San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Good afternoon, everyone. This meeting will come to order. Welcome to the 10/27/2025 regular meeting of the Land Use and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. I am supervisor Myrna Melgaard, chair of the committee, joined by vice chair supervisor Cheyenne Chen, and mister John Carroll. I would also like to thank Kalina Mendoza at SFGOV TV for helping us broadcast this meeting. Mister Clerk, do you have any announcements?

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Yes. Thank you, madam 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 the file for any of today's agenda items, you may submit them to me, and I'll meet you up front at the rail. You can hand them to me there. Public comment will be taken on each item on today's agenda. When your item of interest comes up and public comment is called, please 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 send your written public comment to me at johnperiodcarroll@sfgov.org. Or you may send your written comments via US Postal Service to our office in City Hall, and the address is 1, Doctor Carlton B Goodlett Place, Room 244, San Francisco, California 94102. If you submit public comment in writing, I will forward your comments to the members of this committee and also include your comments as part of the official file on which you are commenting. Items on today's agenda are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda of 11/04/2025 unless otherwise stated.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, mister Clark. For those of you tuning in tuning in for folks in the audience and for my colleagues, we do have a special order item, agendized for 3PM. If we happen to get through the other items more quickly, we will take and and it's not yet 3PM. We'll just take a short recess and come back at 3PM and hear that item. So with that, mister Clerk, let's call item number one, please.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Agenda number one is an ordinance amending the planning code to establish a process for the conversion of certain medical cannabis dispensaries to cannabis retail establishments. It affirms the planning department's secret determination and makes findings of consistency with the general plan and the eight priority policies of planning code section one zero one point one, and public necessity, convenience, and welfare findings pursuant to planning code section three zero two.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. We have Anna Herrera here from supervisor Fielder's office.

[Anna Herrera (Office of Supervisor Fielder)]: Hi. Hello. Good afternoon, Chair Melgar and Supervisors Chen and Mahmoud. I'm Anna Herrera on behalf of Supervisor Fielder. Supervisor Fielder sponsored this narrowly tailored ordinance on behalf of the mission operator and at request of planning and the office of cannabis. The ordinance will provide a mechanism for a medical cannabis dispensary to convert to cannabis retail under section one ninety, which previously expired on 12/31/2024. It will only apply to a medical cannabis dispensary that meets the following criteria. First, hold a valid permit from the office Cannabis to operate as a storefront cannabis retailer issued on or before 01/01/2025, and second, submitted a complete application to the planning department to convert to a cannabis retailer on or before 12/31/2024. These strict criteria ensure that the relief applies only to the single known applicant affected by the expiration of section 190, and prevents any broader reopening of the conversion process to other operators. The single known applicant in question is a dispensary known as STISY that is located at 3326 Mission Street in District 9. This establishment has been in the neighborhood since 2019, and initiated the process for conversion to a cannabis retailer in early twenty twenty four. However, due to administrative errors, they were not able to complete the conversion process before section one ninety expired last year. They have been operating in good faith, and we're cosponsoring this legislation to help clean up the air, and allow them to continue to operate at this location, as without this ordinance, they would have to cease operations. Thank you for your support today. I'm here to answer any questions, as is planning and the office of cannabis.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, miss Herrera. Welcome, Miss Flores. Thank you, Chair Melgar. Veronica Flores, planning department staff. The planning commission heard this item on October 2, and they unanimously adopted a recommendation for approval. So very brief, commissioner report for you today, but I'm available for any questions. Thank you. K. I don't see anyone on the roster, and I don't have any questions myself. So let's go to public comment on this item, please, mister Clark.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you, madam chair. Land use and transportation will now hear public comment related to agenda item number one. If you have public comment for this item, please come forward to the lectern at this time.

[Dustin Goa (STISI dispensary representative)]: Good afternoon, members of the Land Use and Transportation Committee. My name is Dustin Goa, and I'm here on behalf of STISI, and our store located at 3326 Mission Street. In support of item number one, for the conversion of medical cannabis use to, cannabis retail use. Our store has always operated in full compliance with both city and state regulations since 2019. Without this ordinance, long standing and compliant businesses like ours face unnecessary risk of closure. Even though we have we hold valid permits and have invested heavily in creating a safe, regulated, and transparent operation. Beyond compliance, we invest in the city of San Francisco by providing local union job, sponsoring city events such as the annual gun buyback event and beautify and, we began participating in the city's adopt the street program to help maintain and beautify the city. And we did dedicate self space to verify social equity products. We have worked diligently to ensure our operate to ensure we are operating compliantly and give back to the communities we operate in. We respectfully urge the Land Use and Transportation Committee and the Board of Supervisors to adopt this ordinance to protect compliant businesses, preserve union jobs, and maintain community benefits, and ensure equitable access to illegal cannabis. Thank you.

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

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you. And thank you, miss Hernandez, for coming. I would oh, public comment is closed. I'd like to please make a motion that we approve this item and send it to the full board with a positive recommendation.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: On the motion from the chair that the ordinance be recommended to the board of supervisors, vice chair Chen. Chen, I. Member Mahmood. Mahmood, I. Chair Melgar. I. Melgar, I. Madam chair, there are three ayes.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: That motion passes. Thank you. Let's go please, mister Clerk, and call items two through seven together.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Two through seven. Agenda item number two is an ordinance repealing the 2022 plumbing code enacting a 2025 plumbing code consisting of the 2025 California plumbing code as amended by San Francisco. Agenda item number three is an ordinance repealing the 2022 mechanical code in its entirety and enacting a 2025 mechanical code consisting of the 2025 California mechanical code as amended by the city. Agenda item number four is an ordinance repealing the 2022 electrical code and enacting the 2025 code consisting of the 2025 California electrical code as amended by the city. Agenda item number five is an ordinance repealing the 2022 green building code in its entirety and enacting a new code for 2025. Agenda item number six repeals the 2022 existing building code in its entirety and enacts the 2025 building code consisting of the 2025 existing building code as amended by the city. And agenda item number seven is an ordinance repealing the 2022 building code in its entirety and enacting a 2025 version of the code.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: I'm sorry, mister Clerk. I think we should also call item number eight with that group.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Also calling agenda item number eight, which is an ordinance amending the housing code to update references to to provisions of the 2025 building inspection codes, providing an operative date of 01/01/2026. That ordinance affirms the planning department's determination under CEQA.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you so much. We have, Tate Hanna here from the Department of Building Inspection.

[Tate Hanna (Department of Building Inspection)]: Thank you very much, Chair Milgar and committee members. Again, Tate Hanna, legislative affairs manager at the Department of Building Inspection. If we could get the slides up, please. Thank you very much. So these suite of code ordinances or these suite of ordinances, excuse me, introduce our twenty twenty five building standards codes. A bit of background, the triennial code update is a process of revising the California building standards codes to reflect new national model codes, and any state specific amendments. Process is designed to ensure the building codes are current with latest advancements in construction, safety, energy efficiency, and other standards. State law requires that San Francisco adopt these codes, by 01/01/2026. DBI's technical services division, or TSD, has done a review of the updated state code codes and provided recommended changes to ensure cross references, accurate code sections, chapter numbering is correct, and to remove any redundant sections. No proposals from DBI are substantive. They're exclusively designed to carry forward existing amendments and maintain a functioning code. These ordinances are hundreds of pages long. We wanna make sure that you all don't have to review these in excruciating detail. So any local code changes that are substantive have been pulled out of these, ordinances, and we'll do those separately in the future. The code advisory committee, before the introduction of these ordinances, reviewed each and every, local change. Then once the ordinances were introduced, the CAC along with the building inspection commission both reviewed the ordinances on October respectively. All code sections received unanimous recommendations for approval, and the depart depart excuse me. The department is recommending approval of the ordinances without modification as well. One note, the housing code does not fit into this typical, coalition of ordinances. There's a state requirement that the plumbing, mechanical, electrical, green building, and existing building all be repealed and and reenacted as twenty twenty five codes. The housing code is a bit of a unique local code that we have, but it hasn't been updated in numerous years. So we're adding it into this. It'll really just strike out the prior year, say, 2025 San Francisco housing code. Again, no some substantive changes there. I will note before the presentation is done, we do have a proposed amendment for item number twenty five thousand and nine five eight, the green building code. Formerly, there was a finding in there relating to a cost effectiveness study. That finding and the study are not necessary this year, and so we are proposing to remove that finding. I'm I'm happy to read that into the record at this time or whenever the chair would

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: like. Okay. Thank you so much. I don't see anyone on the roster with questions. Thank you to the Department of Building Inspection for this tremendous amount of work. We really appreciate it. Mister Clerk, let's go to public comment on these items, please.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you, madam chair. Land use and transportation will now hear public comment related to agenda item numbers two through eight called together. If you have public comment for these items, please come forward to the lectern at this time. And madam chair, it appears we have no speakers.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Public comment on this item is now closed. I would like to make a motion that we forward these items with a positive recommendation. I'm sorry. Amend the item first. It is number five.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Number five.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Let's do the amendment first, and then move everything with a positive recommendation to the full board.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: So first on the amendment presented for agenda item number five, motion by Melgar. On that motion, vice chair Chen? Chen, I, member Makhmoud? Makhmoud, I. Chair Mankmoud?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (vote interjection)]: Aye.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Melgar, I. Madam Chair, there are three ayes on that amendment.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. And then the motion is to send everything, including five as amended, to the full board with a positive recommendation.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: On the motion that agenda item members two through eight all be sent to the board of supervisors with agenda item number five being sent as amended. On that motion, vice chair Chen? Chen, I. Member Mahmood. Mahmood, I. Chair Malgar?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: I.

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

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Great. That motion passes. Thank you. Let's go to items nine, intent to gather, please. Mister Clerk.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Agenda item number nine is an ordinance amending the business and tax regulations code and the planning code to clarify time periods for appeals of decisions or determinations by the zoning administrator. It affirms the planning department's secret determination, makes findings of consistency with the general plan, and also findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare. Agenda item number 10 is an ordinance amending the planning code and business and tax regulations code to modify the city's state mandated accessory dwelling unit approval process and conform to changes to state ADU law, including by removing any appeal to the board of supervisors and increasing size limits for certain detached new construction ADUs on a lot containing a single family dwelling. It also affirms secret determinations, makes findings for consistency with the general plan. There they are.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Welcome, mister Starr. Tell us about this.

