San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair, Land Use and Transportation Committee)]: Good afternoon, everyone. This meeting will come to order. Welcome to the 10/06/2025 regular meeting of the Land Use and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. I'm supervisor Mirana Melgar, chair of the committee, joined by vice chair supervisor Cheyenne Chen, and supervisor Bilal Mahmood. The committee clerk today is John Carroll, and I would also like to thank Jaime Echeverri from SFGovTV for supporting us, in broadcasting this meeting. Mister Clerk, do you have any announcements?

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Yes. Thank you, mad chair. Please ensure that you've silenced your cell phones and other electronic devices you've brought with you into the chamber today. If you have any documents to be included as part of any of today's files, you can submit them directly to me. Public comment will be taken on each item on today's agenda when your item of interest comes up. When public comment is called, please line up to speak along your right hand side of this room. Alternatively, you may submit public comment in writing in either of the following ways. First, you may email your written comment to me at johnperiodcarroll@sfgov.org. Or you may send your written public comment via US Postal Service to our office in City Hall, and the address for that is 1 Doctor Carlton B, Goodlett Place, Room 244, San Francisco, California 94102. If you submit your public comments in writing, I'll forward your comments to the members of this committee and also include your comments as part of the official file on which you are commenting. And agenda items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda of 10/21/2025, unless otherwise

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair, Land Use and Transportation Committee)]: stated. Okay. Thank you so much. Let's go ahead and call item number one, please, mister Clerk.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Agenda item number one is an ordinance modifying the Geary Boulevard neighborhood commercial district to authorize outdoor handwashing, vacuuming, and detailing of automobiles as an accessory used in certain automotive service stations. It affirms the planning department's secret determination and makes findings of consistency with the general plan and the priority policies of planning code section one zero one point one and findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare pursuant to planning code section three zero two.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair, Land Use and Transportation Committee)]: Thank you so much. Mister Clerk, this item was continued, from the last time we met, because it had substantive amendments. We're not getting a presentation today, nor is supervisor Chan here to talk about our items. So I will go ahead. If there's no comments or questions from any of my colleagues, let's go to public comment on this item, and then we can move it.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you, madam chair. Land use and transportation. We'll now hear public comment related to agenda item number one, permitting outdoor handwashing, vacuuming, and detailing of automobiles in the Geary Boulevard in CD. If you have public comment for this item, please come forward to the lectern at this time. And madam chair, it appears we have no speakers.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair, Land Use and Transportation Committee)]: Okay. No public comment. So public comment on this item is now closed. I'd like to make a motion that we approve this item to go to the full board with a recommendation today.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: On the motion offered by the chair that this ordinance be sent to the board of supervisors with the recommendation of land use and transportation. Vice chair Chen Chen, I, member Mahmood Mahmoud, I. Chair Melgar.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair, Land Use and Transportation Committee)]: Aye.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Melgar, I. Madam chair, there are three ayes.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair, Land Use and Transportation Committee)]: Okay. Thank you. Let's go ahead and call item number two, please.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Agenda item number two is a resolution adding the commemorative street name Jim Marshall Way to Street between Noe And Castro in recognition for his contributions to capturing the cultural and music history of San Francisco.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair, Land Use and Transportation Committee)]: Thank you. We are now joined by board president Rafael Mandelmann, who's the sponsor of this item. So the floor is yours, supervisor.

[Supervisor Rafael Mandelman (Board President)]: Thank you, Chair Malgar and, committee members. It's nice to visit with you, this Monday afternoon. This resolution will add the commemorative street name Jim Marshall Way to the signage for the block of 16th Street between Noe and Castro. I introduced this legislation at the July in time for dead summer. Jim Marshall was a legendary music photographer who documented San Francisco bands like Grateful Dead, Jefferson Airplane, and The Holding Company with Janis Joplin. Jim Marshall's photographic contributions led to him being the first photographer to win a Grammy for chronicling music history. He captured iconic moments such as the Beatles' last con concert at Candlestick Park in 1966, Jimi Hendrix burning his guitar at Monterey Pop Festival, Johnny Cash performing at San Quentin State Prison, and, the Summer of Love. Marshall spent, the last twenty six years of his life living on 16th Street, and many of his photos are stamped, on the back with that at with his address there. I wanna, thank his longtime neighbor, Justin Fickelson, and his former assistant, Amelia Davis. They came to me, with, the idea for this commemorative street name. They also came to the neighborhood, and, did extensive door knocking, and got great support from, the neighbors who actually live on that block on both sides of the street as well as the DeBose Triangle Neighborhood Association. So, this is a an easy but good one. And, I want to also thank my legislative aide, An for his work on this. I think there are some folks who are gonna talk to us also during public comment.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair, Land Use and Transportation Committee)]: Great. I love that story. Thank you, supervisor. So I see no one on the roster for comments or questions. Let's go to public comment on this item, please.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you, madam chair. Land use and transportation. We'll now hear public comment related to agenda item number two, a commemorative street name for Jim Marshall Way. If you have public comment sorry. A commemorative street name for Jim Marshall on 16th between Noe And Castro. If you have public comment for this item, please come forward

[Supervisor Rafael Mandelman (Board President)]: to the next

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: room now.

[Justin Fichelson (Neighbor of Jim Marshall)]: Thank you very much for the consideration. I was born and raised on 16th. He was my neighbor all growing up and really became an institution in the neighborhood and the city. And obviously captured not just the music scene of the 60s and 70s in San Francisco, but really the cultural fabric and history of the city. And now 16th is really this thoroughfare that nobody really necessarily pays attention to. And I think it would be really special from an historical perspective to honor him in this way and have this under the street sign. So thank you again for your consideration.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number two? And if we have other folks who wanna speak next, you can line up to speak along that western wall I'm pointing out with my left hand. Please begin.

[Unknown public commenter (Jim Marshall supporter)]: You know, I've known Jim since 1968. Jim had come from Chicago, born and raised here. Everything that supervisor Mandelmann said, he's done all of that and much, much more. Besides photographing some of the great musicians of not just the San Francisco and California era, but globally, Jim was probably as much a character and an icon as anyone he photographed. I would put him right up there with Emperor Norton, Sally Stanford. I mean, Jim is an institution. And I think it's only fitting that he have a small street named after him where he did live his last twenty six years. You know, I could go on for a half an hour regaling you with Jim Marshall's stories. But, he really was one of a kind, and I'd say he was an institution. So I'm I'm hoping that this can come to pass. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number two?

[Theron Kabrich]: Hi. My name is Theron Cabrich. Amelia Davis couldn't be here. She's on a book tour for a Jim Marshall book right now. He is an institution. He's globally respected. He's admired by photographers for National Geographic, Time Magazine. All of the great photographers that we see their work in the media look at Jim Marshall as like the godfather of what they do for a profession. And in fact, Annie Leibovitz, who most people in this room know, says she became a photographer when she was at the San Francisco Art Institute, because she was, inspired by Jim Marshall. I have a gallery or had a gallery on Geary Street for almost forty years until the pandemic closed us down. But I used to do exhibitions, and Jim was an enthusiastic participant in some of those exhibitions because he had about a million photographs to pull from. And I think the most excited he got was an exhibition I was doing about the civil rights movement. And that was in 2010. And he had photographs that he shot in Mississippi. He photographed Fannie Lee Chaney, who was the mother of James Chaney, who was killed by the KKK. And he he lived and breathed every moment in in the country in San Francisco. He recorded all these events. So the fact that all of his his photographs have survived all these years and will survive for the next two hundred years are a record of what actually happened during our time. And without Jim Marshall, we wouldn't have that record. So I think that is the least that could happen for him is having this street named after him. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number two?

[Unidentified staff/attendee]: Madam chair.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair, Land Use and Transportation Committee)]: Okay. Thank you. Public comment on this item is now closed. I would like to make a motion that we send this item out of committee with a positive recommendation to the full board.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: On the motion from the chair that the resolution be sent with the recommendation of land use and transportation, vice chair Chen. Chen, I. Member Mahmoud. Mahmoud, I. Chair Malaga. I. Malaga, I. Madam Chair, there are three ayes.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair, Land Use and Transportation Committee)]: Thank you. That motion passes. Mister Clerk, let's please call items three through 18 together.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Agenda item numbers three through 18 are 16 resolutions initiating landmark designations for the following locations, hose company number thirty located at 1757 Waller, Mods, which is 929 To 941 Cole, Saint Matthew's Church located at 1381 16th Street, Saint Nicholas Cathedral at 2005 15th Street, Saint Paul's Church located at 1660 Church, stick Slash East excuse me. A stick slash East Lake style home located at 102 Guerrero, Bank of Italy branch building located at 400 To 410 Castro, the Bob Ross House at 4220th Street, the Castro Rock Steam Baths located at 578 To 582 Castro, the San Francisco AIDS Foundation at 514 To 520 Castro, the Full Moon Coffee House located at 4416 18th Street, the Most Holy Redeemer Church complex consisting of one ten diamond, 100 diamond, one fifteen diamond, and one seventeen diamond, Shar Zahav located at 220 Danvers Street, the 1865 folk Victorian located at 361 San Jose Avenue, the Chautauqua House located at 1451 Masonic, and Engine Company Number 13, which is with the address 1458 Valencia. Madam chair.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair, Land Use and Transportation Committee)]: Okay. Thank you so much. Supervisor Mandelmann, thank you for bringing these items to the Land Use and Transportation Committee. The floor is yours.

[Supervisor Rafael Mandelman (Board President)]: Thank you again, chair Malgar, and I'm gonna get out of the way and let the professionals talk, in particular, Alex Westhoff. But I do just wanna begin but I I'm gonna say a couple things as as as mister Westhoff gets gets himself set up. San Francisco is a gorgeous, amazing, beautiful city, and it is partly gorgeous, amazing, and beautiful because we are, on a peninsula surrounded by water with great hills, but we are also a city with some truly amazing buildings. And we all recognize that San Francisco must grow. We are taking, I think, important steps to allow more housing to be built in San Francisco. We have done work around streamlining our processes, and we are considering expanding our capacity our overall capacity through the family zoning legislation that this committee will be taking up quite soon. And all of that is good. But it does, I think, also require that we give, some special thought and attention to the buildings we have that we want, to preserve whatever may come in the way of growth. In the past, over the last many decades, we relied on discretionary processes to, identify buildings as development proposals came forward. The planning staff could look at them and figure out whether, perhaps, there was a historic resource there that needed to be preserved. Neighbors might find out and come forward with their concerns, and through discretionary review or conditional uses, a building that might not have been identified as a landmark or part of a historic district would still have the benefit of some attention to its historic merit. That is going to be far less that is already far less the case than it used to be, and it is going to be, going forward, not the way we do things. And and we are also, as I said, looking at expanding capacity and encouraging more development in the city. And in that context, I think it is incumbent on us to do the work on the front end before those development proposals come forward to identify the buildings that we really do think do need additional levels of protection that are either landmarks or should be included in historic districts. This is a conversation I've been having with the planning department, for a while now. In some ways, it began long before we started talking about, streamlining and up zoning. Supervisor then supervisor Peskin and I, have been prodding and cajoling, the department and funding, historic resource surveys that we are hoping, will be finished soon. But I think, you know, actually getting buildings landmarked and districts established is going to be important for us going forward. I see the work in District 8 so far as a small down payment on the work that needs to happen going forward. It is nonetheless time consuming and arduous for the planners who have worked on this, and so I wanna thank Rich Sucre and Alex Westhoff and the rest of your team, for pouring through the, buildings that, might, qualify for landmark status, identifying the ones that rise to sort of the top of the list, going through the extensive public process that's required, under our laws, responding to my concerns and, and feedback. And coming forward now with this 16, we're working on another 30, that I hope we'll be able to move forward with over the next year. We also have a couple of districts that we're working on in the mission and eager to work on more districts, that, may be collections of particularly noteworthy and important buildings that we don't wanna see ministerially demolished. So with that, I'd like to invite, Alex Westhoff to come in and talk about these 16 buildings.

