San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Good afternoon, and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, 10/02/2025. When we reach the item you're interested in speaking to, we ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. Each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. And when you have thirty seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. When your allotted time is reached, I will announce that your time is up and take the next person cued to speak. There is a very convenient timer on the podium where you can see how much time you have left and watch your time tick down. Please speak clearly and slowly. And if you care to, state your name for the record. I ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. And finally, I will remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. At this time, I'd like to take roll. Commission president So?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Present.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commission Vice President Moore? Here. Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Campbell?

[Natalia Fassi (Acting Zoning Administrator)]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Mihiriau?

[Robert Blaget]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner McGarry? And Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you, commissioners. First on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance item one, case number twenty twenty five hyphen zero zero six two four six PCA definitions, family dwelling unit planning code amendments is proposed for continuance to 11/06/2025. We have no other items proposed for continuance. So members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their continuance calendar, only on the matter of continuance. You need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed, and your continuance calendar is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Imperial.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Move to continue item one as proposed. Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to continue items. Well, item one as proposed, Commissioner Campbell? Aye. Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission president Soh. Present.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: I mean, sorry. Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously seven to zero, placing us on your consent calendar. All matters listed here under constitute a consent calendar are considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. Item two, case number 2025Hyphen004896, CUA 2031 Irving Street, conditional use authorization. Item three, case number 2025Hyphen005967, CUA 1475 25th Street, conditional use authorization. Item four, case number 2025Hyphen005662CUA2999CaliforniaStreetUnitNumber302, conditional use authorization. And item five, case number 2020Hyphen006544CUAHyphen02 at 1721 15th Street, conditional use authorization. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to request that any of these consent calendar items be pulled off of consent and heard under the regular calendar today or a future hearing. You need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed, and your consent calendar is now before you, commissioners.

[Georgia Schuttish (Public Commenter)]: Commissioner Imperio. Move to approve all items number two, three, four, and five.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to approve items on consent, commissioner Campbell?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission president Sowell?

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously seven to zero, placing us under commission matters for item six, the land acknowledgment.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I'll be reading the land acknowledgment. The commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. As the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. As guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. We wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone community, and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. Item seven, consideration of adoption draft minutes for 09/18/2025. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their minutes. You need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed and your minutes are now before you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Lebron?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Move to adopt the minutes.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to adopt your minutes, Commissioner Campbell.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner McGarry. Commissioner Williams. Aye. Commissioner Braun. Aye. Commissioner Imperial. Aye. Commissioner Moore. Aye. And commission president Soh.

[Georgia Schuttish (Public Commenter)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously seven to zero. Item eight, commission comments and questions.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Williams.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Thank you. It's been brought to my attention from a member of the public that we haven't adopted the schedule for next year. And I'm just wondering when when we're gonna schedule that. We have a couple more meetings in this month, and then we have November. Do you

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Well, it's just the October. We generally schedule the adoption of your 2026 calendar and the first hearing or second hearing in December.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: In December?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: I mean, we can schedule it anytime the commission desires, but Mhmm. I mean, I'm not sure if there's any rush to adopt the hearing schedule for next year until December. But again, if your preference is to schedule it next week, we can put it on the agenda for next week. Makes no difference

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: to me. Yeah. That that sounds right. I'm I'm not exactly sure what the consequence is, but I thought I'd bring it up. Alright. Okay. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Brown?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I would just like to make an appeal to folks who are writing, I can only speak for myself, who are writing to me as the planning commissioner, you know, shortly prior to the hearing, sending messages and emails. I understand that sometimes it's not possible to send those earlier. But I know that I and many other commissioners have jobs that we are working at in the morning. We're all volunteers. And so I know that I do my best to read every message prior to the hearing, but it does become very challenging when they arrive right before the hearing. It means that maybe the time I'm looking at them is a handful of minutes prior to the hearing or on the way here if I'm running transit. So, I I understand that sometimes it's just not possible to send communications until close to the hearing, but the earlier they can get in, the more likely my fellow commissioners and I would have time to review them closely. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. Commissioner vice president Moore?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I like to support, commissioners Brown's request, on the day of the hearing. It is very difficult, particularly those letters will not be part of the record, that is given to us when it's submitted in the proper time frame. We appreciate your considerations, but I would fully echo the difficulties that commissioner Brown described.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: If if I may just clarify that statement, all submittals will be made part of the official record. They're just not provided to you in a timely fashion for you to digest them. That's all.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: That is a great way of saying it. Thank you, commissioner secretary.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Commissioners, if there's nothing further, we can move on to department matters. Item nine, director's announcements.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thanks, Jonas.

[Swati (Planning Department leadership staff)]: Thanks, Jonas. Thank you. Just two quick notes. One, Director Dennis Phillips is out today, so I'll be sitting in for her. And then secondly, I just wanted to take a few minutes to acknowledge, you may have heard, but former planning director Lou Blage passed away earlier this summer. And his memorial is this Sunday. So I was just hoping to take a few minutes to honor him and ask that we close today's hearing, in his memoriam. So Lou was planning director from nineteen ninety two to nineteen ninety six and worked for the department for nearly twenty years prior to that. Over the course of his career, Lou worked on a huge range of projects, everything from helping to craft the downtown plan, to doing development review for major office and residential projects, to eventually leading the department's development review function, or today's current planning division. Under his leadership, the department adopted plans for upgrading Civic Center And Midmarket, bolstering the economy in the Bayview, shaping the development in Bernal Heights, and improving conditions for pedestrians downtown. He also led the department through the AIDS crisis in the early 90s. We had nearly a dozen victims in our office. Lou had been a San Franciscan for more than fifty years. And even after his directorship, he still helped shape the city through private sector work, and he stayed active in Spur and other civic organizations. And a final thing I wanted to emphasize and something that Lou considered was his greatest achievement of his career, was that he led the department's successful push to permanently demolish the Embarcadero Freeway and open up the water front. This was incredibly controversial and unpopular at the time, but it is an undeniably wonderful legacy that he leaves us. At the end of the day, Lou was a consummate city planner who gave his career to the city, and he will definitely be missed. So anyhow, I just wanted to share those remarks. And hopefully, we can close today in his honor. Thanks.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: K. Item 10, review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals, and the historic preservation commission.

[Veronica Flores (Planning Department)]: Good afternoon, commissioners, and happy Filipino American History Month. Veronica Flores filling in for Erin Star today. The Land Use and Transportation Committee had a very packed agenda this week, so please bear with me. First up, there was the ordinance sponsored by supervisor Chan that would allow existing outdoor handwashing, detailing stations for automobiles in the Geary Boulevard and CD to remain in operation. Commissioners, you heard this item on September 18 and voted to approve the ordinance with one modification. That modification was to allow any auto automotive service station citywide to have the outdoor handwashing, vacuuming, and detailing as an accessory use, and to remove the limitation that the station must have been in existence at the time of the effective date of the ordinance. Supervisor Chan introduced the one amendment related to allowing both existing and future handwashing stations to operate within the Geary Boulevard NCD. There was not any significant discussion or public comments before the committee unanimously voted to approve the ordinance with supervisor, sir Chan's amendment. As the amendment is substantive, the item was continued for one week to next Monday. Next up was the landmark designation of the Mint Mall and Hall located at 951 To 957 Mission Street. The Historic Preservation Commission heard this item on September 3 and voted to approve the landmark designation. At the hearing, the sponsoring supervisor, supervisor Dorsey, introduced the item and spoke on the cultural significance of the mall to the Filipino community as a gathering place and hub for neighborhood goods and services. The planning department gave the presentation supporting the landmarking as it did as did a representative of Somcam who initiated the landmarking. Members of the public spoke in support of the landmarking, emphasizing the hardships the residents and business owners of the building had faced in recent years to prevent displacement to the .com boom and the importance of the that the building serves for new Filipino immigrants who need a supportive place to live and work. Supervisor Melgar asked to be added as a cosponsor before the committee voted unanimously to approve the landmarking as a committee report. The next planning related item was the ordinance sponsored by supervisor Mark Mu that would amend both the building and planning codes to postpone the collection of development impact fees for designated residential development projects. Commissioners, you heard this item on September 11 and voted to approve it. At the committee hearing, supervisor Mahmoud gave some opening remarks, noting that this purpose was to align with state law, as well as solving a problem that has been identified locally by better aligning with housing element policies on fee deferral and collection. One member from the public spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance before the committee unanimously voted to move the item forward with a positive recommendation to the full board. Lastly, the committee heard the planning code amendments, zoning map amendments, general plan amendments, and other city code amendments related to the mixed use tower and fire station project at 530 Sansom Street. Commissioners, you heard this item on July 17 and voted to approve the various amendments. Supervisor Sauter introduced the item before a representative from OEWD gave an in-depth presentation on the project. Representatives from the fire department also spoke to emphasize their support and need of the project. Supervisor Chen spoke to emphasize the city's responsibility in ensuring projects like this one to uphold high standards that achieve the most benefits possible for the community. She felt that the time spent on this project and the fact that affordable housing fee has been doubled, along with other commitments, makes this project an asset to the community rather than another example of waiving community benefit requirements for a project. She noted one concern, which was the risk of displacing small businesses either through this project or other large projects in the future. She urged OEWD to activate grants, technical assistance, and loan programs for small businesses at risk of displacement. Supervisor Melgar raised questions on why the landmark was removed on the existing fire station. Staff explained that this was the only legal route to be able to demolish the existing building. Supervisor Melgar also inquired about the displacement of small businesses, And OEWD responded that, one business is at risk of displacement through the project. However, they, along with the office of small business, have been in constant communication with the business to be able to provide them with full support. There were several members of the public who spoke on the project, including, but not limited to, representatives from unions such as Local two, Local three seventy seven, the Painters and Drywall Finishers Union, and the Chinatown Community Development Center also spoke in support. After closing, the committee voted unanimously to move the items to the full board with a positive recommendation. Moving on to the full board, there were two items of interest to the commission. First, the ordinance waiving certain development impact fees in the market Octavia area plan was up for its first read. As a reminder, the board previously amended the ordinance to only include projects that are currently in the pipeline. And, again, this ordinance passed its first read. And, finally, the Mint Mall And Hall landmark designation, which was also heard at committee last week, passed its first read at the full board. That concludes the board report. Thank you very much.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: I don't see anyone here from the zoning administrator's office for the Board of Appeals, so I'll assume there is no report. However, the Historic Preservation Commission did meet yesterday. They only had one item to consider, and that was to consider to draft and adopt a letter to the commission streamlining task force, which met yesterday as well, to consider the housing and economic development bodies, specifically, this body and the Historic Preservation Commission falls under the planning and land use bodies. And their recommendation for the Historic Preservation Commission was to eliminate or to combine it with the Planning Commission. The Historic Preservation Commission adopted a letter with strong arguments to retain it as a separate commission, which we were able to print in house. And then I walked it down to distribute to the task force. Ultimately, there was a packed house. They had multiple commissions to discuss. But later in the afternoon and early evening, the task force did vote to retain the Historic Preservation Commission as a separate body. My understanding is that they did so unanimously. And, they also appreciated some of the recommendations in the letter and from the recommendations to the task force in their staff report. However, those will be considered again at a later date. If there are no questions, commissioners, we can move on to general public comment. At this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission accept agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address this con the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. When the number of speakers exceed the fifteen minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda.

[Georgia Schuttish (Public Commenter)]: Thanks. Georgia Shutish. Good afternoon, commissioners. I sent you the second email about the Whitney project, and, it'd be a year since you granted the entitlement by the end of the month. And in my first email earlier this year, in July, I guess I sent it, I didn't focus on the sales price. Well, they're asking $2,500,000 but they project what could be earned if someone buys their entitlement and builds it. And I think those numbers are extraordinary because it's an example of what can happen under the densification under the local program and the inability to resolve, the affordable housing crisis. And that's really what we have is an affordable housing crisis, as as everybody keeps saying. And it's also with this this sale of entitlement. It's that there's a commodification of housing that's been going on for years and and it's been talked about here at this commission. I talked about Vicksburg the earlier week, you know, and that the problem with that and what happened there. But Whitney wasn't was an alteration originally, and that's where they got into trouble. And I guess I wanna take the the maybe it's a liberty that I shouldn't take, but I'm gonna take it. That what role did the demo calcs play in this alteration? Did they think they could get away with something? Obviously, they did, but they got caught. What was their goal? The commission would never, ever have approved a demolition of these three units. Never. That never would have happened. And they had to know that. Were they trying to make a single family home with a small unit? I don't know. But a lot of other projects are like this and have gotten away with this. So as I said, I think it's really concerning going forward, most particularly for the sound housing in the excuse me in the priority equity geography neighborhoods, which are protected, supposedly, still. And that's why I keep saying the demo calcs should be adjusted in order to protect this housing. If that's the goal, to protect the housing in those neighborhoods, then given everything that's happened with projects like Whitney and other projects, then the demo calcs at least need to be considered being adjusted, as you go forward. So that's all. There's my 150 words for the minutes. A 150 words for the minutes. Thank you very much. Have a good day.

[Robert Blaget]: Hi. Robert Blaget, Lou Blaget.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: This is my

[Robert Blaget]: Hi. Robert Blaget, Lou Blaget's son. I just wanted to take a moment to thank you for acknowledging my father today. I'm joined today with my mother, Roselie Blaget, sister, Nova Blaget, Lou's sister, Tanya and her husband Herb. I just really appreciate the recognition. I just wanted to also take a moment to thank all public servants. It's the work that you do that builds the city that we live in. It builds the schools and playgrounds that we inhabit. It protects our air and waterways, and it helps to protect our homes through the Fire Department and our safety through the police. And it really is through the efforts of public servants everywhere that we have these things to enjoy. So, thank you for the work you do, and thank you again. I know my father would be really happy to be standing here today, and and pleased that you continue the work that he started. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Last call for general public comment. Again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, general public comment is closed. Commissioners, that'll place us under your regular calendar for item 11, case number 2025Hyphen007350PCA, conversion of medical cannabis dispensary uses to cannabis retail uses.

[Veronica Flores (Planning Department)]: Good afternoon. Veronica Flores again. The item before you is the conversion of medical cannabis dispensary or MCD uses to cannabis retail uses sponsored by supervisor Fielder. The proposed ordinance would amend the planning code to establish a process for the conversion of certain MCD uses to cannabis retailer establishments. This is really to address an isolated permitting issue affecting a single cannabis business. This business was unable to complete the transition from an MCD use to a cannabis retailer before the expiration of section one ninety, which expired last December 31. This legislation proposes reinstating section one ninety of the planning code in a highly limited and targeted form. The intent of this reinstatement is not to reopen section 190 broadly, but really to provide a nailer a narrowly tailored relief for one specific applicant who has been a long standing operator as an MCD and had made a timely effort to comply with the conversion process. To be eligible, the applicant must demonstrate that, one, they hold a permit from the Office of Cannabis to operate as a storefront cannabis retailer issued on or before January 1. And two, they have submitted a complete application to the planning department to convert to a cannabis retailer on or before December 31. The department supports this legislation as a narrowly tailored solution to allow a single, longstanding MCD to complete its transition to a cannabis retailer. The business has been in operation since 2019 and has actively participated in the city's regulated cannabis framework. Without this legislative intervention, the business would be required to cease operations due to the expiration of section one ninety and the inability to meet, the current locational and entitlement requirements. For these reasons, the department recommends that you adopt a recommendation for approval. This concludes the staff presentation. I am also joined by Mr. Raylaw from the Office of Cannabis, and we are both available for any questions. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. With that, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on

[Dustin Goh]: this item. Good afternoon, members of the City Planning Commission. My name is Dustin Goh. I'm here today on behalf of STISI and our store located at 3326 Mission Street in support of item number 11 for the conversion of medical cannabis dispensary uses to cannabis retail use. Our store has always operated in full compliance with both city and state regulations since 2019. Without this ordinance, longstanding compliant businesses like ours face unnecessary risk of closure, even though we hold valid permits and have invested heavily in creating safe, regulated, and transparent operation. Beyond compliance, we invest in the City of San Francisco by providing local union jobs, sponsoring city events such as the annual gun buyback event. We began participating in the city's Adopt a Street program to help maintain and beautify the city, and we dedicate shelf space to verify social equity products. We have worked diligently to ensure we are operating compliantly and giving back to the community communities we operate in. We respectfully urge the city planning commission and the board of supervisors to adopt this ordinance to protect compliant businesses, preserve union jobs, maintain community benefits, and ensure equitable access to cannabis. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Last call for general pub excuse me, for public comment on this matter. Seeing none, public comment is closed, and this matter is not before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Lebron.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I have just a small question for staff to make sure I'm understanding the timeline of how this business kind of got left behind with the prior legislation we had in the books about allowing the medical cannabis dispensaries to convert to, retail, cannabis retailers. So as I from my reading of the packet, it sounds like the the Office of Cannabis had this business did qualify for the conversion under the Office of Cannabis, but it was still kind of partway through the process with the planning department entitlement. Is that essentially what happened?

[Veronica Flores (Planning Department)]: Yes. I can provide some detail, and I may invite, a colleague to provide more as needed. But this, this specific business did qualify for the temporary conversion program under section 90. They submitted the initial building permit application, which is needed to officially convert to cannabis retailer the cannabis retailer use. So they had started that process. And then around the same time, we were approaching the deadline, the December 31 deadline of last year. So just amongst the different parties, both on the city side and on the applicant side, we genuinely thought all had been converted. However, we had since learned that that building permit application was not officially and finally issued, and hence, it actually didn't get through under that program. I'll look to my colleague, office consent. Is there anything else you wanna add on your office side? Or I think that covers it then. Did that answer your question?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: That does. Yes. Thank you. Yeah. So my my thoughts on this are that, you know, ordinarily, I'm I tend to be opposed to legislation that's really targeted to a single specific business or instance. But in this case, I just view this as being kind of a cleanup fix for what is in some ways a little bit of an oversight, and I think this is still in the spirit of the conversion to cannabis retailer that we were allowing previously anyway. And then also I'll just say, you know, I walk by Stacia quite often, and it appears to I've never had any concerns just seeing it from the outside at least, not a customer, but seeing it from the outside at least. I think it actually contributes to that block of Mission Street, and it's helpful having their security out there as well. And I've never had any concerns about this business just personally. But either way, as far as the legislation goes, I move to adopt a recommendation for approval.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Seeing no further deliberation, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval on that motion. Commissioner Campbell?

[Robert Blaget]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission president Soh.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously seven to zero and places us on item 12 for case number twenty twenty four hyphen zero zero eight zero five three CRV for small project amendments to the citywide design guidelines. This is for your consideration to adopt.

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning Department)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Trent Greenan, staff architect. I'm pleased to be here this afternoon to present the citywide design standards amendments for small projects. We were here just a couple of months ago to provide an informational on this. So this should be pretty fresh and apologies if there's some redundancies here. But So just to recap, CUI design standards were adopted late last year and they've been used for implementation of housing account Housing Accountability Act projects since that time. And these are projects that construct two or more new units standards are intended to be a living document that will require updating over time which is exactly what we're doing here today We're providing some new standards for small projects but also updating some standards that were already adopted that we thought could use that based on lessons learned through implementation. So the original standards were intended more for denser housing because they originally paired with the rezoning effort. So they didn't exactly address small projects very well so without these new standards there are no real standards for addressing smaller projects which obviously have sensitivities going into smaller scaled residential neighborhoods for non HAA projects the residential design guidelines will continue to be used these for example are for single family homes or additions to single family homes that don't add two units and then of course the urban design guidelines will continue to be used for commercial projects and projects that don't have a majority of new housing we're proposing here that these small project standards apply to within residential zone districts and with a lot dimension of 55 feet or less and a height of 65 feet or less and as a reminder following adoption of the standard the last year, department staff work with, neighborhood groups as well as the American Institute of Architects to collaborate to develop these standards. And we had a very successful collaboration throughout several working sessions so today we're looking at is if you look in the yellow these are revisions to existing standards that were adopted late last year we'll go through them very briefly they're not substantial changes but we did want to bring them before you just because they are content related changes and those have to do with modulation and light wells inside setbacks in roof decks the net new standards that we're introducing are for small projects for single building massing and multiple building massing and for parking and then finally we inserted into the existing document new standards for fenestration for small projects So again, very briefly, modulation. We felt it was necessary to add another standard for very long facade projects that we think should require more than one modulation move across that facade and that's the that's the reason behind that update there and then for light wells and side setbacks and including roof decks as well we just reduced the the depth of existing light wells and rear side setbacks that needed to be matched and for roof decks we sort of changed the definition of where the roof deck should be measured from the property line instead of the this the face of the building So diving into the new, standards, these are all within site design for small projects. The first is for a single lot massing. And as with all the standards in the document we want we try to provide flexibility on how the standards could be achieved so in the rear we're just trying to provide some modest massing reductions to respond to different, existing condition scenarios. So the first, the first option would basically provide pretty much like a pop out which is set back on the sides and extends up for three stories. And then the other option that we developed along with the architects because it allows, more flexibility with the floor plan is just to extend the entire rear wall out, a modest amount beyond the 55 foot line. Now, of course, there are some instances where massing reductions will not be required. For example if the adjacent homes already extend out to the full property buildable area to the rear yard then no massing reduction is required if one of them extends out to it there's no setback required against that deeper property as well as corner properties we want to maintain that street wall at the sidewalk so there's no setback required there but it might as a modest step back is required on the internal against the adjacent internal property to align with the mid block open space as well as for shallow lots we're suggesting that no massing reductions are required there as well then multiple building massing and this sort of captures some of what we had in the SB nine standards which are going to be which are incorporated into this document think of this document as sort of the master standards documents where all programs programs will be required to use so the idea here is that when you have two buildings on one lot that there's some you know one thing the building in the rear the scale is moderated so it doesn't have large impacts to the adjacent neighbors rear yards and the building in the front should be set back at a certain point to provide light and air to that courtyard between them and then that courtyard we felt in order to be a usable space and an amenity for all the units should be 30% of the depth of the lot And the last small project, site design standard is for parking and this is basically to minimize the impact of inserting a garage, into an existing street. And, although we did make some modifications on what we heard from you last time the informational as well as from others and those are in the standards but basically the you know parking should be located off the alley whenever possible the driveway shall not excessively warp the sidewalk so there's plenty of space for pedestrians to to pass through and that the size of snout garages are minimized So, the one, standard that we introduce as part of architecture and inserted into the existing document is for fenestration of small projects as mentioned previously the standards were intended for denser corridor housing where a larger amount of fenestration or other windows and glazing was more appropriate so we felt we felt that adding a minimum amount to avoid overly blank walls and a maximum amount to prevent completely glassy facades in residential neighborhoods was appropriate. So that's what we were suggesting here, a minimum of 20% and a maximum of 50% of glazing on these, on these buildings in the front and the rear. Additionally we're suggesting that a very small amount of glazing shall be provided on the Ground Floor of residential units this could be provided at the at the entry and the entry door could be side light could be transom could be a small punched opening in the garage but something that basically it you know enlivens the the facade and addresses the pedestrian so those are just a small handful of standards that we're suggesting and asking that you adopt today is amendments once they are adopted they will become small projects submittals will be subject to the standards and just as we're doing today we'll continue updates on the standards by community outreach and, lessons learned through the implementation of the, the standards. Thank you. I'll be available for questions.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Thank you. With that, we should take public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the Commission on this matter.

