'm George Von Bozai.

I uh had a bed and breakfast in Napa in uh Calistoga, and um it would have been disastrous if I couldn't have rented all of my available rooms because it requires uh full rental occupancy because there's also vacancies to consider to even just maintain the overhead of the uh bed and breakfast.

It was a wonderful place, and uh I am also familiar with Noe's Nest and this too is a beautiful uh bed and breakfast that really should be given a maximum occupancy.

It seems like a win-win situation, uh win-win-win situation in that the um bed and breakfast would achieve uh more income or for operating expenses.

The city would get its taxes and uh other benefits from having uh guests stay there, and the of course the guests would have more availability to be in locations they want to be in.

So it seems like a triple win.

Thank you.

At this height, I have to take this down about a foot.

Um, thank you all for the hearing.

I'm going to address two elements.

One is San Francisco as a world destination, the charm, uh, the restaurants, the energy here, and very much the neighborhoodliness.

In those neighborhoods, there are families, and a lot of people come here to stay with their close to their families.

There's a place for the large hotels, conventions, etc., but not in these small neighborhoods.

And people from around the world come here to San Francisco as a world destination.

So I think it's really important to keep the beds and breakfasts alive.

When I travel, I look for a bed and breakfast.

I want that sense of community of sitting with people who have come to that particular area and learn from them what else there is to discover.

So when people come here to visit friends and family, they want oftentimes to go to a bed and breakfast.

They don't want the big hotels.

They want to be able to walk to their friends or their colleagues.

In specific, Noah's Nest is extraordinary, and its proprietor is Sheila Ash.

She gives to charities.

She opens this bed and breakfast, which is an impeccable condition to charities at no charge.

She opens it to community at no charge.

She has gatherings, small gatherings to help raise funds for different for different good purposes, all of which contribute to how incredible San Francisco is because we're not a huge smalling, you know, sprawling metropolis.

We are a charming, incredible city that is a world destination, and those neighborhoods contribute to the sense of community and uniqueness that we have in San Francisco.

So supporting our local beds and breakfasts with a way to keep them economically viable based on an economy of scale of a certain minimum number, allow these small businesses to stay in business.

We know many small businesses have had to close.

Economics is increasing.

It is really important to the city to continue to maintain the charm of the neighborhoods and the accessibility to others to visit their families and friends, and for people who want to relocate.

Our neighborhoods are unique, and the beds and breakfasts in those neighborhoods are extraordinarily unique.

So please help them to stay open and help Noe's Nest because that's an incredible place inside and out.

Thank you.

Hello.

Well, first of all, thank you, you guys.

Thank you for bringing this to the attention of the community.

Um, my name's Noe.

I wanted to start by saying that bed and breakfasts are something that attracts local neighborhoods when people come and visit us.

Not more than never.

I think we're ready for, you know, we're on the up and up.

I think the world can see that with what's going on here with the mayor and all that, which is I'm all excited about that.

And we're a destination.

So when people can come out and meet these local businesses that are opening up these nice homes and these um places are to entertain the community.

I think it's it's a way to show different parts of the city to a city that has so much to offer the diversity, and in particular Noe's Ness.

I think there's a lot of the community in Noe Valley is so um vibrant with families that that come and visit you know their their kids and they want something close.

So a place like No Ness has been very inviting and Sheila Ash, the owner has been very uh vibrant in the city for a long time, and she's out there and she's promoting um, you know, organization she's involved in, and I've learned to really um find that a really beautiful technique in these small um, you know, um bed and breakfast that that's around the city because there's other ones that we know of too.

So um overall, I just want to say that consider what's being asked, and it's all for a good cause to make San Francisco, you know, back on the map.

Let's go.

Let's go, San Francisco.

So thank you.

All right.

Hello, thank you for being here.

Uh my name is John Scott.

I was born and raised in Connecticut, but I've lived in San Francisco since 1973.

And most of those great years, I lived in No Way Valley, and that's how I became introduced to Noah's Nest.

And I've had the pleasure of having friends and family be able to stay at Noah's Nest when I was in Noah Valley, to be able to be close, to be enjoy the neighborhood.

I mean, it's a very happening neighborhood, walking distance to a lot of great restaurants, coffee shops, you name it.

And um, I'm just here to give a, you know, yay, Noahy's Nest.

And hope hope you will uh not only help Noe's Nest, but hope help other people who would like to successfully run B's in the city.

I think they're positive.

Thank you.

Perfect.

Good afternoon, commissioners, and thank you so much for hearing us, for listening.

I'm here to endorse the economic and historical viability of the traditional bed and breakfast.

In my research, I it looks as if as of May 2026, there are only 30 to 40 traditional bed and breakfasts still existing in San Francisco.

That's not much.

I you know, you've got a concierge at a hotel that greets you maybe with a little more formality, but the traditional welcome that makes you feel at home, makes you remember the city.

Um, it's invaluable.

And that's my first choice when I travel.

Uh I guess the best example I can give you, which is so touching, and it touches to our hearts as well as the viability of making this economically possible, is this little seven-year-old boy walked out into the lobby near the kitchen, of course, in the bed and breakfast, and looked at me and said, Where's Sheila?

And his parents in a follow-up to passing that little comment on, the parents said he wants to come back when he's grown up after college and live in this bed and breakfast.

I mean that that tells it.

Anyway, thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, thank you.

My name is Jennifer.

I live in Sebastopol.

I've been staying in bed and breakfast for about 30 years, and I am a fan of San Francisco.

And as a pedestrian, I come here and I always stay in bed and breakfasts.

I think it's a tap road.

I think it's an opportunity to witness the culture and the history.

There's just a lot of corporations that are taking over.

And so there is something special about bed and breakfasts that allow us to stay and to get like the love and the care that you cannot get when you stay in some of these big hotels.

So I'm a fan of expansion.

I'm a fan of you reviewing all of this and making the ability from it to be a five-room situation to expand it to eight for all bed and breakfasts here in San Francisco.

And thank you for allowing us all to come here and share our thoughts.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is David.

I had the pleasure of staying at Noah's Nest Bed and Breakfast while I had a house renovated in the East Bay.

But it's prior to that.

I used to live in San Francisco.

I used to manage big corporate hotels.

And I can truly tell you after staying at Noah's Nest, having known how you're supposed to run a hotel.

It is 100% on the up and up.

It's clean, it's friendly.

You get to meet the guests every morning over breakfast.

Something you don't get to do in a big hotel.

So I totally encourage you all to have some consideration that just passed and Sheila gets eight rooms.

Thank you.

Hi.

My name's Dave Kong.

I'm a resident.

I think there's been a lot of excellent points already made.

I'm gonna not gonna belabor the point here.

I just think the ordinance is good for the city, and I think it's good for the owners, and I hope you approve it.

Thank you.

Just for the recording most of her number nine too.

My name is Eric Barreto, and I work in the travel business, and I can tell you that uh San Francisco San Francisco does not have many bed and breakfasts because I have customers who ask me, and everyone loves a bed and breakfast because it's very intimate, it's small, and you can be in a neighborhood, which otherwise you couldn't.

So I would uh encourage you guys to um go past the ordinance from five to eight to have more access for customers.

Thank you very much.

Hi, my name is Anayas, and I'm a local resident.