[Alex Westhoff (San Francisco Planning Department)]: Thank you, president Mandelmann, and good afternoon, supervisors. Alex Westhoff, planning department staff. So as president Mandelmann mentioned, I'm here to present on the 16 initiated landmark designations. But before that, I'll share just a bit of background expanding upon what president Mandelmann said about the family zoning plan landmark program. So, this is an effort initiated by former board of supervisor president Aaron Peskin. And as part of the broader family zoning plan, the city is committed to ensuring that growth associated with ambitious housing production goals is aligned with San Francisco's longstanding dedication to preserving historic places deeply embedded in San Francisco's unique cultural identity. One facet of this program is focused on designating existing historic

[Supervisor Rafael Mandelman (Board President)]: resources that are within the

[Alex Westhoff (San Francisco Planning Department)]: family zoning plan. And this includes historic resources that are within the family zoning plan. And this includes identifying properties that have already been classified as category a historic resources through previous efforts, such as past surveys and historic resources reviews. Phase one of this program focuses on existing category a properties that are non residential or single family residences outside of public and RH zoning districts. I want to mention that this effort is very much centered on racial and social equity, consistent with the 2020 racial and social equity resolution passed by our historic preservation commission. This program includes proposing landmarks, which were identified through the planning department's cultural historic context statements. As you will see, this particular batch includes seven properties with LGBTQ associations, as well as the first proposed landmark with an American Indian association. And as we walk work through other districts in the city, we'll bring forward other landmarks with underrepresented community associations, which will vary district by district. I'd also like to mention that this is very much an iterative process. In future phases, we'll loop in new properties proposed for landmarking through our parallel effort, the citywide cultural resources survey, which is reviewing every property in San Francisco for historical significance and integrity. This process includes a series of public hearings with opportunities for community participation held both by the historic preservation commission and the board of supervisors. Final approval of a landmark requires a majo- a majority vote by the board of supervisors and signature by the mayor. So this program started as a pilot in District 8. And, in addition to District 8, we have been working closely with supervisor Chan's office and recently held public meetings to discuss nine proposed landmarks throughout District 1. We have also identified potential landmarks in District 11, which we have discussed with supervisor Chen and begun relevant outreach. Finally, we were working with supervisor Cheryl's office and will participate in a public forum tomorrow evening to discuss a number of potential District 2 landmarks. And the property owners and occupants of all these properties have been invited to, these various public events. So the next several slides we'll present the properties, which were initiated for landmark designation by board president Mandelmann on 07/29/2025. And given the volume of proposed landmarks, I'll just provide high level comments on individual properties, but can answer any specific questions about these sites. Again, these slides cover agenda items three through 18. So 757 Waller Street is significant as one of San Francisco's earliest extent buyer houses. The subject property was constructed in 1896 to house engine company number thirty. Constructed of granite and wood, the subject property is an intact example of Italianate architecture. 929 To 941 Cole Street is significant for its early association with San Francisco's lesbian community, including Ricky Stryker, one of San Francisco's most influential and successful openly lesbian businesswomen. Maude's was the first bar she opened and was one of San Francisco's earliest, longest running, and most popular lesbian bars. This is the first of three Gothic revival churches in this batch, all of which are exuberant examples of this style. 3281 16th Street was erected in 1907 by the German Evangelical Lutheran Church and has been owned and occupied by the group since then. The second Gothic revival church is Saint Nicholas Cathedral, built in nineteen o four. This building was constructed to serve the religious needs of the growing population in Eureka Valley. The third of the Gothic revival churches is Saint Paul's churches. This one was notably designed by architect of merit Frank Shee. 1660 Church Street is significant for its association with the growth and development of Noe Valley, as well as for its architecture. 102 Guerrero Street is a significant and intact example of a stick Eastlake home and an early example of the work of architect Henry Gilfas. Gilfas was a prominent San Francisco architect, and this represents one of his ornate and earlier works. Originally constructed as the bank of Italy, 400 To 410 Castro Street is significant for its association with commercial development of Eureka Valley. Now commonly known as the Castro. Additionally, it embodies characteristics typical of neighborhood branch banks from the nineteen twenties and is a good example of Beaux Arts architecture with large exterior windows and a large interior volume. 4200 20th Street is significant as the home of Bob Ross, who count co founded the Bay Area reporter in 1971, which is reportedly the oldest LGBTQ weekly and continuous publication in The United States. Ross also co founded the tavern Guild, which raised money for numerous pro gay politicians. And he held frequent political and professional events at the subject property. 582 Castro Street is significant as the home of the Castro rock steam baths, an exclusively gay bathhouse in the 1970s amidst the backdrop of the Castro initially establishing itself as an internationally recognized LGBTQ enclave. Bathhouses played an important role in community development as safe and private spaces for queer men to meet. 514 To 520 Castro Street is significant as the original location of the office of the San Francisco AIDS Foundation. Cleve Jones helped begin the organization and is credited as one of the first agencies in The United States specifically addressing AIDS. 4416 18th Street is significant as the location of the Full Moon Coffee House in the mid-1970s. The 1970s represents a pivotal time in the Castro's history as it established itself as queer San Francisco's cultural, economic, and political hub, drawing international attention to issues surrounding LGBTQ equality. But at the time, it was largely dominated by gay men. And the full moon was collectively owned by a group of lesbians and is credited as the first women only establishment in San Francisco. The most holy redeemer Catholic church complex has a layered history. Its significance includes association with the growth of the Roman Catholic church in San Francisco at the turn of the century as an important social asset for the Eureka Valley, Irish, German, and Italian immigrant communities in the early twentieth century with a history of Roman Catholic relationships with LGBTQ communities and for its early and continued use as an aids hospice. 220 Danvers Street is significant for its historical association with San Francisco's LGBTQ LGBTQ Jewish community. The property was the original home of congregation Sheher Zahav, one of the first LGBTQ Jewish groups on the West Coast formed in 1977. 361 San Jose Avenue was constructed in 1865 and is significant for its association with early settlement of San Francisco following the California gold rush, as well as being an early and intact example of folk Victorian architecture, which is extremely rare in San Francisco. As the historic location of the American Indian Historical Society, 1451 Masonic Avenue is significant for its association with the Red Power Movement of the 1960s, as well as with the Costo family who played prominent roles in American Indian civil rights advocacy. Chautauqua House also included gallery space for American Indian artists and published the Indian historian, a quarterly journal. As I mentioned, this would be the very first city landmark with a strong American Indian association. And lastly, 1458 Valencia Street is significant as the oldest standing firehouse in San Francisco Constructed in 1883, the property is rare as a brick firehouse in Italianate design with cast iron front facade detailing. So just to wrap up for some context, over the past five years, there have been 32 new article 10 landmark designated averaging around six landmark designations per year. Thus designating 16 landmarks at once will be unprecedented, significantly increasing the number of designations completed at any one time. In summary, this effort is a concerted approach to ensure the protection of San Francisco's most precious resources with utmost cultural,

[Supervisor Rafael Mandelman (Board President)]: historical, and or architectural significance, spanning the breadth of

[Alex Westhoff (San Francisco Planning Department)]: San Francisco's diverse and significance, spanning the breadth of San Francisco's diverse and cherished histories, underscoring the city's commitment to historic preservation. That is all that I have, but I am available to answer any questions. Thank you.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair, Land Use and Transportation Committee)]: Thank you so much for this amazing work. Thank you, Supervisor Mandelmann, for your timely pursuit of this effort. Let's go. I don't see any questions or comments from my colleagues, so let's go to public comment on this item, please.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you, madam chair. Land use and transportation. We'll now hear public comment related to agenda item numbers three through 18, initiating landmark designations.

[Unidentified North Beach Neighbors representative (former president)]: If you

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: have public comment for these items, please come forward to to the lectern at this time. And if you're waiting for your opportunity to speak, you can line up to speak along that western wall that I'm indicating with my left hand. Let's hear from that first speaker, please.

[Kathleen Courtney (Russian Hill Community Association)]: Kathleen Courtney Rush Neal Community Association, congratulations, and thank you for your efforts to preserve and protect your district and the city. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Comments. Do we have anyone else to provide public comment for agenda item numbers three through 18? Madam chair.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair, Land Use and Transportation Committee)]: Okay. Public comment on this item is now closed. Supervisor Mahmoud.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Committee Member)]: Sorry. I just had a quick question for the planning department. Thanks for the presentation walking through each of the different buildings that will be, part of this landmarking process. As we're also going through, a rezoning process with the city right now, I wanted just two questions. One, of these landmarks, do any of them fall currently within where the family zoning ordinance is designating either density to control or an increase in allowed height?

[Alex Westhoff (San Francisco Planning Department)]: Yes, correct. So the ones within the neighborhood commercial districts do. The equity landmarks are scattered throughout other districts. But the other ones that we did through that filtering process are so about half of them do. Yeah.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Committee Member)]: Half of them are in there. Mhmm. And then have you done an analysis on, how that would affect, the likelihood of those respective blocks to reach the heights that the mayor's office is is purporting are going to be developed at that height? Or how does it affect the probability of those outcomes? Or does those planning projections that have been given need to change?

[Alex Westhoff (San Francisco Planning Department)]: Sure. So it wouldn't change the allowable height for any of these properties. So you could still add additional height to landmark buildings within the maximum allowed height. You can still do vertical additions. And we have many examples of properties throughout the city that are landmarked that have had vertical additions done to them to allow for more growth, more housing, different uses, etcetera.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Committee Member)]: More specifically, have they also done analysis on whether it's going to change the likelihood of using density control or some of the other like, whether they might be redeveloped into another? There are estimates that'll be given on how many we're gonna how many units we're gonna create as a result of this plan. Do those estimates that the number of units need to be adapted based on these projects being turned into historical landmarks?