[Aaron Starr (Planning Department)]: Thank you. Good afternoon, supervisors. Aaron Starr, manager of lesser legislative affairs for the planning department. So the first ordinance, would amend the appeal times for the zoning administrative actions. It clarifies and corrects appeal timelines for decisions made by the zoning administrator and restores consistency and aligns the planning code with our original policy intent. So what it does, it, for the ten day appeal period, this would apply to variances, rear yard modifications, reasonable modifications, and elevator height exemptions. For the thirty day period, it would apply to enforcement actions like notice of violations, penalty decisions, and compliance actions. And the fifteen day appeal period, would apply to all other ZA determinations, such as letter letters of determination and zoning verification letters. So this matters because it fixes an error, from an ordinance number 40 dash 23 that unintentionally extended the thirty day appeal period to all non variance ZA actions. So it ensures clarity, fairness, and predictability for the applicants, and supports transparency and accountability. The planning commission heard this item, last week on October 23 on their consent, calendar, and recommended approval. The second ordinance, aligns San Francisco's planning code with recent changes to California state ADU law, Assembly Bill 130. It updates our local ADU regulations to ensure legal compliance, streamline permitting, and support, housing production. So some of the key changes, it changes our hybrid a ADU program to streamline ADU, to reflect changes in state law. It eliminates the board of appeals, process for state mandated ADUs per state law. And it expands the size limits for the, ADUs, which I believe is currently 800 feet. So if you have one bedroom or less, it would be 850 square feet. And if you have more than one bedroom, it would be a thousand square feet. It also increases the height, to 18 feet, and you get an additional two feet if you want to match your roof pitch to the main building. It also updates and simplifies the planning code in section two of 7.2 to reflect new state requirements. This ensures clarity, consistency in local regulations, removes outdated or conflicting standards, and reduces administrative burden, and improves permitting efficiency. The planning commission all her also heard this last week, and voted to recommend approval. Happy to answer any questions.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you so much. I don't see anyone on the roster with questions. Thank you, miss Gluckstein, also for your work on this. Let's go to public comment on this item, please.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Land use and transportation. We're now here a public comment related to agenda item numbers nine and ten called together. If you have public comment for these items, please come forward to the lectern at this time. And madam chair, it appears with no speakers.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Public comment is now closed. I would like to make a motion that we send both items to the full board with positive recommendation, please.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: On the motion offered by the chair that these two ordinances be recommended to the board of supervisors, vice chair Chen. Chen, I. Member Mahmood Mahmood, I. Chair Malgar.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Aye.

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

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you. Those items pass. Thank you. Mister Clerk, please call items 11 through 13 together.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Agenda item number 11 is an ordinance submitting the public works code to eliminate the requirement for a contractor parking plan as a condition precedent for approval of excavation permits for major work that is thirty consecutive calendar days or longer. And as a condition, precedent of specified temporary street space occupancy permits for construction work as well as the associated parking plan notice requirement and the parking plan review and inspection fees. Agenda item number 12 is an ordinance of many of the public works code to streamline the requirements and approval processes for the commemorative designation of public right of way and public places and the installation of commemorative street plaques to honor sites, events, and persons of historical interest or significance to San Francisco, eliminating the requirement that public works hold a hearing on applications for a commemorative street plaque. And agenda item number 13 is an ordinance amending the public works code to authorize the Department of Public Works to determine the circumstances under which contractors performing excavation in the public right of way shall be required to obtain a pollution liability insurance policy. Each of these three ordinances make CEQA findings.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you. We have, again, Lisa Gluckstein here from the planning department to take us through these ordinances.

[Lisa Gluckstein (Planning Department)]: Good afternoon, supervisors. Lisa Gluckstein, planning department. I'll run through each of these, ordinances in order. And I also wanted to flag that Ian Schneider from the Department of Public Works is also available to answer any questions that you might have on the specifics.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Great. Thank you.

[Lisa Gluckstein (Planning Department)]: Given that I'm not the public I I can't represent the Department of Public Works as as well as he can. So, just wanted to provide some context of these three ordinances in in along with the past mayor's permit SF effort to streamline the permitting process and reduce, unnecessary obligations for applicants going through the permitting process in San Francisco. And these changes to the public works code, we thought to be common sense improvements that will remove burdens for applicants that weren't adding value, to other city priorities. So to start, we are changing the requirements that, applicants who have received excavation permits submit a parking plan for certain projects. And the backstory behind that is that currently, major excavation projects require a parking plan to be submitted to the that's reviewed by the Department of Public Works. And these don't actually change, the facts on the ground in terms of the impacts to parking, but require, the applicant to submit this administrative plan that's administratively approved. And it's both a burden for the applicant and the department in reviewing these plans, without many tangible impacts in terms of improving parking on the ground. So the ordinance proposes removing that requirement to projects that are currently subject to this parking plan requirement. Second, we wanted to streamline the approval process for commemorative plaques that are in the public right of way. Currently, those are subject typically to two separate, hearings at the board of supervisors, including and then in addition to that, it includes arts commission review and approval by the Department of Public Works. We would allow for the delegation of one of those board of supervisors' approval so that there's only one hearing before the board of supervisors. It's still, a fairly involved process, but we're reducing some of the process. And, you know, the thinking there is we these are additions to the public right of way that then must be accepted by the city. So we do want some controls as to how, those proposals are reviewed. But it doesn't require two. It should not require two hearings at the board of supervisors. So we are changing the process there. And then on the third, there's currently a pollution liability insurance coverage requirement for for excavation permits. And that, frankly, does not apply to all projects. So we're just including elective or optional language in the code switching from mandatory to as applicable. So the requirement only applies if it's relevant to the excavation at issue in the permit. So those are the three changes, and happy to answer any questions that you might have.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you so much. I do have, like, a very minor question as to that last point. How does that intersect with the MAAH ordinance? Or is that

[Lisa Gluckstein (Planning Department)]: anything that is subject to the MAAH or ordinance would still be subject to those requirements. This doesn't change any of those obligations. This is just the insurance requirement.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. So I don't see anyone on the roster with any other questions or comments. So let's go to public comment on this item, please, mister Clark.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you, madam chair. Land use and transportation. We're now here public comment related to agenda item agenda item numbers 11 through 13. If you have public comment for these three items, please come forward to the lectern at this time. And it appears we have no speakers.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Public comment on this item is now closed. I would like to make a motion to send items 11 through 13 to the full board with a positive recommendation.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: On that motion offered by the chair that these three ordinances be recommended to the board of supervisors, vice chair Chen. Chen, I. Member Mahmoud. Mahmoud, I. Chair Malgar? I. Malgar, I. Madam Chair, there are three ayes.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. That motion passes. Mister Clerk, please go to item number 14.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Agenda item number 14 is an ordinance amending the planning code to require conditional use authorization prior to replacing a legacy business with a new nonresidential use in certain neighborhood commercial named neighborhood commercial and neighborhood commercial transit districts and in the Chinatown mixed use districts. The ordinance affirms the planning department's secret determination and makes findings of consistency with the general plan, and also findings of necessity, convenience, and welfare under planning code section three zero two.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you so much. We are now joined by District 1 in supervisor and sponsor of this legislation, supervisor, Connie Chan. The floor is yours.

[Supervisor Connie Chan (District 1)]: Thank you, Chair Malgar. And thank you so much for scheduling this item at this critical moment after last week's land use and transportation meeting. While this committee continues the conversation on the mayor's upzoning plan and reviews proposed amendments, there's a lot more that needs to be done, even outside, the plan to make sure that we protect our tenants and small business. And this legislation before you today, is trying to exactly, to try to do that. Many small business owners, especially those whose families have contributed greatly to our city for generations, are concerned about the increased development incentives and pressure of potential displacement. We have seen this along many commercial corridors already, where existing businesses have to deal with predatory landlords and faceless corporations and billionaires, who aim to monopolize neighborhood corridors by buying up blocks of commercial properties and keeping them vacant until they decide whatever it is that they want to do with it. The upzoning plan, without any real preventative measures, will only add to that pressure of displacement and increasing that risk for speculative real estate investments. The ordinance before you today aims to add a layer of protection for those long time businesses because we recognize that legacy and long time businesses are not just business entities, they are cultural assets that support the defining characteristics of our neighborhoods. It really, with them, with our legacy business, they make San Francisco a unique and attractive place to work, live, and to do so much more, including even starting a new business and raising families. The ordinance will simply make permanent the existing interim controls, which colleagues, maybe with the exception of, supervisor Ma'am, supported. This interim zoning control will expire next year, requiring business to obtain a conditional use authorization, as they've been, if they are to displace a legacy business. The ordinance has an exemption, after lengthy discussion with small business commission. This the exemption is for the storefronts where there have been a vacancy for more than three years, and now we are going to allow, legacy business to remove themselves from the registry if they need flexibility, but more amendments to also exempt, business and small business, which in definition, with gross receipts under 5,000,000, to be able to move into that space without a CU. I understand that there are comments from planning staff. So if I may, to go ahead to start specifically, addressing those. So in response to the planning commission and staff report, I would like to propose the amendments for this committee to consider. First, adding an exemption for other small businesses from the conditional use authorization to further protect the small business community, as I mentioned earlier. Second, extending the protection to other small businesses by allowing businesses in operation for at least fifteen years to apply to the registry if the Historic Preservation Commission and Small Business Commission find that the business has significantly contributed to the history or identify of a particular neighborhood, but faces imminent risk of displacement. The amendments also include finding that this ordinance is consistent on balance with the City's general plan and eight priorities policies. Particularly, this ordinance is consistent with the Commerce and Industry Elements objectives, Policy 1.1, 2.1, 2.3, and 3.1. Again, legacy businesses are considered by the Historical Preservation and Small Business Commission as contributors of our neighborhoods and are deemed cultural assets that, first, enhance the city's total living and working environment. Two, maintain and enhance the diversity of the city's economic base and fiscal structure. Three, maintain favorable social and cultural climate and attractiveness as a place of commerce. And last but not least is expand employment opportunities, particularly for minorities and economically disadvantaged communities. I know that in Richmond, what we have seen though, a lot of legacy business are typically Russian speaking immigrants, as well as Chinese speaking immigrants, including Korean speaking immigrants, that really are the business owners of the legacy business in, the Richmond. But we know that Richmond is not unique. We see legacy business owners throughout the city. Oftentimes, our generations of San Franciscan families, and oftentimes, come from immigrants. I surely hope that we will consider this, as a way to protect not just the business themselves, but really, the culture and the traditions that these businesses have brought to make San Francisco such a diverse and beloved city that it is today. Thank you, Chair Melgar. I hope to have your support.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, Supervisor Chan. I believe we have Lisa Gluckstein here from the planning department to tell us about their comments.

[Lisa Gluckstein (Planning Department)]: Good afternoon, again, supervisors. So the planning commission heard this item, at its October 16 hearing, and considered the ordinance, which would require a conditional use authorization prior to replacing a legacy business with a new non residential use in NC in neighborhood commercial districts and in Chinatown mixed use districts. And the planning commission adopted a recommendation for disapproval and made findings of inconsistency with the general plan. The commission voted against this or to adopt that recommendation five to two. Happy to answer any questions on behalf of the department.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. We have a question from supervisor Mahmood. So maybe you want to stay around.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Committee Member)]: This is the first time I'm seeing the amendments that are proposed today. Has the planning commission was this discussed with the planning commission? And what is the planning department's perspective on the amendments being proposed today as well?