I've worked in hospitality for the past 20 25 years, and it's interesting.

A lot of people who go to bed and breakfasts are coming for local events, for interviews, for medical reasons for UCSF.

But it's more than just that, it's more to come to a bed and breakfast.

It's something that affects them and they come back to time and time again because they love it, and it's a unique experience.

And some people, although a lot of travelers do like to go downtown and stay at those hotels, they want a unique homely experience that they only get at a bed and breakfast.

And so a lot of people who call, I think say that when they go to the bed and breakfast this is nice, but they can only get so many rooms because there's only so many available.

And there's only so much available at a time.

So a lot of bed and breakfasts are in places like Napa and Sonoma, but it's nice when you have a bed and breakfast in San Francisco and they can get that homely experience.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Ella Vid.

I have lived here since the late 70s.

I have been in the hospitality and had a little travel business, been all over the world, and I always can't stress enough how wonderful it is to come back to this B and B that is so amazing for the neighborhood, and it's a win-win-win, as was said before, and I'd so appreciate you hearing us.

And please pass this.

Thank you.

Hello.

My name is Mindy Cantor.

And I just want to say that San Francisco, as you know, is a destination city, world class.

It's known for its uniqueness and its charm.

And uh I just want to say that BBs offer that charm and a real San Francisco experience.

Would you rather stay in a cookie cutter hotel that whose rooms um look the same in any city across our nation uh or stay in a very unique um warm uh place?

I mean, big hotels are for some people, but not for everybody.

Um B's are being bought by corporations.

There was a beautiful B B on signer that was bought by a corporation in of San Francisco was bought by an AI company.

And it really makes sense to raise the occupancy rate for BMBs to make it more economically viable.

Um, also, um, there's a huge demand for BMBs uh in that I've been told that they're actually turning away um people because they don't have the room.

Three additional rooms would make a huge difference.

So uh, and would not affect the big hotels, uh, but it will keep these BMBs in business.

So I do hope you pass this ordinance.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Sheila Ash, and I own No Yus Nest Spin and Breakfast.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today and speak.

My building is a hundred and thirty-seven years old, and I am slowly inching that way.

My passion is fashion and hospitality.

I put people above profit.

And I would like Noah's Nest to become a legend in San Francisco, and will draw people here and be able to accommodate them.

I don't think I could say anything more that hasn't been said.

I'm just asking that this is a gateway to make it more affordable, more homey, and put Noah's Nest on the map.

Okay, last call for public comment.

Seeing none, public comment is closed.

This matter is now before you, Commissioners.

Vice President Moore.

I am delighted to see uh Supervisor Mandelman, President Mandelman, bring this forward.

I think this is an extremely important element to bring to the attention of the public.

Uh I did not know actually that there are only so few uh uh bed and breakfast in San Francisco.

My neighborhood truly lacks one, and I couldn't be more delighted to acknowledge all of your testimony because you really speak to the heart of the neighborhood.

That is what many neighborhoods would like to say about themselves.

However, there lacks infrastructure of scattered bed and breakfast within reach of the community actually needing them.

Homes in San Francisco are relatively small, and to host two or three friends from abroad is almost impossible.

So you kind of stagger around trying to find small hotels, which may be not really even convenient for you to buy foot show your friends what's available in your neighborhood.

So they may be in a completely different area.

You're not even know if it's safe enough for them to walk to where you live.

Uh I am delighted to see this.

Well thought through.

The increase from five to eight is of not is not an issue whatsoever.

And I think I could even support staff recommendation to go to ten.

That does not mean that everybody will push the 10 room envelope.

It is just a broader range of achieving a model, which I think all major world cities have, except it's not as well known in this city because there's more Airbnb pushing itself as an alternative to small hotels in front of you than bed and breakfast, which are real extension of neighborhood businesses and the type of ingredients we want our neighborhood co-workers to maintain and champion on their own because they're all different and they're offering the particular ingredients with that little variety that each neighborhood has.

I'm very fond of Noi Valley, and I'm very happy for you.

But I also congratulate your supervisor having had the thoughtfulness to take an example, a real viable example and bring it forward.

So I couldn't be more convinced that this is just the right time to support this legislation.

I'm not going to make a motion now.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Braun.

Yes.

I want to first thank all the speakers who came out to speak about this legislation.

It's a fairly modest change, and there's a lot of enthusiasm enthusiasm that's been expressed about it.

So I think that really speaks to how passionately people feel about this.

And just although we're discussing the legislation generally, I'll say, you know, I see the positive impact of a bed and breakfast like Noah's Nest.

It's within a short walk of my own home.

And just to illustrate, Commissioner Moore's Vice President Moore's point, the tiny cottage that I rent in Noe Valley can't accommodate all our friends who come through town, and Noah's Nest has actually been very helpful.

And I also always appreciate the decorations in the windows of Noah's Nest.

So you know, I think that when it comes to bed and breakfast generally, these properties aren't overwhelming neighborhoods.

I think the change from five to eight or with staff recommended modifications to ten rooms is a modest change.

I do want to thank department staff for especially the first and third recommended changes, modifications to the legislation, because you proactively address concerns that I had when I first started reading about the legislation.

The first point being, you know, having this limited to just RH2 and three districts seemed unnecessarily limiting.

So I'm glad that the recommendation is to broaden the residential districts to which this would apply.

And then for the third staff recommended modification, you know, I I the other concern I did have was about the potential loss of viable housing in our neighborhoods, since I want to make sure that we are maintaining sustaining our housing supply.

And so, you know, having consideration of retaining the housing unit and making sure that it's still viable is very important.

I'm glad to see that that is also uh included in this.

And so this has my full support, and I'm I'm also not going to make a motion to say that let others speak, but uh this does have my full support along with the staff recommended modifications.

Thank you.

Commissioner McGarry.

So I'm atrociously biased here.

I was actually brought up in a bed and breakfast, uh, the West Coast of Ireland.

So I learned the art of hospitality.

Um basically I was served breakfast, bus tables, washed.

Uh I could trade some stories because bed and breakfast have the best stories you can possibly come across.

Uh San Francisco is great, but the the bed and breakfast part of any society or part society is it brings a not just a unique but a boutique uh experience to wherever it is.

So it really does put the local back in local.

Um hotels are great, but they're downtown.

It doesn't cater for that knowing experience, the castro experience, the uh uh North Beach experience, the chess, not reunion street that are individually unique in their own right, and you're not gonna get those if you go for lunch when you're staying downtown.

But if you're staying in a bed and breakfast within that, it's pop.

You are part of the neighborhood, and the neighbors know you, both sides.

So I'm full support on this, and I would like to make the motion to pass this if I could.

Commissioner Williams.

Thank you, fellow commissioners, for all your input.

Thank thanks for the public for coming out.

Um I you know, I have no issues with bed and breakfast.

I think they're great.

Um the only issue that that comes up for me is the loss of housing, right?

Uh, you know, I just uh I was here prior, like many of you to Airbnb, Airbnb came in and you know, took thousands of units off the market, and and thus helped create the housing crisis that we're in now.

Not to say this is uh the same thing, but I just want to acknowledge that, you know, uh there's a concern.