[Alex Westhoff (San Francisco Planning Department)]: Yeah. Correct. We haven't done such an analysis. But based on past precedent, we do have examples of, historic buildings that have had additional units, housing units added, vertical additions. Correct.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Committee Member)]: Okay. Thank you. Yeah.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair, Land Use and Transportation Committee)]: Thank you. Supervisor Mandelmann.

[Supervisor Rafael Mandelman (Board President)]: Thank you, Chair Chair Mulgar. I don't wanna hide the ball, though. I mean, the reason we we are starting with the family opportunity zone. I I think, the, you know, the entire city ought to we ought to be, you know, finishing the historic resource survey and identifying landmarks and potential historic districts everywhere. But the areas where there will be the greatest, development pressure and, therefore, the greatest likelihood of demolishing, an important historic resource if we haven't identified it in some way is going to be, I think, in the areas that we're upzoning. So I think I mean, I don't think the deal is that to get the units we need, we have to demolish our historic resources. If that's the deal, I'm not down. I think I think we can do both, and I think that identifying properties where it's gonna be a little bit potentially harder to demolish the building or where we're encouraging you to incorporate the historic resource into whatever you're doing on the property is is, is a feature, not a bug. Like, I think that's that's kind of what I

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair, Land Use and Transportation Committee)]: want. Thank you, supervisor Mandelmann. And thank you for the question. Supervisor Mahmoud, thank you for the presentation. I will just add that, you know, I also agree that we don't need to, you know, demolish everything to comply with our commitments to the next generation of San Franciscans to build enough housing for everyone. I also think that there are tools that are at our disposal, and things that we can do to think creatively about these issues. For example, we have allowed historic buildings in the downtown area to monetize and transfer their development rights to other new buildings, to still get some of that development potential and generate some income to maintain some of these very expensive properties that are historic. So it is something that we may, you know, if this is not my district. But there are just pointing out there are tools that we can use to meet both things. So oftentimes, with these discussions, it's either one way or the other. And I find that oftentimes, you know, there's an in between. There's both. We can meet multiple goals, and walk and chew gum at the same time. So with that, thank you, colleagues. I will, make the motion, if that's okay, to, recommend this, to the full board for with a positive recommendation.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: On the motion offered by the chair that these 16 resolutions be sent to the board of supervisors with the recommendation of land use and transportation, vice chair Chen. Chen, I. Member Mokimud. Mokimud, I. Chair Melgar. I. Melgar, I. Madam chair, there are three ayes.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair, Land Use and Transportation Committee)]: Great. Congratulations, supervisor Mandelmann. Thank you. Okay. It is now 02:04, and we had, agendaized the next item for 02:00, and we now have, supervisor Sauter here with us. So let's go ahead and call the next item, please, mister Clerk.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Agenda item number 19 is an ordinance amending the planning code to first, eliminate the North Beach Special Use District and consolidate certain controls into the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District. Expand allowable uses and increase use size limits in the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District. Second, expand allowable uses and increase the use size limits in the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District. Third, expand allowable uses in the Pacific Avenue Neighborhood Commercial District. Fourth, expand allowable uses and increase use size limits in the Nob Hill Special Use District. And fifth, reduce limitations on restaurants and bars in the Jackson Square Special Use District, amending the zoning map to reflect removal of the North Beach Special Use District, affirming the planning department's secret determination, making findings of consistency with the general plan and the eight priority policies of planning code section one zero one point one, and making findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare under planning code section three zero two, madam

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair, Land Use and Transportation Committee)]: chair. Okay. Thank you so much, mister Clerk. This committee is happy to welcome at district three supervisor, Danny Sauter. So the floor is yours.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: Thank you, chair. And good afternoon, colleagues. Thank you for allowing me to join your committee today and for your consideration of our item. I wanna wanna start by thanking Michelle Andrews in my office, for her hard work on this and Veronica Flores from planning as well, who have been instrumental on this. We are really excited about this item of legislation because it will make it easier for small businesses to open and grow in District 3 and will help fill empty storefronts across our neighborhoods. In recent years, San Francisco has made real progress in simplifying rules and removing barriers for small businesses. But many of these changes have never made their way to my district. As a result, it has become easier, more fair, and more predictable to open or grow a small business in every part of San Francisco except District 3. And so our legislation, District 3 thrives, seeks to change that. We've crafted this legislation in a way that keeps all of our neighborhood commercial districts intact so that we can respect the character of the neighborhood, retain popular protections against formula retail, and make this process more transparent to the public through notices and objective standards rather than a system that too often leads to one off special special legislation done without community input. A few highlights of our legislation. It makes North Beach small business businesses eligible for our city's priority permitting processing program so that North Beach small business owners have the same predictable timeline for permits as every other neighborhood in District 3. It removes bans that currently exist across District 3. For example, a ban on flexible retail, having two things under one roof in North Beach and Pacific Avenue, a prohibition on small storefront mergers in North Beach and Polk Street, a prohibition on arts activities in Nob Hill, a prohibition on walk up facilities in North Beach, a prohibition on small first floor health services in North Beach Polk Street and Pacific Avenue. It allows limited restaurants, which is a category of for small establishments like cafes and bakeries, not full scale restaurants, but limited restaurants to have greater flexibility by opening in spaces that were not food used prior in North Beach and in Jackson Square. It also removes the requirement for limited restaurants, again, these small establishments, to go through the months long conditional use process in those two neighborhoods plus Nob Hill, bringing our permitting more in line with citywide rules. Finally, it consolidates the North Beach Special Use District and the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District into just one set of rules, the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District. The rules from the North Beach Special Use District don't disappear as some have suggested, but rather they are consolidated under one set of rules so that business owners need to only look at one set of controls instead of two. The newly consolidated neighborhood commercial district, NCD, will have the exact same ground floor commercial use requirement, restrictions on planned unit developments, and a requirement that restaurants and bars only occupy spaces previously used as food or drink establishment. Additionally, I'm transferring language from the SUD, that special use district, to the NCD, the neighborhood commercial district, requiring historic preservation commission review for alterations to historic buildings in the NCD and requiring a conditional use authorization for the replacement of an active legacy business, except if the space has been vacant for more than three years. I wanna be clear that our legislation does not change formula retail rules in any neighborhood. It does not change existing protections against ghost kitchens in North Beach. It does not remove any notifications. In fact, this legislation allows more public input and notices. It does not change any existing prohibitions of conversions of second Floor residential spaces into re into retail spaces, and it does not impact any housing rules or legislation such as the family zoning plan. We've been having productive conversation conversations about this legislation with stakeholders for many months. This legislation was introduced in June, and we've held about a dozen meetings with various neighborhood groups since then. Thousands of mailers were sent to properties in the areas included in our legislation. We've discussed this at our monthly coffee meetings and community meetings and shared extensive details on our social media and in our newsletter. And our legislation has been through two public hearings before today. Once at the Small Business Commission in July and once at Planning in September, both bodies of which recommended approval of the legislation. We've worked hard to develop amendments in response to specific concerns brought up by a few organizations, And we believe these amendments are significant and highly responsive. These amendments include tighter controls for storefront mergers in North Beach. They clarify that medical uses would only be limited to small footprints, and they return limits on bars in Jackson Square and Pacific Avenue. Colleagues, you have a list of those amendments, and I'd be happy to read them in their entirety, into record before you consider a motion later. Despite these amendments and widespread outreach and opportunities for public comment, we have heard from a few organizations another request for a continuance today. There was a continuance granted recently, at planning and we've heard that request again here today. So I think that we have a good balance which we can strike today. Colleagues, given the substantive amendments being introduced today, I'd ask that you adopt the amendments and then continue this to the October 27 meeting of the land use committee where I hope you will refer to the full board as a committee report with recommendations. This approach would allow further conversations while not slowing things down too much with the board not meeting next week anyways given the holiday. We've had an open request out for the past two weeks to the groups who have requested amendments, and we hope that this extra time will allow them to meet with us as we have been eager to do. We are proud to have earned support from a wide range of small businesses and organizations through our discussions, and those supporters include North Beach Neighbors, Jackson Square Merchants Association, Golden Gate Restaurant Association, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, Nob Hill Association, Discover Polk Community Benefit District, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, and Russian Hill Neighbors. What has been most encouraging to me throughout this entire process is all of the small business owners that we have met, who have reached out to us and have said that their business wants to open or grow in District 3, but they literally cannot do that unless our legislation passes. This is has included Shadi, who's a beloved merchant in North Beach and wants to expand his small market and grocery store into a space next door that has been vacant since 2018. A yoga studio that wants to open in District 3, but has been scared away by stories of long delays specific to our district only. Milana Ram and her husband, Himanshu, who want to open a cafe on Lombard Street in a space that has been empty for seven years. And the list goes on and on. A popular bakery that wants to open, a wine bar in Jackson Square, a gelato shop run by Italian immigrants, a barber that wants to expand into an empty space next door, and so on. I believe that those can be the next great San Francisco stories of entrepreneurs succeeding, but they are literally blocked right now because of these outdated rules which are seeking to change. That's the reality of what this legislation will fix, who it will help, and why I ask your support when this item returns to you. I am here, of course, for questions. I also know that we will have robust public comment today, which I look forward to. Thank you.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair, Land Use and Transportation Committee)]: Okay. Thank you so much, supervisor Sauter. We will have a presentation by miss Veronica Flores from the planning department, and then we will open it up for public comment. Go ahead, miss Flores.

[Veronica Flores (San Francisco Planning Department)]: Thank you, supervisors. Veronica Flores, planning department staff. The item before you was heard at the September 25 planning commission hearing, during which time they adopted a recommendation for approval with the anticipated amendments. Supervisor Sauter has already described those amendments, and I just want to emphasize that these additional amendments were through continued collaboration with the planning department staff leading up to the planning commission hearing, as well as additional amendments in response to, additional outreach and community meetings thereafter. This concludes the board report, but I am happy to answer any questions for planning. Thank you.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair, Land Use and Transportation Committee)]: Okay. Thank you, miss Flores. With that, mister Clerk, let's open this item up for public comment, please.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you, madam chair. Land use and transportation will now hear public comment related to agenda item number 19, consolidating the North Beach special use and neighborhood commercial districts and expanding allowable uses and use size limits in certain districts. If you have public comment for this item, line up to speak along that western wall that I'm indicating with my left hand and then come forward to the lecture and when it is your turn to

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair, Land Use and Transportation Committee)]: Either one will work.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Either one is fine.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair, Land Use and Transportation Committee)]: Two minutes, please. It's closer to all of you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Please begin.