[Georgia Schuttish (Public Commenter)]: Hello, Georgia Shutish. I think they did a really good job, and I think what this shows is that the, RDGs that we've had since 2003 or earlier, translate well into objective standards. And I would contend that they were basically always objective. But unfortunately, some people didn't think so. There's a lot of antipathy towards the filing of discretionary review. And there really weren't that many DRs overall in the general scheme of things, in the flow of everything throughout the years. Certainly, neighbors needed to rely on them to to they felt if a project was gonna affect their house. And there were a few notorious DRs, but that's really about it. I was wondering about ambient light because I think a lot of times when a project goes in next door, people it's not just the sunshine, but it's the light that hits your house and comes into your house through the back, mostly, in the rear yard. And people are usually concerned about that. And, I just have this personal example. I had to change my front door a number of years ago, and my entrance is recessed under the the bay. And, I had fifteen three by three windows, and it totally lit up my my vestibule at the base of my stairs to my to my house upstairs. And when I changed the door, it was reduced to one window. So that's like a 93% loss of light. It's very dark now in my vestibule. So I think that's something you know, that that may sound a little bit fussy, but I think that that's that issue that shows that there is an issue with some shade coming onto somebody's house from a rear yard expansion and that it it shouldn't just be discounted based on my little example. I think I was just puzzled on these examples why there was a stair penthouse in all of them because I thought generally a stair penthouse to the roof deck, the top roof on the tippy top. Because I thought the the ad hoc roof deck roof policy roof deck policy was to not encourage stair penthouses. But I don't know. It's certainly been in the residential design guidelines for years about when and when you shouldn't do a stair penthouse. And finally, I know in the constraints reduction ordinance, you're allowed to have 30% rear yard. I really think under the rezoning, especially if you're going to densify and you're going to have four units on a lot in one building, like I gave you that template a few months ago, we have a three bedroom, two bath with a dining room unit. You could do that in the 45% and still keep the rear yard as it has been historically, which would help the mid block open space overall. And that was a real example that still exists on 28th Street. Thank you very much, and thanks to them for all their work. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed, and this matter is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner vice president Moore.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Appreciate the formulation of small project standards. We regret that we are losing the richness of residential standards, as we all know them. But let me go through a couple of questions, if I may. The one is first speak about the building modulation options. And my question is, and perhaps they are quoted someplace else, there are additional tools like bay windows, canopies, emphasis on entrances and garage doors. Are they implied to be used in the section or is this a standalone

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning Department)]: you're referring to the modulation standard yeah that's that's a standalone standard we obviously have the articulation standards it speaks about how that larger volume is broken up through articulation so the modulation are sort of the very large volumetric moves where they you would take that volume and apply the articulation standards, which should be things like bay windows, balconies, and sunshades, and everything else that enlivens the facade.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Thanks for saying that. Perhaps a footnote referencing those other articulation, modulation standards would be good because ultimately I assume modulation, articulation are related expressions for giving a building interest. The question that really puzzled me is the following. The typical blocks in San Francisco North Of Market are 300 by four thirty and South of market, they are five five sixty five by eight sixty. I am wondering where the metric of 200 feet comes in. Obviously, in any of those blocks, a large contiguous building could appear. Under up zoning, I think that is a very good possibility. It is a model of large buildings all over Europe, Paris, Berlin, or whatever. So my question is, are we boxing ourselves in an interpretation when we're using a numerical reference when indeed the finer grain of the blocks that would require modulation would occur at a different rhythm?

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning Department)]: Yeah I think 200 feet I think we were trying to be pretty liberal and how long of a facade you can have before the modulation begins and you know on the West side obviously the you know the blocks are are shorter so we sort of irrelevant of block sizes if we just sort of thought about what length of facade continue without a major you know modulation move or subtracting from the facade so that's how we we developed that standard is that

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I'd just like to throw that out as a thought to potentially rethink

[Robert Blaget]: Okay.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Or make it slightly less abstract because 200 is a is a very specific number. When it comes to light wells, I'm delighted that you are leading us out of the uncertainty of previous rules by which people could choose 100% matching light wells, 75, or offset light wells. I think giving clarity to it in the way that you do, I think, is a very, very important and very positive move. I'm a little bit on the fence about your roof deck standards. Previous commissions had spent an extremely long time of being more clear about the sensitivity of one, the size of roof decks. Roof decks that occupy the entire roof area can be extremely intrusive to adjoining neighbors. So at that time, we were talking about a percentage of the overall roof surface to be dedicated to a roof deck, including and more importantly, a distinct offset of a roof deck from the edge of the building. Previous commissions felt very strongly that we did not want to read roof decks as the extension of a perceived building height together with the intrusive appearance of people doing whatever they're doing up there and holding them back to create a certain amount of privacy looking at and looking from rooftops. That does that seems to be lost in this particular guideline, and I am curious if other commissioners also felt that at least the minimum interpretation of privacy at the edge, was important. We also had a, a writer who spoke about, the rules regarding the the the parapets at the edge of the roof. I think those two considerations may help each other to consider setting back from the public edge. I I actually left a copy for you, you

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning Department)]: I did receive a report. Thank you. Yeah, we saw that. We saw that information

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: very good. The, I think the massing adjustments are very positive and I think very informative. The only thing I regret is that they were not applied to examples in which adjacencies are not just at the edge of the adjoining property, but show to some of the irregularities that we often encounter.

[Robert Blaget]: Mhmm.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: And I think that is all. I'm glad to see the addition of of these standards. Thank you.

[Swati (Planning Department leadership staff)]: And if I may, commissioner Moore, just to on your first point around the 200 foot, I just wanted to chime in. I I do believe one of the reasons we selected that number is there's already a planning code provision at section 270.1. It's special bulk limitations and horizontal mass reduction for large lots in Eastern neighborhoods. And in that section of the code, it does talk about for, streets or alleys that have frontages greater than 200 feet in length, there are certain building controls and requirements to break up the massing. So that was already a standard that we had of defining a 200 foot segment as being a segment where it needed to start having mass reduction and breaking in Eastern neighborhoods. So I think that was sort of the genesis of taking that dimension and applying it to these smaller scales. So just there was some thought to it.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Okay. Thank you. Sure.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you for the, clarification, Les. Commissioner Ron.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Yes. Mister Greenan, I've to vice president Moore's last point about the roof decks, would you mind just walking me, back through how the standard that's in there what what the approach is take as what approach has been taken to ensuring privacy when there is a a roof deck versus versus a possible difference from how this might have existed in the residential design guidelines

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning Department)]: yeah I mean first I mean I think it's important to note that you know roof decks or something it's are difficult to standardize because there's always different unique situations that the design guidelines allow us to look at for each, you know, unique situation. So we have to come up with basically one size fits all. Right so that's why you know five feet is a point where if you're you know you step step back you don't generally have sight lines into your neighbors and that's why we sort of added different standards for lower buildings and taller buildings because if you're you know you're very tall building there's not gonna be any privacy impacts of looking into your neighbors because the sight lines just don't allow that so that's why we provide a little more flexibility and also for those large buildings you know they may need that open space on the roof to meet open space requirements right so there's a little more flexibility there but the five feet is sort of a general rule we've used for many years that you know generally prevents you know privacy impacts there still will be impacts obviously at certain times but that was sort of a general rule of thumb that we've been using for some time that we're standardizing. But it is difficult to sort of apply standards universally for roof decks.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. And I I didn't have a reaction when I saw it. I I think it's it's an interesting point that's been raised about the roof decks. But I just came at it mostly thinking this seems to match the basic standard that we have. So I didn't personally have a concern about it. But so moving on, maybe other commissioners have comments on the on the deck issue. But moving on, thank you first of all for making the very tiny grammar and language changes that I asked for. I saw it in the in the presentation. I'm being too, I don't know, paying too much attention to attention to that maybe. My I also appreciated seeing the the changes in the multi multiple building standards, the clarification around, the balcony and bay projections are what's allowed in the space between the two buildings. And then also we had a chance to to connect about the the fire access issue that was raised by, Commissioner Moore. And I was also talking about kind of that rear building and the multiple building massing, you know, being able to go to the side property lines. I thought the answer the response about, you know, the situation in which you can go to the side property lines is very interesting that you would share with me. I'm just wondering if you could restate, the, the circumstances in which that rear building can extend to the side property lines as the guidelines show.

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning Department)]: Mhmm. Sure. Obviously, with a typical 25 foot wide lot, once you start to set back that building on both sides, it has huge impacts to what you can do with the floor plan and not only that sort of meeting minimum unit sizes so you know this is something we felt had you know even though it's a few feet on each side we previously had an s b nine that extra dimension gives you a tremendous amount of flexibility so they're you know to commissioner Moore's previous comment that you may need to have fire access and that's excellent point you know if there's bedrooms in the rear so we're basically describing a maximum building envelope that may need to be reduced based on building code or or fire but there are instances where that full volume could be accommodated and utilized so we wanted to sort of describe the you know the building potential back there and then you know have it be reduced if necessary for for other

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Sure. And as I recall, it's if if you have the bedrooms in the front portion of the building, then it doesn't need to be pulled back necessarily into the building code, at least generally speaking. You know, every circumstance is unique. Yeah. I I thought that was that was I learned something. So I appreciate that. I guess my my one question that I have that serve outstanding is I noticed in the slides you just showed when you're showing the standards about garages, they included very subjective language. Was that just a summary for the purpose of the slide? It was very different from the actual percentage numbers on sidewalk warping and that information that was in the actual standards. So was that just for convenience in the slide, or have you changed the standards?

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning Department)]: It's just for the presentation

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay.

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning Department)]: So not to get into the weeds too much.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: But the

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Got it.

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning Department)]: The standard is objective.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Thank you. Okay. Yeah. I just wanna double check because I saw that and, like, got concerned. Mhmm. Alright. I think you know, I I so I don't have any concerns with the standards as they are. I know that we have to kind of test drive these and see, how they go. We might have to make some adjustments. But I'm I'm glad to see the changes and adjustments that have been made so far in response to commissioner comments. So I appreciate that.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: You can stay there. Yeah.

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning Department)]: Stay here.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Yes, please. Okay. But I'll just start with a few very brief comments, which is that I love that we're already talking about amendments because we talk about this as being a living, breathing document. And so here we are already kind of making some adjustments. And I think, it's encouraging to hear that we can continue to look at this and see how it plays out, but still maintain these objective standards. And I loved, of course, hearing that we continue to socialize this with the community, especially the AIA. I don't work on these small residential projects, so it's always really great to, get their weigh in on this. And then I, of course, continue to be comforted by knowing that there is a little bit of flexibility up to 10% with some of these numbers, in terms of giving jurisdiction to, the director of of the department. So my comments are generally, I think these are fine. I think where it gets a little bit overly prescriptive is the new section, the fenestration section. I think one thing that stands out I think I understand the three inch thing. Like, we're we're trying to avoid very flat facades. Let's stay let's stay close to that and see how it it plays out in real life. The one that caught my attention was the percentages. Mhmm.

[Robert Blaget]: And

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I'm just curious how much we looked at that in terms of what we think is too much, so that 50% and this too small, which is 20%. Like, did we did can you talk a little bit about how we landed on those numbers?

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning Department)]: Sure. I mean, you know, by looking at, you know, different context, you know historical buildings and more contemporary you know older buildings would generally have a much much lower fenestration percentage than 50% right be more in the 20 to 30% range so we wanted to provide a pretty good range right because you know what with all the standards we're not trying to be guide style whatsoever right so we want to allow for a lot of different architectural expressions so you know 50% is what we felt was a pretty generous allowance for amount of glazing on a facade that yeah we do we do get projects in that have about that much they tend to be very contemporary

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: modern

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning Department)]: yeah but you know what we're trying to avoid is you know basically completely glass facades and residential neighborhoods which you know we're on a you know a mixed use corridor that would be fine and again we need these are one size fits all right so we don't have the ability to look at each project in its context so you know looking at different projects different context different you know existing buildings that's sort of the range that we and you know modeling them up and you know looking at different percentages on different facades we arrived at that. So nothing scientific, but it's

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Yeah.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Well, let's stay close to that one too and just see how that ends up playing out. And then just a comment that was made early on in, I don't remember what section that is, when commissioner Braun mentioned we got a lot of letters last minute, today, which is always difficult. But there was there was a letter, that we received from the west of Twin Peaks Central Council, which represents a handful of neighborhoods on the West Side, like Saint Francis Wood, Forest Hill, West Portal. A few of these kind of caught my attention. I think some of them are handled by code. But if you don't mind, I'm just gonna share a few of them with you and maybe you can speak to this. Protecting privacy and scale, there's concern around property line windows and the 20 foot cap on rear buildings are essential protections against backyard crowding. Without them, deep lots on the West Side could quickly become overwhelmed by oversized secondary structures undermining privacy, character of long established residential districts. I believe that we that's dictated by code and we we don't have to address that here. Is that correct?

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning Department)]: Well, we specifically don't allow in the standard its property line windows on the rear buildings. Is that

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Are I guess they're concerned that that it's an oversight. We recognize existing relevant planning code. We recognize the city's obligation to implement objective design standards. We strongly urge the commission to adopt these amendments as we've met engaged with planning. Or is that specifically called out then? And they're just celebrating that?

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning Department)]: The property line windows? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, planning code would

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: That's in the planning code. That's not something that we're capturing in the design right

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning Department)]: they're not disallowed in the planning code they would have to

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: or building code yeah and standard

[Swati (Planning Department leadership staff)]: c 7.5 specifically calls out that property line windows are not permitted on rear buildings okay so that's already there. No amendment would be necessary to mandate that.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: And then one other one was around supporting environmental and historic landscape. Soil depth requirements for planting and permeable surface mandates reinforce the West Side's long tradition of garden neighborhoods. These standards not only align with climate resilience goals, but also sustain the historic landscapes designed to complement our architecture. Again, are we are these things that

[Swati (Planning Department leadership staff)]: And and that was within the front, I presume? The front of properties, not the backyards? That's that is a planning code requirement. I believe one section one thirty two already mandates landscaping and permeability in the front setback.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Sorry. Yeah. Here it says affirm that side set setbacks and oh, sorry. Sorry. This this is what happens when we get things last minute. So the ask are ensure that rear yard standards recognize and preserve the historic mid block open space system that unites many West Side neighborhoods, extend privacy and window placement standards to protect both neighbor, livability, and visibility of historic homes and gardens,

[Robert Blaget]: and affirm that side setbacks and light well

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: protect are essential to maintain the historic homes and gardens, and affirm that side setbacks and light well protect are essential to maintain the rhythm and spacing that characterize historic residential parks. These are concerns that apparently are not represented here, in open comment, but something that caught my attention in this letter. So, okay. Let's let's move on. Let's see. I think and then we have this other one. Okay. I just it's too much. Too last minute. I'm

[Public commenter (mother of Pilates studio owner)]: sorry. Yeah.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: So I'm gonna make a motion to

[Michelle Langley (Planning Department)]: adopt.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: I second it. And, commissioner Campbell, you're

[Georgia Schuttish (Public Commenter)]: That's it. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Completed. And Commissioner Williams, you want to add some comments?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Yeah. I just had an additional question about the roof decks.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Sorry.

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning Department)]: Yeah. No worries.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: So what what what typically what small projects are our roof decks allow just curious

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning Department)]: is potentially on any structure

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: On any structure?

[Robert Blaget]: Mhmm. Mhmm.

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning Department)]: Except in and our multiple buildings, the rear structure may not have roof decks.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Okay. I I just looking at the illustrations, and, so am I correct by saying that or assuming that from the property line, there's a three foot setback? Or is that five feet? Because I've I've I've heard you mention five. And so what what is it now and and what what is the change on the roof deck

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning Department)]: currently in the in the standards we have a five foot blanket setback right what we're proposing now is that for taller projects that the setback be three feet

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: and when you say taller projects how many stories? How many?

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning Department)]: Over 65 feet.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Over 65 feet.

[Swati (Planning Department leadership staff)]: 55, right? Isn't that 55 in the standard?

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning Department)]: You said 55.

[Swati (Planning Department leadership staff)]: Yeah. If you look in your packet, page sorry, I'm missing the pagination here. But it's standard C. 5.3. It's the one that has a big building with step downs.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: It's the

[Swati (Planning Department leadership staff)]: last standard highlighted there in yellow. So it calls out some standards for the separation.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Gotcha.

[Swati (Planning Department leadership staff)]: Yeah. And just to add further, what Trent Sen was relating to the existing standards, have a five foot setback in our residential design guidelines right now, which is what we typically use for smaller buildings that, you know, that's the other tool that we've had for small scale buildings in the past. There is no objective standard right now for any setback. It's been commissioned and the department's general policy that we basically apply what we're putting in here. That's kind of been our rule of thumb Mhmm. When it's smaller building, and you know, we tend to look because we have the ability in a discretionary context to look at the adjacent neighbors, but we usually require either no setback if the neighbors are right at the property line and there's another building right there and there's not gonna be a privacy impact, or three feet or five feet depending on the context. So those have usually been the levers that we've pulled historically. And and to affirm what Trent said, roof decks are allowed on any building. And there are certain allowances to go over the height limit for certain roof deck type features, like railings and things of that nature.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Thank you, miss Swati. I just wanted to voice a concern about the safety of roof decks, especially buildings that are tall, 55 feet. I just have this, this vision of children playing, on a roof deck and, there not being sufficient, safeguards in place. And so I just wanted to voice that. I'm not exactly sure how this applies to the standards. But the closer we get to the edge of the building, even though there's a planter, there's a safeguard there, to me, it's troubling. It's just there could be a safety issue. And so, again, I'm not exactly sure what the solution is, but I just wanted to voice that concern.

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning Department)]: Yeah. Building code would require 42 inches railing at the edge of the roof deck. Right. A building code would require 42 inches railing to define the roof deck.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Trent.

[Sean Quigley (Owner, Paxton Gate)]: Sure. Thank

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: you for the presentation. I think we're ready to vote.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Yes. If there's nothing further, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt the, proposed amendments on that motion. Commissioner Campbell?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission president Soh? Aye. So moved, commissioners. The motion passes unanimously seven to zero. Commissioners, that will place us on items 13 a and b for case numbers twenty twenty four hyphen zero zero two seven nine nine CUA and VAR for the property at 906 Broadway. You will be considering the conditional use authorization, and the acting zoning administrator will be considering the variance.

[Michelle Langley (Planning Department)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Michelle Langley, department staff. The project before you is a request for a conditional use and variance to permit general entertainment within a landmark building to facilitate the conversion of the church into an event space from an institutional use. The project includes exterior and interior alterations, including a new rear yard, a new rear exterior stair enclosure for required egress, which requires a rear yard variance by the zoning administrator. These alterations were approved by the historic preservation commission on 07/16/2025. While the neighborhood is a mix of residential and and institutional uses like churches and schools, a provision of the code allows for additional uses in landmark buildings. Per planning code section one eighty six point three, a designated landmark within the resident within residential zoning districts may seek a conditional use authorization to authorize any nonresidential use or commercial use characteristic that is allowed on the Ground Floor in the N C 1 Zoning District. After extensive community outreach, the project sponsor filed an amended application with the department to establish general entertainment use from the initially proposed nighttime entertainment use. General entertainment is not permitted in the RM 2 Zoning District, but is permitted in the NC 1 Zoning District. The request for extended hours of operation was also withdrawn. The hours of operation permitted in the NC 1 Zoning District are 6AM to 11PM. The proposed hours of operation are 8AM to 10PM daily, and the revised packets include these hours as a condition of approval. These approvals will allow for the reactivation of a San Francisco city landmark known as Our Lady Of Guadalupe Church, as a multi function event space. A night club, restaurant, or bar are not being proposed. According to the project sponsor, they will not be seeking a liquor license for the property. Rather, the property will be available to rent for daytime and evening catered events, such as corporate retreats, lectures, fundraising galas, private receptions, and weddings. When an event is not booked, the space will not be open to the public. The department received three letters of support from the San Fran San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, the North Beach Business Association, and the Russian Hill Neighbors Group. They outline their support for a new use that would reactivate the historic church and ensure its care while contributing to the city's economic recovery goals. 23 letters or phone calls of concern or opposition regarding the project as initially proposed requesting the change of use to nighttime entertainment and the extended hours of operation were received along with two petitions of opposition, one from 39 residents of 2 Fallon Place and another from 74 residents of Lady Shaw senior center, these letters and phone calls of opposition from neighbors raised concerns about events occurring past 11PM, including issues with noise parking and general nuisance observed at the property, the Chinatown community development center and the lady Shaw senior center managed by self help for the elderly co sign a letter chronicling this history of outreach done by the project sponsor. The letter describes some of their initial concerns about noise and parking and praises the project sponsors effort efforts in addressing those concerns. Subsequently, self help for the elderly, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, and the Chinatown Community Development Center cosigned a letter of opposition of the proposed project, mainly concerning quality of life for seniors residing in the area, including issues with noise, parking, and general nuisances observed at the property. The upper Chinatown neighborhood association also sent the department a letter of opposition, also citing quality of life concerns for seniors residing in the area. Several neighbors requested that the project be continued from the July 31 hearing to allow for additional outreach. After revising the project, the project sponsor held a community meeting at 906 Broadway on 09/10/2025 with approximately 35 attendees to discuss the revised scope and any outstanding concerns. The project's sponsor also held an on-site sound, sound mock mockup with several neighbors. The department received three letters of concern since the project revision. Self Help for the Elderly sent a letter concerning operational hours beyond ten p. M. The The department has found the project to be on balance, consistent with the general plan and recommends approval. Religious operations ceased over twenty five years ago, and the building has been unoccupied since the previous school tenant, Saint Mary's Chinese Day School and Chinese Language School relocated in 2020 2011. Several unsuccessful attempts have been made to find an appropriate use for the long dormant church. By establishing a new general entertainment use, the event space will reactivate the property and provide a steady income stream, allowing for ongoing maintenance and restoration of the landmark property. The project sponsor is sensitive to the concerns of neighboring residents and is committed to being a responsible and engaged neighbor by adhering to the noise ordinance and the entertainment commission's good neighbor policy and keeping open lines of communication with neighborhood residents and associations. Lastly, I I would like to note that the project sponsor will also seek a limited live performance permit from the entertainment commission where entertainment specific considerations like sound limits and hours will be evaluated. At that hearing, neighbors will have another formal opportunity to share input on these entertainment specific concerns. This concludes my presentation, and I am available for questions. The project sponsor is also in attendance and will follow with additional details.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. And I have a professional disclosure to make. I have a professional relationship with the executive director of the South Health for the Elderly based on the fact that we're both community members, and I once appear on her TV show. But I do not have any financial relationship, and it will not affect my ability to give fair and impartial consideration to the proposal before the commission.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

[Tara Sullivan (Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP)]: Thank you, Jonas. Thank you, commissioners. It's Tara Sullivan from Reuben, Junious, and Rose here on behalf of the property owner. As Michelle mentioned, the item before you is 906 Broadway. The building known as Our Lady of Guadalupe Church is designated as both an interior and exterior landmark under article 10 of the planning code. Religious buildings, particularly large churches, are very hard to adaptively reuse. Oftentimes, the outside forms retain, but the interiors are usually obscured through renovations. Typically, we see them being converted into residential uses with the interiors being chopped up to accommodate that use. Here, 906 Broadway's interiors are designated, limiting any adaptive reuse of the building to something that can utilize the current form of the building's interior spaces. That is, there cannot be any alterations on the interior of the building that would damage or obscure the character defining landmark spaces and features. There are few businesses that end uses that can go into this designated structure due to the strict parameters of the article 10 designation. Because of these limitations, this landmark has largely sat vacant for well over ten years. The current owners, the Massimo family, purchased the building in January 2024. They fell in love with the structure and willingly became the current stewards of it. However, they need a business that will enable them to fund the rehabilitation and upkeep of this landmark. Since it's been vacant for so long, there's a lot of deferred maintenance that has to happen. It also needs to be upgraded to current fire and life safety codes with which requires a new second means of egress and sprinklers. The request before you today is to authorize the change of use of the landmark to an event space. Planning code allows article 10 buildings to utilize the NC one controls so that these significant structures can be repurposed to a new use, thus enabling them to continue their lifespan as useful buildings. Without this provision, the church cannot be used for anything other than religious services. The proposed event venue falls under the general entertainment use category, which is permitted as of right in the NC 1 District. The families partnered with an event company that will be in charge of the day to day businesses, including booking, setup, breakdown, security, and all other aspects of events. Typical events are nonprofit summary nonprofit summits and charity gatherings, corporate symposiums and conferences, panel discussions, private cocktail receptions, small trade shows, intimate gatherings, and community gatherings. Note that the building is going to be open is open on an as reserved basis, with catering being brought into the space by a third party. As Michelle noted, the original proposal here was to have a 2AM stop time seven days a week. After hearing many concerns from the neighbors, the owner has modified the project to operate from 8AM till 10PM seven days a week. And I wanna reiterate, the stop time for events is now 10PM. These hours align with what Lady Shaw, the self help for the elderly, the senior resident that's directly across from the property, has conveyed to the owners as being acceptable for their residents. The owner's intent has always been to be a good neighbor and partner in the community. And as such, they are requesting that the commission place these hours of operation as a condition of approval on the final motion. We hope that this shows the intent of the owners to be a respectful neighbor and business. In addition to these reduced hours, the Melody, the event venue business, has a series of good neighbor policies and security measures and Jonas, I do have them outlined if you can pass them out, please that are built into all their contracts that help regulate issues before, during, and after the events. Each event is required to coordinate with the Melody at least fourteen days in advance, their loading and unloading plan, provide a full list of vendors, identify equipment, staging, and other details for full approval. They obtained a white curb for loading and unloading. They stagger loading times, and they have a mandatory stop time of 8PM for large vehicle loading. Event breakdowns typically occur the following day to avoid late evening noise. There's also a detailed security plan in place with each event staffed by a minimum of six security personnel at various points throughout the property with a minimum of three at the front entrances. For noise, all doors are required to be closed during events. Amplified sound is set at a maximum level that meets the city regulations. Further, the Melody has an in house PA system with limits on volume controls. No outside systems or percussions are permitted. Lastly, for guests' arrivals and departures, they partnered with local garages for guests to use with maps to all the events to the guests. They valet staff for car share, ride, drop off, and pickup, and guests are monitored when outside during departures. Approximately thirty minutes after the conclusion of events, guests are encouraged to leave the property. All of these efforts have been made to ensure that the events held at 906 Broadway will have a minimum impact on their neighbors. In summary, 906 Broadway is an individual landmark designated on the interior and exterior. Repurposing this building is not easy, but the code allows for you to approve this approve this. The Massimo family is dedicated to ensuring that the building will not fall into further disrepair and wanna bring this landmark back to life. To make that happen, they need the conditional use authorization with a stop time of 10PM that is included in the conditions of approval by you today. We respectfully request that you approve this project. I I also wanna note that there has been, some questions about events being held on the property till 4AM. There have never been events held at this property until 4AM, till 1AM, or anything like that. They've had a few events there over the past year, running mainly till eleven to 12PM. But they have records showing that there's never been anything held till 4PM 4AM. So I just wanna put that on the record. And then lastly, Noah Massimoore, who's the owner of the property, is here. Alex Tatum, who's the manager of the Melody, can speak on the events.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. But that is your

[Tara Sullivan (Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP)]: time.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Thanks. And thanks.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. You need to come forward.