And so my question to uh supervisor Maldon's uh staff is um how are we assured that you know uh thousands of people won't uh want to get into uh this business if this legislation's passed and and start displacing uh residents and things of that nature.

I appreciate that question.

I think it's a very valid concern um given the the magnitude of the housing crisis we're in and the affordability crisis.

Uh what I'll say is that I I think the safeguard against that sort of you know sort of massive sea change and you know people, I guess like maybe kicking out tenants and setting up a hotel use is that this change only applies as a conditional use authorization.

So I I think baked into the the conditional use authorization process is an ability to look at each uh you know request for this case by case and say, you know, okay, how is this actually impacting the community?

Is this gonna lead to a massive loss of housing?

Um or is this just something that a business needs like a little extra kick to you know function and thrive and survive as so many of the commenters have said in San Francisco?

So that's what I would say um in terms of how are we going to ensure that we preserve housing to the maximum extent, it's through that conditional use authorization process where ultimately we can look at everything on a unique individual basis and determine um does this impact the community and doesn't this impact the community positively.

Thank you for that.

I um again uh I um that that's a a major concern just you know for me.

Um and uh the can the conditional use authorization is is a great way to vet these uh projects as they come through and so um I don't know.

Um is there any I'm just curious.

Uh I I just uh feel very strongly about about displacement.

You know, we've we've had a history of a lot of people losing uh losing out on their homes uh across the city for many for many years now, and so I'm very sensitive to that.

Um and so I just wanted to to make that known.

Um thank you for coming up here, Commissioner Sowe.

Well, thank you everyone for coming today, and I hear a lot of support, and um I also live really close by Noe Valley, and I also know that we really have very um small number of bread and bed and breakfasts uh compared to a city of similar size and diversity.

So this is a really great one step forward, and I actually wanted to um find out more about how many um existing operating bed and breakfasts are in precisely like Sheila's situation where they got kind of been not knowing they need to convert into these hotel use, and um it's still running as a single family uh home, and if this I basically I wanted to know if we pass this, how do other people know about this and they don't end up get caught in a lot of you know stress and distress that happened to the uh the uh the owner that operates this bed and breakfast, and I want to make sure that how can we benefit not just one business but also any other one that is operating right now.

Sure.

Thank you for the question, Commissioner.

Um I think by virtue of the question about how many are operating without conditional use authorization and may need to convert at some point in the future.

We don't have a precise census uh of how many that might be.

Um I did kind of go through the available industry data um that we subscribe to uh and I think it was around 20 or so that we found that were registered, but again, the data was also a little bit out of date.

Um but to the the broader point about public education, obviously we maintain the planning information counter.

There's the the Office of Small Business is able to provide um guidance to business owners on kind of the permitting process more holistically.

Um, and then I think obviously supervisors' offices, depending on which district it's located in, uh, can also serve as a resource and point business owners to the either the planning department, building department.

Um so I think just generally the the city is available for public education, but in terms of how proactive we can be with existing businesses, I think it would be challenging if we don't know precisely where they are, who they are.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Um thank you everyone for coming out as well.

I echo my fellow commissioners' sentiment here.

I'm in full support of uh the planning code amendments, and I always I always appreciate when I as I'm digesting these packets when staff's recommendations are the same things that are running through my head.

So I um really appreciate how uh this idea about being more consistent across residential zoning districts.

Um, and so one and two were particularly uh you know exciting for me to see in terms of recommendations.

I think one question I had was around two, um, which was upping the number from eight to ten.

Um and while I thought about RH two and three, I thought that made really good sense.

But as we expand it, which I like the expansion to you know typologies I'm imagining in R2 RT01 and RM3, especially those I'm visualizing larger buildings, and so I'm just wondering what thought went into the number 10.

Sure.

So based on the research that we did, the the justification for the five room limit appeared to be the building code definition.

Uh, and when you look at the occupancy restrictions on hotel uses or other transient lodging, it's either and again, this is maybe a little imprecise, but it's it's based on my research.

Uh, it's either that five room threshold or a 10 occupant threshold.

So that I think was part of the inspiration, but ultimately I do need to concede that it's doesn't have a precise basis, but it seems like a nice round number.

Um, and I don't know if that addresses your your question specifically.

But I guess I'm just wondering if if there are like larger denser buildings um with you know bigger footprint and more levels, and if there's more room for additional units and and might this limit us or there's maybe a different type of um calculation we could apply that could accommodate larger denser buildings.

Just a thought, and I think the director maybe wants to address this.

So I just thought I'd pop in because we did talk, it was a fun conversation with our staff as we thought about what is the right number, right?

It's always hard, um, especially when there's not an alignment in the building code or with state law to find the perfect threshold.

And unfortunately, our buildings to your point of how do you calculate are just so um numerous and diverse that it's pretty hard to come up with a threshold for that.

So I think you raise an excellent point, and there may be um someone smarter than us may be able to come up with a formula that could accommodate what you're talking about.

We think that would be pretty hard to implement though when we talk about you know, Commissioner So's question about how do we share this information with businesses out there.

Um it's a whole lot easier just to understand a number.

So I think probably the best way to respond to your question is just for us to do what we do as planners and keep our eyes out to what's happening in the world, and just like this was adjusted um in this proposed legislation by Supervisor Mandelman, we can continue to update that.

That's something we we look to do always.

Appreciate that.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Williams.

Thank you.

Another question came up.

So for for planning step, what what type of uh residences or what what type of buildings are are we or let me let me rephrase that.

What type of clients do you think or homeowners or property owners are going to be entering into this business?

If they're not already and kind of kind of walk me through it because it's a little, sure.

It's it's a good question.

It's a little hard to predict.

There's not a huge amount of past precedent um that I was able to find.

Um, but to go back to your your earlier question about concerns about the conversion of housing, um, these cases were probably from 10 years ago or more, but I did find instances where conditional use authorizations were denied by the commission because of concerns about the impact on housing.

So it's just to put the point out there that this EU process has been effective in that regard.

In terms of who might come forward, I think um just theoretically, an example would be uh a family that either has inherited or otherwise owns a large single family home that they don't necessarily have ready access to capital uh in order to maintain, uh and this does provide uh a revenue generating opportunity.

Uh I'm not familiar enough with the kind of day-to-day running of a hospitality business, kind of how difficult or or otherwise it might be for uh a family without that expertise to enter into, but it it would provide them that flexibility and that option.

Um, and again, I mean there's there's the potential that somebody could buy a large single family home with the explicit intention uh of converting it for use as a bed and breakfast, and I think at that point it would be at the discretion and expertise of the commission to decide if it's a contribution to the neighborhood or if it seems uh somehow uh inconsistent with either the general plan or the commission's policies.

So, so uh thank you for that.

Multi-unit buildings are are are they a part of this uh technically they could be, but if uh an entire dwelling unit were going to be converted and say there's uh a building with a lot of studio apartments and somebody wants to turn those studio apartments into hotel rooms, that would require conditional use authorization for residential conversion, and I imagine that neither the department nor the commission would support converting a large multi-unit building into a hotel use.

Um so I think it's it's feasible that somebody could apply to do so.

It's less likely that they would find support from either the department or the commission to remove housing.

So so one of the things I you know that that I'm I'm concerned about is is let's say um, for example, uh there was an LSAC eviction or or something like that, an action that took place and displaced uh folks, and then they wanted to turn around and make a uh hotel use out of it.