[Mark Bruno]: Thank you for letting us speak today and for suggesting a continuing supervisor, which I agree with. My name is Mark Bruno. I've lived in North Beach for thirty five years. The current SUD encourages and protects an amazingly diverse group of small businesses, one reason people from all over the world visit North Beach. Given this success, I don't believe the legislation by supervisor Souter should be recommended unless major amendments are made to it. For instance, changing the current 2,000 square foot commercial limit to 3,000 seems reckless. It's well known that larger stores push out smaller ones due to economies of scale, and they raise land values and make rents untenable for smaller businesses. Under the current SUD, North Beach is thriving. There is no real need for this legislation. The 49 ground floor venues on Grant Avenue from Columbus to Filbert are all occupied with one exception, and this has been recently rented. Vallejo in Green, another 26 spaces, are a 100% full. In addition, it should be noted that 50% of the businesses on Grant And Columbus are neighborhood serving retail stores. We're not all about restaurants and bars. We have seven clothing stores, three seamstresses, five barber shops, four nail salons, six laundromats, three bodegas, two chocolate stores, a hardware store, three grocers, and one of the city's most famous pet shops. You can get a haircut in North Beach for $65. You can also get one for $25, and then you can go where I go and get one for $12. The people at my shop, don't speak English as their first language. We are a diverse collection in North Beach of small businesses invigorating our streets and sidewalks. It's good for businesses and customers, this diversity. Why? Because not everyone can afford a $65 haircut. Adding a 3,000 square foot limit hurts these immigrant business communities and others. They will be driven out under parts of this legislation. Isn't there a place in North Beach both for a $65 and a $12 haircut? I believe there is.

[Unidentified staff/attendee]: Is that it?

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Speaker's time is concluded. Thank you for your comments.

[Mark Bruno]: Yeah. Thank you, Steve. Please.

[Owner of Butter & Crumble bakery (name not stated)]: Good afternoon.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Either of those microphones.

[Owner of Butter & Crumble bakery (name not stated)]: Good afternoon. I want to speak today on behalf of my bakery, butter and crumble. Since I opened my doors a couple years ago, we have been serving both the neighborhood of North Beach, as well as people from all around the world who are coming to visit our bakery. And we are truly bursting at the seams. We love our small space, but we are looking to open a second location. For this next tenant of our business and our growth, we wanna keep it small, but stay within the area of North Beach, so that I can keep a close eye and protect my attention to quality, and the integrity of my vision for this spot. Unfortunately, it's been really difficult to make that happen. We've been looking for spaces, and, it's been quite a journey, but we finally found one that will fit our vision perfectly, that we have our heart very set on. Unfortunately, we won't be able to go into this spot, unless this legislation is passed and approves the use of a limited use restaurant in this location. Thank you so much for considering this request. It's just so important to my team to be able to have this next opportunity. Over the years, we have really, watched the city go through a lot of improvements to make the process for opening a business such as mine, more understandable and comprehensible for a young and business owner like myself, and I'm really hoping that this legislation passing will be the next tenant of this improvement. I don't have investors in my business. I'm a one woman show in terms of making this happen, and it's so important to me that this happen quickly. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for sharing your comments. Before we hear from the next speaker, withhold your applause. Don't interrupt the proceedings with your applause or any kind of audible support. We will hear from you if you wanna get up into the public comment line, and you will have your two minutes. Let's have the next speaker, please.

[Ben Bleiman (Executive Director, Discover Polk CBD)]: Hello, supervisors. My name is Ben Blyman. I am the president of the San Francisco Entertainment Commission. Today, I'm speaking not on behalf of them, but on behalf of Discover Polk Community Benefit District of which I'm the executive director. We as an organization are in very strong support of this legislation. The city as a whole and especially D 3 has a hodgepodge of almost a Frankenstein esque code around managing small businesses, who can open where, how late they can open. It creates a very difficult situation for new business owners. We have a number of vacancies within our district And as the supervisor said before, people are scared away from d three. They're scared away from doing business there. They're scared away by the code and the reputation that some of these neighborhoods have. I am in personally in very strong support of this and discover Polk as well. We encompass the district from California Street to Broadway, on Polk And Van Ness primarily. Thank you very much.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Let's have the next speaker, please.

[Peter Kwan]: Good afternoon. My name is Peter Kwan. I'm a member of and I serve on the board of North Beach Neighbors. I have lived and voted in District 3 for more than twenty years. During that time, I've seen many small businesses closed down only to have the storefront lie vacant for many years. A case in point is the dry cleaning store, just around a corner from Lombard and and Columbus, very close to where I live. There are far too many red tape and bureaucratic roadblocks that hinder small businesses from moving into District 3. Prospective businesses continue to pay rent while they wait, month after month, year after year, for their permits to come through. Many abandon their business plans in frustration. These amendments to the planning code are common sense improvements that will unblock the logjam and make District 3 a a thriving, vibrant neighborhood. Please support and adopt these amendments. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Ted Bartlett]: Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Ted Bartlett. I'm a business owner in Nob Hill in District 3. I'm here in full support of supervisor Sauter's District 3 thrives legislation. I'm a San Francisco native and real estate agent serving San San Franciscans for the past twenty seven years. Thinking about our futures together, I'm certain that this is legislation that is not only warranted, but badly needed. As our city looks to rebound, it is imperative that well intentioned, but now out of date planning code restrictions are removed to allow for new and growing small businesses to thrive in San Francisco. By allowing a greater number of businesses to come into our neighborhood commercial districts, empty storefronts will be filled, successful small businesses will be able to expand, and new businesses will open without almost requiring a graduate degree in city planning and incredible patience to navigate the current process. These changes will encourage a more vibrant street scene for shoppers, residents, and our well over 20,000,000 warmly welcomed annual visitors. San Francisco is the best city on earth. Our downtown is the economic heart of the city. Our neighborhood commercial districts are the soul of the city. By allowing small businesses a direct and transparent path into all of our spectacular d three neighborhoods, we will start to hear about San Francisco's boom loop rather than the negative news cycles that have dominated the national and local press over the past five years. I urge you to support this legislation. Thank you. Thank you

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Dr. Sheila Crotz]: Good afternoon, madam chair, committee members, supervisor slaughter. I am doctor Sheila Crotz, and I'm honored to be here to support this important legislation. I am a small business owner. I own Positive Influences, an educational consulting firm, and I have long had the vision of opening a storefront in the North Beach area to provide education, academic, and mindfulness programs to children and adults alike. But that vision was put to sleep, basically, because of the long arduous process that takes place in order to open up the storefront. So I'm very excited by this legislation, and I hope it passes through for approval. I'd like to leave you all with a crockst dot, which I give out across the city, which reminds you that you too can be a positive influence.

[Gina Peterson (Owner, Postscript at 499 Jackson St.)]: Thank you.

[Supervisor Rafael Mandelman (Board President)]: Thank you

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Unidentified North Beach small business owner/art organizer]: Hello, Chair Melgar, supervisors, Chen and Mahmoud. I've lived and worked in North Beach for twenty years, and I've owned two retail spaces and art galleries there, both on Green Street and Columbus Avenue, in addition to being past director of our monthly art and small business festival, North Beach First Fridays. Mister Sowder says he has reached out to us, but planning commission the planning commission on 09/25 showed us the emails that were intentionally staggered to, obfuscate direct communication. It was kind of amazing, actually. It's kind of a a juvenile trick. But, it's it hasn't been it hasn't been effective in in fostering real communication. Like by North Beach Neighbors, I've got a lot of questions for our supervisor, but here's the one burning me most today. Why am I doing my district supervisor's due diligence? I've spent the last weekend dropping into dozens of local shops. Many of our business owners still haven't heard any details of Sauder's plans as of yesterday, and many of them hadn't heard of it at all. Now, the right to conclude I they have the right to conclude two things from this. Either Sauder doesn't care about the informed input as a small business owner, or Sauder didn't want them to know about it in advance of its passing. Local artist of international acclaim Jeremy Fish designed a poster opposing this, and Lurie's upzoning and local businesses couldn't get it into their windows fast enough in solidarity. You'll see them in dozens of shop windows because of our efforts to inform our community. Every poster is saying no to this plan. Owners want them in their windows so much, we actually ran out of the 50 posters we printed. It's embarrassing to hear so many of them ask me why no one's informed them, much less included them, about decisions. But in the words of third generation owner of the oldest and arguably most famous Italian coffee shop on the West Coast Cafe Trieste, North Beach cannot truly thrive without the voices of the people who built it. Please don't silence so many voices by approving supervisors' undemocratic plan. At the very least, it needs to be returned to the table, and this time, there needs to be far more chairs seated at it. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Let's have the next speaker, please.

[Unidentified representative (Jackson Square Historic District Association)]: Thank you, Chair Melgar and supervisors Chen and Matt Hood. I submit this comment on behalf of the Jackson Square Historic District Association and Thaddeus Carhartt, a San Francisco resident. We request that the land use committee decline to act on the proposed rezone until the city prepares an environmental review document under CEQA. All of the rezone's changes have potentially significant environmental impacts that must be analyzed and mitigated near CEQA. Supervisor Souder's staff re staff report contains a single sentence stating that the rezone is not a project within the meaning of CEQA because it will not have direct environmental impacts. This is incorrect. The rezone is a project because it is an essential step that may lead to direct or indirect environmental impacts. It is legally indistinguishable from the ordinance addressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Incorporated versus City of San Diego. It held that rezoning was a CEQA project because it could result in new construction and additional traffic. A CEQA review was required. As in marijuana patients, this is likely to result in indirect physical changes to the environment through construction and additional traffic. A CEQA impact study is also required for the following reasons. The project eliminates the North Beach Special Use District removing important protections for historic resources. It also eliminates important protections against displacement compared contained in the North Beach SUD. We urge you to refrain from considering this rezone until a CEQA document is prepared. The rezone is clearly a project within the meaning of CEQA and CEQA review is therefore required. And I have copies of the full letter for the clerk to hand out. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you. I'll retrieve the copies and pass them out. Let's have the next speaker, please. You can just leave them on the rail.