[Lisa Gluckstein (Planning Department)]: It was not discussed, among the commission. However, you know, the planning department or planning commission, rather, has the option of making a recommendation for approval with modifications. They did not in that circumstance. And that's typically what they would do if they would like to see the ordinance continue with amendments. And the department's perspective on the proposed amendments around the gross receipts are twofold. One is that, the planning department is not in the business of verifying gross receipts of a of a business. You know, the planning department did, and the commission did discuss at length whether it was appropriate to use a land use control, which is designed to regulate impacts and the appropriateness of a type of use in a certain location to, essentially incentivize specific businesses, which is what the legacy business program does. There's a fundamental mismatch between land use controls and legacy business, incentives, which exist for the city. You know, the legacy business program is administered by the Office of Small Business. And Carrie Bernbach is here, who's the commissioner for the Small Business Commission, and is a member of the Office of Small Business, can hear is here to comment on that. But fundamentally, the the commission arrived at the conclusion that, you know, this is not the appropriate place for land use controls around legacy businesses, that they would prefer to see proactive incentives, outside of the realm of land use to encourage legacy businesses to continue to exist in the city. And they agree with the intent of the ordinance to support small business, but not with the requirement that a conditional use authorization be placed as a retroactive way of supporting legacy businesses. As for the 5,000,000 just to return to the, gross receipts question, and that amendment as proposed by supervisor Chan today, there's no real mechanism. Planning does not have a way of verifying gross receipts of a business. It's actually tax information that we have no way of accessing. And I suppose the way that would work is the applicant would submit some sort of affidavit attesting to their gross receipts, but it's not really in the realm of what the planning department regulates. And so understanding which businesses are kicked in or out of this requirement is a bit of an implementation challenge. And it is also another step in the approval process for any business that seeks to occupy a space formerly occupied by a legacy business.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Committee Member)]: Just to clarify then, maybe a question for the city attorney as well. So you said that these amendments were not discussed at the planning commission?

[Lisa Gluckstein (Planning Department)]: That's the I don't believe that, Calvin mentioned these amendments, specifically.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: If I could just chime in. I don't think that that's quite the question, because I think that what you're trying to get at is, does this need to be re referred if we approve it with these amendments at some point? So I think that the question, perhaps, is were these issues discussed at the planning commission discussion on the legislation? Have you seen the amendments so that you do it? I have not seen

[Lisa Gluckstein (Planning Department)]: the amendments. But to the extent that the amendments narrow the scope of the ordinance, my understanding is that it would not need to be re referred to the commission, because we are narrowing the ordinance. But I defer to the city attorney on that question specifically.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Committee Member)]: City attorney?

[Brad Russi (Deputy City Attorney)]: Good afternoon, supervisors. Deputy city attorney Brad Russsey. I will need to get back to you on the question of whether the, amendment that puts the $5,000,000 trigger would require a refer. I don't know. It sounds like that that particular aspect was not discussed at planning. So it these are gonna be substantive anyway. So we can work that out later, whether it needs to go back to planning. You could con if you adopt the amendments today, you could continue this to either the call of the chair or your next meeting. And in in the interim, we can determine whether it needs to go back to planning in the interim. Okay. Thank you.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Act that's what I was gonna say. These are substantive, so they're gonna need to sit at least a week. And since next week, if we're looking at the

[Lisa Gluckstein (Planning Department)]: sorry. I wanted to correct the record.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Just Sorry. As I finish, next week is the family zoning plan again. So I'm not sure if we can accommodate it in the schedule. So let me think about that for a second. But, yeah, Go ahead.

[Lisa Gluckstein (Planning Department)]: Calvin read the the concept into the record, but it was not he he read it into the record, the 5 the $5,000,000 threshold, but the amendments were not presented

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. To happen. Yeah. Okay. Supervisor Chan, did you have something to add?

[Supervisor Connie Chan (District 1)]: I mean, it was right. Like, it was discussed. And, technically, if you were discussed at the planning commission, you do not need to re refer, even though you don't have the actual amendments proposed, one. Two, it wasn't actually until some of those amendments that is before you today is based on as a response back to the planning staff report about the fact that identifying why they actually recommended to disapprove this legislation, and identify legacy as a business entities, where we make the argument through the findings that we're disputing the staff's report. So just wanted to be on the record to say that while it was not proposed as specific amendments, it was clear that in that discussion, and frankly, even among the planning commission, that while, by the way, is not five two, but four two, because commission commissioner Gilbert William was absent that day, We know that it could have been a close vote at planning commission. It wasn't overwhelming, and let alone the fact that all legacy business goes through historic preservation commission for registry. It's clearly beyond as a business entity, but it builds characteristic of the corridors in the neighborhood. Hence, the findings that before you today as part of the amendments that we dispute that. I think that the questions that I I would a policy debate here today is, while we all know, colleagues, time to time legislative tools, that we we have in our toolbox, we utilize as different ways to make sure that we accomplish the policy goal. Conditional use authorization has been a long standing legislative tool for a public discussion about land use and what we ought what we should be doing, in the space in our neighborhood. And here is to say, if a legacy business were to be displaced, it should be a public process. And if it was to be replaced, because displaced and then replaced, because of a new development, then what should be in place of it? And here, with the amendments, again, additional amendments before you were to say about small business, which quite frankly, they are registered differently with the tax collector's office. It's easy to get their tax ID and documentation to identify themselves as small business. That is how we collect our taxes. And so, it's a documents can be provide can be provided to planning. And again, therefore, the amendments is to say we want to maintain, if not legacy business, let's make sure there's still small business in this neighborhood commercial corridor. And again, it's very specific. It's not everywhere, but specifically on neighborhood commercial corridor, which we know, there's already worry about formula retail, coming in. And, and so I hope to have your support, but I agree that it's substantive, the amendments before you today. I do hope that, for the very least, we could adopt the amendments before you, and that allow the con conversation to be continue. And I do agree that November 3, is gonna be a a whole lot of conversation, and that, we should perhaps separate the two. But I also think that it's hard to separate the two because, the need of of pushing this to be permanent instead of interim zoning control also has to do with the fact that the current upzoning plan has very little protection for small business. And thanks, you know, thank you to supervisor Melgaard that there is actually a relief fund. But even then, we are dependent on the executive branch's commitment to fund the fund. So I think those things are very limited. We gotta utilize every tools in our toolbox.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Understood. Thank you, supervisor Chan. I, you know, will only point out that there are several other pieces of trailing legislation by several colleagues that also are meant to be an accompaniment to the plan to, you know, have to address issues that cannot be addressed simply by planning. That was my only, thing about the November 3. But can I ask you, mister Clerk, were we to continue this to the call of the chair, would it require noticing?

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: This item didn't require noticing special noticing at this committee to appear on this agenda.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: So it shouldn't.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: It shouldn't. Not not over and above our usual weekly notice

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: that we put

[Speaker 10.0]: on the Okay.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Yeah. So I'm not saying, supervisor Chen, that we cannot do it on the third. So just that it's gonna be difficult, which is why I would I'm requesting a little more flexibility. But with that, supervisor Mahmoud.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Committee Member)]: I was also wondering, is office of small business here as well? I wanted to get their perspective on the legislation and the amendments as well.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you.

[Carrie Bernbach (Office of Small Business; Commission Secretary)]: Good afternoon. Carrie Bernbach with the office of small business. I'm also the commission secretary, so I'm prepared to I can talk about what the commission discussion was, but they weren't made aware of the amendments. But is do you wanna hear it? Yeah. The commission discussion? Okay. The small business commission discussed this item at length at their August meeting, and voted to make no recommendation on this proposal. During the discussion, commissioners agreed that legacy business displacement is a concern, but that the conditional use authorization mechanism was not the right solution. Commissioners explained that their thoughts on the CU requirement have evolved significantly over time. Initially, it sounded like it would be a valuable tool to allow community feedback. Over time and through on the ground experience, however, they realized that a CU requirement is challenging in terms of application timelines and uncertainty. They noted that CU requirements deter the communities they are trying to protect, people of color in particular who lack access to lawyers and capital to navigate the lengthy process. Commissioners also noted that data over the last year evaluating the impact of existing interim controls doesn't indicate that the requirement is effective. Happy to answer any questions about their discussion.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. Yes, Supervisor Chan?

[Supervisor Connie Chan (District 1)]: And we concur with the small business, like, understanding that it could be small business commissions understanding that it could be difficult, for, small business that goes through the CU, and in order for them to move into the place. It's the reason why you do see the amendments before you that were exempting small business and legacy business 15 years and older to be able to move into that space and that they do not require a CU. And I do wanted to add to this, though, specifically that this actually is derived from the business that was was the sorry. The legacy business that was facing displacements or potential displacements on the block of Fillmore, when someone actually brought up a billionaire bought up the block, and that Ten Yichi and Lat Mediterrane, were facing issues about renewing their lease. And I think that if you were to discuss this with the Lat Mediterrane, owners, they would let you know that a legacy business CU being put in place provide them the leverage to be able to have those discussion, with the landlord and being able to renew the lease. And so I just wanted to put it out there that it has its use. It's not it's not, it's it's not a silver bullet. It doesn't solve everything. But I think, definitely, it's a tool in the toolbox where, both small business and, district supervisor can utilize to to help support.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you very much. With that, let's go to public comment on this item, please, mister Clark.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you, madam chair. Land use and transportation. We'll now hear the public comment for agenda item number 14, legacy businesses and neighborhood commercial districts. If you have public comment for this item, please come forward now to the lectern. And it appears we have no speakers, madam chair.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. With that, public comment on this item is now closed. Supervisor Chen.

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: Thank you, Chair Merga. I would like to make a motion to adopt, supervisor Chen's amendments into item number 14.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Did you have further discussion, supervisor?

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Committee Member)]: Just wanted to comment that, I have concerns about the legislation that's presented, especially given the comments that the Planning Department has made, and given the recommendations coming out of there, as well. And these amendments are substantive, and came quite late before this committee. And so, the planning we haven't had a chance to discuss with the planning department, even these amendments. It doesn't seem that they were made aware of the amendments yet, either. So, I'm inclined to I'll accept these amendments today to allow further time for review, both by my office as well as the planning department, so we can make a decision at the subsequent meeting. But would appreciate a larger heads up next time so that both the departments and our offices have some time to review and further discussion as well.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. There's a motion on the floor, mister Clerk.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Motion offered by vice chair Chen that the ordinance be amended as presented by supervisor Chan. On that motion, vice chair Chen? Chen, I. Member Makamud? Makamud, I. Chair Melgar?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: I.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Makman, I. Madam Chair, there are three ayes on the amendments.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you. Did you wanna chime in before I make a motion, soup supervisor?

[Supervisor Connie Chan (District 1)]: Yes. I I just wanna recognize what supervisor Mamaw Mamaw has mentioned, and that, like, absolutely, we wanted to make sure that we have more time for this commit we absolutely. We wanted to make sure that we have more time for this commit we should have had more time for this committee to review and process before you make the decision today. So I really appreciate for your support and with the continuance that that I hope we can answer any questions, and be able to have those discussions. So I'm really grateful. Thank you.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, supervisor. I would like to make a motion that we continue this item to the call of the chair. And I will work with supervisor Chan's office to find a time that works, giving everyone time to digest the amendments, and also working with the clerk through our very busy schedule from now till the end of the year.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Motion offered by the chair that the ordinance be continued to the call of the chair as amended on that vice chair Chen. Chen, I. Member Mahmood. Mahmood, I. Chair Malgar.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: I.