Uh B B and B.

Um is that something that's possible, or am I being over uh worried about that?

Again, I think it's within the realm of possibility that somebody could try, but um I do think it's something that would be flagged through the plan review process through the kind of fact-finding investigation that goes into preparing for conditional use authorization hearings.

Um so again, I don't think the concern is unfounded.

I just do think the the safeguards that are already in place would be sufficient to address those.

Uh and just to to echo the point, the this isn't changing where hotels are permitted, it isn't changing the approval process for hotel uses.

The change really is just to the number of guest rooms that um could apply.

So again, this could exacerbate some of the concerns, but it doesn't, to my mind, at least introduce new concerns necessarily.

Thank you.

So, um, I just envision I vision like a you know, a multi-unit building that's not occupied, and and you know, someone instead of uh going into our housing stock as as you know, it turns into an Airbnb.

Um, but again, um, thank God for the CU.

A, that that gives us a chance or this body a chance to uh determine uh you know if it's if it's right for the the neighborhood or not, and uh make sure that folks aren't getting displaced.

Make sure that we're uh we're supposed to be adding to our housing stock.

Uh and so um, but but again, um thank you for for your input.

One last one last word of wisdom.

The definition of bed and breakfast has very specific expectations attached to it, intimate, quaint, one of a kind.

Uh and the larger building types are never going to be a successful Airbnb because they just by definition aren't.

Where's uh with the bed and breakfast comes the expectation you know the owner, you meet people uh in the uh breakfast room, you sit in a lounge reading the same newspaper, handing it to somebody you don't even know.

There is kind of like a family context familiarity with it, which is uh thought out, particularly by people who are experienced in foreign travel and indeed seek neighborhoods rather than the big hotels to feel comfortable in lodging.

Uh so I think the uh fear of uh a studio apart becoming an Airbnb.

Uh it may become a kind of hotel, like an efficiency hotel as you see in Japan, but I don't think it is going to meet the definition or expectation of a traveler who's looking for a bed and breakfast.

And I think what we're really trying to do here is open the door wider that airbnb um I mean uh bed and breakfast becomes something to help a neighborhood discover those uh buildings which are underutilized because of as uh staff described.

Uh family cannot really inherits a building like that and does not know what to do with it.

And I think this is the best way of integrating and maintaining those types of buildings for the use of bed and breakfast and letting the expectations of white people choose and travel with bed and breakfast find exactly in those environments of what they're actually designated to be.

So I think we need to kind of stronger supports a clear definition of a bed and breakfast as intimate, quaint, one of a kind, in order to have people not overstep and seek approvals for use for which certain larger buildings are just basically not uh not made up to be.

Uh so that is what I would strongly encourage we add.

Thank you.

Okay, commissioners.

If there's no further deliberation, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval with modifications on that motion, Commissioner McGurry.

Commissioner Seo.

Aye, Commissioner Williams.

Nay.

Commissioner Braun.

Aye.

Commissioner Moore, and Commissioner President Campbell.

Hi.

So move Commissioners.

That motion passes five to one with Commissioner Williams voting against.

Commissioners, that'll place us on item nine for case number 2026, 002588 PCA for the cannabis cafe.

Uh, this is a health planning, police, and business and tax regulations code amendment.

Okay, good afternoon, Commissioners Kerboten, Planning Department staff.

The item before you is the proposed cannabis cafe ordinance.

The legislation was sponsored by Supervisor Manelman.

Sophie Marie from his office is here today, will speak on the item after staff's presentation.

And representatives from the Office of Cannabis and the Office of Economic Workforce and Development are also available for questions.

So the proposed ordinance would amend the planning, police and health codes with the primary changes occurring in Article 16 of the police code.

Specifically, it would establish a new cannabis cafe permit administered by the Office of Cannabis.

Under the proposed framework, licensed cannabis retailers would be permitted to allow on-site consumption of pre-packaged cannabis products along the sale of non-cannabis food and beverages.

The ordinance is a response to state Assembly bill 1775, which authorizes local jurisdictions to permit these activities while maintaining local oversight and operational standards.

The proposed planning code amendments would update the definition of the cannabis retail to accommodate on-site consumption uses.

Currently, on-site consumption is limited to an accessory use, occupying no more than one-third of an existing cannabis retail establishment's floor area.

The proposed changes are intended to align the planning code with the new cannabis cafe permit established under Article 6 in your police code and would not create a new land use category.

The ordinance would also provide limited flexibility to the existing 600-foot buffer requirements by allowing cannabis cafes under common ownership to locate within 600 feet of one another.

However, the ordinance would not prohibit any new cannabis cafes from operating within 600 feet of existing schools.

Cannabis cafes with food service would be required to have both cannabis retail and limited restaurant land use approvals to ensure compliance with all applicable zoning controls.

Alcohol sales would be prohibited, and all cannabis operations would remain subject to Article 16 operated standards administered by the Office of Cannabis.

So a key component of this proposal is it's a phase implementation approach.

During the first year of eligibility, it would be limited to existing cannabis retail operators only.

Currently, there are sixty-six citywide.

This initial phase would allow the city to evaluate implementation, operational performances, and neighborhood impacts before considering a broader eligibility.

So the department recommends the proposed department recommends approval of the Perose ordinance.

The legislation modestly expands cannabis retail activity, supports implementation of state law, advances the city's equity goals, and creates new economic opportunities within the regulated candidate industry, particularly for applicants, equity applicants and small businesses.

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

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Sophie Marie, and I'm the chief of staff for President Manselman.

Today I'm joined by my colleague Ben Van Houten from OEWD and my colleagues Nikesh Patel and Ray Law from the Office of Cannabis to help with any industry-specific or technical questions that I'm not able to answer myself.

I want to begin with just a little bit of background about why this legislation exists and why it's important to the cannabis industry.

I also want to note that we have a few operators here as well today that will be able to provide comment on why it's so important to them.

So cannabis businesses operate under a uniquely difficult set of economic, regulatory, and financial conditions that most other small businesses do not face.

Even though cannabis is legal in California, operators must navigate overlapping local, state, and federal rules that increase costs and create a lot of uncertainty for if they will be here for a long period of time.

Due to cannabis being a federally controlled substance, the cannabis businesses cannot have direct access to traditional banking services, loans, credit, insurance, and other things that would make day-to-day operations a lot more costly in comparison to other small businesses.

And cannabis operators must also comply with extensive regulations, including licensing requirements, security plans, seed-to-sale tracking, inspections, and zoning restrictions that some of you may be familiar with.

These compliance obligations are really expensive and especially difficult for small equity-owned and locally owned businesses here in San Francisco.

And in California, cannabis businesses also face a layered tax burden.

They pay the same small business taxes such as payroll, gross receipts, but they also have to pay annual permit fees, licensing costs, and a state excise tax.

So at the same time, these small businesses are competing with uh illicit market, which other small businesses do not face, and the illicit market does not pay the same taxes, it does not look at the same regulations, and it doesn't have similar overhead costs.

So policymakers have taken a lot of steps to provide tax relief last year.

Assemblymember Haney helped stall an increase in the state excise tax.