[Brendan Odessa]: Hello, supervisor members, and, Sauter and everyone. My name is Brendon Odessa. I own a small little wine bar that has been trying to open since 2021 in North Beach. I repeat, 2021. Any legislation that helps small business people get their doors open, even though it may not be perfect, can be beneficial. Now I have to read something because it's very emotional, but I will only state the truth. I've come here more than support of representative Sauter. I've come here to potentially save someone's life. Okay? I almost killed myself about three months ago as an f as I reached out to the city of San Francisco to help me open my wine bar. I plan to write a note, said city of San Francisco, treat people better than you treated me, and then hang myself inside the wine bar. How did it get to a point of total loss of hope and faith? Well, the letter that I wrote and mailed and emailed to mayor Lori can shed some light. The letter reads, dear mayor Lori, how was it that I invited the health department to my small storefront that is being converted to a wine bar to help me get ready for inspection? And the agent who came, obviously, filed an anonymous complaint against me to the plumbing department. That's exactly what happened. I invited the health inspector to my not open wine bar to help me prepare for inspection. And the very next day, while I was in a meeting in the wine bar with the Department of Building Inspection, whom I had also invited to prepare before meeting, a plumbing inspector suddenly knocked on the door. I opened the door and the inspector had a badge displayed on his waist. He says, I've come here because of a complaint about a bathroom. I responded a complaint. My business is not even open. So who could complain? He replied it was an anonymous complaint. Then I said it could only have come from the health inspector who was here yesterday. My storefront is a live workspace. I and no one has ever gone into any space not related to the business. The only people who had been there were the people was the person from the planning department.

[Kathleen Courtney (Russian Hill Community Association)]: Speak I'm sorry.

[Brendan Odessa]: I was gonna complaint.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for sharing your comments with the committee. We have to hear from the next speaker now.

[Brendan Odessa]: I I I I thank you very much. I think, though, that

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you.

[Brendan Odessa]: And and in Next

[Stuart Watts (President, North Beach Business Association)]: speaker, please.

[Brendan Odessa]: I have just one more minute on this.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: I'm sorry. We have to give everyone the same amount of time to address

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: the meeting and the time you can submit

[Brendan Odessa]: it. The information.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair, Land Use and Transportation Committee)]: Yes. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: You can just leave it at the rail, and I'll pass it out in a moment.

[Brendan Odessa]: This location.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: That's fine. Okay. Next speaker, please.

[Sam Woodworth]: Hi. My name is Sam Woodworth. I'm a homeowner in North Beach. Thank you so much for the opportunity to be here. I am concerned about this proposal, largely in the context of the pace and scale of other changes that are occurring in North Beach. I am certainly in favor of reducing red tape, of which there is far too much in San Francisco. I think that's a well acknowledged, truth. But, I'm just concerned about how quickly North Beach appears to be changing, particularly in the context of the family zoning, plan. North Beach is an absolutely world class neighborhood. It is deeply beloved by not only residents, but millions of people who come from all over the world to visit what I think is the crown jewel of San Francisco. No offense to any of their neighborhoods. And I think that the special use district, from what I understand of it, kind of represents a European style curation of the neighborhood to maintain balance among all sorts of different uses. And I think something like this, and I I respect that there have been recent amendments made, is really important to maintain what, makes North Beach so special. And what what confuses me as a as a someone who really loves the community is that it seems to be thriving today almost more than ever before. I understand and and hear, these concerns from the small business owners, and those should be taken very seriously. But what I see is a community that just that looks like it's really at its peak. Vacancies seem to be at at near all time lows. And so I'm just wondering if this is a solution in search of a problem. And I think it does need to be slowed down. And I will say, part of my concern does arise with the family zoning plan. In particular, the, what I think is a really devastating proposal to erect a wall of towers along the waterfront, that would disconnect the waterfront from, the hills and vice versa, and effectively steal away these, iconic public vistas that are treasured by residents and visitors alike, and eventually transfer them to private developers and eventually buyers of future luxury townhomes. So I'm I'm just concerned about the scope of change. Speak just twice. I appreciate your Thank you for sharing

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: your comments with the committee.

[Sam Woodworth]: Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: We'll have the next speaker next.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair, Land Use and Transportation Committee)]: Thank you. I just wanna remind everyone that this is about, the legislation that's on the agenda, not about that family zoning plan. We will hear that on the twentieth. Thank you.

[Nick Farris (President, Telegraph Hill Dwellers)]: Thank you. Chair Melgar, members of the committee, supervisor Sauter. My name is Nick Farris. I'm the president of the Telegraph Hill dwellers and representing nearly 600 residents and small businesses, small business owners in North Beach, Telegraph Hill, and the waterfront. I'm here to say that we are in very strong opposition of this legislation as it is written today. To be clear, we do not disagree with everything, here, and it may make sense for some parts of the district. But significant sections of this legislation, will reverse decades of very careful zoning that have protected one of San Francisco's most historic, beloved, and economically vibrant neighborhoods. For context here, we asked for a continuance, to complete our commercial survey. We are now very close to completion of that survey. And I think when forming legislation, it's essential to have data to back it up. Now out of about 440 or so businesses, in our corridor, North Beach has one of the lowest vacancy rates in the entire city. It is 6%. That is extremely healthy. Economists and urban planners recommend five to 10% as being, really the equilibrium range for a commercial neighborhood. Bottom line, we keep hearing about small businesses having challenges and they certainly do. That is very real and they exist. But this legislation is a solution to an entirely different problem with incredible risks to our community, without being properly understood. The North Beach Special Use District was created hand in hand with local merchants to preserve storefronts, protect tenants, and keep our commercial corridors human scale and living. Removing it now and allowing storefront mergers up to 3,000 square feet.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Speaker's time is concluded. Thank you for sharing your comments to the committee. Let's have the next speaker, please.

[Lance Carnes]: Yes. Good afternoon, supervisor Sauter and committee members. My name is Lance Carnes. I'm I'm a thirty year resident of North Beach. And when I moved here, I spent a lot of time walking up and down Columbus Avenue, Grant Avenue, Broadway, you know, looking over what we had here. It was I never noticed any vacancies that went for a long time. So I wonder why today there's such a such an impetus to, you know, to to book up more businesses here when there's really not a not a need. Last month at the planning commission, there was a piece of legislation introduced by mister by supervisor Souter that was was also not run by any any of this. I think there are five neighborhood groups that were not contacted at all about this legislation. And nonetheless, the planning commission ran it through. I don't know how we can get that back. The other thing is when I first lived here and walked up and down Columbus Avenue, one day I ran into Danny Souder.

[Theron Kabrich]: He's a

[Lance Carnes]: young guy from Ohio, I think. He was interested in putting in a farmer's market. And so I introduced him to a guy I knew who had an extra vacant lot. And they did a farmer's market. But Denny Sutter has been here for, what, about ten years? And I just don't think he understands what North Beach is. I think he thinks it's Ohio. I was in Ohio briefly a couple years ago, and I couldn't wait to get well, it was okay. I couldn't wait to get home. So anyway, those are my brief comments. Thank you. Thank

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: you for sharing your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Gina Peterson (Owner, Postscript at 499 Jackson St.)]: Hello. Hi. Hi, supervisors. My name is Gina Peterson, owner and operator of PostScript, a specialty grocery at 499 Jackson Street, which is opened which was opened, 2023. I urge you to approve this legislation allowing for limited new restaurants and bars in Jackson Square. I am appreciative of the outreach and engagement that supervisor Sauter has done on this important issue. I was able to open Postscript on Jackson Square after configuring my reconfiguring my plans for a restaurant into a specialty grocery store because I could not open a restaurant due to the existing limitations. I have I have 29 staff members that I've hired locally. Allowing drinking alcohol on-site would allow me to expand my hours of operation, creating more job opportunities for me to continue hiring more locally, more local people and grow my small business. Jackson Square is a wonderful part of the city that has both residents and build and businesses. There is foot traffic all the time, not just nine to five during the work week or or weekends. Allowing for limited new restaurants and bars in Jackson Square will help offset some of the challenges for us small business owners. I've received some feedback from customers that they they'd enjoy sitting down and enjoying our prepared foods and just having more with more businesses around. For this reason, I urge you to support this legislation and recommend approval. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Kari Wellstone (Quince & Co.)]: Good afternoon. My name is Kari Wellstone, and I'm here on behalf of Quince and Co to express our support for District 3 thrives, particularly in Jackson Square. We've been in Jackson Square since 2009 and have loved seeing the neighborhood grow since then. We believe this legislation will help our neighborhood thrive even more, and we look forward to welcome welcoming more amazing neighbors to Jackson Square once this passes. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for comments. Next speaker, please.

[Megan Doherty]: Good afternoon, supervisor Sauter and council members. My name is Megan Doherty, and I've lived in or worked in District 3 since 2017. While that isn't as long as some other commenters today, San Francisco is in my blood. My grandfather drove a taxi cab in San Francisco, and my grandmother grew up in the Valencia Gardens housing project. I spent much of my career in hospitality, so I know how hard it is can be to run a small business and how much these places mean to a neighborhood. I love sitting at a sidewalk cafe with a glass of wine and taking my dog Clementine out to explore our streets. But I also see too many storefronts stay empty and too many businesses struggle to keep their doors open. That's why I support district three thrives. This initiative is about more than zoning or permits. It's about breathing life back into our streets, cutting unnecessary barriers for local entrepreneurs and helping small businesses stay open and succeed. At the same time, it honors the long standing shops and restaurants that give our community its soul. There's room here for both old and new businesses to flourish side by side. And when they do, our streets feel safer, cleaner, and full of life. So I support District 3 Fives and help keep our district welcoming, vibrant, and thriving everyone. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Dan Macchiarini (Macchiarini Creative Design, legacy business)]: Dan Macchiarini. Macchiarini created a design charter legacy business in San Francisco in our seventy seventh year. This legislation is a solution in search of a problem. I like to start with the facts. In Jackson Square, the vacancy rate there is 2%. In North Beach in general, the vacancy rate is 5%. We've had several businesses on Grand Avenue, in particular where I am, which are used clothes stores that wanted to expand. They rented the place next door to them. They didn't need to combine space. We reviewed this at the North Beach Business Association, of which I am a past president and a current board member. We could not figure out why this was being proposed. The only conclusion I can come to is that it's a step toward breaking our formula retail restrictions. The only people that would want to expand the space are a place like McDonald's, or Gensley Lee Diamonds, or places that would compete with our clothing places like Al's Attire. Danny, you ran on making it easier for small businesses to get permits. That's a good thing. I support that. But this goes way beyond that and will change the character of the commercial district. And I think you know it. I vote that this thing should be tabled and we should go and discuss it more in the future about how it could be structured no matter what the structure of it it is now.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for sharing your comments to the next speaker, please.