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

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. That motion passes. Thank you. So we are done with this portion of the meeting. The next item is agendized as a special item, a special order item at 03:00. So we're gonna recess and reconvene at 03:00.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: No sooner than 03:00?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: No sooner than 03:00. So we're adjourned. Thank you. Recess. Recess. That's alright. We're recessed.

[Speaker 10.0]: Television.

[Speaker 13.0]: Sorrows. Sorrows.

[Speaker 14.0]: We're here at 47th And Golden, the archery range here at Columbia Park, and I'm here with my friend, Jim, who's an expert at archery. He's gonna give us a few tips. First off, let's see. I think safety is really important.

[Speaker 15.0]: That's an excellent idea. So, number one, just, with anything like archery, you wanna make sure that everything is pointed at the target. So once we have an arrow on the bow, we wouldn't want to point it at somebody. We would always wanna make sure that what we're doing is pointed downrange toward the target. So number two is, you know, the number one is for mostly for protecting other people. Protecting yourself is important too. So you always want to use a tab or a glove like the one you're wearing for, finger protection when drawing and releasing the string. Also, our arm guards keep the string from hitting our arms on the release. What we're using today is a very modern and contemporary recurve bow. So compounds, long bows, recurves, there are Asian, Asiatic bows, Mongolian, Japanese, Turkish, Syrian, very distinctive shapes, totally different flavors of archery just

[Speaker 14.0]: based on

[Speaker 15.0]: Let's try this. Alright.

[Speaker 14.0]: Archery is all about accuracy if you try to hit the target. The sports roots go way back to hunting and battlefields, but today it's evolved into something recreational and competitive. This range is in a chill spot tucked into a peaceful wooded area on the west end of the park. This is a lot of fun, guys. Whether you're just starting out or already a pro, it's the perfect place to practice. There are well maintained target bales at different distances, all surrounded by tall trees and lush greenery, creating a calm atmosphere. That was awesome. I well, you can't get better than that. Right? Am I getting too close? The range is run by volunteers and it's totally free to use, but you'll need to bring your own gear or rent some nearby. Locals and tourists love it whether they're honing their skills or just wanting to try something different outdoors in the city. Oh, that was a bad one. Archery can be very humbling.

[Speaker 16.0]: Not too bad.

[Speaker 14.0]: This one is a little high because that was my second shot. I couldn't really I I didn't really feel that one as well, but once I got it honed in, I think Yeah. I got one in the 10.

[Speaker 15.0]: So let's go that way.

[Speaker 14.0]: Oh, wow. Farther back. Oh, left again.

[Speaker 15.0]: Just left. Oh, just to the left. That's the right elevation to it.

[Speaker 14.0]: I saw that.

[Aaron Starr (Planning Department)]: You got it.

[Speaker 14.0]: Okay. Last arrow. I visualize it. Yeah. Right at the last second. Oh, so close. I look so good in the air. It's alright. Next time. That's why I gotta come out here. Practicing. That was very exhilarating. I love archery. Man. Tim, why do you love archery?

[Speaker 15.0]: What's not to like? You can do what we just did which is spend time together exploring it and working on it. You can also have a blast going off into the woods by yourself, so all of the, you know, this range, any range, you can do it with friends, you can do it by yourself, you can get the experience you want from it.

[Speaker 14.0]: That was a lot of fun. And I thank you for being my buddy on this archery.

[Speaker 15.0]: That's my pleasure. It's good to see you, Michael. That was great.

[Speaker 14.0]: Now, we're gonna go rowing. Now we're at the Blue Heron Boat House. We can rent two different kinds of boats. There's actually a pedal boat and a rowboat. I think we're gonna go get a rowboat. Let's go get on the lake.

[Speaker 13.0]: Time to row a boat. Row a boat. Boat. Boat. Boat.

[Speaker 14.0]: Surrounded by greenery, this man made lake is a nice little escape from the busy city. The key thing is to get into a rhythm and move and sync with the water and your boat. It can have a calming, meditative feel while still giving you a serious workout. Alright. Oh, how cool is this? Woah. Look how big that tree is. It's, like, nice and peaceful out here. I'm the only one. That means I think people really need to come out here. It's actually really calm out here. As you navigate the lake, you'll pass by Strawberry Hill, an island in the middle of the lake with a waterfall, trails, and tons of wildlife like ducks, turtles, and birds. Strawberry Hill is connected by two bridges to the park, and it's the highest point in Golden Gate Park. It includes Huntington Falls, a 110 foot tall artificial waterfall that feeds into the lake. There's also the Chinese Pavilion, a gift from San Francisco's sister city, Taipei, Taiwan. It's a charming place to rest and take in the

[Speaker 10.0]: views.

[Speaker 14.0]: That was a workout for the arms. I love boating. That was a lot of fun getting out on the lake. But now I gotta work at the legs. Let's go skating.

[Speaker 17.0]: We're here at

[Speaker 14.0]: the skating place on 6th And Fulton. Beautiful day. I think I'm gonna rent some roller blades. Let's get rolling.

[Speaker 13.0]: Get your skate to all. Skate to

[Speaker 10.0]: skate to skate to skate.

[Speaker 14.0]: If you're looking for a fun way to spend a Sunday afternoon, check out the skating place. It's near 6th Avenue and Kennedy Drive and has a great surface that's perfect for practicing or hanging out with fellow skaters. Oh, man, this is, this is very nostalgic for the millennial in me. Nineties, playing with my boys, some street hockey. I haven't ridden blades in a while, but it's gonna be like riding a bike. Alright. Let's go. I'm here at the Freezed Sunday Roller Disco Party from noon to 5PM. The Godfather Escape brings his mobile DJ unit and plays groovy tunes for you to skate to. And if you need skates, no worries. Rentals are available nearby from 11AM to 6PM on the weekends, starting at just $12 an hour for kids and 20 for everyone else. The Skating Place has been here since 1986, and it got a fresh makeover in 2022 with new pavement and a stunning mural by local artist Amy Stedlin. The mural, called Psychedelic Golden Gate Skate, features a colorful design that celebrates the park's roller skating history. What? Plus, it was created in collaboration with the Church of Eight Wheels, which is all about keeping the skating spirit alive. Oh, this is fun. I had no idea this was over here. San Francisco has everything. Oh, it's so nostalgic getting back on some rollerblade just like being a little kid. This is Golden Gate Adventures, and I'm Michael Baltazar from SFGIV TV. Thanks for watching.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: I am supervisor Myrna Melgar. I am the supervisor for District 7. I, am an immigrant to San Francisco. My family came when I was 12, from El Salvador during the civil war. A bunch of, you know, war refugees, this place gave us security, safety, and an opportunity to thrive. So I love the city deeply. And as a mother of three kids who have grown up as city kids, you know, I am grateful for everything the city has to offer to people like me and to families. I have been politically involved my whole life, either in government or as a nonprofit worker, and I care about the community. I care about people around me, and I wanna make sure that as the world changes around us, other people have the opportunities that my family did. We are back in San Francisco post pandemic. So important to be out supporting our businesses, supporting our neighbors. I'm the first woman to represent this district, believe it or not. I'm the first Latina elected to the board of supervisors without an appointment first ever. So I do think that diversity is important. I want immigrants to be represented, women, moms, you know, people that have different experiences because that brings richness to our decision making. And I think that it makes for better decisions, so that's what inspired me to run. But District 7 is one of the most diverse districts in San Francisco, both in terms of, economics and also ethnicity. It spans now all the way north, from Golden Gate Park. It includes, all of the institutions in the park, the Ferris wheel, the music concourse, the museums, to the South to the Daly City border, and West to the ocean, includes the zoo, Fort Funston, all of those fun things, and then to 280 on, the East. So it includes a city college, San Francisco State. It has UCSF Parnasa. So it's very large geographically. It is mostly single family homes. So it is the place where, for generations, families set roots, send their kids to school. We have nice parks, Lake Merced, Mount Davidson.

[Speaker 10.0]: This is like a a village within the city, so we're a very close knit community. We tend to band together and try to support one another, and and also it's just a friendly place for families and people to have a cup of coffee and check out the park.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Ocean Avenue at which is at the southern end of our district is a very vibrant commercial corridor that mostly caters to our local neighborhoods, but also to the students. And as you go further west, you know, you have Stone's Town Mall, which has some of the best Pan Asian food offerings, I think, in the city, if you haven't been there. It's really fun. As you go up a little bit further, there's West Portal Avenue, which is a very old school, you know, commercial district where you can still find antique shops and cobbler shops and, you know, as well as, like, more modern restaurants. It is definitely hopping and full of families on any weekend.

[Speaker 16.0]: I'm Matt Rogers. I'm the co owner of Pappenhausen Hardware on West Portal Avenue.

[Speaker 18.0]: And Carl Aguilar, other co owner of Pappenhausen Hardware in West Portal.

[Speaker 16.0]: We're a a neighborhood hardware store. It's been a community institution since it was founded in 1936. We have a little bit of everything for do it yourself home repairs to gardening or gift buying.

[Speaker 18.0]: Like, my entire experience in San Francisco has been with this community. It's a very small town feel for a big city. The the the community is really caring and connected, and I like that.

[Speaker 16.0]: What what makes me excited about doing business in District 7 is just that I know it so well. I grew up here. I know a lot of the customers. I they were childhood friends or parents of childhood friends. Childhood friends, and it's just a very comfortable place, and it it it feels like home.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: If you go up north, we have the Inner Sunset Commercial Corridor, which has an awesome farmer's market on weekends, and a plethora of restaurants. There's Iranian. There's Ethiopian. There's everything you need.

[Speaker 19.0]: It's really friendly, and they stop and talk to you about, you know, the daily days. And and I love that they bring their kids with them. They teach them how to use their money interchange, and it's something that you don't see in too many markets and in other communities. But I love to see the kids as they're coming and talking to you. You know, it's something different than I see from other markets.

[Speaker 20.0]: What I loved about this district was the easy access to transit in the inner sunset and the ability to do a lot of our shopping on foot. And now the improved biking with JFK being close to cars because we have a four and a half year old who rides her bike, you know, we now have a safe place to go ride bikes, so we don't have to worry about traffic.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: So graffiti continues to be one of these things that, during the pandemic just got out of control everywhere in the city. And I do think that it is, pampering our recovery of commercial corridors. So, some of the volunteers on, West Portal Avenue, some of the merchants got together with our interns at our office to do some just hands on abatement, and we've been doing it regularly ever since. We're doing it once a week. We have a wonderful neighbor, Carrie Sykes, who has been organizing and storing the paint and the supplies in her office on West Portal, but this obviously needs more than just a volunteer effort. I'm really grateful for the collaboration. We passed legislation at the board and put $4,000,000 in the budget over the next twenty four months to help the Department of Public Works hire laborers and labor apprentices to abate the graffiti on private property on commercial corridors. I think that for a couple years, this is a good recovery strategy until we can get back up as normal after this awful pandemic. Participatory budgeting is a pot of money that is available every year for for District 7 neighbors to propose projects that improve the neighborhood in the district. And so, anyone, any organization in, the district can propose a project.