And then although in 2018, local voters in San Francisco approved a local cannabis small business tax, President Mandelman has done a pretty solid job since 2021 of suspending the collection of that tax.

So it's never been collected and it's been suspended until 2035.

But I want to acknowledge these measures are really only a band-aid solution or partial relief to the cannabis business industry.

It doesn't really resolve the broader structural challenges facing this industry.

So instead of these band-aid solutions, this ordinance actually really creates real opportunity for cannabis retailers and prospective retailers to thrive.

So allowing cannabis cafes would really offer a meaningful opportunity for these businesses to diversify their revenue streams to attract more customers and operate more sustainably with the within the current regulatory environment.

So our ordinance proposes two minor changes to the planning code.

Firstly, the ordinance would create a narrow exemption to the existing rule that prohibits two cannabis retail establishments from operating within 600 feet of each other.

This exemption would allow existing cannabis retailers to open a cannabis cafe near their current retail location without being blocked by that 600 foot restriction.

So a good case study for that is if there's an existing retailer that doesn't have like the square footage for a consumption on site at their existing business.

Um this would carve it out.

So if they wanted to open a cannabis cafe just down the street, uh they wouldn't run into this existing restriction.

The second minor amendment uh that we're making to the planning code with this ordinance revises the definition of cannabis retail to make consumption a principal use rather than merely an accessory use as it is under current law.

Um I want to be clear, this ordinance does not change any existing zoning requirements, including uh print principally permitted use in green zones or proximity restrictions near schools.

Uh operators seeking a cannabis cafe permit will still need to comply with all existing zoning rules, including conditional use approval when required and where required, as well as all applicable Department of Public Health and Office of Cannabis and California Department of Cannabis Control Laws and Rules.

We've held multiple meetings with the planning department about this legislation.

They've been great partners.

And while this is a complex ordinance because it amends four different codes, we believe that the planning code amendments are relatively straightforward.

Uh, commissioners, today I really ask for your support on this legislation, and my colleagues and I are available for any questions you might have.

I want to acknowledge I did have a question brought to us ahead of the hearing that I am available to answer whenever that question comes up as well.

Thank you.

Okay, if that concludes staff presentation, we should open up public comment.

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

Good afternoon.

My name is Mercedes, and I'm here speaking in strong support of the cannabis cafe ordinance on behalf of Spark dispensaries.

As someone who's worked in the industry for years, I've seen firsthand how cannabis spaces can create community connection, education, and safe access.

I truly believe this legislation is an exciting and important next step for San Francisco and for the future future responsible cannabis hospitality.

Overall, we strongly support this legislation and appreciate the opportunity to help move San Francisco cannabis industry forward in a thoughtful community-centered way.

Thank you, Supervisor, for bringing this forward, and thank you for your time.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

I'm Harley Melson.

I've worked with Spark since 2011.

We've operated consumption lounges for almost two decades, coming up.

So we do have some good experience with that.

We're in support of the cannabis cafes here in San Francisco.

It's the future of San Francisco's small business economy.

The cafe can help in a lot of ways as well.

Um, reducing consumption in public spaces as we know it's illegal to consume cannabis in public.

Um it happens every day.

So the more spaces we have for people to consume uh safely and compliantly, um maybe the less we'll see of people consuming in public, um, also reducing littering and loadering of those products and in places.

Um it could also boost the economy for the city, um, create a new form of tourism.

Um, you know, we we support this bill and and thank you for hearing us about this and appreciate your time.

Thanks.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Eric Pearson.

Um I'm a founder of a cannabis uh company called Spark.

Um we have been operating in San Francisco since 2009.

I think uh Commissioner Moore was on the planning commission when she approved our permit, uh, one of the first one in San Francisco.

Anyway, I'm an OG, they call them.

Uh, been around a while.

Um I spend most of my time now uh in in Sonoma County uh where we are developing uh uh a farm that um we just passed legislation to have on-site sales, tastings, tours, and promotions.

And so this uh legislation here in San Francisco is just one more piece of what I believe is necessary to make cannabis um normalized and legal.

Um, and just to sort of put it in perspective, um I'll be working with my company and my compliance team and lawyers between now and June 22nd to file 15 applications with the federal government as a medical cannabis license holder.

All state licenses uh most state licenses have medical and adult use listed on them.

And so of all things, the administration this Trump administration right now is accepting applications for medical cannabis businesses, which is essentially all of them in California, to apply for a DEA license to be able to ship their cannabis products across state and ultimately to the rest of the world.

So as we sort of think about, you know, is this a big deal as it relates to cannabis and so on and so forth?

I think that's a great sort of analogy to realize like, hey, this is not uh a big, you know, a big thing and should not be a controversial thing as to whether um it affects uh existing businesses and if it would negatively harm existing dispensaries.

The precautions that the supervisor's office has put in here where there's no carry out, where it's also a runway for existing operators, and there's also uh necessary setbacks, I think that should appease most uh other operators.

And as an operator with three retail locations in San Francisco, I really uh am not concerned about our bottom line and our businesses um being able to you know lose revenue as a result of this.

Our personal um uh approach to this legislation will be we already have a cafe.

Uh we're probably just simply gonna add coffee and pastries and other products to that cafe to make it uh more usable.

It's just not used that much when it's only uh cannabis, other people, you know, other items and things people want to consume uh while they're doing their homework and and uh and school work and real work uh in one of the cafes.

So um I'm rambling a bit, but I just wanted to let you I came down here from Sonoma County, uh wanted to thank the supervisor's office for putting this forward as well as let you all know as an existing operator, we strongly support this legislation.

Okay, last call for public comment.

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

Vice President Moore.

Uh indeed, I have looked at this uh for a long time, and I have a question for towards the last speaker.

Uh, if you don't mind coming up, uh yeah, you uh uh sorry, I only can call you Mr.

Sparks, but I know that it's not.

I apologize.

We sit in this commission uh in various combinations now for quite a while, and particularly even under current circumstances, in particular neighborhoods, the discussions about cannabis are extremely time consuming and painful.

Uh there are indeed large blocks of people in the city who are very afraid and opposed to any form of cannabis, either in dispensaries or very controlled environments.

How are we going to overcome that opposition when it now comes to cafes operating with a dual purpose of becoming more like Amsterdam or Holland in general?

What do we do?

What do you anticipate and what advice would you have to a planning commission who spends hours and hours and hours on uh people opposing uh cannabis, no matter what.

Well, uh, you know, time is on our side, uh, as as uh the younger generations become more influential and and and and you know understand policy decisions.

I think we're seeing you know the tides turn.

Um, uh in the immediate, you know.

I I feel the exit I think a lot of it is just hard to overcome uh prejudices uh against cannabis.

A lot of folks have um real personal backgrounds and stories in their family of people who have had issues with uh drugs.

Uh, typically they're not cannabis though, but oftentimes they get lumped in together.

Um I think all we can do is continue uh to move forward in a responsible way, like the city has.

I imagine if you ask folks who are opposed to cannabis to really cite issues that we have at dispensaries or cultivations or whatever, they're relatively low security through the Department of Cannabis Control requires us to have a certain amount of backup data and storage for our cameras.

Um it's real.

The Office of Cannabis really comes out all the time and looks at our cameras as well.

The state uh comes out, much to our frustration.