[Anni Chung (President & CEO, Self Help for the Elderly)]: Thank you. Thank you, commissioners. So Judy from Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Kit Fong from The Lady Shaw, also director of our housing department will join us. I think we will use less than three, four minutes the most. Good afternoon, President Tsao and also members of the commission. I'm Annie Chong, and I'm the president and CEO of Self Help for the Elderly. So with me again is Kit Fong, who runs the Lady Shaw project and works very, very closely with all of our seniors, and also Judy, our partner, and also, supported for a long time. So we brought along 13 residents who live right at Lady Shaw with us today. And there are total of 76 residents that lived in that project. And many of them moved in since we opened the project in 1990. For thirty five years, Lady Shaw has been an excellent neighbor and providing lots of direct senior services from food service to transportation to health care and also recreation and educational project. So Kit runs a very robust senior housing project. And for seniors who are lucky enough to move into Lady Shaw, they usually would tell me that moving into this project is better than winning the real lottery. Because in this project, they get almost twenty four hour really care and loving support from Kit and his staff. So what brought us to this hearing today? And first, I want to apologize that it could be us that sent in our comments pretty late, like yesterday, commissioner, sorry. And I know that you know, like addressing the issues and concerns and, that Noah and his team has brought to us many, many times, is a is a very challenging, subject matter for us. Because after all, self help is a direct service provider, and we provide services like food service, again, you know, classes, recreation, health care, making sure that our elderly are okay. So if we respond kind of late, we apologize, and next time if we have to appear before you again, we promise to send in our comment our comments earlier. But our position on the Melody Project at 906 Broadway has been clearly stated from day one. All night events must end no later than 10PM, and 10PM actually is pretty late for our seniors already. Sorry, I will speed up my remarks a little bit. We spent almost a year listening to the arguments put forth by the owners as to why they should be allowed to run their events till 11PM or sometimes at the earlier application when as late as 2AM. We are somewhat glad to learn that the owners have now agreed to a 10PM stop seven days a week. I did say somewhat, commissioners, because 76 seniors live right across the street from the project. Their bedroom, on the 3rd Floor and till the 7th Floor, 3rd to the 7th Floor, 40 to 45 units already. You know, I'm right there listening to Thank

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: you, ma'am. But thank you.

[Anni Chung (President & CEO, Self Help for the Elderly)]: All the activities and noises.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Maybe then Kit can Yeah.

[Anni Chung (President & CEO, Self Help for the Elderly)]: Maybe Kit, maybe you could continue. Yeah.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Absolutely.

[Anni Chung (President & CEO, Self Help for the Elderly)]: Kit could continue. I just want to say that what we would like to see is to ensure that all events stop at 9PM period, and also to approve a one year conditional use permit to the owners for now, instead of a three year permit. So maybe it could continue. Yeah.

[Kit Fong (Lady Shaw Senior Center)]: As as Annie actually mentioned it, we actually are concerned about the residents' health condition, and so we wanna make sure this actually, the proposal is accountable, that, we actually can monitor the progress, you know, because if the events stop at 10:00, it doesn't mean everything stop. It only means more than 100 participant may exit the event and get their ride, and that is the the noise coming from. And then people will talk, people will actually wait for their car. Those the the owner of the the nine zero six board, they said they will actually have people or security guard monitoring that. But in a way, it may not be that easy to handle for more than 100 people. So I have picture of the apartment across street of the 906 Broadway, and this is just right across the 906 Broadway. You can actually see the window actually can easily see the people getting out of the events, and that is the noise that majority of the time our residents complain about. You know, people will actually talk loud and you know? So I would like to actually see that we can actually put some limitation on this to make sure we have monitoring this event time to avoid any disturbance to our residents.

[Judy Lee (San Francisco Chinese Chamber of Commerce)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm Judy Lee with the San Francisco Chinese Chamber of Commerce, here to express serious concerns with the 906 Broadway project with these types of conditions. The chamber sees this project as a valuable opportunity to reinvest in Chinatown at a critical time. Our neighborhood continues to face deep economic and social impacts from the pandemic, from declining foot traffic to small business closures. Projects like this can help breathe new life into our streets and support the long term resilience of Chinatown. But that being said, we believe that this development in Chinatown must be balanced and must serve the needs of both current residents and future users of this space. We respectfully request that this commission include two community based conditions on this project. First of which you heard from Annie Chung from self help for the elderly, that the project owners establish a working relationship with the self help for the elderly, one of the most trusted and impactful nonprofits in our neighborhood. They have decades of experience supporting Chinatown's senior population as you can see behind us today. A partnership could include shared programming, access to this community space, and future opportunities for these seniors. This is an important step to ensure that the benefits of this project extend to our elders who are often too often left outside of these conversations. Secondly, we ask that this commission require all events at this site to end no later than 10PM, meaning hard stop at 10PM. Many of these neighboring residents are seniors and families. Late night noise and disruption would be unfair and harmful to their well-being. Setting this firm curfew will help maintain the peace and residential character of this part of Chinatown. Thank you.

[Nicole (Russian Hill Neighbors representative)]: Hello. My name is Nicole, and I am a Russian Hill neighbor. And though I don't speak on behalf of them, I'm very proud to say that we supported this endeavor. And I wanna echo the comments that you made. I have only known Noah and the guys from The Melody through my relationship with Russian Hill neighbors. We are looking to do some events. We love having events in our community in, places where we can, celebrate all the beautiful spaces. And this is one of the one of the places that we're looking to have host an event in the future. And I was really taken by my conversations with Noah because he and his team really want to be a part of the neighborhood, build community, be one on one with the neighborhood. And I think that that's something that's really important to think about is sometimes we think that people if we give people an inch, they'll take a mile or maybe they'll take advantage of the different, ways that permitting goes. But I know from my interactions, which are purely business related, that I can say very, strongly and con and firmly that, I I knowing I know that they want to be part of the neighborhood. They wanna work with everybody, and I think it's true to have, nonprofits involved in the space. I know that they wanna give they would they would host an event for us for free, and that which would be a huge, a huge boon to to our organization because we are just a small nonprofit as well. So, echoing what other people have said, I would say that I think that the the sponsors and the owners of The Melody would be great stewards of the space and good for our community to build neighborhood, camaraderie, which is what Russian Hill Neighbors is about and what I believe The Melody is about as well.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed. This matter is now before you, commissioners.

[Swati (Planning Department leadership staff)]: Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Williams. I wanna wanna wanna thank everyone who came out. And and, so what I heard, I heard a few things, and this is the second time around, that we've heard this project. And me, I'm sensitive to the concerns of the seniors. And so what I've heard is that they would like a working relationship with, with the folks, and at at the church. And so I I think that's that's a that's positive. I I would hope that, the project sponsor would be, willing to to have and keep keep those folks, in the loop. They are seniors, and they live across the street. So I don't think that that's, anything that, can't, you know, wouldn't, wouldn't be agreed to. Also, what I heard is, the idea of a one year conditional use permit. And I think it's not a bad idea. I think that there's some concerns about accountability. And I think that to build that good working relationship, A year of time may be what's needed to develop that trust. And so I would be willing, actually, to consider that. Also,

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: let's see.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Also, the the, there was something brought up around aft after ten, after the hard stop at 10PM. The people that are exiting the venue, and the additional noise and issues that can happen at that time. You know, I think it would be helpful to monitor that as well. And I'm not exactly sure how. You know, maybe it's as simple as mentioning to folks as they exit the venue, we have seniors across the street, you know, could you please respect the neighborhood or something like that. But but I think it's it's it's worth, you know, understanding that that can be an issue, after an eventful venue. Sometimes the energies are still kind of kind of high. And so I I could see I could see that. So those are my comments. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. Commissioner McGarry.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: I would echo everything commissioner Williams said. I think it's a win win situation. There's 76, residents across the row across the road, and there's the people who will accompany them. That is basically an event in its own right, coupled with the lady from Russian Hill neighborhood. Basically, other events, so you're off to you can be off to a very good, camaraderie with the neighbors here. I would agree with the concerns of the hard stop at the 10AM. I think that is that is a very good 10PM. Oh, sorry. Ten yeah. I keep I wrote that down three times, and I admit to cop. Yeah. Yeah. Those days were over. 10PM. I'm in bed by 10PM. I got three kids. So that was that's

[Swati (Planning Department leadership staff)]: It's okay.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Keep going.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Keep going. So but, yes, I would totally I would totally agree. It's really neighbors are the most important part of society, and one must always get on with one's neighbors as my mother would always say. They don't go away. I would definitely ask the planning department to come back with a review in a year to make sure that everything is going the way things have been promised. The 10AM or the 10PM. Say it again. The 10PM and and then he recorded, nuisances. I it is a really good idea. It's very small, but just telling people as they're exiting to just be mindful of the neighbors that are around really does work well and it speaks volumes, but it's a very, very small thing to do. So what I encourage all your staff, which apparently is gonna be family and neighbors, so they will actually, pull that off, because it's really important to be a good neighbor, but this has the possibility of actually being an anchor within the neighborhood. So, I wish you well with it all. Okay.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Alright. Thank you. Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I, first have a question for the project sponsor. You mentioned that there have been some events held at the facility. One can go online and see that the melody has been holding events, for some time now. And I am curious to hear more about, it seems like those events may have not been, permitted at the time. I'm unclear on that. And then also the hours, I mean, honestly, it sounds like the sponsor may not have done themselves any favors by potentially holding events past, you know, hours that were acceptable to the neighbors in the first place. So would you mind just to explain a little more about the situation coming into this?

[Tara Sullivan (Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP)]: Thank you, commissioners. I'm actually gonna have the owner Noah come up and Alex come up and discuss that since they have been working on the property for a while.

[Noah Massimo (Owner, 906 Broadway)]: Hello, commissioners. My name is Noah Massmore. My family owns the Lady of Guadalupe Church. Yeah. So, you know, starting a small business in San Francisco, it has been a steep learning curve. One would think that, you know, for an event, you go to the the office at Van Ness, you pull your temporary place of assembly permit, and you're good to go. But as we have been moving forward with this process, we haven't learned that there is more complexity to it. And so we have made changes accordingly.

[Alex Tatum (Operator, The Melody)]: Yeah. I can comment on that. So my name is Alex Tatum. I'm the operator of the MELODY and kind of boots on the ground there. So, yeah, as Noah said, the events that we hosted, you know, that was our mistake where, you know, we went to 49 Van Ness, pulled a temporary permanent assembly, had fire marshals at every single event. And so that was the process since we started this conditional use, I believe, probably a year ago. So that was that's what we were doing in the midterm while we were going through this process. So those are the events that we've held. The moment we, you know, came aware of us that there's more to that, we ceased operations, and we're here today to move correctly. And then I guess other comments about things going later. Most of the events were ending before eleven p. M, ten p. M. We had a conversation with Lady Shaw earlier, probably about a year ago, about how we wanted x number of events past 10PM because that's a way for the event venue to realistically be competitive to win some of the other contracts for other venues around. If we're going till nine or 8PM, people it's won't decide on this venue. So we were talking about, okay, a handful can go past that. And then we operated, pulled those permits, and really, actually, we never heard anything about it until a day before the last hearing in July. So we're here to have conversations. We want to do this right. And we're excited about the opportunity to be an anchor in the community.

[Robert Blaget]: All

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: right. Thank you for responding to my question. I appreciate that. And also, I wanna say I actually really appreciate the constructive conversations that seem to have been happening both by the owners and, you know, product sponsors, 906 Broadway, and of course the neighbors at Self Help for the Elderly and the many organizations who have been paying attention to this. I'm really it it's great to hear you even owning up to some of the mistakes and oversights that you did on your your part. You have an experienced team now who can help navigate this process, and so that's that's really good to see. Thank you. I don't have any other questions for you. Appreciate it. So alright. So that that answered that question. I have one one question about the outdoor space. There is a small outdoor space adjacent to the building. And I see on the plans, it's marked as not being a place that event attendees can go. But but is that correct? Or what's the I'm thinking for the outdoor space. It's to the side of the building behind the neighboring property, it looks like.

[Tara Sullivan (Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP)]: Correct. Tara Sullivan from Reuben, Genius and Rose. If I can have the overhead, I'll put up. Here's a site plan. This is the church property. This is the former rectory on a separate lot. And this is a rear yard. This was kind of all developed at one time. And so there is a rear yard back here. There is excuse me. Currently hold on. Let me make sure that's existing. Right now, there is a structure back here that has restrooms. And that is to date to where the people in the church and the events were going outside to use these restrooms and being able to congregate in this very small backyard area. The HPC has approved and we're hoping the acting zoning administrator will approve a rear yard variance to remove those outdoor restrooms, this structure, put them inside. And so that will therefore be closed off to customers during the events. It is currently though the rear yard space for the tenants that live in that rectory next door. It's kind of an unusual setup just given the history of the development here. But, yes, I hope that answers your question.

[Ron Elder]: Sure.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Yes. That does. Thank you for that. So, you know, I'm I'm kind of following up on some smaller issues that have come up. I know that in the last round of letters in July that, there were some references from neighbors to that outdoor space. But if the events can be held indoors, with the doors closed, then that, that satisfies my question about that. The, okay, let's see. So I would just say, I I like I said earlier, I I appreciate the constructiveness of some of the discussions that have been ongoing throughout this process, especially since the continuance from July. I honestly would have pushed for the hours to be restricted to 10PM, and I was also surprised when the packet was first published on Friday to see that the hours were not even included in the conditions of approval. But since that has now been added to the conditions of approval with the 10PM cutoff, and everyone's talking about that hard 10PM cutoff, and it's in there, I'm really happy to see that. I think procedurally, there's been discussion there's been a request from the community and discussion with the commission about coming back to the commission if it's maybe a short term conditional use. I don't know if I'm in favor of just a conditional use authorization that has a one year cutoff for expiration of some kind. I am curious to hear from department staff what the sort of, I'm I'm happy to have a hearing again to find out if there have been any complaints or concerns or to allow people to bring those into the commission. But, what I'm trying to figure out how to sort of put that into the motion.

[Michelle Langley (Planning Department)]: Sure. Michelle Langley, department staff. Instead of an actual timed limitation on the conditional use authorization, what is typically done is to have the department issue a memo to the commission after a set period of time, so in one year, year and a half, whatever the case may be, to report on operational issues if any have arisen or any sound complaints.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. So I think, I I don't wanna make a motion just yet to hear other commissioner comments, but I would be in favor of including a requirement that the memo be published that summarizes any complaints or concerns. And I would also be in favor of holding a hearing, to to discuss that memo in a year. But I would I don't wanna put a time limit on the conditional use authorization. Thank you.

[Georgia Schuttish (Public Commenter)]: Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. Commissioner Brock. Well, it's now I'm gonna make some of my comments. And, thank you for everyone who show up here to to speak and also support, your stand and. You know? Okay. I just speak a little Cantonese to recognize people who are monolingual here, my colleagues. I live in San Francisco. I live in an area where there's a lot of entertainment, and I understand how noise could really disrupt communities. But then I also because I live in San Francisco, I also understand that we also like San Francisco to be vibrant and have that type of, diversity and vibrancy we have. But, however, though, this cannot be successful unless we have neighbors and communities actually work together. Like, you have to build trust. And the trust is not you build it by earning it. And, I'm really happy to hear the operator and the owner here, these two gentlemen mentioned that, they could learn from their recent past and make it better. So I really here, really highly encourage you to, continue to hurry up and be a much better neighbors. The hard stop at 10PM, it's a amicable compromise, but that is also right now, the trust has not been restored. Right? So it's now we're asking a lot of community wondering, is it really truly gonna happen if that is the case? If not, then what can they do? Right? So I highly encourage, our community to learn and also express the knowledge to people that there is a noise code there's a under the police code for noise violation in anything, not just this conditional use or could be that house next door that is controlled and monitored by the police. So, again, I'm speaking here on a record asking our Central Station Police to keep an really eye good eye on the noise control that this church that you operate and also other properties that you either occupy or operate adjacent to it. And then, with the 10:00 hard stop, there is a real concern about, is it all going to get wrapped up by ten and or is people just going to linger? Well, so these are kind of hard to say one way or the other right now because we can all say, yes, we will do it. And it really have we need to look at time will tell. So I am I I keep thinking about some of the suggestions some of my colleagues have mentioned. I thought that one possible solution is really is having a monitor conditions, like commissioner Braun was mentioning, to monitor a having having our department staff to, issue a written memo within a year that to overview whether, overall, if your compliance performance and the recorded noise complaint, with the San Francisco Police Department is actually consistent with what we're discussing and you agreed to do today. And then I'm open to also have a hearing back into our chamber for this recording, for this reporting if it's acceptable by my fellow commissioners. But, lastly, before I move on, I keep hearing, quite a bit of just I wanted to be on a record. I keep hearing quite a bit of, confusions from the community. They're confused of where the noise come from or some of the recent incident that happened that is an entertainment party that happened nearby right next to this this application address. So I think it's on 908 Broadway that happened that has, like, parties that spill out to 4AM. Can any of you speak to that? Do you own the property? Do you live in that property?

[Noah Massimo (Owner, 906 Broadway)]: Yeah. So I I can't speak to what's happening in 908 because my brother manages that piece. But I can say that it's really helpful to have, like, an open line of communication with the, with the neighborhood and Lady Shaw because, like, being able to get feedback helps us look at, you know, when events are happening and what's what has happened, and, like, figure out and be a partner with the community and figuring out, what's the cause of that noise. I have heard I have heard people mention of, like, parties happening around the 908906 Broadway property. But again, having that line of communication and getting that feedback from self help, and other neighbors will help us in being partners and figuring out what is, the root cause of of this noise. So

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Okay. Thank you for that explanations. So, again, I agree think that having a working relationship with self help would be super pivotal for for this moving forward. And also respect the seniors and and our neighbors, please. And that concludes my comment, and I'll leave it to, commissioner vice president Moore.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Thank you. Thank you, president. So I appreciate the sensitivity that you specifically spelled out for our elderly neighbors. Very much appreciated. I am glad that we are trying to create a dialogue and find a middle ground. I have seen the church being empty with various people attempting to revitalize it over the year, and it was always disappointing when it never took off. So the building indeed needs somebody take over, and I hope that what we heard today is the beginning of a constructive relationship. On that note, I believe that the commission asking for one year re reporting and review is appropriate. I am a little hesitant to put a one year condition on this, in order not to break the process by which this can can constructively develop. I need to ask that the motion that in front of us, exhibit a, be expanded to include what miss Sullivan actually mentioned, the particular hours that are now being agreed to, 8AM to 10PM, Monday through Sunday, is not, spelled out in the motion. And I believe when we make a motion, the motion needs to be complete on that. That is on exhibit a, page 22 of the motion. There's there's a little bit detail missing. And as to whether or not the request for this project to be reported on after a year and coming back to be heard needs to be in that particular paragraph as well. That goes a little bit beyond of what I know, but I could ask city attorney, mister Yang to perhaps opine on that.

[Deputy City Attorney Kevin Yang]: I'm sorry. Could you just repeat that last part?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I was wondering, aside from adding the comment about operating hours as to whether or not the project has to has to have a memo a memorandum to the commission was being heard. Does that have to be repeated in this particular section of the motion as well?

[Deputy City Attorney Kevin Yang]: Oh, I see. About having a report or a look back from the commission. We can add it. That can be a condition of approval for the project sponsor to come back, with a on a date certain or within one year

[Robert Blaget]: Mhmm.

[Deputy City Attorney Kevin Yang]: Or following one year, I guess. It can also be just something that the department can bring to you and can be a little bit more informal, which could be flexible if you needed to accommodate for schedule or otherwise.

[Robert Blaget]: So I

[Swati (Planning Department leadership staff)]: think you need

[Robert Blaget]: to raise your time.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Comfort thank you so much, mister Yang. My own comfort would be to have it part of the motion so that indeed it is clearly visible to everybody, and it's just basically a note. And I see, secretary Aonin also, to nod to that. So if we could amend the motion to include those particular two elements. I don't think that that is an intent of a motion. That is just basically a clerical addition of of these two facts. Correct?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Well, I believe the maker of the motion would need to add them as conditions of approval.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I will make a motion to add these two particular points as condition of approval. That is a statement of the hours of operation together with a statement, and I am not good in verbalizing it, that the commission, would, get an annual report, and, a hearing to to to reaffirm the operation, of the venue.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Braun, you might want to

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: May may I ask a clarifying question? Better. Well, I'm just curious if, I was thinking they'd just come back after the first year, but do you want annual reporting No.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Come back after

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: the year.

[Dustin Goh]: Okay. That is

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: thank you for catching that. That is actually correct.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: And the other note is we we do have a there was a revised motion sent by staff that does include the hours of operation as stated by the sponsor. So we can use that and then also append

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: And add on to that.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Yeah. So it's the hours that go till 10PM. It's it's in the revised motion. But either way, yes. Second.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. And, Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Yeah. Thank you. I also second that, but I know who you're wrong already. I just, for me, I just have a question just to make sure that there is a line of communication. I'm wondering who is the committee liaison on the from the Melody SF?

[Noah Massimo (Owner, 906 Broadway)]: Yeah. I can speak to that. So both Alex and I, we have provided our cell phone numbers at the community meeting that we held. And so, you know, both Alex are Alex and I are always available to, to to receive any feedback from the neighbors.

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

[Veronica Flores (Planning Department)]: Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. Natalia, you might wanna say something? Yeah.