[Speaker 21.0]: And then it's a vote. It's a

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: popular vote. So we have 14 projects that were just approved. So we have 14 projects that were just approved, and they span from, you know, a vegetable garden at Aptos Middle School to, you know, pedestrian safety projects on Slowhurst Avenue. It just runs the gamut, but it's really wonderful because it allows people to be engaged in a real way and then to see the outcome of their, you know, energy and work because the things, you know, get improved right in front of them.

[Speaker 22.0]: I think I really like that it's really close to the both parks and, like, a bunch of businesses as well as just, like, a very calm feel. Like, it feels very peaceful still still, even though it's close to a lot of things, which makes it feel just very serene, but then also not boring, you know, just like there's always stuff to do too.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: So there's lots to see, taste, and experience in District 7.

[Speaker 23.0]: A deepfake is a picture that is altered by artificial intelligence, but can take a photo of anyone, anytime, anywhere and turn it into pornographic naked images. Not surprisingly the majority of images that are loaded into these sites and are notified and distributed are women and a disturbingly high number of them are children. Without the individual's consent or even knowledge be generating these photos and sending them out for the world to see and particularly for young women this can just be devastating to them. This isn't about tech, this is about sexual abuse. Sexual abuse of women, sexual abuse of children, that we have the power to at least take some steps to stop.

[Speaker 24.0]: I brought this lawsuit in part because of our city's role in helping to shape the future of artificial intelligence. There are so many positive benefits to AI technologies, but we also know that there are dark sides. The ability of AI driven technologies to create in a minute, deep hate pornography is one of those. Because San Francisco has been a, if not the capital of artificial intelligence, not just in The United States, but our world, I thought it was also appropriate for us to lead in safeguarding these technologies.

[Speaker 23.0]: You can use all the best practices in the world. You can be careful. You can be safe and still fall victim to this because anybody can take any picture and turn it into a nude. In our mind, the best way to try and prevent this from happening to more people is to stop it before it starts. And that's what this lawsuit is trying to do, to take away the tool that allows this to happen. These websites aren't free,

[Speaker 25.0]: so someone is making a profit out of allowing someone to notify the image of a young girl or woman. That cannot be.

[Speaker 24.0]: Ideas for lawsuits come to us through many routes. We hear about issues through constituents in San Franciscans. We hear them through public officials and our department clients. In this instance, I happen to have a couple of amazing litigators who work for me who are moms of young girls. And one weekend, they were texting about a story involving the victimization of women and girls because of deepfake pornography. And they reached out to me and asked if it would be okay for us to devote some investigatory resources. I was horrified like they were about what we read, and our investigators dug into this.

[Speaker 25.0]: I was reading a newspaper article about a teenage girl and a mom. It piqued my interest because the girl was the same age as my daughter at the time. And the story was about how this girl had an image of her taken by someone and using a website that she was had no knowledge of which website was used, but it generated this kind of deep fake image. It put her face on a nude body. Neither the daughter nor the mom could give enough detail for law enforcement to hold the perpetrators responsible. So when I read the article, I thought that cannot be. It cannot be that there is no consequence. And so because I have done a fair amount of the kind of affirmative consumer work, I wonder if our office can do something.

[Speaker 24.0]: As far as we know, this is the first time that a government agency has tried to hold accountable the bad actors that are responsible for this industry.

[Speaker 25.0]: The San Francisco City Attorney's Office is not your typical city attorney's office. Typical city attorney's offices defend cities and municipal governments when they're sued, and we do that. But in our office, we also have powers, some of which has been delegated to us by state law of using those statutory powers to file affirmative cases. Those cases are the AI case that we're talking about is one of those cases. The unfair competition law is actually a

[Speaker 10.0]: much broader, very powerful tool that allows us as an office to

[Speaker 23.0]: bring a practice. So if a company is out there doing something that violates the law or deceives consumers, we can sue them on behalf of the people of the state of California. They're breaking a variety of laws. They are breaking laws about revenge porn. They're breaking laws about child pornography. They're breaking a slew of different laws that we have used as sort of a hook to say that these are unlawful

[Speaker 25.0]: acts. I don't think that people associate local government offices as fighting for consumers in the way that San Francisco does. 11 websites that we sued have been shut down. So there is a palpable consequence to the lawsuit. One of the things that I'm most proud of in our office taking this challenge on is that there was no way for the victims of these practices to hold these companies responsible. We did something that the victims were finding impossible

[Speaker 24.0]: to do. Our lawsuit gave us the flexibility to add additional websites, and so if someone thinks that they're going to just shut down website a and restart website b, we will be monitoring that and looking to go after them as well. Because this field has been evolving so quickly, because it's very difficult for an individual to be be able to prove that a particular website abused their image and turned it into pornography. Thus far, we've really been the one office that has stepped up to hold these companies accountable. We've been contacted by both civil and criminal prosecutors around the country who are interested in what we're doing, and my hope is that others will follow suit.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: SF Gov TV, San Francisco Government Television.

[Speaker 26.0]: San Francisco stands together. We stand with our immigrant community. If you need legal support or to report a potential ICE action, please call the Rapid Response Network at (415) 200-1548. We will get through this together. Check on your neighbors, see if you can help deliver groceries, walk children to school, support each other, join protests with creativity and peace. Stay safe.

[Speaker 14.0]: San Francisco

[Speaker 27.0]: Hello. I'm Charice Dorothy Smith, director of the Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, also known as DCYF. After school programs are more than a safe place for kids. They are a lifeline for working families. They are a space where children and youth can explore, build connections, gain confidence, and engage in experiences that will help shape who they become. Every afternoon, these programs keep the lights on for thousands of children. Through the Children and Youth Fund, San Francisco invests millions each year so children and youth can learn, be creative, and find joy after the school day ends.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Today, I am celebrating our fantastic partnership with San Francisco's Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families who work with us to make sure that our students, especially those from low income and working families, receive high quality programs each and every day that reinforce classroom learning, social emotional wellness, and spark curiosity. These programs are part of our city's commitment to equity and opportunity for every single student in San Francisco.

[Speaker 28.0]: At Booker T, our Freedom School offers free programming designed to uplift the whole family. We serve kindergarten all the way to transitional age youth coming out of the foster care system. We help students build strong self and cultural identity, academic success, and support their wellness, while also providing parents education to ensure every family thrives together.

[Speaker 21.0]: I like coming to Booker T because everybody, every day, does either a new activity. Usually, we use wheels. We usually use stuff that would usually go on Lego Technics. It's kinda like a Lego engineering class. My favorite things about the program is food, playground, my friends. My favorite activity here to do at Booker T, wellness group and the gym. Base camp has deep roots in the community and supports 60 students during the school year and 90 each summer. Families come on our program with many returning year after year. My name is Edwin. I'm with third grade, and I grew up in the country. Today, one of my favorite activities was was mister Martin Park figures. Hi. My name is Lorenzo. This is my brother, Winona. One thing I really like that we did, we made a volcano. My name is Kalia. I'm eight and I'm in third grade, and I go to Kidbaby Elementary. We're making sculptures with clay and making, like, food for our characters. We're gonna make that more sense.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Good afternoon, everyone. This meeting will come to order. We are reconvening this, 10/27/2025 regular meeting of the Land Use San Francisco board of supervisors. I am supervisor Mirna Melgar, chair of the committee, joined by vice chair supervisor Cheyenne Chen and supervisor Bilal Mahmood. The committee clerk is John Carroll. And I would also like to thank, Colina Mendoza from SFGOV TV for supporting us in this meeting. Mister Clerk, do you have any announcements?

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Yes. Thank you, madam chair. Please ensure that you silence your cell phones and other electronic devices. If you have any documents to be included as part of today's file, you can submit it to me. If you have public comment, you can send it to johnperiodcarroll@sfgov.org, or you may send your written comments via postal service to our office in City Hall. One doctor Carlton b Goodlet plays Room 244 San Francisco, California 94102, madam chair.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you so much, mister Clerk. Let's go to, item number

[Speaker 21.0]: 15?

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: 15 is what remains.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Yes. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Agenda item number 15 is an ordinance amending the planning code to first eliminate the North Beach Special Use District and consolidate certain controls into the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District, expand allowable uses and increase use size limits in the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District, second, expand allowable uses and increase use size limits in the Polk Street neighborhood commercial district. Third, expand allowable uses in the Pacific Avenue neighborhood commercial District. Fourth, expand allowable uses and increase use size limits in the Nob Hill Special Use District. And fifth, reduce limitations on restaurants and bars in the Jackson Square Special Use District. It amends the zoning map to reflect removal of the North Beach Special Use District. It affirms the planning department's secret determinations and makes findings of consistency with the general plan, the a priority policies of planning code section one zero one point one, and findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare under planning code section three zero two. And finally, madam chair, by prior arrangement, this ordinance is on our agenda as a potential committee report. It may be sent for consideration at the board meeting tomorrow, 10/28/2025.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, mister Clark. We are now joined by, the sponsor of this legislation, supervisor Danny Sauter from District 3. The floor is