We have a couple agencies doing the same thing oftentimes.

Um, but you know, cannabis dispensaries are highly regulated, um, and there's a lot of surveillance uh at these locations, and uh that can oftentimes be a good thing to a neighborhood that's otherwise doesn't have that you know, sort of uh activity on the block.

So um, but you know, unfortunately, I've been at this for 25 years, and we just keep pushing forward.

Um, and uh, you know, eventually we'll get there.

Um, but uh we can't make everybody happy.

Uh I appreciate you uh g uh uh getting into a little bit more detail given the years of your experience.

I am actually interested in seeing cannabis cafes loosening the tightness, the kind of like semi-camera of guard at the door, etc.

impression of uh these types of retail uh uh operators.

The only thing I want to make sure is that indeed we are still creating an environment by which cannabis cafes are equally carefully observed and monitored because you may know that about like six or eight months ago we had a complaint that somebody was using their food truck in a neighborhood and uh selling uh cannabis products.

You probably have proof.

Well, we would be opposed to that being licensed retailers.

Obviously, but this is all possible.

Uh I just want to make sure that we are indeed not over exaggerating how we indeed monitor these cafes but make it kind of more a normal part of how we live in our city.

That's right.

That would be my position.

Uh yet I appreciate that everybody's coming together, and that next chapter perhaps will evolve with those neighborhoods you indeed are comfortable with that saying yes, that's what we want to do, and others basically organize and tell the supervisor that they don't want to go that route.

Uh ultimately, I think it has to go through different forms of acceptance, and we are one part of that approval, but uh in in principle, I believe that this is the right uh step in the right direction at this particular time.

I would agree with that.

Thank you.

Commissioner Sell.

I want to begin by thank you, Supervisor Manderman's office and the Office of the Cannabis for bringing this forward thinking ordinance to our commission.

By modernizing our local framework to fully implement the California's AB 1775, this legislation smartly aligns with San Francisco's planning and health codes with state level policy.

What strikes me most about this proposal is how thoughtfully it balances economic vitalization with necessary, with necessary neighborhood guardrails.

Our legal cannabis industry faces immense pressures from high cost and the illicit market, giving small businesses an equity applicant a pathway to innovate with cannabis cafe, not completely necessary the exec Amsterdam style, where patrons can possibly enjoy food, non-alcoholic beverages, and community space, is a much needed shot in the arm for our commercial corridor and nightlife economy.

Well, at the same time, I appreciate the ordinance doesn't compromise community safety.

It maintains strict protections for underage children by anchoring these spaces within established permitted storefront operations and preserving robust environmental controls.

This ensures that our neighborhood corridors remain vibrant, safe, and family friendly.

However, I have a primary questions and concern.

As we move forward, the success of this new model relies heavily on proactive management and effective governance.

So my question for staff is especially regarding to Article 16 of the police code and the oversight capacity of the office of the cannabis.

What specific mechanisms, staffing resources, and interdepartmental protocols that are being established to proactively mitigate public nonsense and safety issues before they escalate.

And furthermore, if behavior or operations at a cannabis cafe do get out of hand, what is the exact mechanism to hold operators strictly and swiftly accountable?

Well I wanted to ensure the Office of the Cannabis has the teeth and the tools to manage this rollout effectively so that our neighborhood corridors sees only the economic upside of this vibrant new spaces.

Thank you for that question, Commissioner.

What I can say is within Article 16 of the police code, there are regulating standards that basically put a lot of handcuffs on this cannabis cafe to say how it people get overserved.

I mean, it's kind of it's like when people go to a bar, but again, there are standards of the amount of, I think I believe it's eight ounces per serving per person.

Um there's a singulatory how much people can consume in these consumption lounges in one day.

Again, there's a lot of handcuffs and guardrails that come with this cannabis cafe permit.

I would like to pass the torch to Office of Cannabis if they can speak more on it, but I know they have a very robust um enforcement team.

They're very on top of the relegatory agreements, and also it's baked into the police um the Article 16 that police essentially can enter this establishment and do sting operations anytime.

So, and also too, to speak to that is just a speaking operators, they they kind of self-regulate.

So nobody wants to be doing more than what they're allowed, because again, there's a finite amount of these uses, and there's a finite amount of space, so it's very, very regulated and monitored from us.

But yeah, I'd like to pass it to Office of Cannabis to add to that.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Nikesh Patel, I'm the director of the Office of Cannabis, and I just want to say that I appreciate the question.

We spend a lot of time in the office thinking about how to balance the regulations that are on the books with the resources that we have available, with the lived experience that we hear from operators and community members on a daily basis.

We're in a pretty unique position in that there are fixtures within the code that create a feedback loop between community and us.

There's a good neighbor policy.

Anytime that a neighbor or a resident has an issue with a cannabis business, we will get those complaints.

They'll come through 311, there'll be a call to our office.

We field over a hundred complaints regularly, and that is a really good window into how communities, specifically in certain neighborhoods, feel about the businesses that are there.

So once we get those complaints, we're able to engage with the operators there and work towards the resolution.

We've been very successful to date in managing these complaints and getting to an outcome that responds to the complaint, but also is balancing the very real requirements that are on the books.

To the issue of overconsumption, and I know that that's uh it's a general concern, it's something that we've talked about in the office as well.

There are some guardrails that are in place in the proposed ordinance that I want to draw your attention to.

But before I do that, I think one of the inherent challenges in this conversation around overconsumption of cannabis is unlike in the alcohol space, there is no legal limit to when someone is considered inebriated or not.

What we've learned just through what we've read and then user experience as well is that the inebriation limit varies from individual to individual, and it's really rooted in that person's relationship to the product, how long they've been consuming, their physical structure.

These are all things that still need to be studied.

And and one of the the benefits of reclassification of schedule of cannabis medical cannabis from schedule one to schedule three is we believe that there will be more research into issues just like this.

But I bring this up because I think inherently it's a challenging conversation around overconsumption.

What one person consumes may be overconsumption for them, but for someone else, it has very limited effects.

There are legal limits that are in place in terms of what businesses can sell, and then there are legal limits in terms of the amount of cannabis that can be in individual packaging of products.

Those are in place and they're regulated at the state level, and then we also regulate them here locally.

The guardrails that I think that are unique and that are incorporated in this proposed ordinance are primarily around the no-carry out limitation.

So what I mean by that is if you purchase cannabis at a cannabis cafe, you are not allowed to take that product off site.

It can only be purchased for consumption on site.

That's how it's written in the code right now.

We think that that creates a guardrail for over-consumption.

Because if you are a consumer and you understand that you can't take that product off-site, then you are being more careful about how much you buy because you will have to dispose of whatever you don't finish.

So that inherently provides a guardrail.

And then I think it also impacts the way that the business operator is conducting business because they much like a bartender has to be paying attention to how much someone is consuming.

If that person overconsumes and they're ultimately responsible for that person on site, they're responsible if that person does something right outside of their building, we will get those complaints and we will engage with the operator immediately thereafter.

The other piece in all of this is that I think the operator, because they ultimately have to enforce this restriction of product being taken off site, it makes them more vigilant on in on the point of sale.

How much is actually being sold?