[Natalia Fassi (Acting Zoning Administrator)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Natalia Fazzi, acting zoning administrator. I'd like to just comment on the variance aspect of the project. I'm generally supportive of the variance. It's reducing the existing footprint of the obstruction pretty significantly, and it's providing an egress there that will facilitate the reuse of the building. So I intend to grant the variance. And then in regards to some of your conversation, I'd like to just point your attention to the community liaison condition, which is one of our standard conditions in the draft motion that requires the project sponsor team to identify a contact for the community. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Just real fast. So I'm I'm I'm in agreement with with everything that I've heard so far. Thank you, commissioners, for addressing it the way you do. I just have a just a thought, and I hate to play devil's advocate, but I will. What happens, if, for, you know, whatever reason, things don't work out and this comes back to us? What what what actions can we take to rectify it? And so that that's a concern of mine.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Department staff, maybe?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Well, I'll just quickly respond after the one year compliance performance memorandum and informational hearing. If you find that they are not in compliance and they are not good neighbors, then you can schedule a revocation hearing.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: A revocation hearing?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Yes.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you. That's that's all.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Thank you. It's I think the project sponsor said it's hard to adapt as we reuse a church. And so I I just commend the sponsor for taking this on. It's a it's a really lovely story, and I and I'm so pleased to hear that the community has come together in this way and found a compromise. And I hope your business is still successful and competitive in light of the of these hours. So I just wish everybody good luck and look forward to hearing the report in the year.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: There's a motion that has been seconded. I just wanted to clarify with the maker of the motion if you were okay with the friendly amendment that, Commissioner Imperial suggested, which was simply to include the good neighbor performance evaluation as well?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Yes.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: And the seconder? Yes. Very good then. There is a motion that has been seconded, commissioners, to approve with conditions as have been amended and submitted, to include the updated hours of operations, but more importantly, adding a condition, to submit a memo regarding compliance and Good Neighbor performances in one year and schedule an informational update hearing for the same purpose. On that motion, commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission president Soh?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously seven to zero. Acting zoning administrator would say you.

[Natalia Fassi (Acting Zoning Administrator)]: Thank you. I'll close the public hearing. I intend to grant the variance with standard conditions.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Great. Thank you. Commissioners, that will place us on item 14 for case number 2025Hyphen003933CUA at 620 Jones Street and 560 Gary Street. This is a conditional use authorization.

[Michelle Langley (Planning Department)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Michelle Langley, department staff. The project before you is a request for a conditional use to modify condition of approval number 14 from planning commission motion number one nine two seven zero to extend the hours of live entertainment in an existing outdoor activity area to till 8PM, Sunday through Thursday, and to to and to 10PM, Friday and Saturday, from the previously approved limitation of 7PM daily at the subject property doing business as 620 Jones. There is no change in the existing restaurant and 19 nighttime entertainment uses. No physical work is being proposed. The project has qualified for review under the planning commission's community business priority processing program. A restaurant use was established at the basement of the Gaylord Hotel and on the rooftop of the garage building front in Geary, at with a condition of use in 2008 with a closing time of midnight and no amplified music. An allowance of two monthly events with outdoor entertainment until 7PM was granted. In 2013, previous conditions of approval were amended to extend the outdoor activity area hours until 2PM on weekends, New Year's Eve, and gay pride Sunday. Under this approval, amplified outdoor entertainment was also allowed until 7PM daily. It is important to note that a request for a restaurant and outdoor activity area at this location today would not require a conditional use. The sponsor hosted a department facilitated pre application meeting on 04/09/2025. Management representing adjacent hotels attended and expressed some concerns regarding noise. No other members of the public attended. The department received 19 letters of support 17 letters of support from nearby business owners, community leaders, and neighbors highlighting positive impacts of the business along with 22 letters of opposition from the public, one request for more information, and a petition signed by 79 neighbors. These letters address noise and quality of life concerns from nearby residents. Should the request for expanded outdoor entertainment hours be approved, the project sponsor will return to the entertainment commission to ensure that entertainment specific considerations like sound limits, hours, and days of outdoor sound and special event frequency can be evaluated and additional specialized conditions can be considered. At that entertainment commission hearing, neighbors will have another formal opportunity to share input on these entertainment specific concerns. Planning staff finds that this project is necessary, desirable for, and incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood, which includes high density residential, hotel, and institutional uses with abundant ground floor commercial uses and is on balance with a general plan and use district. The operators have made efforts to mitigate undesirable undesirable consequences and negative effects of noise by installing a new outdoor four point sound system in an effort to better contain the volume of the music within the patio. The project sponsor is sensitive to the concerns of neighboring residents and is committed to being a responsible and engaged neighbor by adhering to the noise ordinance and the entertainment commission's good neighbor policy, and keeping open lines of commission communication with neighborhood residents and associations. Conditional use approval to extend the permitted hours of entertainment in the outdoor activity area would allow the existing restaurant to maintain a viable small business in the post COVID environment, create more job opportunities and support the support, the cultural vitality of the Tenderloin and contribute to the ongoing economic recovery of San Francisco. This concludes my presentation and I'm available for questions. The project sponsor is also in in attendance, and we'll follow with additional details. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

[Pete Glickstern (Co-operator, 620 Jones)]: Thank you, commissioners. My name is Pete Glickstern. I am a forty five year long resident of San Francisco. We have been operating, at our location at Jones And Geary for almost fifteen years. We are a neighborhood anchor in the Tenderloin. We stayed open and kept all of our employees working all through COVID. We support 25 employees, most of whom have families. Almost all of our employees live in the city of San Francisco. We cannot stay open with things the way they are. People simply are not coming to the Tenderloin. If we shut down, those 25 people and their families will lose their livelihood. Out of every four entertainment businesses in San Francisco, one out of every four entertainment businesses in San Francisco has an outdoor element, 143 of them in all. They all go to at least 10PM. All we want is a level playing field. Pardon me. We actively manage our business. We changed our format. Complaints went up. We engaged with neighbors. And with sound experts, complaints went down. We're doing everything we can to stay afloat, just keep our heads above water. We renegotiated our lease to be percentage only. We cut salaried staff down to a bare minimum. We are both working at the business day in and day out, fifteen years later. We still can't meet payroll most months. Jordan and I are personally funding this business right now. We can't keep that up. Commissioners, please hear me. A vote against extending our hours until 10PM is a vote to shut down Jones. Jordan?

[Jordan Langer (Co-operator, 620 Jones)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Jordan Langer. President, so Vice President Moore, thank you for being here. I started at Jones over fifteen years ago. I started as a laborer, and I worked my way from bar manager to general manager. And Jones is the grandfather of everything that I've done in San Francisco since then, from taking over the Palace of Fine Arts and the old San Francisco Mint on behalf of the city and county of San Francisco to creating Portola, one of the largest music festivals the city has seen, and most recently, activating Ellis Street in the newly formed entertainment district. We are good operators. We are good stewards. And we love San Francisco. I want to talk a little bit more about the community engagement and why Jones is an anchor in the neighborhood. Just last week, we hosted DISH's annual bash for the tenth time. Altogether, through the support of Jones, DISH has been able to raise $2,200,000 to provide high quality permanent housing to San Francisco's who suffer from serious health issues. We have raised millions of dollars for local LGBTQ organizations through fundraisers, events, and awareness campaigns. With the city's energy grant funding, we created San Francisco's first queer arts and music festival in the Tenderloin this festival included over a dozen queer locally owned legacy businesses that over the past four years have seen a sharp decline in their business since day one oh excuse me importantly Jones's Patio is the backdrop of the main homepage photo for the first legally recognized transgender district in the world Since day one at Jones, we've been active with neighborhood organizations, from free use of space for all of the local nonprofits to food donations to glide. I am proud of all of the good that Jones has done over the past fifteen years. As Pete mentioned, we changed our format to reflect the new reality. We actively worked with the entertainment commission to control the sound, address issues, and mitigate neighborhood impact. We've been given a new sound limit based on our updated sound plan and since have not received any citations and have been in complete compliance while still continuing to host events. This is another good example of our dedication to be good neighbors and the fact that we have been doing it for fifteen years. We will absolutely continue to work with the entertainment commission once we have once we have amended hours of operations. For the last fifteen years, we have welcomed oh, excuse me. For the last fifteen years, we've welcomed open communication with residents on our block and have engaged with everyone, everyone who is willing to have productive conversation with us. That will never change. Most of these folks, most people have my number, have Pete's phone number, or certainly has the management that is there every single night to be able to speak with them directly. There are possibly some people here who emailed or who'd rather excuse me. There are possibly some people here or folks who have emailed to Joe to and want for Jones to close permanently. We all have different beliefs about what a better San Francisco means. But the San Francisco that I know and the San Francisco that is currently being championed by mayor Lurie is one that welcomes small business, encourages entertainment, and is a city that is being rebuilt

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: by culture and culture. Your time.

[Jordan Langer (Co-operator, 620 Jones)]: Thank you for your time. Please, I ask you to consider this for the betterment of San Francisco.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. With that, we should take public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. You need to come forward.

[Resident near Geary & Jones (name not provided)]: Line was over there. Right?

[Robert Blaget]: Yeah. Yes.

[Resident near Geary & Jones (name not provided)]: Can I go?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Sure can.

[Resident near Geary & Jones (name not provided)]: Well, thank you. Thank you for listening to me. Look, I just found out about this yesterday. I live in the neighborhood. I have had no time to prepare for this. But let me tell you something. This place in my neighborhood, there have been nights when it has been so loud. It has felt like it's rattling the windows of my apartment. I go in the back of my apartment. It is still loud back there. And it goes late, and people in my building feel that way. I live in that apartment on a rent controlled basis. I have fixed income. I can't move. But whatever I'm paying for rent, whatever anybody is paying for rent, it is a high density neighborhood. There are studio apartments all around this place. And it is so loud at night. And the people that go there, the music they play, you know what it is? It's like this bass, like thump thump thump thump. Gary it's like Gary and Jones. You wanna allow you know, Gary and Jones is world famous for every kind of urban problem. It's like ground zero. You know, people all all over the place read about Keirion Jones on the news. I I I know people are trying to make a effort to work with community, but nobody has tried to work with anybody in my building. And I just want to get some sleep at night. I want some rest. I've worked in the bar and restaurant business. I've gone out late at night. That's fine. But look at this. It's out of doors. It's out of doors in this bad neighborhood, and it's it's a lot of urban problems. I'm a senior citizen, and there's lots of senior citizens around there. And with the limited time I have had to prepare, that's about all I can say. Thank you.

[Juanita MORE (Drag performer/organizer)]: Hello, everyone. It's great to see you all today. I'm Juanita Moore. I've been doing drag in San Francisco for the past thirty three years, and I've been part of Jones since they first opened. I've been having my annual pride party there for the past eleven years. And with their help, I have helped to raise over a million dollars for some of San Francisco's most impactful nonprofit organizations. Youth programs, senior programs, those are things that I super, super really care about. I also ran the restaurant at Jones for a year. With the sound ordinance and everything having to stop at 7PM and me running the restaurant and trying to serve dinner, my guests weren't coming in after 7PM because there was no no music for them to hear in the patio. It's been a special place for me and my community to celebrate what we do and who we are in San Francisco. So I'd consider please consider passing this. I'd I'd I'd wanna make another million dollars for our community. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. I'm gonna remind members of the public to please silence your mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings, and please refrain from clapping or any other kinds of outbursts. If you wanna show support, you can wiggle your fingers and hands in the air. Okay? Thank you.

[Bobby Friday (Drag performer/host)]: Hello, commissioners. How are you? My name is Bobby Friday. And I am a drag performer, host, MC, event producer, and have served as Grand Duchess forty eight of the Grand Ducal Council of San Francisco. Excuse me. I'm here today to speak in support of six twenty Jones. As a queer performing artist in San Francisco, too many of our spaces are disappearing, and with that, the livelihood of many, myself included. I've been so grateful and honored to have been part of the cast and a rotating host at six twenty Jones for Saturdays and Sundays, our drag brunch, for over two years now. Six twenty Jones, many other artists, and myself have worked very hard to create a space that has become known throughout the city and beyond as a destination for drag art. Not only do San Franciscans come regularly for shows, but we also draw in crowds from other parts of the Bay Area, as well as tourists visiting our beautiful city. I humbly ask that you please support six twenty Jones and the work that we are all doing to revitalize downtown and restore San Francisco to its pre pandemic glory as a place for people to come from all over for entertainment and culture. We can encourage new businesses and work towards boosting the economy in downtown without supporting the businesses that are already there. Six twenty Jones can't survive without the ability to provide the programming that continues to invite all to find community and belonging in San Francisco. Six twenty Jones has become a space that the queer community calls home and gathers from weekly drag brunches to Juanita Moore's famed annual pride party. What makes this space so special is that in addition to it being a haven for the LGBTQ plus IA community, other groups also frequent and find community there as well. Truly making for a place where all folks, regardless of sex, race, sexual orientation, etcetera, are able to gather representing perhaps what makes San Francisco the most beautiful and magical place that it is, a place where everyone belongs. Thank you so much for your consideration. Please support six twenty Jones.

[Carmen Guzman (Manager, 620 Jones)]: Good afternoon. My name is Carmen Guzman. I'm one of the managers at six twenty Jones. I just am speaking in support of six twenty, obviously, because I am one of the managers there. I haven't been a manager for very long, but I have been in the area for a very long time.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: I've been partying I'm sorry. Interrupt you just because as an employee, you have a financial interest. And so you're sort of part of the project sponsors team.

[Wai (Wei) Wang (Owner, 1 Colby Street)]: Gotcha. Can I ask you?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: We get you're in favor. You've got a financial interest.

[Carmen Guzman (Manager, 620 Jones)]: Okay. If you if you would like me to step moment to step down.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Yes, please. Thank you.

[Carmen Guzman (Manager, 620 Jones)]: Understood. Thank you.

[David Hutton (General Manager, Hotel Adagio)]: Good morning. Good afternoon, commissioners. Thank you for having us. My name is David Hutton. I'm general manager of Hotel Adagio. We sit directly adjacent to 620 Jones. Our beautiful hotel has been part of the community for ninety five years. We have contributed millions of dollars to the city's tax base since our inception. I feel that we have been a very understanding and flexible neighbor to 620 Jones. We have turned the other cheek for many years and rarely, if ever, have called the police or fire department for assistance. The past twelve months, things have changed. The music has become louder, the bass harder, and guest complaints have become substantial. Hotel Adagio has always done our part in keeping the neighborhood clean and attempting to provide a safe street for hotel employees and guests alike. The noise disturbance from 620 Jones has cost Hotel Adagio tens of thousands of dollars in the past year due to guest complaints, compensation, cancellations, and most devastating, our online presence with social media reviews, which hurts future bookings. Our request for them to turn down the music has fallen on deaf ears. My employees, all 70 of them, have been affected by this in one way or another, whether it be a front desk agent at the desk being screamed at because the guest cannot sleep or a housekeeper whose hours have been cut due to reservations being canceled. I wanna be clear. I don't wanna harm six twenty Jones or lose another business in Union Square. We are simply asking that they operate within the scope of what it's licensed to be, a restaurant and a bar, not a nightclub. Allowing them to expand their nightlife operations in this location is reckless, unfair, and harmful to our community. I respectfully request for you to deny the request for them to expand. Thank

[Alex Bastian (President & CEO, Hotel Council of San Francisco)]: you. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Alex Bashan. I'm the president and CEO of the Hotel Council of San Francisco. And I'm here to stand in solidarity with David and the Hotel Adagio. You know, this industry has been through so much, and the industry has contributed roughly $400,000,000 of direct tax revenue to San Francisco in the good years. And, you know, the hotel industry is now finally making inroads into getting to a place that's better than last year, and we have to stand in solidarity with our hotel partners. And the reason for that is because when the hotels do well, the city does well. And in fact, when you think about it, San Francisco is a business partner to the hotels because the taxes that come from that industry feed the coffers of the city. There's gotta be a way to work together to put our city first. David himself, I believe, has been a a club owner or a club manager, I should say, in the past. So when we talk about these things about common sense and collaboration, there's got to be a better way. And when I hear the Adagio having an issue next door, I really feel obligated to come here and speak to all of you. And I just ask that all of you kinda consider all the factors here to make the right decisions for San Francisco. Thank you so much.

[Neighbor/friend of 535 Geary resident (name not provided)]: Hello. I am, here in response to the proposal to extend the hours of 06:20 Jones near on Geary, near Union Square. It's an open air establishment, and please keep that in mind. No, it's very different from 906 Broadway, which I understand as a roof and walls, somewhat insulated. I would like to say that I'm extremely opposed to the extension of the hours. My reasons are that I must frequently visit a friend who resides at 535 Geary, catty corner across the street from 620 Jones. We can barely hear ourselves talk when six twenty Jones is having a rave show, festival, DJ celebration, or other outdoor event. You can feel the throbbing beat of a drum machine that sometimes rattles the windows. So I can agree with the gentleman that spoke earlier. Patrons shout and scream at the top of their lungs, often in call and response style, out in the open air. The MC or DJ for the event uses an amplified microphone, noise level app while there. The reading was between seventy and eighty decibels, which according to the chem.purdue.edu, Purdue University website, is equivalent to a garbage disposal, food blender, diesel truck at 40 miles per hour, or a diesel train going 45 miles per hour from 100 feet away with possible damage after eight hours of exposure. It is very loud, and I can only imagine people trying to sleep throughout the day that like work at night or like guests at the Hotel Adagio. These ordinate there are ordinances for noise abatement for this mixed use residential area that define limits and levels of acceptable use. If this were just a restaurant, it might be acceptable, but it is not just a restaurant. It is an open air, big space event like Coachella. Please do not extend the hours. I do not want my friend to be forced to move and leave San Francisco. Thank you.

[Dudley Emmert]: Hi there. My name is Dudley Emmert. I'm a long term resident of the Tenderknob or Lower Nob Hill. I've lived on post between Jones and Taylor for about twenty five years. I'm here to oppose the conditional use auth the conditional use authorization for 620 Jones, which would extend the hours of live entertainment at 06:20. First of all, I'd like to point out that the site plan that was submitted with the request for a CUA does not accurately represent the true physical layout of 620 Jones. For the sake of clarity, 620 Jones has a wall of windows from the Gaylord Gaylord Apartment on the North side. It has the Adagio Hotel on the East side, and it has the State Pineapple Hotel on the West side. 620 Jones is literally in the courtyard of a high rise apartment building. The noise from 6620 Jones is bouncing all over the neighborhood. I live over a block away and to the north, and my home literally vibrates from amplified sound at 620 Jones. To my understanding, no appropriate environmental impact study has ever been done to understand how the amplified noise from six twenty is impacting the surrounding area. As my neighbors are describing today, both residents and businesses have been negatively impacted by the noise generated at 620 Jones under their current business parameters and would be further impacted by an extension of outdoor entertainment hours. For adjacent hotels and businesses, noise from 620 Jones is already leading to to repeated guest complaints, cancellations, and lost revenue. Hotel managers are reporting measurable declines in guest satisfaction from bookings tied directly to six twenty Jones noise disturbances. Vulnerable neighborhood residents are already consistently subjected to disruptive conditions that therefore, with the comfortable that interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life and erode an already fragile social fabric. Please take a note that these troubles exist today under the existing mode of doing business. It is unthinkable that outdoor entertainment operations would be extended to six twenty Jones. Pete, one of the principals at six twenty Jones, just described his business as an entertainment venue. However, when six twenty Jones opened in 2010, it presented itself and was permitted as an intimate patio restaurant offering a seasonal French California menu, craft cocktails, and a capacity of approximately a 125 patrons. Today, it has morphed into a large scale alcohol first nightclub drawing up to 1,200 patrons. This dramatic shift in character and scale is problematic on its face and raises serious questions about compliance with both the spirit and the letter of its existing permits. Taking all this into consideration, I respectfully urge the the planning commission to reject the proposed conditional use authorization at 06:20 Jones.

[Isabella (neighbor and petition organizer)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Isabella, and I'm here on behalf of over 90, neighbors who signed a petition opposing 620 Jones's request for an extension. As of three hours ago, we had 83 online petition signed and 10 paper petitions are not counting duplicates. We are asking you to deny this request and to recognize the that the entertainment commission must review the existing permit as soon as possible. What surprised me most in reviewing the petition comments is not just the noise, but serious mental health impacts. Neighbors describe panic attacks, trauma, and loss of peace in their own homes. One resident wrote, it caused me headaches every single weekend and edu edu eduates my 86 year old grandma to the point where she has panics panic attacks. Others describe the physical toll of of excessive noise. I can feel the bass pounding in my chest. My walls and windows vibrate, and closing them doesn't help. It literally feels like the music is playing inside my unit. This isn't just a mild nuisance. It's unbearable. And to put this in relations, this comment came from somebody this is the setup of six twenty, which I'm sure you're most many of you are familiar with. But this comment came from someone who isn't even living in any of these immediately surrounding buildings. It comes from across the street diagonally. People are being forced to rearrange their lives. One quote is, on weekends, I just leave most of the day to avoid the overwhelming base. On my days off, I cannot even be at home. I have to pack up and go. The same goes for people who work from home, and we have people that work on Sundays. And the neighborhood impact extends further. Trash, disorders, strangers taking nearby buildings, for the mistaken nearby buildings, for the bar, and even reports from hotel staff that guests refunding cancellations are costing them 10 thousands of dollars. In short, this venue has a long history of disregarding limits and disturbing its neighbors. Extending the hours would only make an already intolerable situation worse. The good neighborhood policy and police code both prohibits unnecessary and offensive noise that disturbs the peace. Six twenty has shown repeatedly over numerous years that they're not a good neighbor. On behalf of all these residents and businesses who signed, I respectfully urge you to request, to deny their request. And just a quick comment, I got a little note from a from a couple people that also wanted to speak in opposition, but they had to go back to work. And numerous others wanted to come, but they just couldn't because of the work schedule. Thank you.

[David Peterson]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is David Peterson. I am a thirty five year resident of the Fender Knob, and I live three blocks from Jones. In full transparency, I wanna let you know I'm a shareholder in the a business, another business with these sponsors, Pete and Jordan, but I have no financial interest in Jones. I'm here to speak to you on behalf as being a resident in the Tenderloin and to tell you that Jones is an anchor of the community for us. I will watch my community, The Tenderknob, really go through some beautiful flourishing moments, the late two thousands, mid two thousands, up. When we all hit, quote, COVID, all of us kinda got hit hard. Many of the neighborhoods here in the city have shown much resilience in the recovery efforts. I'll tell you something. My neighborhood downtown needs as much help and support as it can get. I'll tell you that Jones is a place where people come for art, thought, to release, to laugh, and to have community. This neighborhood needs places of community, so I'm asking you to support this. Thank you.

[Steve (resident at 520 Geary)]: Hello, commissioners. My name is Steve. I live at 520 Gary, which is right down the block from Jones. And I just want to reiterate what some of these other folks who said that the noise is ridiculous. I didn't really know what type of business is run there. I don't want anybody to lose their business or their employment. But it does literally vibe. The sound reverberates off the tall buildings. And I would also like to point out that there are probably over 1,000 units or dwellings within a block radius of this place. So it disturbs a lot of people. And you can't hardly hear yourself think or hear your TV or your stereo. So I just want to know why they can't dial down the noise a little bit. That's that's really the major complaint that the people who live in the area have. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Last call for public comment.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Hello.

[Lana (resident at 620 Jones address)]: I'm sorry. I'm nervous. English is not my native language. I just came here. I live exactly my name is Lana. I live exactly in six twenty Jones. And all the neighbors who I know in my building, they are tired of this music. People just they didn't come because they thought, like, oh, I have work today, and it will not help. Like, nothing will not change. Like, we are, like, can't to do nothing. And I just wanted to say, like, people was complaining in police, especially they was put some paper in elevator, but they was measure the sound level of the sound, and it was 91 decibel. It's level of rock concert, if you're understanding. It's it's not healthy for mental health. But all all my room is vibrating of of the music. My my window is vibrating. So and I working from the home. My work be became to nightmare. I'm overstressed. I I I will happy to move out, but I have problem with my work, and I have problem with my money. I will become homeless if if it will more music. I I'm trying to understand, like, explain because it's not my language. I don't know how to say it. This restaurant have capacity, thousand people, 200. Technically, this restaurant, it's are using as as a nightclub because in the basement of this building, it's nightclub who is working until 2AM. And music of this basement, we can hear an until four p peace level. So it's it's it's not bar. It's not small bar when you can come and drink beer. It's technically open rooftop nightclub. Even if music is finished, 10 drunk people, they they are yelling until midnight because they don't want to stop. They are staying in the street. In the morning, I don't know. Some some one of you if you live in this neighborhood, in the morning, we have construction working, so it's noise. In the night, it's homeless areas, they are yelling at what time I need to work and what time I need to sleep. And, yes, it's affecting my mental health. I also I I I support people who who talked about panic attack, about everything. Look at me. Do do I look healthy? Do I look but I slept well?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you, ma'am. That is your time.