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: yours. Thank you, Chair Melgar, and good afternoon, colleagues. Thank you for welcoming me to this committee and for your consideration of our small business package, District 3 thrives. This legislation will help fill empty storefronts, allow existing small business owners to grow, and bring reform to complex, confusing, and inequitable planning codes across District 3 neighborhoods. There are many reasons why I'm excited about this legislation and many examples of how it will improve the lives of small business owners in the district. But the need for it might be summed up best by a message I got over the weekend from a wonderful small business owner. And that message read, Danny, hello. I hope you are well. I wanted to pick your brain about something. I am looking at a space in District 3, but I'm aware of so many restrictions with certain businesses coming into the district. Generally, is my business one that might face that sort of red tape? It's early days, but we're looking to sign the lease in the next two to three months, so I thought you'd be a great person to connect with. That note came from a beloved small business owner, a one woman operation who started her business at the North Beach Farmer's Market and now wants to turn that into a brick and mortar shop in our district. District Three's reputation as the hardest district in San Francisco to start or run a small business is not something I think anyone should be proud of. And I believe our legislation will go a long way towards changing that. A few highlights of what our legislation does. It will allow faster reviews for small business owners who want to open by adding North Beach into the city's priority permitting processing program. This allows more certainty and less wasted rent while waiting for permit reviews. It removes bans on uses that currently exist across District 3. For example, you're currently not allowed to open flexible retail in North Beach or parts of Russian Hill and Nob Hill. So if you wanted to open a coffee shop, for example, and have a fellow small business owner run a bookstore in the same space, you wouldn't be allowed to do that today. You are also currently not allowed to have even a pathway to small storefront mergers in North Beach or on Polk Street. This prohibition has led to one off special legislation in the past. Instead of that, we are creating a transparent pathway that allows public notice of storefront mergers. In another example, arts activities on Nob Hill are currently not allowed, meaning you can't open a ceramics studio or a dance studio in the area. We're gonna change this. Finally, it consolidates two separate layers of rules in North Beach from a special use district and neighborhood commercial district into just one, the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District. I believe small business owners should be able to look in one place for a full set of rules. I wanna be clear that our our legislation does not change formula retail rules in any neighborhood. It does not change existing protections against ghost kitchens. It does not remove any notifications. It does not, create a change in any does not change any existing prohibitions of conversions second floor residential spaces into retail spaces, and it also does not impact any housing rules or legislation such as the separate family zoning plan. We have been having productive conversations about this legislation with the stakeholders since it was first introduced in June. In that time, we've had over a dozen meetings with small businesses and neighborhood associations in District 3. Thousands of mailers have been sent to properties in the areas included in the legislation. We've discussed this at our monthly coffee meetings, in community meetings, and shared extensive details on social media and in our newsletter. And before today, our legislation has been through three public hearings, At the Small Business Commission in July, the Planning Commission in September, both bodies which recommended approval of the legislation, and at a prior land use committee here about three weeks ago. We've also supported two past continuances or extensions totaling more than a month's time to allow for further conversations and amendments to be considered. Before today, we had already made five amendments to directly respond to concerns from certain neighborhood groups. And these have ranged from shrinking allowable storefront mergers in North Beach to strengthening language on historic protections and tighter controls on bars in Jackson Square. Today, I am introducing an additional single non substantive amendment which will revert health services on the Ground Floor in North Beach to continue to not be permitted as the code currently reads today. This was a top concern we heard, so we made a decision to drop this. And, just for posterity, I will read these, brief changes into the record, which would see on page 17, striking out 19, and then on page 19, striking out phrase 19, health services permitted as conditional use on the first story up to 3,000 square feet. Not permitted, 3,001 square feet and above. I want to thank the North Beach Business Association, in particular, for our many conversations and for their work to improve this legislation. While we're not fully aligned in everything in this final package, it has been shaped greatly by their feedback, and they also have my commitment to monitor concerns like balance of restaurant and retail, explore the idea of an inner and outer North Beach NCD, and explore ground floor use reforms. Throughout this process, we are proud to have earned support from a wide range of small businesses and organizations, including North Beach Neighbors, Jackson Square Merchants Association, Golden Gate Restaurant Association, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, Nob Hill Association, Discover Polk, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, and Russian Hill Neighbors. Sometimes we craft legislation in these chambers in hopes that it might be used one day. But in this case, I'm really excited because we literally have small business owners that are waiting on this legislation to pass, to grow their businesses, to sign leases, and to fill empty storefronts. They include Milana Ram and her husband, Himanshu, who want to open a cafe on Lombard Street to serve their families coffee from their farm in India. This would fill a storefront that has been empty for seven years, and they would not be allowed to open unless our legislation passes. Shadi, who's a beloved merchant in North Beach who wants to expand his small market and grocery store into a space next door that has been vacant since 2018, also would not be allowed unless this legislation passes. A gelato shop run by Italian immigrants who wants to open their second location in San Francisco, filling, hopefully, a storefront that has been empty for eight years. Butter and Crumble, who we've heard in from in these chambers before. A popular baker who wants to grow, but stay in the neighborhood by opening a second store for their cakes would not be allowed unless this legislation passes. The list goes on. A yoga studio, a wine bar in Jackson Square, a barber who wants to expand their space to grow their business, so on and so on. All of these examples of small businesses opening or growing would be illegal unless this legislation passes, and that is the reality of what this legislation does. Colleagues, you have a chance with today's vote to pass sound legislation and help give these small business owners a chance. I I hope you will join me in working to make sure that our planning code is more fair and more transparent across District 3 to meet the the needs of our neighborhoods today and into the future. Thank you.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, supervisor Sauter. I did have a question. So as to your amendment today on line 19, so striking out section 19 would then revert back the prohibition against health services?

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: That's correct. Within the North Beach Institute.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Regardless of size. Correct. Okay. All right. Thank you so much. I don't see anyone on the roster with questions. And since we heard this item previously, we're now gonna have a presentation from planning. So let's go to public comment on this item, please. Mister Clark.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you, madam chair. Land use and transportation. We'll now hear public comment related to agenda item number 15. If you have public comment for this item, please line up to speak along that western wall that I'm pointing out with my left hand, and then come forward to the lectern if you're ready to speak. Let's get that first speaker, please.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Yeah. Come on up.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: You may begin.

[Judy Bassolo (Public Commenter)]: Hello. I'm Judy Bassolo. I've lived for twenty seven years in District 3, and for thirty seven years, I've been a commercial real estate agent specializing in representing small, mostly mom and pop retailers in San Francisco. It pains me to think of the hundreds of tenants, my potential clients, that I've had to turn away from District 3. And in the past five years, it's gotten worse. We tire in our business of hearing about the lengthy process and the cost to these people who are hardworking. They've been vetted financially. They have a business plan that works. They might be a start up, but they might be a second location. And I'd love for you to please consider changing this legislation so that our city can get back on track and thriving in the retail world. Thank you.

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

[Jackson Nepbier (San Francisco Chamber of Commerce)]: Good afternoon, Chair Melgar, and members of the Land Use and Transportation Committee. My name is Jackson Nepbier, speaking on behalf of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber strongly supports this ordinance, which represents a thoughtful modernization of our city's planning code to better reflect current economic realities and community needs. By consolidating the outdated North Beach Special Use District into the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District, and expanding allowable uses across keyed corridors in North Beach, Polk Street, Pacific Avenue, Nob Hill, and Jackson Square, this legislation streamlines zoning regulations and provides much needed flexibility for small businesses to thrive. Increasing use size limits and reducing restrictions on restaurants and bars will help attract new investment, encourage storefront activation in revitalized beloved neighborhood corridors that continue to struggle with vacancies and rising costs. More importantly, these updates are consistent with the general plan and the city's priority policies, reinforcing our collective commitment to economic recovery, neighborhood vibrancy, and walkable commercial districts. The chamber appreciates the leadership of supervisor Sauder behind this proposal, and it urges the committee's support to ensure San Francisco small business corridors can remain dynamic, diverse, and resilient for years to come. Thank you.

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

[Kari Wellstone (Public Commenter)]: Good afternoon. My name is Kari Wellstone speaking on behalf of Quintinco to express strong support for District 3 thrives, specifically in Jackson Square. This initiative represents an important opportunity for our neighborhood. It will uplift our small businesses, help our local shops not just survive, but grow, and bring new life to our streets. Jackson Square has always been a vibrant historic part of our city, and this initiative will strengthen that. Creating a welcoming environment for residents, entrepreneurs, and visitors alike. We hope to

[Megan Doherty (Public Commenter)]: see this passed. Thank you.

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

[Gemma Jarrell Lester (Permit Expediter)]: Thank you, supervisors. I've been in this chamber a couple times with the public safety neighborhood services subcommittee. I'm a permanent expediter. My name is Gemma Jarrell Lester. I'm here in support of this legislation. I've worked with several clients who wanted to open in District 3, and we just couldn't find any path forward because of the prohibitions on restaurants, unlimited restaurants. So I would just like to ask for your support in this because I think you'll see some really amazing businesses come in as a result. Thank you.

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

[Megan Doherty (Public Commenter)]: Good afternoon, supervisor slaughter, council members. My name is Megan Doherty, and I've lived and or worked in District 3 since 2017, specifically Jackson Square. I love seeing new businesses take over empty storefronts. I love seeing people I used to work with start their own small businesses. I have a hospitality background. I love seeing these passion projects on people that I worked with twenty years ago now open their own little butter and crumble deliciousness and then expand. I do see too many storefronts staying empty. I see too many businesses struggle to keep their doors open or to even get to a point to open the doors. So that's why I support district 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, I do believe it honors the long standing shops and restaurants that give our community its soul. I believe there's room here for both old and new businesses to flourish side by side. And when they do, our streets feel safer and cleaner and full of life. Please support District 3 thrives and help keep our district welcoming, vibrant, driving for everyone. Thank you.

[Speaker 10.0]: Thank you

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

[Speaker 17.0]: Good afternoon, chair Melgar, supervisors. My name is Lawrence Lee. I'm a native San Franciscan and a resident of District 8. I grew up in District 1. I'm speaking for this District 3 thrives legislation in support of it because it's, it's something that a couple reasons. It's something that I know is a value for small business everywhere. A few years ago, I was on civil grand jury. We did a report on small businesses because we saw the concerns of ice cream shops opening. And this kind of thing is something where our group of citizens spend twenty hours doing all the research, and regardless of ideology, we came on the same page that businesses need to have less regulation. Another thing that I'm doing personally is I I'm I'm trying to get a sense of how San Francisco can thrive over the next ten, twenty years, and seeing how other cities are doing it across the West Coast is something that really is is inspiring as we try to figure out the right things to do. To me, having this sort of extra work in District 3 is like having my child go from Presidio Middle School to Marina Middle School and find that she can't play basketball anymore because she's in Marina Middle School. It just it just doesn't make any sense. So please support this legislation. Thank you.

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

[Nick Farris (Telegraph Hill Dwellers President)]: Chair Melgar, members of the committee, supervisor Sauter. Thank you. My name is Nick Farris. I serve as president of the Telegraph Hill dwellers and representing our nearly 600 residents and small business owners in North Beach Telegraph Hill and the waterfront. North Beach is not a struggling corridor, and that is the purpose of what I'm speaking about today. Our commercial vacancy rate is 6% among the very lowest in the city. These policies that have created that stability are the very policies that this legislation would undo. I have three requests. First, we ask you to restore the long standing nonresidential use size limits. For nearly forty years, storefronts have capped at 2,000 square feet with conditional use allowed up to 4,000. This has preserved small independent businesses and presented prevented large format retail from dominating. Think about just up and down Grant Avenue, Columbus. What we ask here is that you restore both the 2,000 square, foot limit and the 4,000 square foot cap. Second, we urge you to restore the restaurant controls. North Beach already has the highest concentration of restaurants and bars per capita in the city. These controls have protected bookstores, tailors, galleries, record shops, the specialty retailers that define our neighborhood's character and keep it livable. Third, please restore the prohibition on storefront mergers. Allowing mergers up to 3,000 square feet would increase rents, reduce diversity, and undermine the small scale storefront pattern that keeps our streets active and walkable. These are not policies of the past. These are the reason North Beach is thriving today. Please do not undo what is working in North Beach. Thank you.

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

[Speaker 13.0]: So good evening, supervisor Melgar and Souter, other members of the committee. My name is Lance Carnes. I'm a resident of District 3. I've lived here for about thirty five years. And, I was looking at yesterday's 48 Hills newsletter where the editor, Tim Redman, writes, the land use and transportation committee and then the full board will also consider a measure by supervisor Denny Souder that would undo decades of carefully crafted legislation to protect small locally owned businesses in North Beach. The bill would abolish the North Beach Special Use District and wipe out limits on the size of commercial spaces, allowing bigger businesses to expand into several storefronts, wiping out smaller outfits. Stuart Watts, president of the North Beach Business Association, notes in a letter to the Supes. So he begins, the use the use size cap is a critical tool that has helped North Beach maintain its unique character as a vibrant, mixed use neighborhood. Its removal during recent land use and board of supervisors meetings occurred without consultation with the very businesses it affects. This cap ensures that no single type of business dominates our streetscape, preserving the diverse ecosystem of shops, services, and dining that makes North Beach a destination for both residents and visitors. We respect we respectfully request this provision be reinstated to protect the economic diversity that has made our neighborhood thrive for generations. That's it. Thank you.