[Susan Fish]: Good afternoon. My name is Susan Fish, and I am here to speak on, behalf of supervisor Sauter's legislation. I'm a recent resident of D Three. I moved here in May after living in Coal Valley for thirty five years. So I've spent a lot of time in the neighborhood getting to know what's around and specifically Polk Street. And for the most part, Polk Street is a really wonderful vibrant street, but there are a number of empty storefronts, and they're an eyesore. They attract garbage. They attract graffiti and drug usage. And we should be doing everything we can as a city to encourage small businesses to open up in these storefronts, many of which have been vacant for a long time. So I urge you to support this legislation. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Teresa Flandrich (North Beach Tenants Committee)]: Happy Italian Heritage Month all. Teresa Flandrich, North Beach tenants committee, also a forty plus year resident of North Beach. I'm here in I I also am a cosigner on the letter asking for this to be continued so that there can actually be some deep conversations that we're lacking and have been lacking. So what we know, for those of us who have lived for a long enough time in North Beach in particular, is we've gone through several speculation mania periods, which decimated our housing, small businesses. There were exorbitant rent increases, evictions, and permanent displacement, also a loss of neighborhood serving businesses. The SUD protections are needed today just as when they were first put in back in 2012. Oddly enough, I was here both in 1987 as well as in 2012 about the NCD and SUD. And here I am again. So there has been no proper outreach. There has been no truly meaningful discussions. No fact based study has accompanied this legislation or been part of it at any point. It's the reason that we ask for a continuance. The misrepresentation of this is, at the Small Business Commission when d three representatives stated supervisor slaughter had reached out to every major neighborhood or association and merchant group before this was even introduced. This is not true. When the NBBA was not included, when many of us residents were not included, and many today still do not know, 45 people told me just the past week they'd never even heard of this legislation. This impacts us.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for sharing your comments with the committee. Let's have the next speaker, please.

[Mary Bagherit]: Hello. My name is Mary Bagherit, and I've lived in North Beach for over thirty years. As a substitute teacher in San Francisco, I have worked in every neighborhood in our city. No business district is as vibrant and diverse as North Beach Business District. The legislation being proposed by supervisor Souder is a solution looking for a problem that does not exist. The changes being suggested will do more harm than good. As a longtime resident, I'm familiar with the businesses in my neighborhood. I believe in shopping locally. Small business owners in North Beach have dedicated their lives and resources to making our neighborhood livable and diverse. In fact, many of our my acquaintances who have small businesses here are multilingual speakers whose first language is not English. These include business owners and managers from Palestine, Asia, Europe, The Caribbean, and Central And South America. These small businesses will be harmed by the changes being proposed. For this reason, I'm asking you to vote against it. Allowing a 3,000 square foot store in North Beach means inviting large businesses to compete with these small businesses that already make our neighborhood vibrant and diverse. Equally harmful would be allowing second story retail. These will diminish the vibrancy of our streets and sidewalks, and may even take away living spaces from the residents who currently patronize our small businesses. For all these reasons, I ask the land use subcommittee not to recommend the legislation before you and the full board of supervisors. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Unidentified staff/attendee]: Good afternoon. My name is Barry Shiller. I own a condo at Telegraph Landing, and I've lived there for the last twenty four years. It seems like the major opposition to what I think is a very sensible plan is that it's a plan in search of a solution where there's no problem. And why do we care anyway? Because it's a low vacancy rate. So I have a little bit of a different take on this. First, let me just say that my wife and I, we love North Beach. We've been to Club Pegasi 10 times. I would love Club Pegasi. It's like a love ode to San Francisco, and we bring all of our guests that are from out of town. We we go to Stella's on the weekend. We love Stella's. We love going there. It's a great night spot, although I think Stella did make a mistake by getting rid of their almond croissants, but that's a small point. Okay. So what's the problem, and why do I care? So I'd like to compare North Beach, which we love, to another area. Look at Cow Hollow. Cow Hollow doesn't have these very limiting restrictions, and Cow Hollow thrives. Cow Hollow came back very fast after the pandemic, even though quite a few of the businesses went out. And so I looked for some guidance from my spiritual advisor, Mr. Google. And he said that Cow Hollow is considered a highly desirable neighborhood renowned for its excellent shopping, very important shopping, diverse restaurants, vibrancy, and it offers a mix of urban convenience. So the point I'm trying to get to is that in Cow Hollow, they're more of a marketing approach rather than a very self controlled approach to what's going to live and what's going to die. And in Kalahalo, you see that you have all these businesses. I have a whole list, but I don't have time to go through it. A very diverse businesses that serve the community. And I love Italian restaurants.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Speaker's time is concluded. Thank you for sharing your comments.

[Unidentified staff/attendee]: Okay. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Next speaker, please.

[Shaheen (last name not stated)]: Hi. My name is Shaheen, and I'm here in support of the legislation to make small business feasible and accessible for everyone. I think vacancies are beside the point. I'm always reading news about people who wanna start a business, but are stuck in limbo for years in San Francisco, all over the city. This means the only ones with access are the most well connected, well resourced people who don't have anything else to do but to deal with these permitting issues. And I think that makes San Francisco and North Beach unusual, but not in a way that speaks to our values. We need a city that's open to change, not afraid of it. This is a small, low risk fix. Please pass it. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Ira Kaplan]: Hi. My name is Ira Kaplan. I live in North Beach. I love North Beach. I am building a future with my wife in North Beach. We talk a lot at the national level about how people are losing faith in government. They're not sure that our government serves their interests. I think the kind of petty corruption that, people in D 3 have had to deal with over the last twenty or so years is also really harmful to trust in government and the belief that government can work for you. You shouldn't need a handshake deal with Aaron Peskin in order to open or run a small business in District 3. It's no way to run a city. And I think it says a lot about supervisor Sauter that, when he took office, he did not try to, wield that corrupt power himself to pick winners and losers. Instead, he is trying to fix the unjust process at his source. And, I hope you will join him in trying to, fix the unjust status quo. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Blair Hellsing (President, North Beach Neighbors)]: Blair Hellsing, president of North Beach Neighbors. Good afternoon. During the summer, our board a few of our board members met with a supervisor to walk through the legislation with him. We then took, to the entire board the proposal. The board voted in support of the proposal. We now, support the proposal and its amendments, which have been described here today. We feel that not only will North Beach benefit by the proposal, but also, more importantly, perhaps, are the, you might say, neglected parts of North Beach, more toward the northern end of Columbus Avenue, where there are vacancies that have existed for some long time. Also, the rest of D 3, we looked at this from the standpoint of the entire D three benefit of it. And, those were some of the reasons we voted in support, and we urge you to support the legislation. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Let's have the next speaker, please.

[Nadia Williams]: Good afternoon. My name is Nadia Williams. I'm a San Francisco, a Bay Area native. My father graduated from Mission High in 1925. I'm a thirty three year renter in North Beach, and I am definitely opposed to these moves that allow, profits for the few at the expense of renters and small businesses. It's almost like a small city scale size of the big beautiful bill, frankly. And the names that are attached to these. Small businesses will not thrive in North Beach with chain stores. We don't need more bars and restaurants at the expense of our iconic small business expense of our iconic small businesses that offer special products and cultural and art, offerings to tourists and bridge and tunnel people and local San Franciscans. And we will not thrive with the destruction of our our our architecture, which is built to scale. It's kind of like the family upzoning thing. Rents will go up for tenants and small businesses. Why is there opposition to the historic district when most people in San Francisco that I talked to think we thought North Beach was a historic district for decades, which it should be. So you've gotten all the main points from our more knowledgeable speakers here. But I just wanna emphasize that it's very hard for the little guy, especially people who have jobs to make payments and rent, to come here and spend hours and hours. It's really a David and Goliath type of situation. Alright? Thank you.

[Unidentified North Beach Neighbors representative (former president)]: Thank you

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: for your comments. To the next speaker, please.

[Kathleen Courtney (Russian Hill Community Association)]: Supervisor Sauter, Chair Melgar, members of the Land Use Committee, Kathleen Courtney, Russian Hill Community Association. The Russian Hill Community Association joins with the Pacific Avenue Neighborhood Association, and other District 3 neighborhood and merchant associations in opposing the consolidation of the North Beach special use and neighborhood commercial districts. While each D3 community neighborhood has its own specific concerns and challenges, we are all aware that North Beach is the nexus of our Russian Hill and Nob Hill commercial energy. North Beach generates the vitality, spirit, drive, vigor that comes up Union Street, comes up Green Street, comes up the Layout Street, comes up Broadway, comes up Pacific, and connects the restauranteurs on Hyde Street and the merchants on Polk Street with that energy. The commercial success of North Beach that allows it to exert its influence on our surrounding neighborhoods is due in large measure to the protections inherent in the special use district. With the mayor's upzoning plan on the horizon, with its development pressures, why are we removing that protection that will impact the surrounding communities as well? Why are we removing it? Why are we removing it now? The Russian Hill Association appreciates the, supervisor's request for a continuance, but we strongly urge you to oppose this legislation. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Mike Chen]: Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Mike Chen. I'm a resident of District 2. But I have lived I lived for ten years, very close to Polk Street, and I still visit and shop, as well as other neighborhoods in in District 3. Speaking to support the legislation, I think looking at Polk Street, you know, there's been a lot of long time vacancies, you know, the storm mix. I think it's hard for I feel like it's been too prescriptive about how we want these things to be and then sometimes having to work through exceptions. And one thing that's come to mind is when Bob's Donuts relocated because that lease was ending, they had to get a special legislation to find to get into the next storefront. And that is a bar that's probably too high for most businesses to reach. And I'd like to think about making sure that we say yes to lots of things that we do like and making sure that there's some of those things we can continue. So we love walk up windows. So making sure we have walk up window restaurants. We like bookstore cafes. Make sure we can legalize that. Saying yes so that the small businesses that we do love, who would like to expand into the neighboring vacant storefront can do that. And I think, more importantly, thinking about what are the beloved small businesses of tomorrow that we wanna make sure they can get their start today. So thank you very much.