Because if you oversell to somebody and you suspect that they can't actually consume all of that, then you're going to have to do the heavier lifting on the back end of making sure that they don't leave your store with all that product.

If they do and those complaints are coming in, then we from the Office of Cannabis will show up and have to have conversations with the operator about how are you enforcing this?

Because the regulations make very clear you can't sell product that can be taken off-site.

I hope that answers your question generally.

I do want to address one of the points you made around what teeth does the office have to actually enforce.

From a staffing standpoint, I don't know that there's any additional staffing that will be provided through this ordinance.

So we are an office of nine.

We have significant responsibility across permitting, enforcement, compliance, grants.

We do a lot, and I think we're able to do a lot because we've been in the office for a very long time.

Office leadership is actually, I think it has an average tenure of 7.1 years for an office that's been about eight and a half years old.

So we've cultivated relationships, we work well with other departments, and we're able to leverage a lot of the city's resources in making sure businesses are compliant.

That being said, there are 150 over 150 regulations or rules rather that apply to cannabis businesses that we have to enforce.

So could we use more support?

Absolutely.

Do I think that we'll be able to manage the influx of applications based on the way the ordinances drafted?

Yes, and I say that sort of cautiously, but yes, I think we will be able to, provided we have the present staffing levels, because we have the systems in place to process applications, to review business documents and make sure that all of the regulations that apply to dispensaries are still being observed in this context, and we're moving businesses through.

I think where this gets a little bit more challenging is on the enforcement side, once a business is operational and patrons are coming in and we start getting complaints of businesses potentially, or not even businesses, but operator or individuals leaving a business with product, right?

That that one to me is probably the hardest to enforce, but I do think that there are ways around it.

And the biggest way, the biggest tool that we have in our arsenal is we have very good relationships with most of the operators here in San Francisco, and the feedback loop is pretty strong.

So I think they understand that if there are complaints that come in that people are over-consuming or people are purchasing product and then leaving in violation of what the proposed ordinance says, they know that that means consequences on their permit.

And no operator here is getting into this line of work to have action take against their permits.

It would be highly disruptive, and we always try and work with the operator to make sure that they fix the underlying problem versus being unnecessarily punitive.

So I hope that answers your question.

Lots of words, but I'm happy to clarify as well.

Well, I really appreciate your thorough of your really thoroughness about explaining to not just myself but everyone who can listening into uh your response, it's very comprehensive.

Really appreciate it.

Um I'm asking this not just for myself but for San Franciscan at large.

And uh also recognizing that um you are staff of nine, so that's very limited to be able to leverage uh a lot of resources that we have.

I really strongly encourage, or if there's anything that Supervisor Mendelman's office can help to work with the police to help the Office of Cannabis to strengthen a little bit of the enforcement side of things that would be super helpful, or maybe there's something already in place that I think the public might be helpful to know and to get some sense of reassurance in that regard.

Yeah, I can certainly speak to that.

Um over the years, we've cultivated a relationship with the police department.

There is a liaison from the police department that works with our office to mitigate issues when they arise, primarily around breaking and entering of cannabis businesses.

Um, so that that is a strong feedback loop, but I I certainly appreciate what you're saying there in terms of uh being a small team, having a lot to do, and we would certainly welcome any resources on the enforcement side.

So thank you for saying that.

Thank you.

Um, so um I think I have just a follow-up question with the Supervisor Mendelman's office representative.

Thank you.

Thank you for bringing this forward, and um, I would really like to see if you can really strengthen that connections between the Office of the Cannabis and the police department.

Um do you mind sharing with us and the general public if there's something already established or what can you think of can be done in the future?

Um, yeah, 100%.

Um it's a very good question, so thank you for raising it.

Uh, we are not intimately involved in between the relationship between the police department and the office of cannabis, but I will say one thing that is absolutely not lost on our office is that um the city and county is in its budget process right now, um, and and the nine staffers that the office of cannabis have are very important to retain throughout the budget process.

It is an ongoing conversation, and immediately that I think the most important thing that our office can do is ensure that the enforcement um staffing that the Office of Cannabis does have remains solid um throughout the budget process, and I'm happy to look into how they can better partner with uh the police department on enforcement.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Braun.

I want to thank uh Vice President Moore and Commissioner So for raising and asking about issues and concerns that are often brought up by uh different members of the community.

I have no concerns about this legislation, especially given that we already do allow on-site consumption as an accessory use, and so I move to adopt a recommendation for approval.

Second.

I had I'm also in full support of this.

I did have one question.

Um, we have obviously a lot of safeguards in place.

Um, and one burning question for me, and I don't know this might not even be our purview, but um, one thing I thought of that uh I'd love just maybe we could something we could expand on is um you know how we're mitigating, assuming some of this product is smoked, how we mitigate smoke and smells from adjacent neighbors and people passing by.

It's a very good question, and uh multiple small business commissioners raised this.

So you are not alone in this concern.

Um, yeah, so there are existing uh limitations in our health code that really ensure that none of the smoke inside of uh consumption space is able to leave.

Um most importantly, they have uh, you know, hundreds of thousands dollars worth of ventilation systems and there's 17 pages worth of regulations in our health code that talk about this exact topic.

I'm happy to share those with you, and then I want to also just note there is a although that we are uh increasing the amount of uh space uh consumption space can take within a business in this legislation from a third to larger than that, um, there is still a buffer zone that is required.

So you can't um the whole cafe cannot be one large consumption space, um, because there would be a worry that you'd open the front door and smoke would fly out onto passerby on the sidewalk.

So I just want to be clear there is there has to be a buffer zone between the consumption space itself uh and like the front door of the establishment leading outside.

Thank you.

Those are all my questions, Commissioner Williams.

Thank you.

Um just just had a question around there's a um first of all, let me let me say thank you for everyone who spoke.

Thank you for um all the explanations and uh I mean for me uh the decriminalization of of cannabis is is something that uh just I I always keep and keep you know first and foremost, because I I think that has uh it's been uh really positive for um a lot of communities, especially the one I come from.

Um having said that um one of the concerns I had, like we we have three cannabis stores uh along Mission Street, I live in the Excelsior.

Um just wondering if this this I don't really have a an issue with what's in front of us, but just in case let's say one of those stores is having issues, how is that going to be addressed?

I know that this is I read I read in here that there's like a timeline of a year or they're gonna re you're gonna revisit something.

Uh if so I I kind of I just want to get some clarity on is if this doesn't work out for uh some of these you know existing uh cannabis stores, what what kind of um you know safeguards do we have or what what kind of uh recourse is is there gonna be uh for the community, let's say if if there's a lot of opposition or if there's issues around um worst-case scenario.

I may just ask some questions to make sure that I'm understanding the question entirely.

Yeah.

It sounds like what you're maybe concerned with is if there are existing businesses and something doesn't work out for one of those businesses, what might be the sort of consequences or what happens after that?

Is is that sort of encapsulating what you're asking for?

Yeah, and and also is there a timeline?

Is there is there like is this being rolled out?

Is it gonna be t temporary or is it gonna be or is this gonna just continue on from once it's if it passes, if it gets through, um, is this just gonna be the way it is from from here on out?

Right.

And I'm I'm happy to defer those questions to Sophie and Ben, but I can at least address or try to address some of the questions around the implementation of someone wants to go through this process, it doesn't work out what happens.