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

[Apollo (Public Commenter)]: Thank you, supervisors. I'm Apollo, and I live and work in North Beach where I moved just ten months ago today. Every day, I appreciate the scale of my new home where neighbors know each other by name. Small businesses are in balance, and their shop owners feel they are thriving after the pandemic. Our vacancy rates are at record lows, and it shows. But here is here again is our new supervisor trying to fix something that isn't broken using the examples of a few aspirational businesses while over 50 existing businesses are begging for this late legislation not to happen as is. When I moved here ten months ago, right before our new supervisor took office, there was general optimism in North Beach. Now most residents and business owners I talk to are terrified of what is happening under his watch. Between his offering our neighborhood to be demolished under the family zoning plan, refusing to help honor us as a historic district, and now this deregulation of our special use district, my neighborhood's morale is extremely low, and confidence in our supervisor is likewise in the basement. I request the following amendments. Restore the net nonresidential use size caps for North Beach retail businesses. Restore our longstanding restaurant density controls. Restore the prohibition on storefront mergers. Restore the exemption of North Beach from priority processing. Restore the North Beach Special Use District definition of historic buildings. Restore protections for nearby residential district from inappropriate uses and prohibit ghost kitchen use. Please include all of these amendments in any legislation moving forward under this plan. Thank you.

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

[Ramon Schmalz (Public Commenter)]: Good afternoon, supervisors, and thank you. Hello yet again. I'm still Ramon Schmalz, and I've still lived and worked in North Beach for over twenty years. Saturday night at our night market celebrating small businesses, I was talking to a second generation legacy business owner, who I know very well and former president of the North Beach Business Association, who is in tears about today's proposed legislation. I'm quoting now. Romelan, he sighed, why even come down to City Hall again when they're just gonna rubber stamp this through? So he's not here today. Recently, we had over four hundred collective years of local business ownership, legacy business ownership, try to talk to Danny, our supervisor, from over four hundred years of experience about how these chain how we know these changes will push a lot of us out in in favor of larger, more corporate businesses, all while creating more vacancies, but he just stays the course. He doesn't care about existing small businesses. And he went on. So he he isn't here today because he doesn't believe you care anymore or will listen, but I am here in his stead because I believe that even if supervisor our supervisor doesn't care, that you do. I have to believe that democracy for District 3 thrives somewhere in all of this nondemocratic, non process. Over 50 of our small businesses reject this plan. Small business owners feel blindsided and have tried to hold meaningful meetings with supervisor Sauter, resulting in mostly insulting, and they believe, intentional miscommunication. As planning commissioner Moore pointed out when planning took this up last month, the paper trail betrays that supervisor Sauter's office replied to the wrong emails to stymie coordination during the short week the hearing was continued. So it was just optics, the pretense to outreach. Supervisor Sauter made only token amendments to this plan, no medical on the Ground Floor. And that's not even window dressing, so I vehemently request at least these these, amendments to be made. Restore the nonresidential use sites caps, restore our long standing resident restaurant density controls, and restore the prohibition on storefront mergers. That's the minimum. Thank you.

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

[Marilyn Breen (Public Commenter)]: Good afternoon. My name is Marilyn Breen. I moved to San Francisco in 1964. I have lived at North Waterfront for forty years. So I'm bringing my seniority here to support the legislation that that Danny Satter is proposing. The present rules do not make any sense. Apparently, there are several applications for small businesses, and many storefronts in North Beach and other places in District 3 are boarded up. So open applications. It does it just doesn't make this doesn't make common sense. Changing changing some of the archaic rules could allow for storefronts to be adding to the economy and the tax base of San Francisco. The arguments against this legislation also don't make sense to me. I heard somebody say they would be kicked out of their apartment if this passed. Well, that doesn't make any sense. No nobody's gonna kick anybody out of anything just to open a new business. The idea that big the big box stores are gonna move into the neighborhood, patently absurd. They're not gonna tear down a city block to build a big box store. So it just doesn't make sense. I do ask the committee to use your own common sense. I heard the, occupancy rate is at 6%, the unoccupancy rate in North Beach is 6%. I think it could be changed to 0% if this legislation is passed. So I thank you for hearing this. I thank you for carefully considering these arguments in favor of the passage and using your good judgment to make a decision based on the good of all San Franciscan. Thank you.

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

[Barry Shiller (Public Commenter)]: Good afternoon. My name is Barry Shiller. I've lived in North in Telegraph Landing for twenty five years now. There's been a lot of discussion over all of these sessions, pros and cons and details and opinions and a

[Speaker 18.0]: lot of

[Barry Shiller (Public Commenter)]: emotion. Let me offer a little bit of perspective. North Beach is definitely a special area of the city. No one wants to lose its loved and iconic businesses. I can think of original Joe's, Tony's Pizzas, Stella's Bakery, the Stinking Rose, City Lights, and my personal favorite, Club Pegasi. No one wants to get rid of those. They're going to be icons for a long, long time to come. No one wants big medical center and all the traffic coming through for that. No one wants a big box store. This legislation isn't about that. It's about making it easier to open up a variety of community serving businesses along Polk Street, not just North Beach, and all the neighborhoods in District 3. It's about removing archaic rules that do more harm than good. Look at Cow Hollow as an example. I take my grandkids there. We shop for clothes, for books, for puzzles, for toys. I get my B12 shots there once a month. I've had my clothes altered there. There's a really rich variety of different kinds of restaurants there. And I don't bend, but if I could, I could take a yoga class there. Cow Hollow serves the folks who live there. Cow Hollow is vibrant and can adapt to changing neighborhood needs. This is what we want in District 3. We don't want anything special. We want to be treated like everyone else in San Francisco and all the other neighborhoods. Thank you.

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

[Ted Bartlett (Business Owner, Nob Hill)]: Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Ted Bartlett. I'm a business owner at Nob Hill in District 3, and I'm here in full support of supervisor Sauter's District 3 thrives legislation. I'm a San Francisco native and real estate agent for the last twenty seven years. Thinking about our futures together, this legislation is not only warranted, but badly needed. As our city rebounds, it is imperative that well intentioned, but now out of date planning code restrictions are removed to allow for a new and growing small businesses to thrive in San Francisco. By allowing a greater number of businesses to come into our neighborhood commercial districts, empty storefronts will be filled, successful small businesses will be able to expand, and new businesses will open. These changes will encourage a more vibrant street scene for shoppers, residents, and our over 20,000,000 warmly welcomed annual visitors. San Francisco is the best city on earth, as you know. Our downtown is the economic heart of the city. Our neighborhood commercial districts are the soul of our city. By allowing small businesses a direct and transparent path into all of our just spectacular District 3 neighborhoods, the future is bright. Please support this legislation. Thank you.

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

[Herschel Berry (Public Commenter)]: Good afternoon. Mhmm. My name is Herschel Berry, and like many in this room, I too am a longtime resident of District 335 Years in North Beach. Frankly, I had no intention of speaking on this matter, but unfortunately, after attending the October 6 hearing when this legislation was presented, I failed to come forth today with a statement of support. I went to the October 6 session because I thought it was going to be a celebration that this committee and gallery would be toasting supervisor Satter for removing a misguided set of bureaucratic regulations that defy the very framework of American society given small business is the heart and soul of this country. While many neighbors spoke in favor of the bill, there were a few small but loud collection of voices who spoke and continue to speak today with conviction against it. Not only is this position arrogant, it's shameful and embarrassing for it's completely without merit as no one in this room, not a citizen or an elected official, has the authoritative right to dictate what a small business person can and cannot do with his or her energy and resources within the confines of the law. We're not talking about corporate America opening up storefronts. We are addressing the rights of individuals who are risking their livelihoods to realize a dream. This is free market society one zero one. If you don't approve of the type of business being opened, don't shop there. Whether you are a fellow business owner, a neighborhood organization, a long time resident, a native San Franciscan, or just moved to District 3 last night, you have no right to meddle in the affairs of these individuals. The only third party voice that truly matters is the relationship between the landlord or the given entrepreneur. Net of it all, supervisor sat our bill removes nonsensical and legal guidelines, an action long overdue. And today's environment, now more than ever, it is a small business person that deserves to be met with the red carpet treatment from communities, not cement walls. Committee members, I'll leave you with this. You have an opportunity today to attach your legacy to do something truly important. Please do the right thing. Pass this bill with speed and in unanimous fashion. Thank you.

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

[Peter Kwan (Public Commenter)]: Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Peter Kwan. I've lived in North Beach for over twenty years. I'm a member of North Beach Neighbors. I serve on the board, but today, I'm speaking on my own behalf and not on behalf of North Beach Neighbours. I would like you to support, the proposed legislation. I for the over twenty years I've lived in in in North Beach, there was, for a long time, a little charming dry cleaner store just around the corner, and typically, the landlord raises rent. The Korean American operator could not continue and left. That storefront has has been empty now for years and years and years. Many other kinds of businesses have tried to occupy that space but have found, the bureaucracy and the restrictions too much. This legislation will help fill empty storefronts by updating broken, bizarre, and outdated planning codes. It retains the protections that keeps our D 3 neighbourhood unique while making things easier and more transparent for small businesses. These are common sense reforms that are long overdue. I urge you to support them. Thank you very much.

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

[Kathleen Courtney (Russian Hill Community Association)]: Chair Millikar, members of the land use committee, supervisor Sauter, Kathleen Courtney, Russian Hill Community Association District three. The Russian Hill Community Association joins with the Pacific Avenue Neighborhood Association and District three Neighborhood and Merchant Associations in opposing the consolidation of the North Beach Special Use And Neighborhood Commercial Districts. Supervisor Sauter has often stated to us that he was elected to represent his constituents. A significant number of those constituents object to this proposed legislation. We thank the supervisor and his staff for providing an analysis of the legislation in its context. However, we still object. The commercial success of North Beach that allows it to exert its influence on our surrounding communities is due in large measure to it the protection inherent in the Special Use District. With the mayor's upcoming upcoming plan on the up zoning plan on the horizon, with its developmental pressures. Why are we removing that protection now? Why are we removing the protection now? It the an analysis started four months ago. What's the urgency? I appreciated very much supervisor Mandelmann's urgency in designating or moving the landmark process on the 16 historic districts or 16 historic buildings in his district, but he was protecting his district. That's not happening here. The Russian Hill Community Association, we appreciate supervisor Sauter's work.

[Speaker 14.0]: Because

[Kathleen Courtney (Russian Hill Community Association)]: time is complete. But this is not appropriate now.

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

[Kathleen Courtney (Russian Hill Community Association)]: Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: So the next speaker, please.