[Supervisor Rafael Mandelman (Board President)]: Thank you

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Stuart Watts (President, North Beach Business Association)]: Good afternoon, supervisor Sautter and fellow supervisors. My name is Stuart Watts. I'm a fifth generation San Franciscan, had a small business for over ten years, and I'm the president of the North Beach Business Association. I here have a formal amendment that we would like to propose from the MBBA, which has three things in it. First off is please bring back the use size cap for businesses in North Beach. Right now, under the projector here, is about a month ago, the used size cap of 4,000 square feet was removed. And now there's no cap to how large a physical business could be in North Beach. We wanna see that back or at least have a discussion if we wanna increase that to a more realistic size. Second to that is our issues with medical services coming back into North Beach as well as no cap to restaurants and bars, even limited or regular. With that said, it increases square footage costs significantly. But most importantly, we wanna be flexible. If you wanna have more bars and restaurants in the neighborhood, let's add that, but let's not remove the cap entirely because right now, we have more than any other residential neighborhood in San Francisco per capita. With that said, let's continue this conversation. This amendment has of almost 40 signatures from different businesses here in San Francisco. You can see here and here, and we have more to go. I'm a busy business small business owner, so I've been going door to door letting everybody know, and we would love to have a longer conversation. Please, please, let's continue this collaboration with your office to find a suitable solution for all the businesses in North Beach. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Justin Zucker (Zucker Law)]: Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Justin Zucker from Zucker Law on behalf of the property owner of 499 Jackson Street in support of its tenant Postscript, urging you to approve the legislation before you. The current controls prohibiting bars and restaurants in the Jackson Square SUD hinder the district and small businesses. Thriving neighborhoods are places where people work, eat, live, play, sleep, and study. Places for eating and drinking are third spaces for people in the district and the community that foster activation and community engagement, especially small neighborhood establishments. Allowing restaurants and bars on the 1st Floor in Jackson Square SUD would be in alignment with the other most other NCDs, where these uses are already principally permitted, making it easier for small businesses. Restaurants and other eating and drinking establishments are essential part of San Francisco's neighborhood vitality, supporting small business activity and contributing to the city's broader economic base. This legislation creates balance by retaining the controls in place for the 1st Floor, limiting office uses, business services, and institutional uses, while also requiring conditional use authorization for larger restaurants and bars. I urge you to support this legislation and recommend approval. That concludes my comments. Thank you for your time.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Brianna Morales (Housing Action Coalition)]: Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Brianna Morales, and I am with the Housing Action Coalition. And I'm here today to support supervisor Souder's, proposal. So San Francisco's zoning map hasn't kept pace with how our neighborhoods actually work for a long time. For too long, we've been operating under layers of outdated rules that no longer reflect how people live, work, and run their businesses. The result has been fewer open storefronts, more restrictions on what kind of businesses can operate, and barriers to building homes above our vibrant ground floors. This legislation brings our land use policy into the present by creating flexible standards and operations. We're able to see new housing, neighborhood serving uses, and it helps to address two crises at once. One, for homes, and two, for our empty commercial corridors. We need zoning that invites creativity, flexibility, and life back into our neighborhoods. We support this ordinance because it helps the city be more efficient and responsive, especially in places like North Beach with its prided and much beloved, walkable community oriented neighborhoods. At HACC, we believe that businesses, housing, healthy communities go hand in hand. And when we create homes near shops and restaurants and cultural spaces, we're not just adding housing, but we are also adding stability. We would love to see this proposal move forward so that we see this flexibility and the ever changing growing businesses and creativity that San Francisco is known for. Thank you very much.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Let's have the next speaker. And as that speaker is approaching the lectern, do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number 19 from whom we have not yet heard? Please line up to speak along that western wall. Next speaker, please.

[F. Joseph Butler (Architect)]: Thank you. My name is f Joseph Butler. I'm an architect here in the city, a member of the AIA Emeritus. Tenants live upstairs. 5% of the vacancies in North Beach show just how scary it is for small businesses. You can't find a space. And if the space you find isn't right for your business, is it North Beach's fault? No. Is it the rule's fault? No. Yeah. You can simplify the red tape of making permits, but you you can't put a square business in a round hole. Here's what is really scary. Let us in, the newcomers say. We wanna be part of a vibrant commercial district where little space is left, but we can't take the time or trouble same as those who came before us. With their shops consistent with local needs and made it vibrant, now we want in too. Early closing times keep the commercial and residential in balance. Second floor rent controlled housing is not an asset the community can afford to lose. I received no notice from the city regarding the legislation to change the district where I live. Oppose these changes, please. I attended three public meetings in North Beach about the zoning, but this camel's nose has only recently appeared. What's the hurry? Forty two years of negotiated, balanced, and fair community input to a set of rules that we can all agree to undone in forty days? No, thanks.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Neck. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Serena Sariasai]: Hi. My name is Serena Sariasai. I am a North Beach resident, and I lived both close to the Polk Street district as well as the North Beach District, and, I'm here in support of the legislation. I think that one of the things that it's hard to capture in this room is that there are a lot of businesses who wanted to open up in District 3 and have not been able to. They're not in the room here. You heard from butter and crumble, and you heard from Brandon. I live around the corner from these businesses, and I know how hard Brandon has worked to open up, it's been years, his business. And butter and crumble, too. And so, these are a flavor of the newer business owners that would be welcome if the if the rules were a bit easier. I also wanna say that I have kids. I I My kids have gone to Tell High Preschool. They've gone to all the local public schools. And I didn't even realize medical uses weren't allowed. And this is why I have to go to other neighborhoods to go to to take them to dentist appointments, doctor's appointments, etcetera. So what I'm asking for is for you to vote for flexibility, and for growth, and for all of the residents in District 3. Not just the ones who are here already. Thank you very much.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number 19?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair, Land Use and Transportation Committee)]: Okay.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: We may have a commenter approaching the lectern. Is there anyone else after this speaker who will want to speak? If so, please line up to speak along that wall. Please begin.

[Unidentified North Beach Neighbors representative (former president)]: I just ran up here. I hope this is the right meeting. I am I'm with North Beach Neighbors, and I'm here to endorse Danny Sauter's legislation. Sorry. Let me catch my breath. I have a kind of a long history with this legislation or this law that was here before. In 2006, I led a campaign to, change most of this law. I was, at the time, the president of the North Beach Neighbors. And, well, we were able to change some of it, but not most of it. And I think that the the legislation at the time went really too far. And noted to that after the legislation passed in 2006, a lot of storefronts were suffering. And Aaron Peskin, who who brought the legislation to to the board, admitted a couple years later that he too thought that it's it failed and it went too far. Danny's, Danny's legislation has not gone too far. It's going to really help businesses in North Beach. That's all I have to say. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number 19? Madam chair.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair, Land Use and Transportation Committee)]: Okay. Public comment on this item is now closed. Supervisor Mahmoud.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Committee Member)]: Thank you, chair. And thank you all to those who came in public comment, to, ask questions or note feedback on this legislation. Supervisor Sauter or the Planning Department wanted to ask, two questions based on some feedback we heard. The first was there were several comments about, increasing the to 3,000 square feet merger. Can you walk through a little bit more about what the intention is and what type of businesses that will help?

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: Yes. Thank you, supervisor Mahmoud. On storefront mergers, you know, I think that's something that we, throughout all of our engagement in the community, that's something we heard concerns about. What we tried to do here, striking a balance with the amendments, is open up a pathway for storefront mergers where they do not exist today. What we found is that in North Beach and on Polk Street, within those NCDs, currently, they are prohibited. So there's not even in theory, there's not even the possibility of them happening. However, what we've seen is that there has been special one off legislation written in the past for storefront mergers. Happened a year ago for Bob's Donuts on Polk Street, and we all love Bob's Donuts. But that illustrates why instead of doing it one off, let's actually look at the underlying controls of storefront mergers and make it so that if we're going to allow Bob's Donuts to do it in a way, by the way, that wasn't very transparent, let's actually bring it into the light. Let's set the rules up for everyone. Let's allow, public comment. Let's allow notices. Let's have the rules out front and center. We landed on 3,000 square feet because we felt that that was kind of an important transition point where, you know, things started to get natural I mean, obviously, they're getting larger after that. But with the amendments before, you have it to be conditional use up to 3,000 square feet. So it is not saying that you're you're able to do this by right. There is a public notice period. There's a public comment period. It is not by right. It gives the pathway, and it does not give a pathway after 3,000 square feet. And, you know, that was something we wrestled with. There are plenty of folks within restaurants who don't like that change we made, because it will prohibit, you know, another something like another original Joe's from ever existing in North Beach. But that's something we heard from the community, which is that there's a good supply of full scale restaurants that sometimes cater a little bit more to tourists. We're we're more interested in the small scale limited restaurants since that's where we landed, with 3,000 square feet.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Committee Member)]: Thank you. Second question was, we heard from several small businesses that advocated and support, one of them being Butter and Crumble. Can you walk us through maybe the specific ways this legislation will help businesses like Butter and Crumble to achieve what they're looking to do in your district?

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: In that specific example, the space that they are hoping to, to open in, for and I mean, well, I guess I shouldn't endorse, but every everyone knows how good their their pastries are. But they are looking to open a second store focused, exclusively or more so on on on their cakes. They just don't have any room in their current place for for that side of the business. So they're trying to do that in a space that has been empty for about four or five years, but its last use was, I think it was a frame shop. Been empty since then. Current legislation would not allow it them to open because they are a limited restaurant. And so our specific change allows a limited restaurant and unlimited restaurant only to be in a space that was retail before. Importantly, you know, because I know this has been a concern, it does not allow a full scale restaurant to do, such a transition, only a limited restaurant. Again, things that are more approachable to the neighborhood, generally a lower price point, and so that's the balance we found with limited restaurants only. So that piece in the legislation would specifically allow them to open. It's the same thing that's holding back the, the example I shared of the, cafe on Lombard Street in a in a, old dry cleaner that's been empty for eight years as well.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Committee Member)]: Thank you. Thanks again for this legislation. I'm excited to support I think it's based on the feedback we've heard. It's going to benefit a lot of businesses and kind of bring things into the light or transparency. Like you said, things are already happening. Let's try to do them through the process. I wanna make one final comment, though, which is just generally hearing all the feedback. I think appreciate everyone's perspectives. But I think I would like to comment on something personal, which is that, there were comments made about how long you have to be in San Francisco to be able to provide legitimate advice to what San Francisco can be. And I think I take some, question to that because we are in a moment right now, in a national crisis, where we are trying to invite refugees and immigrants to our city to provide them shelter. To and we're telling people that we wanna be welcoming to so many people across the country, especially as what's happening with our federal administration. So in a in a neighborhood that I represent, which has immigrants and refugees that have often only been here for a couple days, I think we have to set a precedent and a framework that, whether you've been here for ten days, ten years, or a hundred years, every person's views are valid. It doesn't matter how long you've been here. We have to respect the people who've been here for for some time, and and listen and hear from them. We have to take equal measure in listening to the people who've just landed at our doorstep, and show them an inviting way. And listen to them as well to say that we are all San Franciscans. And I hope that, in that spirit, we could acknowledge and respect everyone's opinions as well. Thank you.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair, Land Use and Transportation Committee)]: Thank you, supervisor Mahmoud. Supervisor Chen.