So I'll just take one step back.

The way that the ordinance is structured, um, how a cannabis cafe permit would be delivered or admin ultimately issued at some point is sort of the following.

There is a period of time where only certain types of businesses and owners are eligible to apply for a cannabis cafe permit.

Right now, I believe that window of time is one year, and the eligibility requirements are such that you have to be someone that is a part of a current ownership of a business that has an active retail permit.

I won't get into all of the details of how that will be administered, but that that is the gist of it.

So in order to even apply in this first year window, you would have to be someone that meets those basic eligibility criteria.

Then you would submit an application to the Office of Cannabis.

We review that application.

The location for your proposed business could be very close to your existing business.

It could be a different location altogether.

We would review it and we would make sure that it comports with the limitations of the ordinance.

So is it within 600 feet of another business?

Those sorts of considerations.

You go through the process just like you do for a lot of the businesses that you see that are seeking storefront retail uh permits.

If that business is ultimately successful, they're issued a permit and they can become operational.

If that business is unable to navigate the permitting process, or they have business owners that have disagreements and they can't advance, or a myriad of other issues that create complexities for businesses to open, then we'll work with those operators as best as we can.

But there are limitations to what we can do.

And so ultimately it is dependent on that business, their owners to be able to push the application through the process.

If they're ultimately not able to do that, then it's much like any of the businesses that we process right now.

They will reach a point where they withdraw their application or we remove it from the process, or they'll continue to look for other investors to the extent that they can because they still have to be eligible based on the eligibility requirement.

So I can't answer any more specifically than that.

But the idea here is that they have an opportunity to open up a cannabis cafe business, and if they're able to do that, then they can.

If not, then we'll work with them to see what other options there may be.

I I appreciate that you you explained yourself very well.

Um again, just just um, you know, one of one of the concerns again that that I've heard uh from a lot of neighbors, is not not, you know, not me, but you know, I think uh that whenever you have a change of use, there could be some consequence, right?

There could be and so I I would just want to, you know, on the record, just say that you know, uh the change of views for me uh I I think is is okay.

I think you know you guys uh have all the the uh safeguards in place.

I think there's um there's plenty of regulation, there's plenty of oversight.

So I think uh that's good.

But uh there is a community out there, and if in fact, um, you know, there's many complaints or there's complaints uh over this change of use.

Um I think we need to pay attention to that.

Uh I think it's you know, again, I don't think there's anything uh that I see that's wrong, but I do uh do want to be sensitive to to our neighbors that uh are concerned, and so that's all I would say for the record.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner McGarry.

Um my concern, I think we have sorted out like bars.

There's always somebody gonna take a drink, try to take a drink home with them.

Uh it's gonna be hard to regulate people trying to take something that hasn't been consumed and isn't in a glass that basically or a bottle.

So I see there could be issues there.

Um, but I think we're set up to sort that out.

Uh, my concern would be from a Department of Public Health point of view, because I don't think we've actually we have examples of this, so we don't know if something can go wrong, it will go wrong.

And I'm not saying that something bad is gonna happen, but somebody's gonna have um a medical reaction at some point in time uh popping into one of these establishments, and I think they're high as quickly as we can call the police to have a situation to sort out, which is we're set up to sort out.

I don't think we've we have a record or history of that happening with an ambulance or whatever may be required.

If it's required, God knows, never required.

So I I would suggest that we these establishments do have a um I wouldn't say you have to the staff there have to have the ability to know if somebody is uh basically past their limit.

And I don't think we have that right now.

And I think if I read it correctly, the staff don't they can't be mandated to go in and see the people because the smoke is there.

Uh so you can't ask your staff to go in and check out, much like bar regulation laws with smoking at the end.

So who is gonna check that the patrons are actually well?

And if somebody is totally inebriated and requires you're gonna do it.

But you're you can't be there all the time.

And then and then it was then it would go to like the set I'd be concerned about the setup of it.

Are we kind of going back to uh the day of a speakeasy?

Because you can't be front of house, it's gotta be back a house.

And there has to be that separation of the front door in and out.

So I'm just curious as the whole business model, but I'm re and I but I I do realize we're set up society as a, but this is new.

So I'm worried about the medical aspect of it and s and basically somebody being over the limit in this way, shape, or form that has not today.

We can't encapsulate it and realize it because it can't be measured.

Uh how do we get that person the the help they need if they need it, and how are we aware of it?

Yeah, thank you, uh, Commissioner Ben Van Houten from the Office of Economic and Workforce Development.

Um, I guess a couple of a couple of observations as part of this.

First of all, as part of this ordinance, this ordinance does propose being able to removing the prohibition on requiring an employee to enter into a smoking room as condition of employment.

So so further integrating into that that hospitality model, having employees who have close touch point to um two patrons.

Uh additionally, I I do think it's worth observing that there are, I think we landed on 11 consumption consumption permits currently for for cannabis uh uh consumption in existing cannabis retailers.

So there are people already purchasing product and consuming product in these spaces.

Um if anything, I I think that the shift toward more of a hospitality focused model as opposed to buying product at the front, taking it into a room, and then that kind of being the end of the the hospitality the engagement between the the business uh ownership and the patron um and creating something that is that is a bit more um uh fluid in terms of that hospitality experience and is really focused more on uh serving selling and serving product that is uh designed in in quantity uh for consumption on the premises will provide more touch points between uh operator and patron and actually actually facilitate uh a better ongoing engagement.

Uh uh although I I I do think that there is a precedent given the existing uh on-premises consumption to um to to speak to that that operators are already working with patrons and ensuring patron safety in that way.

Thank you.

Uh uh of the aid application you just mentioned.

Uh is there anybody who is just doing the cafe to see it as a pilot, really setting a standard that other people could uh emulate.

That's my question to you.

I'm sorry, of the commissioner of the the You were saying there were eight pending applications.

No, no, there are uh between eight and eleven existing consumption permits for existing cannabis retailers that have on-premises consumption.

So there's not yet any cafe application per se.

Um there there are operators interesting in your district, uh Ms.

Moey.

There are operators who are interested in pursuing um cafe style operations.

There are applications that are with the planning department right now for operators who are waiting on this legislation to be able to fully realize that ability.

You know, this this legislation is is will send that signal that that a operator could operate uh uh with um in terms of sorry, I should be a little bit more clear.

In terms of the ability to have food preparation and service on site in addition to cannabis consumption, there are operators that are already uh in the pipeline that have have plans and have that as part of their vision.

And then there are folks who have not yet come to the planning department, but that we've spoken with who have who have shown us plans envisioning more of that sort of social operation.

Um, in terms of a on-premises only cannabis cafe, uh there are no applications yet because the the permit doesn't exist and the the this is this is the discussion we're having here today.

I think it would be very interesting to m to create a prototype and watch that as a model for others to emulate if this goes through and becomes indeed an open door for people to find new opportunities to help create standards that are acceptable, transparent and indeed inviting rather than too tightly monitored and too tightly looked over the shoulder.

I think that would be as far as the industry itself as a positive invitation the right way to travel.

On that motion Commissioner McGarry Commissioner so move Commissioners that motion passes unanimously six to zero and concludes your hearing today.

Cool, I think that's the one that we have to do with that.