[Stuart Watts (President, North Beach Business Association)]: Good afternoon, supervisors and other passionate neighbors. How y'all doing? My name is Stuart Watts. I am the president of the North Beach Business Association, fifth generation San Franciscan, and I've been a small business owner for over ten years. I have been working closely with Danny for many months now. I've spent over a hundred hours making this happen, and we're almost there. I really appreciate your office eliminating health services, which makes a huge difference for brick and mortars on the street. But we're not quite there yet. San in San Francisco, North Beach has more restaurants and bars per capita of any residential neighborhood in the city. Actually, in Central North Beach, which is in this district right here, this is an amendment that was made back in the eighties to prevent banking from taking over the neighborhood. We put a restriction on banks, It's amendment I would love to use to help provide a bit more restrictions on how many restaurants and bars can open up in the neighborhood. When you install a kitchen, it never comes out. It hasn't been done yet, and we rarely see a kitchen turn back into a non, restaurant space. So with that said, we would love to see a limit on how many bars and restaurants can open up because within central in North Beach alone, there are eight vacant restaurants sorry. Eight vacant storefronts. Five of them are restaurants. Within that, we have over 50 businesses on the projector here that have signed on to this. I've met one on one with many of those businesses, like the coffee, family that wants to open up. Shadi himself signed on to this. Let's take a balanced approach so we can have flute stores, candle shops that won't get priced out of their own neighborhood and community. Thank you very much for your time. I really appreciate it.

[Speaker 10.0]: Thank you

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

[F. Joseph Butler (Architect; Historic Preservation Expert)]: Hello. My name is f Joseph Butler. I'm an architect and land use expert and was admitted by the planning department as an expert witness on issues of historic preservation. Please restore the definition of historic buildings as set forth in section seven eighty three b three to ensure that the eligible North Beach National Register Historic District will be protected. There will be a negative adverse effect if this demolition is eliminated. An earlier speaker said, he doesn't want planning. Well, that's Houston, Texas. Owners of properties can put a mortuary next to a school, a slaughterhouse next to a church. That's what we need in North Beach. Go there if you want and forget careful balanced planning. Up zoning in North Beach and wrecking the social contract of which commercial uses go where in our neighborhood commercial district is a threat to the success of our community. Like the time they wanted to put a parking garage under Washington Square in the nineteen sixties. Over the forty years I've lived in North Beach, since before the author was born, we as a community have fought off nationwide chain stores, small retail space mergers, over saturation of bars and restaurants, residential demolitions, and we've surveyed historic buildings. This city this city has supported our efforts and they've all come through this room. I have five suits at home. My suit that I'm wearing has been in this room more often than the author of this legislation. When you save single family and duplex historic homes, people who could not otherwise afford to, supervisor Sauter, can raise a

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: family in North America. Address a supervisor by name. You address the entire committee. Thank you.

[F. Joseph Butler (Architect; Historic Preservation Expert)]: I'm sorry. Thank you for that. The author of this legislation had not yet worn his first diaper when I and my community started these efforts.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Could we have the next speaker, please? And before that speaker begins, do we have anyone in addition who has public comment for agenda item number 15 from whom we have not yet heard? If so, please line up to speak along that western wall. Next speaker, please.

[Charles Thomas (Public Commenter; North Beach Neighbors)]: Good afternoon, supervisors. Yes. We're coming to the upzoning. Yes. And we're coming to the historic district. But today, we're talking about this legislation. My name is Charles Thomas. I'm here to today to express wholehearted support for this legislation, and I'm proud to say that North Beach Neighbors also supports it. In fact, within hours of, supervisor Sauters, being elected, I reached out to him, to offer help in working out a solution for this legislation. And I'll I'll tell you why. And I'm a pretty good, person to speak about this. I ran my business out of my home, in North Beach for over twenty five years. And I can tell you firsthand, it is very difficult to have a business in San Francisco, especially a small business, and even more difficult to have a business in North Beach. I also have a long history with both the North Beach Neighborhood commercial district, the NCD and the SUD. In 2006, I was president of North Beach Neighbors, and just the days before this current piece of provision of the planning code, was to be heard in front of, the land use, committee. I found out from somebody in the planning department that this was coming. The president of the North Beach Neighbors, nobody had talked to me, so I I reached out to the Russian Hill Neighbors, the, North Beach Merchants Association, Chamber of Commerce. Nobody had heard anything. So we got our stuff together, and we went out to fight this. And as we built the coalition, we came together, we wrote a brief, and we started fighting. It went on for, like, a year. And when I finally got to the land use committee that

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: that concluded. Thank you for your comments. Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number 15? Madam chair.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Public comment on this item is now closed. Supervisor Shautter, did you have any, closing comments before we make a motion?

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: Yeah. I'd be happy to hear from, the members of the committee, and then I'll have some final remarks. Thank you.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Supervisor Chen.

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: First of all, I wanna thank, again, everyone who has shared their public comment at the hearings. Today, and also two weeks ago, it is really important to me to hear directly from all the stakeholders who are being impacted by this change in the policy. There are a number of issues being raised that are critical to small business. They are how use size limits, apply, and their impact on protecting the ecosystem of small business. Preventing an oversaturation of specific kinds of establishments. And maintaining a diverse cross section of users and business. I'm very compelled, by letters that we received regarding these items. When what I heard loud and clear is that this neighborhood represented a successful story worth protecting, I also hear there are risks and vulnerability that the neighborhood business ecosystem has to bear by opening the door to more flexibility and large use sizes. This is causing fear and concern, which I understand. And I also really appreciate the amendment that is being introduced today by supervisor Salter to revert back health services to not permit it on the 1st Floor. I know that this is one of the changes that the community has been requesting. Supervisor Salter and I also have spoke, and then I want to also urge him, and I know that we- we have ongoing conversation under two matters. The first one is I would like to see data that actually show how the existing controls are working or not working. And I haven't seen, much of the data that could really help justify the change that are being proposed. And it's very good to try new things, to be innovative. But at the same time, it's important, for us to gather data, and and for us to have time to evaluate. I also have been assu assuarded by supervisor Valter Salter's office that they are committed to continue to monitor the impacts on the neighborhood as these changes are going into effect, and address any unintended issues that may come up at the point around restaurant density, use sizes, and other concerns. Second, I understand that North Beach, Business Association is pushing a sub area in the heart of North Beach that would establish some additional protection, such as the limits on additional restaurants and storefront mergers and other controls. This core area of North Beach has much lower vacancy rates. And in fact, I I heard that, like, eight rest eight vacancy, five of them are restaurants. And and does not really face the same challenges as areas on the, other areas of the SUDs. So we have been hearing a strong, rationale to retain some of the protection in the court court area. Why I would greatly prefer that the committee wait until this proposal is introduced. And I also urge, supervisor Salter to continue to keep the conversation going, and craft a more specific proposal. This will go a long way toward building trust and partnership with community, and also, with data, and that is really backing the strategies going to work, and support our small business corridor. And with that, I really appreciate everyone showing up today.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, Supervisor Chen. I also appreciate all the feedback from the community. This item has gotten a lot of attention and discussion. Thank you, supervisor Sauter, and to your staff, Michelle Andrews, for all the work that you have put into this. I don't think that this proposal is that big. I think it's a modest, proposal. I am the district seven supervisor. We have district elections here in San Francisco. And this, body has a long history of deference to the district supervisor for legislation that affects their district. It's very rare that, supervisors weigh in, especially without the consent of the other supervisors on issues that pertain to someone else's district. So for that alone, I will defer to supervisor Sauter, who is the elected supervisor, for District 3. But beyond that, I'm gonna point out that, economic markets are complicated. They are an ecosystem that responds to not just the neighborhood, but to global, issues. We are a tourist city. The area of, North Beach, Telegraph Hill, the waterfront, is an area that is visited by visitors from all over the world, Which is what makes our city really wonderful and magical. I think regulations like this take time. People have leases. And it takes a while for things to turn over. So I don't think that, changes that are being implemented today will be felt tomorrow. I think it's gonna be felt over the decades. The flip side of that is actually very fast. We saw how during the pandemic, one of our most, successful business areas, the downtown Union Square, core, fell just like this. So I think that, you know, going out of business is actually pretty easy. When things, change around you, economic, conditions, the rise of, Uber Eats and Amazon has been something that has changed the retail environment really fast. And so I think it is wise to look ahead and plan ahead, into changes, that are going on around us, and adapt, and give a little bit more flexibility. I don't think these changes are, all that, you know, are shaking. Like I said, I think that they are fairly modest. I will support them. And I do think that we have to be thoughtful and responsive to the needs of the community, even though, as San Franciscans, it's very rare that we all agree on something anytime. So, thank you, Supervisor Sauter, for your thoughtfulness. And, did you want to address something again, supervisor, before we

[Barry Shiller (Public Commenter)]: Yes, please.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: Quickly, and thank you, chair. You know, I think, Supervisor Chen, share your desire for more data, more, on on vacancy rates and square footage. It's something that I think the the city and us collectively have to do a better job of. In fact, many of the folks in this room, we first came together almost 10 ago because, there was no data in the North Beach NCD. And we had different groups that came together to physically, manually do a storefront vacancy study. And then, actually, a lot of the ideas that are in today's legislation were born out of that. So it's been a decade in the making. I do wanna just make sure to clarify. There's nothing in this legislation that changes use size caps that was changed in prior legislation. And, you know, I know it gets into the weeds of the planning code categories. But our changes are are focused on limited restaurants, which are smaller scale cafes, things like that. We maintain controls for restaurants only going to only able to go into a space that was prior restaurant. The same for bars. So this does not make it more permissive for for bars. The CU is still kept there. All in all, you know, I concur with Joe Mark Joe Chair Melgaard is, I think, you know, the the changes are not terribly extensive. This takes us one step closer to what exists in other districts, but it's still much more restrictive in this district than other districts across the city. But with all that, I hope you'll consider adopting the amendment and then passing this on to the full board. Thank you.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you. Supervisor Chen.

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: Thank you,

[Speaker 22.0]: Chair Melga.

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: Thank you, Chair Melga. I would like to make a motion, to move forward with this legislation as a committee report without recommendation.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: I think we need to amend

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: it. Oh, firstly. It first. Okay. Why don't yeah. Sorry. Then, do you wanna move the amendment?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Yes. I I'd like to make, a motion that we adopt the amendments as have been submitted by supervisor Sauter.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Motion offered by the chair that the ordinance be amended as presented on that motion vice chair Chen Chen, I. Member Mahmood Mahmood, I. Chair Melgar.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: I.

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

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. I think now Yes. The motion that Got a

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: motion to move the amended legislation as a committee report without recommendations.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Supervisor Mamu, did you wanna say something before we vote?

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Committee Member)]: I'd like to propose a motion to introduce this committee report with a positive recommendation.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. The the first motion supersedes. Be get okay.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: I'm gonna record that second motion. Give me just a moment. Motion offered by Vite. Verification,

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Committee Member)]: Clark. If we vote no on the first one.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: If you vote if if a no sorry. If the first vote doesn't prevail because it doesn't reach two No. Ayes, then we would take the vote on the second motion, which yeah. That that that would be

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (Committee Member)]: the order. Succeeds, then does the second one get a vote?

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Then that's the end of that unless that motion then is rescinded.

[Speaker 15.0]: Okay. Interesting.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: On the motion that was offered by vice chair Chen that the ordinance be sent to the board of supervisors as a committee report as amended without the recommendation of land use and transportation. Vice chair Chen, aye. Member Mahmoud?

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood (brief vote aside)]: I have to vote.

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

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. That motion passes. Thank you. Mister Clerk, are there any other items in our, agenda?

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

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: K. We are adjourned. Thank you.