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair, Land Use and Transportation Committee)]: Thank you. I also want to appreciate all the commenters coming to speak. And I find this one very hard, too. I have been hearing and reading from stakeholders regarding this legislation that it's moving forward. But something about the process hasn't been really working. And and from what I'm seeing today, the communities, part of the communities seems very frustrated. And I I also hear that that our supervisor's office seems to be frustrating, and wanting to communicate. And and meetings do not cross. And this hasn't been an opportunity to get beyond. I I feel like they're adequately vetted in this legislation. So, again, then this really raised some concerns for me about how, as supervisors, that we actually continue to listen to our constituents. Especially when there's a request for, a process, or maybe a better process. In my very own background as a community and labor organizer, I always uplift, the need to build policy from ground up. So this is really important to me to make sure that we continue to engage, our community. And otherwise, I think the government acts if we knows everything, and we knows what is best. And I think this is not always the case that we know what is best. And again, if it's up to me, I would say this legislation is not ready, for its prime time. And I hope that, all parties could get together to talk it through, and find a path that continue to build stronger buy in, or limits the changes to more specific and real time needs of a particular projects. And I think at the very least, to ensure that policy making approach is more collaborative, and also informed by data. And for now, I feel like, I'm not ready to quite support this legislation as of today.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair, Land Use and Transportation Committee)]: Thank you, supervisor Chen. You know, there are substantive amendments being proposed today. So we cannot vote on it today. We will vote on it, as per supervisor request, on October 27. So that's three weeks from now. I will say, I am an urban planner and a geek about these things. This is not my district. However, I did look very closely at all the things that you have proposed, supervisor Sauter. And I just wanted to have a couple things, on the record. There is obviously a lot of, disagreement among neighbors about what should happen, to the future of the commercial corridors in District 3. Some of it is that we know we love our city so much. We love our neighborhood so much. We love the shops. We love the way the street feels. We love the way our homes interact with the businesses around us. I get that, and I share that, feeling. This city, gave my family, when I was a 12 year old refugee from a war torn country, a place to thrive, and a refuge from violence. And I'm very aware that if my family had landed anywhere else but the San Francisco Bay Area, I would not be here today. That upward mobility, that people who come here seeking freedom, whether you are gay from Ohio or, anywhere else in the world, is pretty unique. And it's because of who we are. That being said, all cities change. They change because new generations come to our city and set roots and shape the environment around us. And they change also because things change. So, you know, twenty, thirty years ago, the way we banked was very different than the way that we bank today. And we look at the land around us, and we have these huge financial institutions that have buildings all over the city that are empty. Because people do their banking online. When somebody brings you whatever your little heart desires in a little box to your house, the, you know, the the desire to go up to the 8th Floor of Nordstrom is just not as compelling anymore. Things have changed in the retail environment, in the last thirty years, fundamentally. And we need to reflect those changes in our rules to make sure that we are paving the way for our present and our future. That being said, I spent a big chunk of my career supporting small businesses. I am a huge small business advocate. My grandmother was a small businesswoman who had a second grade education and put every single one of her, you know, kids through college, including my mother, as a small businesswoman, owned her own home. And I know the power of small business, and how important it is for immigrants, for people who don't have other alternatives for employment. And so that being said, you know, it's very different when you, have a twenty year lease than when you're trying to come into a, you know, a neighborhood and start a new small business. Those are fundamentally different agendas. I get that. And as legislators, we have to make sure that both are addressed. Both the ability for existing businesses to thrive in protection, of their rights and investment, and also to make sure that new businesses can come in and thrive as well. Because those new businesses are often, owned and operated by immigrants, increasingly by women, by people who cannot pay, dollars 500 an hour to a lawyer to, do their, stuff. And I think that that's also our role. So that being said, thank you, supervisor Sauter, for spending the time, the effort, the energy to, do these things, to, try to strike a middle path, which I think this is. I don't think these are radical changes. I actually think that this is like a middle path toward from a very set of rules to, you know, something a little more open. I don't think that they are a doing away of formula retail restrictions. That actually is in our charter. It was passed by the voters, so we can't undo that. But it does allow for a little bit more flexibility. Yes, the prohibition cap is lifted to 3,000 feet, but it's still a conditional use. There's still a way for the community to weigh in if, things are not, the way that folks like. And, you know, there's always gonna be dissent. So for that, I am gonna take a look at the amendments that you presented today, because I have not gone through those in the same way as the legislation that you, had introduced earlier. And I think I will be ready to vote on it, in three weeks. When it comes back, I would encourage you to continue the conversations with folks in the community who are still anxious about these changes, and have questions. I will say, just to wrap up my comments, that, you know, in today's, you know, political landscape, what's going on in Washington, what's going on in our political, discourse in this country, it really, just disquiets me when people get really personal, when they disagree on political things, when they attack the legislator for being from Ohio, or for, you know, not having engaged with me personally, you know, and a ascribe evil motives to public servants, you know, it just doesn't feel right. So, and that goes both ways. That also goes for former supervisors who are no longer in office. There's no need to disparage those folks either on a personal way. So that being said, I hope that we can continue to collaborate, and try to serve the people of San Francisco, the folks who are here, who have contributed to the vibrancy of our neighborhoods, and the next generation. Because we also that's part of our role as well. So that being said, I understand oh, and Supervisor Sauter wants to say a few words, and then I think Supervisor Mahmoud is going to move the amendments.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: Absolutely. Thank you, Chair Malgaard. Thank you, supervisors, for your comment. And thank you to everyone who came today for public comment. Whether you spoke in support or opposed it, I appreciate you coming out here. I know this is a tough process. I know it can be inconvenient. I appreciate you spending time, and I I feel, you know, the the care for this district. I know, there's a lot of good intentions here for those opposed and those in support. You know, and I I I would kindly ask that we, you know, do keep keep on track with what is actually in this legislation. Again, you know, things that were mentioned today that have been flooding our inboxes, about this changing chain stores. It doesn't do that. This being related to housing and rezoning, it doesn't do that. Doesn't remove any protections for tenants. It doesn't do that. Doesn't, remove any historic preservation, pieces. So, you know, the conversations have been, largely productive. I'm about to bore you all reading three pages of amendments that we have made, listening to the community. But it has to be focused in what is in this legislation. I think that's productive for all of us. I would ask us to to to, keep that in mind. I will be asking, this committee to to consider a motion, which would amend this file, introduce, to take these amendments today. We We would then hear this back on October 27, so there'd be a continuance of this. And if it's okay, I I I believe I am to read these in the record. And, again, I will bore all of you. So apologies in advance. Okay. So the amendments today, include on page four, line 23, insert an additional asterisk after Polk Street. Remove reference to subsection b of section 121.2 from page five, lines three through 25, to page six, lines one through four. On page seven, lines five through six, strike out the North Beach neighborhood commercial district set forth in seven twenty two of this code. Amend page eight, line 17 through 18 to read, arts activities use uses as defined in section one zero two of this code shall be principally permitted on the 1st Floor and as a conditional use under section three zero three of this code on the 2nd Floor and above. Add in page nine, line one g. An existing retail professional service as defined in section one zero two of this code that has operated without the benefit of a permit prior to 06/17/2025 may be principally permitted and allowed to expand into another commercial space within the same structure. Such use shall not be required to be incidental to a principal or conditionally permitted use on the site. Additionally, such use shall be exempt from signage and public access restrictions on this SUD. Amend page lines 18 to 20 to read restaurant uses larger than 4,000 square feet, and bar uses may be permitted as conditional use through the procedure set forth in section three zero three. On page 15, line five, insert the sentence, the protection enhancement of the unique architectural, cultural, and historic character of North Beach shall be prioritized. On page 15, line seven, insert the sentence, special controls limit health services to small neighborhood serving medical and dental services while large scale medical facilities are prohibited. On line on page 15, line 11, strike out the words conversion back to conversion back to the excuse me. On page 15, line 14, insert the sentence. To honor the importance of legacy businesses and the success of the neighborhood, special controls are in place to prevent the replacement of an active legacy business with a non legacy business. On page 17, amend the use size table to read p, up to 3,000 square feet. C, 3,000 square feet and above. Ten five, division of a large use large use sizes per code one twenty one point five. On page 17, amend the storefront mergers table to read C up to 3,000 square feet. NP, 3,001 square feet and above. On page 17, amend the flexible retail table to read NP for second story and NP for third plus story. On page 17, amend the services health table to add 19 after C for first story. On page 18, line 18, add limited restaurant between A and restaurant. On page 19, line 25, and page 20, line one, capitalize the H in historic and the B in buildings. On page line 11, insert 19, health services permitted as a conditional use on the first story up to 3,000 square feet and not permitted 3,001 square feet and above. On page 21, amend the use size table to read P up to 3,000 square feet, C 3,001 square feet and above. Division of large use sizes per 121.5. On page 23, amend the bar table to read NP for first story. On page 23, amend the flexible retail table to read NP for second story and NP for third plus story. On page 28, line eight, add section nine. On September 9 on 09/02/2025, the board of supervisors finally passed ordinance number one seven three dash two five, board file number two fifty six thirty four, which was signed by the mayor on 09/05/2025 and became effective thirty days later. Ordinance number one seventy three twenty dash 25, amended planning code section one twenty one point two and the nonresidential standards for use size in the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District section seven twenty two and the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District section seven twenty three. In light of ordinance number one seven three dash two five being finally passed and approved at the regular meeting of the Land Use and Transportation Committee on 10/06/2025, the committee amended this ordinance to reflect the existing laws amended by ordinance number one seven three dash two five to clearly understand the proposed amendments to existing law contained in this ordinance. This ordinance shows in, quote, existing text font, plain aerial, the law currently in effect. Planning code sections one twenty one point two a, seven two two, and seven two three as enacted by ordinance number one seven three dash two five. The ordinance shows in board amendment font double underlined aerial for additions and strikethrough aerial for deletions, the amendments to existing law that the committee adopted on 10/06/2025. Ordinance number one seven three dash two five also amended planning code section one to 1.2 b to remove sub subsections one through four in light of ordinance number one seven three dash two five finally being finally passed and approved, and the more limited amendment to planning code section one two one point two b three, proposed in this ordinance as introduced at the regular meeting of the Land Use and Transportation Committee on 10/06/2025, The committee amended this ordinance to remove the proposed amendments to section one two one point two b three, such that this ordinance no longer includes that section. And thank you for bearing with me. I'm surprised there's people still here. I I will say if if if anyone wants to go over these specific amendments, please reach out, and we're happy to give it a more layperson's language. And colleagues, thank you for your time today and your consideration again.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair, Land Use and Transportation Committee)]: Yes. Thank you. And the amended version will be available on the website, so everybody can take a look at it. So thank you so much to our clerk for always staying on top of it. Supervisor Mahmoud.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Committee Member)]: Thank you, chair. I would like to move the amendments, as read into the record by supervisor Sauter for a vote, and then call for a continuation of the file to the October 27 land use and transportation meeting.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Two motions from supervisor Mahmood. The first being that the ordinance be amended, and the second, that the ordinance be continued as amended for consideration on the October 27 agenda. On those motions, vice chair Chen. Chen, I. Member Makhmoud Makhmoud, I. Chair Melgar? Aye. Melgar, I. Madam chair, there are three ayes.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair, Land Use and Transportation Committee)]: That motion passes. Thank you so much, supervisor Sauter. Mister Clerk, do we have any other items on our agenda?

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: There's no further business.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair, Land Use and Transportation Committee)]: K. We are adjourned.