[Lana (resident at 620 Jones address)]: And most what I saw yesterday was a peer paper

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Ma'am, I'm sorry, but that is your time. The commissioners may call you up for clarifying questions.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Peter Young, and I live at 620. See, the the restaurant and the Gaylord Hotel have the same address, 620 Jones. I live on the Top Floor, and I can tell you as, I wrote to you in the last couple of days, and I'll show you my letter, I'm sure, is included in the documents for this, it's bad. It's real it's like living in an auditorium. I wanted to just have a few quick notes. This was attached to my door last night, And it's an offer from six twenty Jones. Show your support. Come here today, 12:00, and we'll give you a voucher for a free appetizer or drink or a special discount for your next visit. I don't see anybody from my building. I think that says something, when you offer people free drinks and they don't take it. I would also like to point out that in Exhibit E on page 10 of your packet from 03/13/2008, it says, There shall be no general amplified music to the outdoor area. That was the original conditions, and that would have worked just fine. But the camel got its nose into the tent a little bit at a time, and over the next couple of years, the music has been getting louder and louder. I'm concerned that, first of all, the general plan does not designate this part of the Tenderloin for nighttime entertainment. They're asking you to violate that part of your plan. The other thing is that there's kind of a trust me aspect to this. In their application, they say that fixed source equipment shall not exceed the decibel levels. We are configuring a four point sound system to minimize the impact. I would want to see that that's working before I said, sure, come on, let's extend the hours. Because I don't think it's gonna. So I would ask that the commission either delay action until the property owners can guarantee that the sound reduction works or reject it entirely. Thank you very much.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed. This matter is now before you, commissioners.

[Isabella (neighbor and petition organizer)]: Thank you, mister Campbell.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Thanks. Thank you everyone for coming. This is not a I always say this is not an easy meeting to get to, so appreciate everybody, voicing. This is obviously a very complicated situation, and these cities were all living on top of each other. I live in the Castro, and, I appreciate how, you know, we're always trying to balance, like, individual well-being and, and the and the greater good here in supporting businesses and arts and entertainment. And so it's it's a lot to consider. And, I I often look at these as, though, a little bit more trying to trying to balance, like, more predictability and transparency and sort of what is permissible and what are the rules of the road, rather than us up here. Because I'm never really comfortable with determining these hours here. I kinda wanna make things a little bit more predictable. Okay. And what what are the norms? Right? So and I may need miss Langley to come

[Kit Fong (Lady Shaw Senior Center)]: up because

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I think I'm gonna have more questions than I am, answers here. But, I'm curious about I called you earlier today and we chatted to really understand kind of what's before us. And it's we're here today because there's a there are conditions of approval associated with a a CUA here, and they have to do specifically with the hours. And one thing that was mentioned in public comment that I think is really interesting is that if 06:20 Jones today came and pulled a permit for an outdoor entertainment venue, it's principally permitted and they could get a permit without a conditional use. Is that correct?

[Michelle Langley (Planning Department)]: Michelle Langley, department staff. That is correct. Both restaurant uses and, entertainment uses are principally permitted in the RC four zoning district. There have been many legislative changes since the original pump permit was issued in 2008.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: And they were one of the first establishments to pull a permit like this. It was sort of trailblazing in a way.

[Michelle Langley (Planning Department)]: Correct. I've been in conversations with the entertainment commission, because of obviously, this has a lot to do, with what they, they tend to regulate as part of their purview. But they did mention that, six twenty Jones was one of the first establishments to have an outdoor entertainment component, which is likely why the hours were so, restricted at the time. And I do want to reiterate that, in my conversations with, with the entertainment commission, they did say that there are 25% of the the, entertainment permits have that outdoor entertainment component, and they do typically allow them to be open till 10PM, sometimes even later.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Interesting. So since they've done this conditional use with these conditions, there's actually been many more, outdoor live entertainment spaces throughout the city that we have permitted without and in many cases, without conditional use author a CUA per per you know?

[Michelle Langley (Planning Department)]: Right. I can't speak to the the the percentage of those permits that came before the commission or not. But I do know that Entertainment's commission Entertainment Commission's outdoor entertainment component has ramped up significantly in the past couple of years, particularly with COVID and businesses having outdoor activities more frequently, as well as Oracle Park wanting to host concerts.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: But this would be principally permitted if it was to be pulled today.

[Michelle Langley (Planning Department)]: Correct. The nighttime entertainment use was added, via a planning approval letter and over the counter planning approval letter in March because it is principally permitted. So the the, establishment has two principal uses. They have the restaurant use and the nighttime entertainment use.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: And then when it comes to the norms, I'm looking for, you know, what are the norm right? What are what are we doing in other places? You mentioned almost all of these establishments are allowed to be open until 10PM, seven days a week.

[Michelle Langley (Planning Department)]: That is my understanding. Okay.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: So

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I I guess where where I'm going with this is oh, and we have the entertainment commission. There's actually, like the reason I'm not comfortable with this is because there's actually, like, a group that regulates and permits all things related to entertainment and in venues in the city. And I'm just wondering I'm wondering if there if if it's possible to kind of liberate the CU from the conditions of approval so that we're not up here dictating their hours of operation, but rather allowing a commission that we've empowered to deal with these things handle those hours so that they're following more of the norms that are aligned with what other venues are doing across the city.

[Swati (Planning Department leadership staff)]: Sure. I'm happy to chime in. That's absolutely something that this commission could do. And to reinforce, the entertainment commission does regulate and impose limitations on hours of operation that is within their purview. They do regulate and check. They have the staff who actually go out. Actually, on my elevator ride on the way over here, I ran into one of the folks who does the sound checks for the city for entertainment venues. So they have staff that will go out, on a complaint based venue, complaint based on complaints or both, proactively, sorry, to check on sound, and decibel levels. So if anyone is experiencing those, they should be calling, either 311 or the entertainment commission, and they will go out and check and make those corrections. They also deal with operational plans and a lot of other more operational related components of other entertainment that are really outside of land use, to make sure that they are, good neighbors.

[Robert Blaget]: Great.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Thanks for that. So that would be I'm interested to hear what other commissioners have to say, but that would be, that would be my, preference here is to to actually separate the that condition of approval from this CUA And leave it up to the entertainment commission to to dictate the hours.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commission of wrong?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: That was interesting. Let me make sure I'm understanding. So so right now, the only reason we are here to approve the CUA is because we have a prior condition of approval. If this if this were a new business opening today in this space, they would not need planning commission approval related to, any of the uses we're approving or hours of operation. Is that correct?

[Swati (Planning Department leadership staff)]: So when this commission reviews a project and applies a condition of approval, that condition effectively runs in perpetuity with that land use and approval, regardless of whether regulations at sort of more a policy level at 10,000 feet throughout the city are changed. So we're actually grappling with that quite a bit on a lot of different projects right now. As more land uses have been made principally permitted. There are a lot of old projects that, you know, thankfully are still in business. But the downside of them still being in business is that they're, held to those unique conditions of approval that may have it a more macro level been removed for people who are going into a vacant storefront proposing the same business model. And so that's the situation that we have here. There's a unique condition of approval applied based on, you know, the need for conditional use for a restaurant back in 2008. But if a business if they had if they went out of business and waited for three years, which is the abandonment provision in the planning code and reopened the exact same business model, it would not come before you and they would be allowed to to operate to the hours requested.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: So they would be allowed to operate nighttime entertainment with live performance until 10AM? And I believe

[Swati (Planning Department leadership staff)]: and staff can correct me if I'm wrong. I believe in the RC District, there is not an hours limitation from a land use perspective. Again, it does not mean that the entertainment commission will not impose hour limitations. But in this district, it would not be a constraint of the zoning. Did we get that right, Steph? Okay, great.

[Michelle Langley (Planning Department)]: Michelle Langley, department staff, that's correct. There are no hours of operation limitations in the zoning district.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you for wait, sorry. Say that again. There are no there are no limits in the hours of operation.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: In the zoning.

[Swati (Planning Department leadership staff)]: In the zoning district. So certain zoning hours of operation are regulated differently in different zoning districts. So for example, if you were to take an NC one zoning district, there will be hours of operation limitations in that zoning district. In this zoning district, there are not. So it is a twenty four hour allowance. Now we know that the entertainment commission is not going to allow that. But from a land use perspective, there's not a limitation of hours of operation.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. And that's true for outdoor activity areas as well?

[Swati (Planning Department leadership staff)]: Do you know? I I don't believe there's a nuance, and and it I don't believe it's parsed in outdoor entertainment. Yeah.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you for that. Okay. So that that was helpful. I I have a few questions for the the project sponsor. So you referenced that the sound system has changed. There's directional speakers. Well, in the packet, I read there are directional speakers and decibel limiters. When did that change happen? And could you just explain a little bit more about how it is supposed to be helping with the sound situation?

[Pete Glickstern (Co-operator, 620 Jones)]: In the last month or two. And what we get so we actually own and operate the biggest nightclub in San Francisco, the biggest independent nightclub in the country, the Midway down in Bayview. And so I've brought all of our tech staff, and I've leveraged all of our resources down there to try to alleviate things here. The this is a very rudimentary explanation. I'm not a technical person. But we had speakers going two sets of speakers going in one direction, which requires that they be louder, and then they just throw. With Four Corners, what happens is there's more speakers that can be quieter even though the effect on the floor is still just as loud. And, also, they cancel each other out, so there's not as much noise waves going out.

[Carlos Solórzano (Hispanic Chambers of Commerce of SF)]: But And

[Pete Glickstern (Co-operator, 620 Jones)]: we're gonna continue to play with all of that. This is a relatively new thing. We operated as a bar and restaurant up until COVID and through COVID and after COVID. We just can't stay afloat without entertainment and events at this point.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I see. And then, you know, I guess as part of those changes, I mean, how was the fact that you're kind of closed in on three sides? I've been to the venue before. How does it help to address that issue?

[Jordan Langer (Co-operator, 620 Jones)]: Yeah. Commissioner Jordan Langer. So we were able to work with the entertainment commission specifically on this plan, looking at a four corner system to, again, to allow more infill of sound as compared to blasting sound. Part of what people are saying is sound is directional, for the most part. And as you know, three sides, it can bounce. So what we are trying to do is shoot sound into the middle, into people that is then absorbed through the people. That's what we went through with with our sound tech. And then most recently, we were able to get a new sound limit, a decibel limit from the entertainment commission, and that was only a few weeks ago. We've had events since then, and we have been 100% in compliance and had the inspectors come out and and check since then.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I see. Okay. Thank you for that explanation. I and I really appreciate the work that you're doing to try to help with the sound situation. It's certainly the main concern everyone's raising. It's the concern that I have. And I've lived in the middle of pretty nightlife centric areas and and know what it is to to sometimes deal with that. And on some level when we live in these places, we we accept that there's gonna be some issues. But, you know, there's a there's a limit. Right? The the and of course, you know, the base transmission is always one of the bigger, you know, harder challenges to address. And so I appreciate all the work going on, but it's difficult to imagine that the base transmission is not still an issue for folks. So then the my other question to you is that there's a reference to the community hotline that exists. And I'm curious, where is that community hotline posted? How do people know about it? What is that number?

[Pete Glickstern (Co-operator, 620 Jones)]: The front desk at the Gaylord Hotel, which is the building we occupy with the basement of the Gaylord Hotel, and then the rooftop of the garage, the front's gear. It's a funny elevation on our block. But the front desk has our number or my number. It's been a few years since Jordan's been there, so he's just back. But they have my number. They have the the manager's number. We're also always there. Of all of the people that spoke in opposition today, the only one that actually engaged with us, reached out, engaged, and met with us, is I don't remember his last name. His first name is Dudley. So everyone else just kind of comes out of the woodwork. We don't we don't know that they have an issue because they've never reached out. There are several people that were very vocal in opposition, and we've reached out to them multiple times. Hey. When can we sit down? Hey. Wait. Can we have a conversation? No response. And it's one of those things where if you're not gonna come to the table, how do you expect to be heard at the table? Right? And it's so it's it's it's kinda like, I don't know, bushwhacking, I guess. Like, sure, you show up to the hearing, but we've been there fifteen years. Where have you been? There's also multiple loud venues on our block. Most of that noise that people are describing is not us. We haven't been open past ten in any capacity since COVID. TL's been getting killed. Like, the we were not making that noise. I'm sorry for people suffering, and I'm sorry that people are having a hard time. But literally, the stuff that's being described ain't us.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. There's also a reference in in the, materials provided that there's a monthly outreach calendar. Could you mind explaining a little more about, how that is being shared, with whom that's being shared?

[Robert Blaget]: Mhmm.

[Jordan Langer (Co-operator, 620 Jones)]: So we share it with the management of the the gaylord. And then we have a list of anyone who wants to be on it, who is asked to be on it. We include that. The entertainment commission is shared on it. And I'm not sure, but I believe that police is as well. We can ask Carmen or or one of our our staff to come up and clarify that. But it is a robust list that anyone that wants to be on it, we are happy to add. One of the the main things that we have found over, at least for me, two decades of doing this and being in the entertainment industry is being responsive and being there is categorically the most important thing. So if we get a complaint and someone calls the entertainment commission on a Saturday night, we will find out about it Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday. There's nothing that we're able to do about it in that moment. If they're able to call us, call our management, and call us directly, we can engage with it right then and there. We've I mean, we've gone into people's apartments. We've brought sound meters into people's apartments. I think that we we had a very short period of time to be able to talk. But over the past fifteen years, we've replaced dozens of folks' windows in the 620 Jones Building. We have bought countless sound curtains. We have been there to be able to be active in working towards solutions. Because as you've all said, we are in a city. This is a city where we need to be able

[Pete Glickstern (Co-operator, 620 Jones)]: And that was just from crowd noise. That was before we were doing DJs. We just acknowledge the fact that back then in 2010, 'eleven, 'twelve, we're the new kid on the block, and we don't want to mess up people's daily. And so we did all that. And we're going to continue to do all that.

[Jordan Langer (Co-operator, 620 Jones)]: One of the other important notes and I mentioned it briefly, but we've been at we've said it a a number of times up here. We've been there for fifteen years. But I think what is really important to also note is that Pete and I just re upped a ten year lease at Jones. So rather than it turning into another lost business, another desolate space on Geary Street, we recommitted. And we're recommitted here. We're recommitted with the neighborhood. We've recommitted with all of it to continue to operate successfully and in a good neighbor policy over the course of the next decade.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay thank you for that thank you responses the you know so I'm trying to balance here the fact that this the venue has had clearly there has been an impact and and I think there's no getting around. Like, there's gonna be a lot of noise from this venue. And and there has been an impact enough that there have been a number of people who have raised concerns and spoken about how it affects their quality of life. But at the same time, it really does strike me that this would be a completely different situation if the venue was coming forward today under our current zoning. And that's an interesting point that Commissioner Campbell raised. I'm kind of wondering, I don't have a, I'm not ready to make a motion or anything like that at this point, but I'm kind of thinking that rather than just completely stripping out the conditional use authorization, there is a, between those two paths of rejecting this and or stripping away the conditional use authorization so this reverts to the underlying zoning, there is the path of what's before us, which is the more limited hours of operation. It is still an expansion of the hours of operation and what is allowed to happen at the site. But it's starting to seem like sort of an in between option here. But that's where I'm at right now. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Yeah. Thank you for everyone coming out here. And thank you, commissioners, for pointing out that the obvious thing that if this business were to come before wouldn't even come before us. It would just be permitted. So it it sounds to me like it's more of a sound issue than than anything else. And, I wanna be sensitive to the folks that live there. I mean, I appreciate, the business and all all the, you know, wonderful things that you do. It's obvious that you guys are are are, you know, a community asset, and I appreciate that as a San Franciscan. But I also appreciate the fact that that people got to, you know, they they they have their their residences and they they need a a level of, of of peace, in their residences. And so I'm, you know, I don't know what this commission can do as far as the sound issue. But I would just say as somebody that's concerned that you would maybe double down. And and you see there's a lot of people, there's a lot of letters that came out, against the sound. I I don't think it's it's your business. I don't think it's anything personal. I I think it's just there's an issue with the sound. And I'm not sure, you know, if that's the entertainment, commission that needs to deal with that, but there's an issue there. And so, you know, I'd like to highlight that and hope that as good neighbors that you guys would, you know, would consider your neighbors have issues. Right? And that that's that's basically, you know, where I wanna lend my voice to. And so thank you for coming

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: out. Okay. Commissioner Naimperio.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you. I echo with other commissioners. This is also a tough project that or item that we are in as well. I'm I'm also I find commissioner Campbell comment interesting in terms of the entertainment commission. And again, from the perspective of here in the planning and with the zoning, many of the issues that are being raised are around operations, right, and the sound study. So I guess my question around this, miss Wadi, is that can the commission can the planning commission, you know, put a condition in terms of the sun study? Or that's more of the entertainment commission, really, to put to get to get into that?

[Swati (Planning Department leadership staff)]: That's really the entertainment commission's purview. Sounds like we don't have technical expertise in the planning department to do that enforcement or do those sound meet like, we don't have sound meters in the planning department. So that's that's really what their job is within the city family.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Okay. And in terms of so I'm just trying to see how this because I'm not sure how is this really gonna work out here at the planning commission. If let's say this is rejected, this is not that this is not gonna go to the entertainment commission in talking about the hours or so it has so in order to change the hours, the commission has to approve it and then go to the entertainment commission to implement that. How how yeah. How is this gonna play out?

[Swati (Planning Department leadership staff)]: So it they're sort of mutually exclusive actions.

[Robert Blaget]: Mhmm.

[Swati (Planning Department leadership staff)]: So no matter what, the entertainment commission will review this. No matter what. So if this commission chooses, you know, an option one, as commissioner Campbell proposed, of just removing any reference to hours of operation, and that gets approved. So in theory, any hour is allowed. Mhmm. The entertainment commission will still review this and and impose hour limitations to the project.

[Anni Chung (President & CEO, Self Help for the Elderly)]: Okay.

[Swati (Planning Department leadership staff)]: If this commission though this commission does still through its land use powers have the ability to add hours of operation limitation that's very much within an you know, that is within a land use purview. Yeah. Typically, it's in the context of when people are asking for extended hours. So for example, the last item you had before you at a certain point, they had an application request to have extended hours. Mhmm. That's in a zoning district where there are as of right hours and those hours that require conditional use. So it's typically in that context when the planning commission limits or constricts hours, but the commission does have the the ability to apply them. We just don't typically see the commission doing that within the principally permitted window.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: But what the commission can do right now is perhaps within our jurisdiction around good neighbor policy. Is that that's also can be part of the

[Swati (Planning Department leadership staff)]: You could. I mean, I think a couple suggestions. The the entertainment commission does that as well. Because again, the entertainment commission's focus is operational matters. So they're looking at things that go way beyond land use as it relates to good neighbors. So they're looking at, you know, security, plans. Right? Where do they have security people posted? They have they have a whole slew of different, obligations and requirements and conditions that they impose when they issue an entertainment, permit. And they can revoke those entertainment permits in sort of through different powers than than the planning commission's, you know, revocation of a conditional use. So they just have they have different purview, different jurisdiction, and actually the director reached out earlier and said, maybe it's a good time for a refresher on, you know, entertainment commission one zero one at the planning commission so we can all get on the same page. So that's a teaser coming soon. I would say I think what what this commission can certainly do, and it I think it sounds appropriate. Again, I was listening in on the last item, a report back in a certain amount of time of how things are going, some direction around Good Neighbor policies, and, you know, maybe a request that we get a report back on what the final entertainment commissions, good neighbor policies that they adopt are, so that that's sort of closing the loop with the commission to understand what those are. I know in the past on entertainment venues or bar venues, the commission has required, that signs be posted, sort of good neighbor things of, you know, let's be respectful of your neighbors when you leave the establishment, things of that nature. But really, it sounds like on this one, the noise is the primary issue. It's a little less of how people are behaving, but more the noise. And that really is, regulated by the entertainment commission.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Yeah. Yeah. I think it will be great to have the the entertainment commission and planning commission have perhaps a joint hearing sometime and discuss the the good neighbor policy. I think it will be worthwhile to for the commission as well to for us to be versed on what is their good neighbor policy and also what we've been seeing in this commission when it comes to entertainment uses or outdoor activities. I'm you know, I don't the the issues with the with the residents still reverberates to me and also the nearby hotel and also, you know so this is something that is, you know, I am really taking a lot in consideration in terms of extending the hours. There's part of me that I am not in favor of extension. However, if this is if all of the commissioners would like to, you know if majority of the commissioners would like to approve this, I think it's really good for us to have a report back or perhaps more a monitoring system about this of the outdoor activity. So I'd like to hear what other commissioners have to say.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. Commissioner vice president Moore.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Thank you for everybody who came out. I think the message I hear from this commission, which I think is a pretty unified message, is that we are hearing the neighborhood and the issues related to noise, but we are also supporting the venue to be there. And it is actually in the interaction between the two parties where the problem lies, which is not ours to solve. And while I think a good neighborhood policy and the applicant's knowledge of that policy is extremely important, we all need to sometimes remember that we are not living on an island, but that there are neighbors who feel differently about noise and think differently about large people gatherings, particularly in residential neighborhoods. There is also the notion that we are living in a city where all of the next to each other in some form or another, and I'm expanding the emphasis on all things next to each other can happen. You heard us earlier regarding the church with seven 84 seniors with operable windows living literally across the street. Here, the situation is a little different. Here, we have tall buildings amplifying noise and making it more difficult. I'm gonna ask, actually, our planner, Miss Langley, a question. Is there any record of any direct complaints to the entertainment commission or to the police department that have been logged with you of of which you could talk about?

[Michelle Langley (Planning Department)]: Michelle Langley, department staff. I do have that summary here. So I did get, some information from the entertainment commission, and they have received sound complaints. They've received 66 sound complaints, since September 2024, and the entertainment commission has responded 25 times, which they have told me is not unusual for for a venue or an an entertainment venue with an outdoor component. So while it does sound like a lot, that is my understanding from the entertainment commission. And I should note they also have a special events permit. They're permitted 10 permit 10 activities monthly with a loud louder, noise allowance. And that's something that is generally, issued by the entertainment commission.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: And no police reports that we know of?

[Michelle Langley (Planning Department)]: Not that I know of. I I believe that the entertainment commission has handled those reports, those those noise reports complaints.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Do we know the occupants occupancy load for this particular venue?

[Michelle Langley (Planning Department)]: I do not.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Would the applicant be able to tell us that?

[Jordan Langer (Co-operator, 620 Jones)]: Our legal occupancy is right around 600. So the the claims of thousands of people,

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: we don't

[Kit Fong (Lady Shaw Senior Center)]: we don't do that.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: So it it's 600. Mhmm.

[Jordan Langer (Co-operator, 620 Jones)]: I can get the exact, but it's somewhere I'd have to look at the fire code, but it's somewhere right around 600. Between the inside and outside.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: 600. Okay. Thank you.

[Pete Glickstern (Co-operator, 620 Jones)]: Again, it has never been a 120. We didn't grow this business. It's always been the exact same size, and it's always been right around 600.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Thank you so much. I was basically only making a reference to, other venues, of similar kind. Anyway, I believe that the only opportunity we have as a commission is really putting an emphasis on an interaction that is more productive in terms of what we do with the base. The base is indeed, no matter where it is, extremely annoying, be it your downstairs neighbors having a certain record which has a base or base anywhere. And, I I I am prepared to support the expanded hours, but I need to see us formulating some guarantees or some mechanism by which the interaction between this particular venue, including the hotel that is impacted by it, becomes a more positive, less adversarial kind of interaction. I did not feel that interaction is basically happening at this moment. I felt actually that the applicant seemed to be I'm not putting words into it. I don't have a better word. You seem to be kind of like excusing yourself more than accepting that other people were impacted, and you are not in their apartments. You don't hear it, but I didn't feel that you were particular recipient receiving of what of what was said. No. I I am just observing, and I made to you complete injustice in in in what you said. Either way, this interaction has to change in order to adjoining hotels, adjoining residents, residents within a block of radius are not coming and saying it is not working. I'll hand it over to somebody else to be more creative on what to do, but that was my position.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Commissioner Campbell? Great hearing everybody's input on this. I don't know if you've weighed in on it yet, but, miss Langley, I have a question. If we were to approve with conditions today, can you walk us through what happens next in terms of the Entertainment Commission?

[Michelle Langley (Planning Department)]: Sure. Michelle Langley, department staff. Should, these conditions be approved, today, the applicant would go to the planning commission with their place of entertainment permit request, which would then be heard by the entertainment commission, where they would be weighing all these different concerns that we've been talking about today, operational noise limits, things like that, hours of operation, frequency of events, and that's something that they put onto their permit.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: May I suggest one thing, kind of out of the block box here, hearing all of our hearing all of our comments today from my fellow commissioner and also from a lot of general public and also citing over close to a 100 letters of oppositions and, some really emotionally draining remarks today, and on both sides too. What I think what it might be helpful to do, our secretary might like to chime in on this, is we could continue this to put it on a joint hearing with the Entertainment Commission.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Okay. Interesting. Yeah.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: I know that you would shake your hand. I feel, well, that's just my okay. Well, I also genuinely like to hear what there is that lady who wanted to share us with her piece of paper that she ran out of time to to talk about her. I think it was the the lady who, English is her second language. Did you have a piece of paper you would like to share with us when you were run off? It's It's okay.

[Robert Blaget]: You need

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: to come up and speak in the microphone.

[Lana (resident at 620 Jones address)]: It was the same paper with suggesting drink, but I have video from any party of Okay.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: It's okay.

[Robert Blaget]: If you

[Lana (resident at 620 Jones address)]: want to hear five second.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: It's it's I'm I'm okay. I think I understand the magnitude of your concern. I think I just thank you for validating your or showing us the same thing the gentleman did show us. Thank you.

[Lana (resident at 620 Jones address)]: Thus, I hear what it's noise from another place, but it's not true. It's from this place. The noise

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: is from

[Lana (resident at 620 Jones address)]: this place.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: I've completed my question. Thank you.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Do you mind if I just finish my

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: I I don't mind at all. Yes. Please. Thank you.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: So, if if it were then to move on to the entertainment commission, they weigh in on everything else, could they is what we say in terms of the hours, like, the holy grail? Or can they tweak it? Going back to sort of norms and predictability and transparency, like, can they do they have the power to change the hours we determine here, or is it set and then they weigh in on the other aspects?

[Michelle Langley (Planning Department)]: Michelle, I'm the commission staff. My understanding is that they can restrict the hours further, but they can't change what Okay. The commission the planning commission puts limitations on. Okay.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I was gonna make a motion to remove the conditions of approval that dictate the hours for

[Robert Blaget]: the conditional

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: use authorization and have that be dictated by the entertainment commission. I'm wondering if we could do both, what I'm hearing from my fellow commissioners, which is possibly to approve the hours and remove the condition of approval from the conditional use authorization. So should they want should the sponsor be interested in revisiting hours in the future, it just goes straight to the entertainment commission.

[Michelle Langley (Planning Department)]: Michelle Langley, the department staff. I'm not exactly sure if they can put both limitation on the operation and

[Swati (Planning Department leadership staff)]: Yeah. I think the condition, either you have a condition that has hours in it or you have no condition with hours in it.

[Isabella (neighbor and petition organizer)]: Okay.

[Swati (Planning Department leadership staff)]: I don't I don't think there's a way to I

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: can't if it's both worlds.

[Swati (Planning Department leadership staff)]: Yeah. I don't know how we would manage both. Yeah. You can you can put a condition of approval to clarify to folks that the hours of operation will be set for the outdoor activity area by the entertainment commission. I mean, that's just restating the process. But if that gives folks greater comfort, that's certainly, something that can be put in there.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I will make a motion to approve with the conditions and also provide a memo that summarizes in one year's time, how the venue is performing, and that will be shared at a hearing in one year time. Unless I'm missing something else. Was there something else? Was there something else?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Yeah. I have something else. Yes.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: What's your other thing? Sorry.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I have an additional question. Yeah.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Vice commission of vice president Moore.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: The question I have for staff, I heard you say that in addition to the hours that they're operating, they also have ten days or months for special events. What are the conditions surrounding special events?

[Michelle Langley (Planning Department)]: From my discussions with the entertainment commission, the, conditions for special events allow for a louder decibel limitation.

[Swati (Planning Department leadership staff)]: Yes. So I have I have a copy of their entertainment, permit right here. And so, typically, their sound, abatement for extern the sort of outdoor activity is limited to 80 decibels. And it specify from specifically what part of the property they measure it from. As it relates to the 10 special events per month, which are limited to the same hours that the commission's already granted, it's allowed to go up to 88 decibels. So it's it's a deviation from 81 decibels to 88 for those 10 special events.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I I have to be very honest, but that sheds a slightly different light on what we are proving here because ten days a month, that is a third of the months, by which it is even louder. And that's kind of like hard for me to swallow, because we all know that the base the base will never go away. However, it will for for ten days be allowed to be to be allowed. And I think there's something pulling me in the opposite direction here, because there is already a lot of permission with ten days, and now we're on top of that saying that we're expanding the hours. That's somehow contradiction for me.

[Swati (Planning Department leadership staff)]: And just the one other thing I will add that the entertainment commission has shared is that following the planning commission hearing and prior to their entertainment commission hearing, they will hear all of the neighbors' complaints. So everything you heard today, they will also hear. And they actually do mediation. So that's where they operate a little bit differently than the planning department and commission does. So they'll host mediation leading up to the hearing to see if they can find some middle ground between both what the, project sponsor is looking for and what the neighbors' concerns are. So just adding that additional color that that is a part of their typical protocol and process to sort of mediate between neighbors and, entertainment venues.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Once that gets me full circle around, thank you for explaining that, thoughtful as you did, miss Valli, to what, commissioner Campbell said early on, is a time for the planning commission to basically, hand this entire chapter over to the entertainment commission. I think I feel completely out of my wits because we are not mediating. We are creating conditions, and conditions may not be what it needs, but it needs mediation. It's behavioral. And, can we do that, as a Mhmm. A reaction to what's in front of us today? Can we basically abdicate our responsibility and asking the co planning commission the entertainment commission to take over from here?

[Swati (Planning Department leadership staff)]: I I think the way to effectively do that is to strike the conditions of approval that have hours limitations because that basically just says this use is permitted without operational conditions, and then you're handing over the operational condition determination to the inter entertainment commission. I do think though it would be helpful given all this discussion to the condition that you suggested of a report back in a year Yes. Of an informational presentation. And as was mentioned in the last hearing, at that time, if things are not going well and things haven't worked out, there is always the ability to still, you know, revoke the conditional use.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Again, thank you for that explanation. I will ask the maker of the motion to amend our motion to reflect what miss Vadhi just summarized. That seems to be the best and most supportive and most productive way of finding something to move it into the contemporary responsibilities of the entertainment commission. It addresses entertain expanding entertainment use, but protecting residences, expanding entertainment use without harming the hotel industry and reputable hotels in the area. So it becomes it goes away from the rigid interpretation of what we're doing here.

[Michelle Langley (Planning Department)]: I love it.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Would if you would be in

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I would like to amend my motion.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: The motion.

[Robert Blaget]: I didn't

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: think I was gonna get the support for it, so I'm so glad. I'm gonna amend my motion to separate the condition or to remove the condition of approval for the CUA that had the times attached to it. Can you do that even though it's not And what you receive

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: the seal of request

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: And then add the request for in one year's time to get a report out.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: And then there are a few other commissioners that I'll

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: second that motion.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner McGarry?

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: In the meantime, this is a quality of life issue. So the people who are actually running this venue, I'll ask you, it's noise, noise, noise. It's not just the sound, it's the vibration of the sound. This is your business. You basically are looking at the entertainment system, to basically reflect back into the crowd, so the crowd itself absorbs the sound. But that's like a modern way looking at it. We still have walls here that are basically bouncing off that sound. So I would definitely ask you not just to look at whether it's a flagging system of material or whatever that can go that can that can absorb some of the base of that sound of the buildings, do it because your neighbors need it. Also, your neighbors, through the entertainment commission, really have to get involved here in the mediation because I don't think today is a good place to do it. But you have neighbors and thousands of neighbors that are literally right beside you and you're, you know, they're on top of you. You've got hotel business and then you've got local businesses, people coming in. So everybody has to it's an ecosystem and this one is everybody's on top of everybody. So everybody has to work together. We can't have just one winner ten nights. Ten ten ten special extra decibels a month is every weekend. That's your neighbor's time off if they're not working in your venue. You know? So basically, everybody has to work. The hotel next door, that's basically when they it's probably the height of your business is the weekends. You know, so it's so everybody has to work together, and I hope everybody here, and more importantly those who are not here, get the opportunity to come from mediation and utilize the entertainment commission for that because as everybody's saying here, and we're kinda slightly punting, we do not have the ability to resolve this situation because the real situation here is basically neighborly conduct and cohesive neighborhood. So I do like the idea of us getting a one zero one with the entertainment commission, because I think we can learn a lot here because I'd love to know the nuances of basically, mediation in these situations. So but I do ask that everybody get connected, the signage goes in, everybody has everybody else's number, and basically, you you know each other like neighbors do, you know, and because one's problem is the other one's problem, and the other one should be there to solve it. So please do that. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Yeah. It's really easy to say it's not us, but it's actually we're all us. So I really hope that the the venue, the bar operator really thinks about you, really do live up with it's really easy to say it's really not not you, but you were one of the reason why everyone showed up today to oppose it. So please do not point fingers, and we all need to be good neighbors and work together. And we have one more commissioner who wanted to come in. Thank you. Commissioner Veron?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Yes. I just wanna say I I'm not planning to support the motion, but I don't want that to be taken as anything against this business or its success. I do wish you well. I think it actually is a great venue. The only reason I'm not supporting the motion is because I I don't think that we should abdicate our our sort of, role in this process and the inclusion of the limits on the hours of operation, which, you know, sets sort of a boundary for how far out the entertainment commission can go. I I don't wanna just remove that condition entirely and leave it entirely up to them. So I think that we have still a role to play here, and that's why I'm not going to support the motion if it does end up getting approved. But again, I wish the business very well. It's nothing it's not intended to be anything beyond just the fact I think we should include the original limitations of the hours. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: I am with you on that, commissioner Braun.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay, commissioners. If there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions lifting the specific operation hours hour restrictions and adding a condition for a one year look back memo to the planning commission. And I think lifting the hours, including acknowledging the Entertainment Commission's review and mediation measures. Correct?

[Swati (Planning Department leadership staff)]: It's basically striking the first sentence of condition number three.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: On that motion, commissioner Campbell?

[Georgia Schuttish (Public Commenter)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? No. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission president Tsao? No. So moved, commissioners. That motion passes five to two with commissioners Ron and So voting against. Commissioners that will place us on item 15 for case number 2025Hyphen006395CUA at 1034 Valencia Street conditional use authorization.

[Pete Glickstern (Co-operator, 620 Jones)]: Thank you, commissioners.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Thank you, commissioners.

[Gabriela Panto (Planning Department)]: Good afternoon, president Zoh, commissioners. Gabriela Bento of department staff. The case before you is a request for conditional use authorization, pursuant to planning code sections three zero three, three zero three point one, and seven sixty two to establish a formula of retail use, gym use, doing business as club Pilates, and an existing approximately 2,462 square foot tenant space, that is located at the Ground Floor of an existing mixed use building. The subject tenant space located within the Mission neighborhood, the Valencia NCT zoning district, and 55 x Hytenbold District, was formerly occupied by a clothing store, and is currently vacant and has been for, since approximately April 2024. So prior to this renewal of the listed conditional use authorization, the project sponsors did complete a pre application meeting on 07/10/2025, which was not attended by any public members. To date, the department has received over 30 letters in opposition of the project and a position signed by more than a 100 public members. Members of the public expressing opposition of the project, state the lack of community outreach and potential impacts, that the formula retail use presents the neighborhood as reasons for their opposition. The department has also received over 30 letters in support and a petition signed by 58 public members, for the project. In accordance to planning code section, three zero three point one, when evaluating formal retail uses, consideration consideration should be made towards the vacancy rate, availability of similar similar uses in the area, and the number of formula retail uses in the area, the area being a 300 foot radius from the subject property. As it relates to this project, a vacancy of approximately 26% exist, with five vacant spaces, including the subject tenant space, and no other former retail uses or gym uses are present. Thus the pro thus the proposal before you all, establishes the first gym use and the first former retail use and would decrease the vacancy rate by 2%. The department does recommend approval of conditions and believes the project is necessary and desirable for the following reasons. The project will provide a gym use that both enhances the range of services and reinforces the neighborhood's existing commercial corridor. And while the project will establish the first formula retail use in the neighborhood, it would only increase the concentration of formula retail uses from zero to 1.4%. Additionally, the project would not displace an existing neighborhood serving retail use and would rather provide a new business and job opportunities to the neighborhood and fill a vacant tenant space. This concludes staff's presentation. I'm available for questions, and the project sponsor team does have a presentation for you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

[Carrie Wu (Club Pilates franchisee/applicant)]: K. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Carrie Wu, and this is my husband, CJ Liu. This is our landlord, Molly Fawn. I discovered Club Pilates after the delivery of our second child when I was searching for find a way to feel strong again. It transformed my recovery, my confidence, and that experience inspired us to start our own business. We chose to franchise with Pilates because we believed in their proven model. We invested our savings and even took out a home equity loan. For us for us, this is not just a business. It's our family bet on a better future rooted in health, community, and hard work. We've successfully opened two studios in the Bay Area, one in Mountain View and one in Diamond Heights here in San Francisco. Our Diamond Heights neighboring retailer has offered letters of support, testifying how our studio has enlivened the area and have benefited their business. We want to be in mission because this is where our current and future members live. Out of the 500 active Diamond High studio members, a 125 live in a quarter mile of 1034 Valencia. Opening this new location will reduce car trips and an increase foot traffic on Valencia. We already have over 946 residents expressed interest in joining the Valencia studio by signing up on our website. This indicates a strong demand in this area. Our business can benefit the community in the following ways. We will partner with schools and nonprofits through sponsorships and wellness programs as we have done that in Diamond Heights. We will pledge community merchant group event sponsorships and donations. Our members regularly visit nearby neighbors, cafes, restaurants, or shops before and after classes, creating direct spillover benefits. Through the one pass Medicare program, seniors and eligible residents can attend up to four classes a month at no cost. At Diamond Heights, about 15% of our members are part of this program. Our proposed use is desirable and consistent with the character of the corridor, and it will bring long vacant space back to life. Specifically, the storefront has been vacant for over a year and a half. Our studio will bring daily use and safety back to the area, which is facing a lot of challenges of high vacancy rates. There's no heavy equipment, no amplified sound. Each class is kept at 12 participants. The morning through early evening use of our schedule will reduce the impact on residential neighbors. We also wanna address some of the concerns that we've heard. Number one, the studio is owned and operated by us. We are accountable to our community, not accountable to our corporate office. Second, the space will be designed by us with a storefront that blends in with the corridor rather than standing out as a chain. The only change to the storefront will be paints and adding a modest awning was a painted Club Pilates name. Number three, we have tremendous respect for the legacy business EHS Pilates. While opposition has stated they are in close proximity, they are in fact located half mile from the proposed site. The mission has more than 55,000 residents. Our studio capped at 500 members will be less than 1% of that population. Clearly, demand far exceeds the available supply. By opening at 1034 Valencia, we're expanding access so more residents, including seniors using Medicare program can benefit from the safe and affordable Pilates. Number four, we took outreach seriously. We follow all steps required for COA process, and our mailing notification for pre application meeting was correctly prepared by radius services. There was no attendance. We held two more meetings on September 23 with three attendees. On September 29, no attendees. A notice was posted on the storefront, and emails was sent to merchants, individuals, and groups who had voiced opposition at that time. We are also out of Valencia Street on July 10, September 24, September 29, October 1, speaking directly with residents and neighbors about the studio. For over eighteen months, the storefront has set vacant, attracting graffiti and loitering. Molly has turned down offers from cannabis, vape, and then massage tenants, because she wanted business that could elevate the corridor, and then bring back positive energy. Molly also visit our Diamond Heights studio. Seeing full classes, welcoming atmosphere, and positive impact on the nearby merchants gave her confidence that Club Pilates would bring the safe safety, stability, and a vitality to Valencia Street.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. But that

[Carrie Wu (Club Pilates franchisee/applicant)]: If we weren't

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: that is your time.

[Carrie Wu (Club Pilates franchisee/applicant)]: Okay.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: They may have questions for you, Lynn.

[Carrie Wu (Club Pilates franchisee/applicant)]: Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: With that, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item.

[Tracy Sylvester (Owner, EHS Pilates – Legacy Business)]: It wasn't delivered electronically in eight days, which was posted on the website, so we went ahead and printed them to bring them to you for distribution. So good afternoon. It's been a long day, I'm sure. My name is Tracy Sylvester, and I'm here as the owner of San Francisco legacy business EHS Pilates. I'm about four blocks I know that seems like a long distance but four blocks away from the proposed site. And we've been in operation for over thirty years. We've trained hundreds of instructors through our vocational training school. We have supported their neighbors through raffles and fundraising. We have partnered with other independent wellness businesses and micro businesses to keep our corridors strong and thriving. And it's not about a franchise. It's about one franchise. It's about Valencia Street, one of the longest truly independent corridors in the nation. What's at risk here is the character and the economic ecosystem that makes Valencia unique. Section 303.1 of the planning code requires that formula retail not duplicate existing services, not disrupt neighborhood character, and harm small business. In this case, those findings cannot simply be made. I've spent over fifteen years advocating for small business in San Francisco. I'm on the board of the Mission Merchants Association for the past fifteen years. I'm an active member of the Valencia Corridor Association, an active member of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. I am a graduate from Leadership SF twenty twenty four, and I'm a steward of this city. I have served for four years during the pandemic through the Council of District Merchants, and worked to gather all of the independent fitness studios so we could survive the pandemic together. I'm currently on the executive board of Avenue Greenlight. Protecting small business is in my DNA. This isn't about a David and Goliath story. It's not about Pilates versus Pilates. I never even reached out to anybody in my Pilates community or my clients to ask for letters of opposition. I wore my hat as a community leader and fought for what I fought for for the last fifteen years of my life independence on the Valencia Corridor. Protecting small business is important. The policy and precedence approving one chain on the Valencia Corridor clears the way for others. Duplication is not needed. Local Pilates and fitness studios already meet those commands and demands of the community. Marketing effectiveness chains don't grow the piece of the pie, they only siphon business from small mom and pops. Rents and comps franchises and leases inflate landlord expectations and drive small businesses out of our communities. And a talent drain we are already desperate for Pilates instructors in place them with other independent businesses. Weak outreach a flyer and a window is not true of communication to the neighbor. I know that this organization met the minimum requirements, but in such a sensitive cultural dynamic corridor, exceeding those requirements should have been something that was the bar to be met. Valencia's strength is in its independence, and what draws people onto our corridor, it and what is in the code is meant to protect is not being met. So for that reason, I respectfully ask you to deny this application. Thank you. And anybody here too that's in opposition, please stand up and speak.

[Pete Glickstern (Co-operator, 620 Jones)]: Hello, commissioners. Me again. I actually this is I live in the neighborhood, and one of my neighbors is here in opposition. I've also owned a business in the Mission for two decades, coming up on three. And I would echo, I, I practice at OSTA. It's a tiny little studio. The classes aren't full. A franchise coming in is probably not great for the neighborhood and not great for local businesses. So as much as it pains me to speak in opposition to another business person, franchises aren't they're they they kind of take away from the the color. So

[Andrea Scarabelli (Central Mission Neighborhood Association)]: Please please excuse me. I have a traumatic brain injury, so I may stutter and stumble. I apologize in advance. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Andrea Scarabelli, and together with my partner, Andrew Ogilby, we have proudly called the Mission home for almost thirty years. As founder of the Central Mission Neighborhood Association, I feel a deep commitment to our community. In 1996, we moved here from Atlanta seeking something truly special. Tired of strip malls and fast food, we longed for a vibrant community filled with culture. Securing our apartment just off Valencia sparked an immediate sense of excitement. I found a job managing a restaurant on Valencia and 23rd Radio Valencia and quickly became immersed in the colorful fabric of this rich neighborhood. When the opportunity arose to buy, we couldn't imagine leaving. The uniqueness, independent businesses, and rich diversity of the area captured our hearts. As you know, Valencia Street is the America's longest independent business corridor, where countless small passionate businesses have flourished through dedication and community support. Our mission has always been to nurture and protect the identity of this beloved area, and I firmly believe that a formulaic national change like club Pilates does not align with our community values. Many of my neighbors who have signed the petition you presented today share my concerns about this this business, excuse me, potentially undermining the protections already in place. Having managed small businesses for over thirty five years, twenty seven of which have been on Valencia. Twenty seven years I've worked on Valencia, leading small businesses. I have witnessed firsthand the immense pressure local establishments face from large corporations wielding powerful marketing strategies. This experience has given me a nuanced understanding of the challenges small businesses encounter in a landscape increasingly dominated by national chains. So when both American Apparel and Jack Spade try to move in, I fought, and I fight this as well. I think that it's bad faith argument saying that there's only three chain three locations because there are 1,200 locations of pilates. 1,200. Think about that. Allowing, I I'm frankly, I'm I'm really unclear as to why this application is even being considered given these formulaic retail protections. They were intended to be waived only for community needs, and I do not think they have proved there is community need. In addition to our Pilates studio four blocks away, there are exercise studios up and down Valencia that this will also affect. And in the mission at large, there are multiple, multiple exercise, yoga, barre, studios that will also be affected. I think that Valencia should remain a sanctuary for independent businesses that embody Thank

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: you, ma'am. But that is your time.

[Andrea Scarabelli (Central Mission Neighborhood Association)]: And it's also Yom Kippur, which is a bummer because a lot of our people couldn't go.

[Rochelle (on behalf of Jeremy Paul)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Rochelle, and I'm here on behalf of my husband, Jeremy Paul. He's been a permit consultant for about, I don't know, thirty years, working on conditional use authorization in San Francisco NCDs. So Jeremy regrets he could not be here today for religious it's a religious holiday. So he's asked me to share with you his unique experience that Valencia Street commercial district has fought the intrusion of formula retail for decades. And it's been 100% effective for a reason successful. The San Francisco Planning Commission has always recognized the unique place the Valencia Corridor plays in the San Francisco economy, cultures, and international appeal. One could say that protecting what is special about Valencia Street is the very reason that they have formula retail controls. It's not in any way necessary or desirable for our community for this formula business to be in this location. I mean, around the corner on Mission Street, there's plenty of formula retail.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: It's just a thought.

[Rochelle (on behalf of Jeremy Paul)]: But the required three zero three one findings can't be made. And it is the obligation of this commission to deny this application. So on behalf of all of our favorite San Francisco neighborhood retail districts, each with their own strengths and characteristics, thank you for doing your duty today and saying no formula retail on Valencia Street.

[Carlos Solórzano (Hispanic Chambers of Commerce of SF)]: Buenas tardes. Good afternoon. I'm Carlos O'Larsano. I'm the CEO of the Hispanic Chambers of Commerce in San Francisco, and I've been a small business in the Mission District since 1989. I've seen a lot of changes. I've seen a lot of intrusion coming into our businesses. In the Mission District, small businesses are the lifeblood of our community. EHS Pilates is not just a studio, it's a community partner. It's a partner that invest in health, wellness, and opportunity, offering grants so small business owners can take care of themselves while they work hard to take care of other. This kind of commitment doesn't come from a franchise. A chain may bring Pilates, but not the spirit, not the soul, and not the culture of labor that define the mission. The Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of San Francisco stand proudly with EHS Pilates because we know that when we support small local businesses, we keep our neighborhood alive. We protect our identity and we make sure resources stay in the community. As we face rapid change and displacement, we cannot afford to lose one, make the mission strong. Supporting EHA Pilates means supporting the mission, supporting San Francisco, and supporting our future. Please, we stand with EHA Pilates and we wanna make sure that we just keep that out. So do not provide permits to anybody else, no franchises. Thank you.

[Tara Sullivan (Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP)]: Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Carrie Sobel, and I have been a resident of San Francisco for twenty five years. I live in the near nearby neighborhood of Bernal Heights, mother of two children, and, we bicycle often around the city, often down Valencia Street, and frequent a lot of the businesses there. And I would just like to see the local small businesses being held up and no chains or franchises moving into the neighborhood. So I stand in opposition of the, of the business, proposal here. Thank you.

[Francis Kosick]: My name is Francis Kosick. I live at 1030 Valencia above 10:34. I support Club Pilates. I'm tired of looking at the vacant storefront and the graffiti. It goes day in and day out, you know, like, they come out, clean it. It's covered in graffiti again. That is what I've experienced. I've lived there for thirty seven years.

[David Quinby (Owner, The Riptide & Amado’s)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name's David Quinby. And I'm the owner of the Riptide Music Venue and Bar out on Taraval Street, as well as Amato's Music Venue at 998 Valencia Street. And also a member of the Valencia Merchants Association, Mission Merchants. I was the Teravel Merchant's vice president for five years out on Teravel Street. And Valencia, I think even the staff member that brought this in front of you said it will only be bringing, whatever it's called, the, retail, the, yes. Thank you. Formula retail from zero to 1.4. The problem is we've we've worked so hard. I've been on the street for forty years, and it used to be '82, '83 was when I first started seeing underground shows down there on that street. And it was it was not it was a really rough neighborhood back then about forty years ago, and we've worked so hard. I've lived at Shotwell on 20th for thirty five years. And it's nothing personal against this application. I think we all agree. It's just the fact that once we let formula retail in you know, I have a it's just a bar, a music venue, and a restaurant. And I know Ruby Tuesdays wants my spot. I know TGI Fridays wants to come in. We've built up the street so beautifully over forty, fifty years. And it's really the merchants that have done that in a big way. And, yeah. So I don't think it's anything personal against the applicant. I think it's just the fact that, we will be allowing it will be the first time and we've been fighting formula retail for so long when American Apparel tried to come in and that type of thing. And being the longest independent merchant corridor in The United States we have to remember that's the longest independent merchants corridor in The United States. And as soon as we start allowing in chains, especially one with 1,200 locations, it just opens the door for other applicants to come. We've really went through a lot with the Valencia bike lane. We got through the pandemic. Amado stayed open throughout the pandemic. Cocktails to go, performances on the sidewalks. Riptide did the same thing. And then we were hit with a bike lane that everybody knows. It was torn out. It was a terrible idea. We lost between two to three dozen, including Audrey that was in this location before. And she was there with a clothing store for maybe twenty four years. These guys might know how long she was there. But we've just been through so much and we're just really scared of opening the door to formula retail. Thank you.

[Sean Quigley (Owner, Paxton Gate)]: Hello. I'll do my best here. I don't like speaking in public. But my name is Sean Quigley. I'm a long time Mission resident. I have I own Paxton Gate on Valencia, a San Francisco legacy business. We're in our thirty third year. I've also been on the VCMA board since its founding as a president for seven years, and I've been a a officer for the last five years since. I'm here to talk about what brought me to Valencia twenty five years ago. Pasadena opened in a alley off an alley near Goffin Market after about six years of trying to learn how to operate a retail store for the first time, I and a burgeoning gardening business, I we outgrew the space and I started walking neighborhoods looking for places to to relocate for more space. I walked around, Fillmore, Noe Valley, all sorts of established shopping neighborhoods, but I kept coming back to Valencia way out there in the Mission, and I was attracted to it. At the time, I made the conscious decision that I would rather build a neighborhood than move into an established one. And so like many businesses on Valencia, PaxtonGate's unique. It's one of a kind. And I wanted to build help build that kind of neighborhood. So I moved there in 1999, not far from bars that I worked at for a long time, Casanova, Kilowatt, Blondie's still working while opening the business. And then now, twenty five years later, with the help of scores of other business members or business owners, owner operators, we've created an incredibly unique shopping experience in anywhere. I realize I'm gonna say San Francisco, but I'm gonna say anywhere. We need to protect what we've done. We need to protect the small businesses and the character of Greater San Francisco by by keeping Valencia independent. As a footnote, I also say that I run two businesses on Valencia. That gardening business split off. So I've got PaxtonGate and its sister company, Rarefield Design Build. Between those two companies, I employ over 30 people. All of them live locally. Some of them are part time people going to college. Some are full time career people with families and mortgages and everything that comes with that. Both companies currently are at risk of losing our lease. Our business our our building's up for sale, and I don't cherish the idea of hunting around for a new space that's been whose rents have been increased by a chain moving in. So I'd ask you to oppose this request. Thanks.

[Eileen Rinaldi (Owner, Ritual Coffee)]: Hello. My name is Eileen Rinaldi, and I'm the owner of Ritual Coffee. We're celebrating our twenty year anniversary this week. And I have been here many times, first to get a conditional use for my own business, but also to be a voice for Valencia Street and for, you know, what many people have spoken about is that it's a very special destination. My business is right next to Club Pilate the proposed Club Pilates location, so I have a unique perspective. I would like my business would likely benefit in the short term if Club Pilates open next door. People are gonna go to Pilates, they're gonna get a coffee. My sales are gonna go up. I would love for my sales to go up. Be the mission has not recovered from the pandemic. However, I know what formulated retail does in the long term, and I think there are two things that stand out. One is the neighborhood loses its destination status. Right now, people come from all over the world to the businesses that are on Valencia Street. I hear it all the time. We have a name Ritual has a name, in coffee, and people come from all over the world to come have coffee at Ritual when they're in town. And something I hear from those people is, how is this neighborhood like this? How is it so special? And I as a San Franciscan, I'm very proud of the formula retail legislation. And I have told people about formula retail legislation who live in London, who live in Lima, who live in Tokyo. And this legislation is unique, and it protects the delicate ecology that we have on Valencia Street. Besides formula retail turning Valencia Street into what any strip mall can offer, My other concern is what it does to commercial rents. San Francisco is a city of booms and busts. As you know, commercial rents, we do not have rent control. So formula retail is something that can protect our legacy businesses, can protect locally owned businesses, independent businesses, mom and pop businesses from the booms and busts of our rent cycle. And so when formula retail comes in, you know, and this is a great example. This many independent businesses have proposed coming into 1034 Valencia. They have proposed photo businesses. They have proposed other businesses that would not have a negative impact on the residents upstairs or the neighbors. They would bring something unique, and the landlord has not been willing to negotiate on the rent. And my fear is that if we allow formula retail in, more and more landlords will know they can hold out for a chain business that can afford more than the independent businesses. Thank you for your time. Oh, the pre application meeting. No one on the list got the notice. I have checked with 12 of my neighbors. Not one of the residents, businesses, or neighborhood organizations confirmed with me that they got the notice.

[Robert Blaget]: Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: That

[Eileen Rinaldi (Owner, Ritual Coffee)]: is very concerning. Thank you.

[Owner of Needles and Pens (name not stated)]: Hi. I own a business on Valencia. I've been in business for, twenty three years. I own needles and pins. It's a small business that allows people in the community to sell their handmade goods, their jewelry, and zines, and, like, publications. So my business helps the, like, the community and the art community especially. And the only way that I've been able to survive in this area is because of these restrictions. And allowing formula one retail would destroy my business and a lot of businesses because we cannot compete, and it'll also destroy the community in the sense that these landlords will wait for someone that has more money. So there'll be, like, vacancies. If if you allow this, there'll be more vacancies. Go to Mission Street. Look how many vacancies there are because they allow it. There's so many spaces they can rent a block away. And I know a bunch of people that'd be interested in your space. So if if you wanted to come and talk to me, I could totally help you. It's not a matter of no one wanting this space. There's a I bet you there's a bunch of people who would love to rent this space. It's just if you allow one, you allow everyone. I know Urban Outfitters has been itching to open up there. I know that, like, you know, Chevys would open up there or something awful would open up there and just ruin the community and San Francisco at whole because San Francisco is a very unique place. Imagine if North Beach had a bunch of, like, olive gardens. Like, how awful would that be? You know? Like, no one would wanna go there. And so it's just it's really important for for larger scheme of things, the the city at whole to keep it unique, keep it special, keep it a place where people would wanna go visit. There I mean, you know, like, there's a lot of cities that just have chain stores. Like, no. No one's interested in that, you know. So if you keep the community and you keep it unique, you'll keep people coming to the city and you'll keep the community alive and I am I'm strongly against it. So thank you.

[Elizabeth Zitrin]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Elizabeth Zitrin. I live in the Liberty Hill Historic District around the corner from the site being discussed here today. I've lived in the Mission for forty five years. I know I don't look that old. And I've lived in Liberty Hill for twenty six. This store front is also in the Liberty Hill Historic District. That doesn't give it special zoning restrictions, but it is there. I know that you've been reminded perhaps that today is the tenth day of Tishrei in the year 5786. That's the Hebrew calendar. It's Yom Kippur. It is a day on which Jesus Christ himself would not have come to this meeting because he would have been

[David Peterson]: in

[Elizabeth Zitrin]: synagogue. It's the holiest day in the Jewish calendar. And I'm looking forward on December 25 this year, which is also a Thursday, to the meeting that you're going to hold at that time. I wanna say that about the franchise situation that the franchisors say that they are independent because they're part of a franchise. And that is clearly not true. As you've heard, they have 1,300 Club Pilates has 1,300 locations around the world. And on its own website, clubpilates.com/franchise bills itself as, quote, the largest Pilates brand, close quote, in the world. It's a subsidiary of another corporation that owns more gyms, pure bar, cafe bar. This is not local. They tell you they're local because they own their franchise. That is not local, not on Valencia Street, not in San Francisco. This is a chain. McDonald's, on their corporate website, corporate.mcdonalds/.com/franchise, they say they have 44,000 locations around the world, and they say that 95 of them are franchises. If you believe that McDonald's is not a chain, then you can believe that Club Pilates is not a chain. If you don't if you do believe that McDonald's is a chain, then you must also believe that Club Pilates is a chain because the model is exactly the same. And has been said as has been said, their size and economic power give them an unfair advantage over truly local businesses. They price them out, as you've heard, and the neighbors want the businesses that are being forced out by chains and franchises. Please, for us, for the neighborhood, for the merchants, for the independence of this extraordinary strip of San Francisco. There are plenty of gyms. Do not permit this intrusion. Thank you very much.

[Public commenter (mother of Pilates studio owner)]: I brought 10 applications, 12

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: actually.

[Public commenter (mother of Pilates studio owner)]: I'm here. I'm the mother of a Pilates studio owner. And I'll read what well, she wrote a lot of other things as well, but this is the first thing she put out, which I, I quite like. She said, I am a neighborhood merchant who opened my business in 2013 at 03:12 Valencia street. At that time, that corner had a liquor store. It had four barrel coffee across the street and not much else. In the past, it was not an area that was of interest to visitors. Over the next five years, the corner began to thrive. More small businesses opened around mine. We were an anchor that drew walk by traffic all the way up 14th Street and along Valencia. As my neighbors installed themselves, we created a captivating part of the street with novel offerings from business owners who had creative dreams. It is not by chance that Valencia Street became a jet destination and a place where vision could spend their days, where visitors could spend their days with delight and surprise. The curated offerings of each storefront, which started with the seed of imagination are transpirational, and these diverse environments provide passerbys unique and curious, curious, Lee inspiring experiences, A single formula retail business installing itself on Valencia Street may not be in itself a massive hindrance to the charm and experience of the uniqueness of the street. It is the precedence that approving the formula retail model will set merchants and visitors aren't, adverse to change, but a stream either slow to build or an increasing steady steady stream can choke off the opportunity for future small businesses and their owners' dreams of continuing the magic and allure of the immitable street. I also want to say just that these owners have passion, have put a lot of expense into their, businesses and mentor their trainers and, build community. Thank you.

[Ron Elder]: Hello there. My name is Ron Elder, twenty plus year resident off Valencia Street near 18th. And I had the pleasure and unfortunate desire to open a restaurant at fourteen thirty two Valencia. We've been there five months. It's just one business owner operator and myself. And it's an uphill battle. You have to build everything from scratch. You don't have national branding. And there's all these things, and there's something powerful about succeeding on that level. It's about building a brand on Valencia and taking it out into the world. It's not taking a national brand or an international brand and bringing it to Valencia. So I feel like it's an unfair advantage for these formula retails to even be considered because we work so hard as an independent business and it's already so against us to succeed that this would be the camel breaking or straw breaking the camel's back. So that's all I really have to say on that. I hope I can read a letter from a neighbor who could not be here. Grofei asked. Let me find it.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Uh-oh.

[Ron Elder]: Where did it go? Ew. Sorry. I don't see it now. Blowing it. No. Let me look. I don't know where it went, So I will not read it. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed. And this matter is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Williams.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Thank you. I want to thank all the business owners of Valencia Street for coming out here and showing us, like, what a community looks like.

[David Winslow (Planning Staff Architect)]: I I

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: I couldn't agree more about what was said. And I think this is it's great to see people come together and come all the way out here. You small business folks have put your life. You've put your heart, your soul, and everything else into your businesses, and people, and the community really benefits from that. And, as someone who frequents Valencia Street, I appreciate the diversity of small business. I appreciate, the struggles that you've all verbalized. And as a San Franciscan, I'm I'm very sympathetic, to the issues that you've brought up today in the commission. And I think this speaks to a broader issue, that this commission has been dealing with over and over again. And it's the idea that, or not the idea, but it seems like there's some trend that we should make changes to our small business corridors that have been there for a long time. I happen to disagree with that. I think that the uniqueness of our small business corridors, like Valencia, like North Beach, like others in our city, are actually the strength of our city. The uniqueness of our city. It's what makes San Francisco special. And you remind me of that today, and I wanna thank you because not enough people are standing up, and it's important because there's a there's a fight going on right now. And so I feel a little passionate about this. And so I'm just going to leave it there. But thank you for coming out.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: I'll ask again for members of the public to turn off your mobile devices.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner L'Imperio.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you. I have a question to staff in terms of the of the formula retail. This is within the Valencia Street NCT. And, you know, I'm looking at in terms of the, you know, this is the first. This is going it seems like this is going to be the first proposed formula retail in this, in this corridor. Is that correct?

[Gabriela Panto (Planning Department)]: Gabriela Panto, Department of Staff. So this would be the first within the radius. We analyzed a 300 foot radius from the subject property. There is a chase within Valencia and CT, and I think there's an MIXT salads as well in Salvation Army, but I don't think that's subject to remote retail. So there's a couple, but within this 300 foot radius, this would be the first.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: And I guess this is my question. Is the 300 foot radius usually the measurement in looking into in terms of the flow of the corridors? Is that typically the what we look into?

[Gabriela Panto (Planning Department)]: Correct. Yeah. And

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: within the because this is also within the Mission I'll I'll call restrict SUD. And is this also under the the Calleventi Cuatro or American Indian SUD?

[Gabriela Panto (Planning Department)]: It is not.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: It is not. Yeah. So there is no but in the Valencia Street NCT, can you elaborate on the formula retail restriction? What's the restriction on that? Or if there is what is the ratio for formula retail?

[Gabriela Panto (Planning Department)]: So any formula retail that has so formula would be anything with 10 or more locations would be considered a formula retail use, and only certain uses are subject to our formula retail controls. And then given that, that is what then triggers, say, this conditional use authorization to come before you. There are some zoning districts in the city where it's principally permitted to do formula retail. So regardless, you can do select C three, I want to say, is one of them where if you had formula retail, you wouldn't be before the commission to get that approval.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: But there is no cap. I guess that's what I'm wondering if there is a cap on formula retail for Valencia Street and CT.

[Gabriela Panto (Planning Department)]: There is not. Correct.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: There is not. Yeah.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Okay. Yeah.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: So I guess that's something to to think about. Thank you. I mean, that's you know, my question is around again, around the zoning. And I'm I'm also very compelled of the this the in terms of the the the small business that come here and pride in terms of the, being the longest independent corridor. And what, you know, and thank you for the presentation as well, sponsor. What compels me in the in about this is that, you know, in terms of the the circumstance around this is that, it seems like there are other businesses that the landlord has, you know, way not accepted. And that, of course, I cannot, you know, make my decision around that, but that's still a very it's a good indication of, you know, that there has been other businesses, perhaps other independent businesses that were proposed, but declined by the landlord and and chose this as a formula retail. And I think that's where the the fear of the community is coming from that that the landlord would prefer a formula retail than a small business or a local owned business. And so that's also weighs in my mind in terms of what it could impact. I mean, we all right I mean, these are the conversations we already had actually as part of the family zoning plan in terms of what could mean of the, you know, when you do the rezoning and what it could, kind of like the, domino effect of the surrounding neighborhoods. And we've seen that happen as well, you know, in the previous years before. And so that's, you know, that's also weighs in my mind that in terms of this, I find that more compelling of what it could impact to the community. And so I'm I don't think I will support the CUA for this formula retail. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: So I do want to acknowledge something about this. You know, this is undoubtedly formula retail. It is undoubtedly a global chain. I also want to acknowledge that I really appreciate the speakers who who noted it's not about the business owners. It is a franchise, which means you are small business owners. And I wanna appreciate and respect that and that you are investing in San Francisco. And it's just unfortunate that the way you have found your model for business to work is a way that is very, you know, being opposed by the community and really in many ways in opposition to what we've what has sort of unfolded over time with the community support on on Valencia Street. But I do want to just acknowledge that we are not I want to be sensitive to the fact that we are talking about a small business owner. The one the upsides I see to this is that this would fill a prominent vacancy on a block that has struggled with vacancies. I'm on Valencia many times a week, and I used to live about a block away from, Valencia as well. And, so I've seen kind of the evolution of this block over time. So I wanna acknowledge also that that is a positive that would come with the business. However, the I I really appreciate the the perspective that, you know, this there are no formula retails within a 300 foot radius right now. There are very few in the entire Valencia Corridor. And I really appreciate how that came to be and all the effort that's been put into that over the years. And that by starting to allow informal retail businesses in this corridor, we're starting to diminish the uniqueness of that area. And one of it's striking to me as well, not only just magnitude of peep of people and organizations that have come out against allowing an informal retail business. That's very striking to me. I wanna also acknowledge there were letters of support provided by the product sponsor. But even so, you know, all the local voices of really almost two OT, you know, they are are opposed to this and still trying to maintain the protections against, from a retail here, including even the next door neighbor who when I first saw this and I was thinking about the ad, I thought, well, this this is certainly gonna help out Ritual Coffee. And even Ritual Coffee's owner is is a host. And so I I just I don't think I can support this this item. You know, one of the findings that we have to make for formula retail is related to the concentration of formula retail uses within a 300 foot radius. And right now, that concentration is 0%. And going from zero to anything else is a really big jump. It's and, you know, we're not talking about moving the needle a little bit here. We're talking about a complete change to a situation in which there is simply no formula retail in this area right now. And so, for a lot of the reasons, I can't support the application. And I'd be happy to talk further through you know, motion intent to deny or findings we can make today, but I'm not in support. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. Commissioner Vice President Moore?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I will be joining my fellow commissioners in not supporting the application. I am in support of small business. This is small business, and there are neighborhoods in San Francisco which do support small scale formula retail. This is not one of them. This this particular neighborhood has proven for the many, many years where it came from nowhere to somewhere that standing with each other in support of small business and non formulaic uses is the way to go. And it is for that reason that I have in the past supported non the denial of formula retail, and I will do that today as well. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Thanks, everyone, for coming. I also lived on Valencia for many years and lived close by, so it's one of my favorite corridors. I always go back to sort of what the rules of the road are. Like, what is this project applicant working within the rules as they're set forth right now? This is a district that allows for formula retail. And I'm looking in the code right now, and there are there are commercial districts that do not permit formula retail. And I think it could be interesting for us to look at that, for Valencia, that we don't allow formula retail there. But right now, we do. And there are certain rules around what we do and don't allow. And my understanding is that it is has to do with if, if what percentage of formula retail is already there, and then is there is it a need within a certain radius? Is this correct? Within is it within this 300 foot radius or whatever dedicated area we determine?

[Swati (Planning Department leadership staff)]: I'm happy to jump in. There's a handful of different criteria that are used for the commission to evaluate. One of them is the concentration of other formula retails and similar uses within 300 feet. And then there are a slew of other criteria that are around sort of neighborhood compatibility, aesthetics, things of that nature. Again, as part of the formula retail rules in San Francisco, it's not a decision around competitiveness. It's a decision around aesthetic compatibility, the idea that chains often are less unique and all look the same. And so it's more about visual character of our corridor is the impetus, sort of the policy rationale behind our regulation. So

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: the Interesting.

[Swati (Planning Department leadership staff)]: Findings are in three zero three point one. If you're curious, I am happy to They're

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: in that code section right now.

[Swati (Planning Department leadership staff)]: It's subsection d, I believe, the conditional use criteria. Excuse me. Let me just scroll to it. So the first one, subsection one, is the existing concentration of formula retail uses within the district and the vicinity. And so that is where it talks about what how they define the vicinity as 300 foot radius. I won't go into all the nitty gritty details there, but that's the gist of it. Number criteria two, availability of other similar retail uses within the district and vicinity. So it's kind of breaking it up district and smaller 300 foot area. Compatibility of the formula retail within the existing architectural character and aesthetic character of the district, existing retail vacancy rates within the district and the vicinity of the project, existing mix of citywide serving retail uses and daily needs serving retail uses within the district and the vicinity, additional any additional, relevant data that might exist relating to a project. Those are, and then the other criteria are not applicable to a business of this size.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Interesting. So, you know, there's things in here that and based on the rules of the road. Right? We allow formula retail, and then we're now we're looking at it through this very specific list of criteria. I think architecturally, visually, this is going to have a minimal impact on the corridor. So for me, I don't take issue with that. There is 25% vacancy on this 300 foot stretch of Valencia. I think that we can't ignore that, unless there is a long line of other somebody's mentioned that in public comment. If there are other folks, it seems like there's a lot of space available. 25% is not insignificant. It feel I feel irresponsible almost turning down someone that's willing to take that spot based on the rules as they're written today. And then what was the other one you mentioned, miss Wadde? Needs the needs of the neighborhood. And it sounds like there are some comparable studios that offer yoga, but is there within the vicinity that we're looking at for this particular

[Rochelle (on behalf of Jeremy Paul)]: There's not. This would be

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: first. Okay. So based on the way the rules are written today, I feel that I am actually in support of this particular applicant. However, I do think if formula retail is not something we wanna see on this corridor, then we should add it to the list of districts that do not allow formula retail and change the rules of the road. And that would be my recommendation.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you, commissioner Campbell. And, I think I wanted to take this moment to thank everybody for being here today. And some of you actually stay for many hours now and, appreciate the applicants coming in. And, I myself is a minority small business owner, so I felt for you. And also, this is a very tough decision day for me as well. I live in the Mission. And actually, my daughter's first real book was purchased from Paxton Gay. So I also honor a lot of the effort and, perseverance for our Valencia Merchants Associations to keep our community and businesses, small businesses vibrant throughout all the thick and thin that we've gone through. I live in The Mission for now over twenty years. So it is a really particularly tough decision for me today to make. I did read up all the packet information I hear. A lot of my colleagues debriefing on this. I do have a hard time approving this project for the other concerns and also, again, is retaining the culture and, about the local small businesses. This is really an unfortunate case because this you are also a small businesses, but however, you your business is based on a multinational big franchise. So it's it's really tough for me, and, like, my heart felt for both sides. Personally, I felt like I wanted to support an Asian women owned small businesses, but also I live in this neighborhood. I've seen how we've gone through the trenches together, through thick and thin, really thick and thin for many different economic cycle. And my my daughter bought her first bike in Mission Cycle and rode it all the way back home. And it was just there was just so much charm and memories there, that everyone's just give her candies along the way. So it just it's different. I I am I I want you to feel like don't get the spare, you know. There are a lot of places in San Francisco also had welcome and also has a lot more these really big formula retail that has established somewhere. I would I would highly encourage you to not feel despair. And, we're not, personally against your business. We're really have a really tough call to make today. And so, that's what my personal perspective on this is a really tough one tough one for me. I I like to support businesses on all on like, I am pro small businesses. I'm seriously do. Right now, we're we're having to choose a different circumstances here that we have to pick. So with that, I would like to pass my speaker to my colleague, commissioner McGarry. Oh, sorry. Sorry. Commissioner Braun. So I'm sorry.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: That's okay. You know, commissioner Campbell raised a a good point about maybe we need to revisit the the land use controls and the one CNCD if if, you know, clearly, we don't, we're not likely to support former businesses here. I'm going to make a motion of, well, actually, I have to work with staff on this a little bit. I'm, Sure. Please, do you have something brief

[Robert Blaget]: to say?

[CJ Liu (Club Pilates co-applicant)]: One of the thing as a so this is our third, formula retail application. So we have one in Diamond Heights. It's approved here. We have one in Nopa that's also approved. So therefore, this is our third applications within the city of San Francisco. We have a strong conviction of investing here. We also hear all the comments, oppositions from the city, so we'd love to ask for continuance.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: What would you seek to achieve during that continuance, or what conversations or actions would you take during that time?

[Robert Blaget]: I think

[CJ Liu (Club Pilates co-applicant)]: a lot nothing we can do with the with the with the merchants, nearby. We have we have done, quite a bit of outreach, but I think we can do a lot more with that to, to convince folks. Couple of things also, we're looking to, do with community events and so forth. You know, the one of the reason why we wanna open in the Mission is that our Diamond Heights studio is out of capacity. And a lot of, there are a third of our members actually live in the Mission. So we wanna kind of find a spot in Mission so that they can walk to the studio instead of taking a bus. A lot of a lot of those members actually do public transit to the Diamond Heights studios, and that makes a lot easier for them to go to our studio instead. So that's, you know, one reason we we choose the Mission District. And and to to your point, we we only apply for areas that conditional use formula is allowed. So I I did all the size selection, because, you know, we're a small business, I do customer support, she does she does sales. I look through the Valencia Street, and there are formula retailers along the street. They're from from T Mobile to Mixed Salad to Reformations and so forth. So it's

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you for the thank you for this. I wanted to try to run them. I can you can you can you

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: can you can you can you try to

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: I'm trying to run this meeting Mhmm. Consistent with everybody else's hearing on everybody's case. This is not a moment of, like, kind of rebuttal cases back and forth. And also definitely not also yelling off a chair. And we our my fellow commissioners will ask bring you up to ask you for questions when when we feel that we need to, for clarifying and questioning. And you have a lot of time of your moment to actually, answer Commissioner Braun's, brief question. I I think if if you want are

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: you Thank you for for providing that perspective. That's all. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Yeah. Thank you. Thank you.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: So I I still am going to move forward with the, motion to deny. I think that, I'm trying to figure out the best way to do this from staff's perspective. Is this something where between section three zero three necessary and desirable and the Planning Commission's assessment regarding the concentration of formula retail, is that sufficient for the motion to deny? Or do you want to work on it and come back with the the denial, motion?

[Robert Blaget]: I mean,

[Swati (Planning Department leadership staff)]: I I think if you guys can put findings in the record for sort of the rationale for why it doesn't meet the either the three zero three or the three zero three point one findings, you can do it on the fly, and we can write those down and sort of refine them. Or we can continue it for two weeks with sort of general bullet point guidance, and we can drop something up for you. And probably a minimum, we would need a minimum of two weeks. The packets have a one week lead time, so we would need at least two weeks. So whichever you feel more comfortable with, if you can put some findings on the record, we can do it that way. But, we would probably need you to articulate the findings if it concludes today as opposed to giving us some direction, in which case we'll continue it out a few weeks for the intent to disprove.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. I think I'm I would be more comfortable if, staff was able to to draft the the motion. And so I think that I know that for me, the you know, it's the this relates to the concentration of formula formula retail going from nothing to, you know, the 1.4%. In this case, that's, a big part of the reason for denial. And if any other commissioners have, anything to add to that.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. Commissioner McGarry and then Commissioner Imperial.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: I would agree with Commissioner Braun.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: I also agree with Commissioner Campbell. This is not listed as a or zoned for an area for no con formula retail.

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning Department)]: But

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: 1995 till 2001, 2002, I lived in this district, and I know how the people are. Back then, ritual be would be considered a a formula retail, even though I did spend the day yesterday in the neighborhood because I wanted to see it, and I wanted to experience the feel of it from back in the day. I don't think this is this is gonna work. The the neighborhood the neighborhood is gonna see they see you as a chain within a chain. It's 12,012 stores, but you're three of the 12,000 stores. So that it's I can't see how it's going to work. I can say that I had the best cup of coffee that I've had in about three months, that ritual yesterday. Thank you very much for that experience. The store next door, I can see how you will you would benefit, but the fact that your next door neighbor will benefit, but they still don't want your what you do there is is a tough one. I can't see I can't see myself. Actually, I can't approve this today, so I will be seconding the motion.

[Kit Fong (Lady Shaw Senior Center)]: Thank you. And

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: then commissioner Ibero, you have some comments?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Yeah. I would add to the findings or to the motion intent in terms of this, the formula retail is not desirable. And for me, one of the, you know, is the preservation of the preservation of the independent entity within this 300 foot radius, within this corridor or 300 foot foot radius. I don't know if that would, help in terms of the the language in itself, but in terms of, like, the preservation of the the identity of that corridor.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: That I'm happy to include that in the motion as it relates to the criteria that you would need to, determine for the denial.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Okay. I'll second the motion.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I think commissioner McGarry did, but do you do, support the the addition? Commissioner McGarry, do

[Robert Blaget]: Do you

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: second that?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you, commissioners. Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I just want to add before this closes, it seems like we're moving towards the denial. But I do just want to put out there again, I I would love to see us have more transparency and more predictability for the community, for businesses, for small businesses, for people like these two project sponsors who are trying to do the right thing. And they're working within the rules as we've set forth. And now it just gets kind of squishy. So if Valencia is not going to have formula retail and and we're I don't want I'd hate to see this happen over and over and over again. I'd much rather see us codify that and change it in the code. So if there's a way we can do that, and I don't know what that process is, I would urge us to do

[Robert Blaget]: that.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: That's a very good point, commissioner Campbell. Commissioner vice president Moore?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Briefly say that within the type of approvals we give, one being a Doctor, which is discretionary and exceptional or extraordinary, and CU conditional use necessary and desirable, it is up to our judgment, not to every written rule of how we see something. And it's basically in the refined way of hearing of what the community says, together with our own judgment, where we don't have every rule to be written down, that includes a consideration about formula retail. So I like to basically put emphasis what's in front of us is this conditional use authorization, which requires that something is necessary and desirable, and that is the highest bar in the approval process of this commission.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. And, commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Just wanna add my thoughts. I I know there's a there's a motion here, but there's also some things that were brought up here that I think could be part of the motion. And that's but I'm not going to ask for it to be part of the motion, but it's some of the things that were mentioned by some of the small business owners. And I think it's important to highlight some of the things that formula retail has represented, and that is when they move into a neighborhood or a commercial corridor like this, that the rents tend to get higher. The impacts to that area aren't favorable to small business. And I think that kind of gets to the crust of what a lot of these protections do. There's there's reasons why there's protections in San Francisco. There's reasons why these protections have gone into these areas along these commercial corridors. And what I've seen is systematically, we're just we're dismembering, we're dismantling a lot of those protections. And we heard today from the small business community on Valencia that they're concerned. They're concerned about these types of businesses coming in, these formula retails, and what they do to these communities. I think it's my responsibility as a as a commissioner to understand that and to protect small business in that in that sense. And so I I just want to highlight what I heard today because I think there's a lot of noise out there. And what I see is the dismantling of protections. And you can point to the recent family zoning plan. You can point to just a bunch of things that I've seen recently. And I would just say that there are real concerns, and I think we need to understand what those concerns are. And I think today they were verbalized very well. And just wanted to lend that thought. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Commissioners, if I understand correctly, there is a motion to deny directing staff to craft findings associated with citing increase in concentration of formula retail, that the use is not desirable, preservation of independently owned business character and the corridor identity. On that motion, commissioner Campbell? Nay. Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission president Soh?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes six to one with commissioner Campbell voting against. Commissioners, that will place us under your discretionary review calendar for the final item on your agenda today. Item 16 a and b for case numbers 2019Hyphen015734 DRP and VAR for the property at 2 Dunsmuir Street. You will be considering the cons excuse me, the discretionary review application, and the acting zoning administrator will be considering the request for variance. Please be advised that we received a request for translation services. For the benefit of the interpreters, I ask that we speak clearly and slowly for translation in real time. When public comment is called, I will ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. And I will now ask that this information be translated into Cantonese. And for the Doctor requester, there are headsets for your use. Thank you. This Doctor requester? Oh, I'm sorry. Mister Winslow, I apologize.

[David Winslow (Planning Staff Architect)]: I know it's just a formality. Greetings, good afternoon, commissioners, President So and commissioners, David Winslow, planning staff architect. The item before you is a public initiated request for oh, I'm sorry. Slow down.

[Felix (Designer of Record for 2 Dunsmuir Street)]: Yeah. My name is Felix.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Are you the product sponsor?

[Felix (Designer of Record for 2 Dunsmuir Street)]: I'm the designer of record.

[Jordan Langer (Co-operator, 620 Jones)]: Yeah. Okay. One minute.

[Felix (Designer of Record for 2 Dunsmuir Street)]: Okay. Okay.

[David Winslow (Planning Staff Architect)]: Let me slow down. Will you start over and slow down?

[Juanita MORE (Drag performer/organizer)]: Thank you.

[David Winslow (Planning Staff Architect)]: Good afternoon again, president Sewell and commissioners. David Winslow, planning staff architect. The item before you today is a public initiated request for discretionary review of planning application 2019 hyphen zero one five seven three four VAR to legalize a one story addition and a detached building at the rear of the lot at 2 Dunsmuir. The Doctor requester, Sandy Wang, of 1 Colby Street, the immediate rear neighbor to the west, is concerned the proposed project did not consider the retaining wall between 2 Dunsmuir And 1 Colby Street. And the project has disturbed the foundation and weakened the retaining wall between the two lots. Additionally, the proposed project does not meet planning code sections 134, which is open space, rear yard, sorry, rear yard, and section 135, which is open space. To date, the department has received no letters in opposition and no letters in support of the project. Staff's review and recommendation of this claim, the DR requester's claim and issue about the retaining wall is out of the scope of purview of this permit and beyond the planning department's jurisdiction to review, resolve, or remedy. The project sponsor bought the property with the addition, which is evidenced, evidence of this addition appears in satellite imagery as early as 1995 and is seeking a variance to legalize it. Although the one story rear addition extends into the rear yard, it retains a side setback and extends to the same depth approximately as the uphill adjacent neighbor to the south. The project therefore complies with residential design guidelines related to scale at the rear due to the setbacks in height relative to grade and to the extent of the adjacent neighbors' buildings. Therefore, staff deems there are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances that merit taking discretionary review and recommends approving. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you, mister Winslow. Doctor requester, you have five minutes.

[Felix (Designer of Record for 2 Dunsmuir Street)]: Good afternoon, members of the planning commission. My name is Felix. I'm the designer of record. And with me here is Grace.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Well, you're the representing the project sponsor. Right?

[Felix (Designer of Record for 2 Dunsmuir Street)]: Correct.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: I'm I'm asking for the d r discretionary review request to go first.

[Wai (Wei) Wang (Owner, 1 Colby Street)]: Good afternoon, commissioner. My name is Wei Wing, and I'm the owner of 1 Covey Street.

[Sean Quigley (Owner, Paxton Gate)]: Since

[Wai (Wei) Wang (Owner, 1 Colby Street)]: 1970 1997, I'm moving this property. Okay? When I'm moving that property, okay, 2 Thumb Smith Tree is the the building they require to build is only the the broken mantle shell. Okay? The backyard is already higher compared with now condition, with the big tree. The situation now is the backyard all the victory removed and the dust removed. They didn't build up stronger the, retaining wall. And the retaining wall, they lean back. When I see in the scenes, they use the strong wood to support the repeating wall, end up his lock collapse. Okay? I tried to communicate with the owner twice. They denied. They said no money. Okay? But the point is, okay, the the the new owner has to have a clear taking, you know, the the right obligation, okay, for the piers to one. Okay? And I show in the picture, the retaining wall is cracking, cracking. And one thing I want to remind the commissioner is the Bay Area, there is electricity post in there. And the foundation of the post, the break is loosened, that, try to collapse. This bring up the public safety issue. I notice, I also notice BGND, lady years, already fixed the illicit force twice. Okay. And I further noticed my bed air cement is a cracking tool because the retaining wall is collapsed, is collapsed. Okay. In with the later years, my my bed yard will be, you know, slide down in order. So based on this, I come here to oppose the regularization proceeding, okay, conducting part to dust ministry. And furthermore, they have to fix the retaining wall and the backyard, the fence of my house. And I furthermore urge the commissioner to pay more attention because this is not only, you know, the two two houses problem, but is the safety issue, okay, the public safety issue now. So I thank you very much for your consideration. Okay, thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Thank you. With that, we should hear from the project sponsor.

[Felix (Designer of Record for 2 Dunsmuir Street)]: Sorry about that. My name is Felix, the designer record for this project. And the area with me is Grace, the owner and project sponsor of 2 Dunsmuir. As mentioned by the the zoning CA, this this application concerns a single family residence seeking approval for legalization of a one story rear addition. It's approximately 360 square feet. It extends about 18 feet, six inches to the rear and and seven and a half feet into the required rear yard. Many nearby properties do contain similar rear yard encroachments or other modifications to non compliant structures, and the proposed project will align with the established rear yard datum. In doing so, it would enhance the property's utility, efficiency, and overall design consistency of the neighborhood. Accordingly, a variance from planning code section one thirty four is requested. The project fully complies with planning code section one thirty three regarding side yard side yards maintaining approximately five feet on each side. In addition, the roof of the addition is proposed to serve as a a roof deck to satisfy the open space requirement of section one thirty five. For RH1 zoning, the standard requires a minimum of 300 square feet of usable open space. Our proposal provides approximately 400 square feet. Lastly, we seek to legalize an accessory structure, storage structure, constructed in 2019. The structure measures 12 and onetwo feet by eight feet. And the top of ridge measures 10 feet high. And with that, I open up for any questions.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. If there are no immediate questions from members of the planning commission, we should open up public comment. We will now have public comment. Cantonese interpreters are present. If you are in need of translation services, please submit your testimony in short intervals to allow interpreters to translate your testimony. Each speaker will have two minutes. When you have thirty seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. I'll ask the interpreters to translate.

[Sandy Wen (DR requester, 1 Colby Street)]: Good afternoon. My name is Sandy Wen. I oppose the project for the 2

[Robert Blaget]: Dust

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Milled

[Lana (resident at 620 Jones address)]: Street.

[Sandy Wen (DR requester, 1 Colby Street)]: Okay. The reason I oppose this project because I think the project is illegal. Because at my backyard, there's electric electricity post, and also there's a tree. They removed the tree and and the dust. But because because of of this project and make the retaining retaining wall is kind of slide to our backyard and also make the infrastructure is weak and make the electricity post kind of kind of collapse, and it's a safety public safety problem. And at the year of 2021, I negotiate with the owner, and the owner said that we need if we need to renovate the retaining retaining wall, we have to pay half of the price. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Because they want me to want us to pay half the price to to maintain the retainer wall, I don't think it's fair. But because of this project, make the retaining wall kind of slide on our side. But we shouldn't to pay the for the price, and this is not fair to us.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay, ma'am. Can you explain to her? I'm gonna pause her right now because it sounds like she's part of the discretionary review team. It sounds like she lives on the property. And so the discretionary review presentation had a little bit of time left. So we're going to we afforded her that time. But at this point, she needs to complete her testimony under rebuttal. Okay?

[Robert Blaget]: Clayton.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: That's it. That's it.

[Robert Blaget]: That's it.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: That's it. We afforded you way too much time already. Okay. Again, members of the public who are not part of the discretionary review team or the project sponsors team. You don't live there, sir? No. Okay. Come on up.

[Kenneth Wang]: So my name is Kenneth Wang. Thank you guys for being here so late to the evening to to call it brief. If you go into the backyard or looking at a satellite, you could see the retaining mall is actually on their property line. And they've considerably excavated a lot of soil and removed trees and shrubs. That's potentially disturbed a lot of the foundation that supports the retaining wall. What this means is it should be their responsibility because the retaining wall has now curved and is approaching what looks to be like a collapse. Them coming at around 2021 to negotiate a deal to potentially pay for the repair of the retaining wall while they were excavating seems kinda sneaky. It is their responsibility. They've touched it. It's on their property line. They should repair it. I don't think there is a problem between both parties if they're willing to look through the plan, make sure the retaining wall is built properly and supported properly because it serves as a hazard to not only the two houses nearby, but because it's a utility pole. That could cause unwanted fires in the neighborhood and some sort of amount of black outages, which could be devastating. And that's what I have to share.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. Okay. Last call for public comment for people who are not on either side of this issue. Okay. With that, now you have a two minute rebuttal if she wants to continue her testimony.

[Wai (Wei) Wang (Owner, 1 Colby Street)]: I just call that.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: No. No, sir. You have to come up to the microphone and speak.

[Wai (Wei) Wang (Owner, 1 Colby Street)]: I just connect the interpreter, and he said the the wall lean to our side. No. It's not lean to our side. It lean to their side.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Does she wanna say anything else? You've got another minute and a half.

[Sandy Wen (DR requester, 1 Colby Street)]: And the owner want us to pay half the price. But at the time, they already know the retaining wall is damaged. I don't understand why at the time they don't talk to the city. Yeah. Because at the time, they already know the retaining wall is damaged, and I think this is illegal. To be honest, I don't trust I don't trust them. Even the engineer, I don't trust them. I only trust the city the panel here. Yeah. I don't trust them.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Project sponsor, you have a two minute rebuttal.

[Felix (Designer of Record for 2 Dunsmuir Street)]: We believe this to be a civil matter. This does not affect the decision of the planning commission. I do have some pictures of the retaining wall, but I don't think that serves any purpose in the in the decision for approval of this, the decision here.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. If that concludes your rebuttal, we are done with the public hearing portion, and this matter is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner McGarry?

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: I'd like to know if the retaining wall was intact. Number one, is it on the property line? And number two, was it disturbed and basically eroded because of activity on one side of the property line?

[Deputy City Attorney Kevin Yang]: So I have some pictures here. The addition was performed by the previous owner. We have no idea how it was prior. We do have an inspection report from at the time of purchase that show that notes that there is some damage to the rear retaining wall. And this was back in 2014.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: And you're on lower ground and your neighbor's on higher ground. So

[Deputy City Attorney Kevin Yang]: Correct. And it's bowing towards our end. So it's it's basically leaning towards our side.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: And have you had activity have you had work done on that, your side of it, since?

[Deputy City Attorney Kevin Yang]: Sorry. Let me

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: just show You can show your phone over on the overhead. You can put your phone underneath the overhead.

[Deputy City Attorney Kevin Yang]: Actually, would that help? Okay. So the structure was the storage structure was built to actually prop up the retaining wall in 2019. And right after that, I believe that's when the owner, Grace, went to the owner of Kobe to ask if they're willing to split the cost for repairing the retaining wall.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: It looks like it's hiding the retaining wall or the damage, not propping it up.

[Deputy City Attorney Kevin Yang]: Yeah. It was built the the damage is right right here. Let me see if I could find it.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Right.

[Deputy City Attorney Kevin Yang]: That piece right there.

[Lana (resident at 620 Jones address)]: Okay.

[Deputy City Attorney Kevin Yang]: And we do have that record from the inspection report from 2014 that notes crack crack. Let's see. Where's that? Right there. Backyard cracks on wall. So

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: On the cinder block wall?

[Deputy City Attorney Kevin Yang]: They weren't really specific on that. But there's a note in the inspection report for that. And again, I think our position is that this is more of a civil matter. The the addition is nowhere close to the to the retaining wall. If anything, it's probably a good ten, fifteen feet away from that.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: And and the commission, I mean, Gary, did you ask would you want to clarify the question whether this retaining wall was within the property line of the Well,

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: I did. Yeah. So I asked that. Is the retaining wall

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: on your property, or is it on next door?

[Deputy City Attorney Kevin Yang]: It falls right on the property line.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: It's right on. Okay. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. And Natalia, you have a comment.

[Natalia Fassi (Acting Zoning Administrator)]: Good evening again, commissioners. Natalia Fassi, acting zoning administrator. I'd like to clarify the scope of the project that's under the review by the planning department, and then I'd like to offer some comments on the variance. Yes. Of course. It's on. Mhmm. Yeah. Thank you. So the scope of the project does not include work to the retaining wall or any excavation. The project is legalizing unpermitted additions, that were constructed on the property. The permit will require review by the Department of Building Inspection. They will review, the work, that's subject to excavation as as well as the retaining wall. That permit will be appealable, and so the Doctor requester will have the opportunity to appeal that permit to the Board of Appeals, which is a frequent topic at the Board of Appeals. Actually, retaining walls and excavation come up pretty often. And the reason why it's more appropriate venue is because the Department of Building Inspection has had an opportunity to review the permit, and to approve it. They might require certain revisions to the permit, to make sure that work is compliant. The Doctor filer also has an opportunity to file a complaint with the Department of Building Inspection, who, again, has purview of that scope. And then in regards to the variance, so it looks like the variance has been modified. We've got new plans submitted today that show a proposed roof deck as well as as a staircase that is looks like it's partially within the required rear yard at least. And due to the revised plans, as well as some changes to the planning code that actually will grandfather a part of their addition, I will be taking the variance under advisement just to have a little bit more time to look at the revised plans and the updated code. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. Commissioner Baron?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I would like to amplify and emphasize what was just stated about the appropriate venue for any concerns about the impact of the home's addition on the structure of the retaining wall or the geology of the soils or anything like that. So just to repeat it, this there will be an opportunity to appeal the the building permit. So the actual construction plan plans and drawings, and it those are reviewed by the Department of Building Inspection. And the planning commission, us here, just to prove whether or not the basic project can proceed, whether or not the addition can exist essentially. And I also do agree that there's a possibility that some of the issues raised with the retaining wall might not be related to this project. And so that's something that needs to be figured out maybe as part of the building permit. But either way, it does seem to me that it might be necessary to or rather I'm I just wanna say, that might be a civil matter. It might be a matter of the two private parties needing to hopefully work with each other to find a solution, or if it comes down to it, take this matter to a a civil court. But as far as what is within the purview and jurisdiction of the plan of the planning commission, I don't see any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances with the simple approval of allowing the addition. And so I move to not take discretionary review and to approve the the project.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Second.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: And we're ready to vote.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. If there's a motion, commissioners, that has been seconded to not take Doctor and approve the project as proposed on that motion. Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission president Soh?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So moved, commissioners. A motion passes unanimously seven to zero. I know acting zoning administrator, you indicated that you will be taking the matter under advisement, but if you could sort of officially state that again.

[Natalia Fassi (Acting Zoning Administrator)]: Yes. Thank you, Jonas. I'll close the public hearing, and I'll take the variance under advisement. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. That concludes your hearing today, commissioner.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Yeah. And before we close, I'd like to close today's session in memory of our former planning director, Lou Blaget. Meeting's adjourned.